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.

A user licensing template + two template sandboxes and possible copyright issues[edit]

For the user licensing template User:Gazebo/CC-license, are there any copyright issues with the creation of the template, particularly given the usage of existing material?

Similarly, for the template User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox, are there any copyright issues with the creation of the template or this edit or this other edit?

Thirdly, for the template User:Gazebo/CC-relicensed/sandbox, are there any copyright issues with this edit or this other edit?

If there are copyright issues, I would like to resolve them or have them resolved if at all possible. Thanks. Gazebo (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: Do you have any thoughts on this issue? --Gazebo (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the purpose? As long as you are licensing works with a CC license, I can't see any problem. Are you just trying to have a custom explanatory note around the tag? Not sure what issues you think there could be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: Thanks for responding. My concern is that I may have copied existing CC BY-SA 3.0-licensed content in noncompliance with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license requirements particularly when creating the User:Gazebo/CC-license template and editing the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template.

For example, with the creation of the User:Gazebo/CC-license template, the edit summary has information about the Self template on the English-language Wikipedia but there is no hyperlink to the existing template in the summary. The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, specifically section 7, mention that a hyperlink should be used when attributing content if it is possible to use a hyperlink.

For the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template, specifically this edit, the edit summary has a hyperlink to the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template but also a non-hyperlinked location for a specific revision of the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template.

Perhaps edits like this edit and this other edit and this additional edit, where the edit summaries have hyperlinks to the existing page(s) and information about finding attribution, are OK even though the CC BY-SA 3.0 license is not mentioned. In particular, on the English-language Wikipedia, there is the page Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --Gazebo (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: I realize that you may busy. As it is, I am concerned that there may be a copyright issue with the previously-mentioned copying of content from the {{Self}} template and the Template:Self page on the English-language Wikipedia. Perhaps there are other Wikimedia Commons users who can provide feedback. Your attention to this issue is appreciated. Thanks. :) --Gazebo (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Carl Lindberg, I too find no issue. You are giving attribution through the edit summary and you are licensing your work in accordance with the CC-BY-SA license at the source. Felix QW (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Felix QW: Thanks for responding. Is there a problem with this creation of a template? The edit summary mentions the source of the material, among other details, in addition to mentioning the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, but the edit summary does not contain any hyperlinks. The Wikimedia Terms of Use in section 7 mention the issue of providing attribution when reusing text content and it appears to be mentioned that a hyperlink is to be used if it is possible to use a hyperlink. In particular, there is section 7(g) in the Terms of Use. (Hopefully, my mentioning this does not implicate any copyrights for the Terms of Use page.) --Gazebo (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: (and others) Input on the issue mentioned in my previous comment (on December 20) would be appreciated. Perhaps there are other users who can provide input on this issue. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg and Gazebo, Why not just add

<noinclude> '''Attribution:''' <br>
[[:en:Template:Self]]
[[Template:Self]]
</noinclude>

to the bottom of the templates to solve the attribution issue? See meta:Attribution for further reference. --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 23:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg, Felix QW, and Matr1x-101: To Matr1x-101, thanks for the suggestion for adding the attribution information to the template's code/markup.

Does this creation of a template constitute copyright infringement due to copying of material from an existing template and giving insufficient attribution (without any hyperlinks) in the edit summary? If the mentioned template creation is copyright infringement, I am particularly concerned because my understanding is that if I violate the CC BY-SA 3.0 license for a work, then my rights to reuse the work under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license terminate, even if I fix the license violation later on. --Gazebo (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, you're fine @Gazebo. Your edit summary says template includes style info from Template:Self (2013-11-17 at 19:02) <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Self&oldid=582086115> [...]. That satisfies meta:Attribution. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see a realistic problem. People copy text around on Wikipedia articles all the time. The amount of text you are copying will likely be below the threshold of originality, anyways. The edit summaries of where you are copying from should be enough, I think. It's not really worth worrying about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Matr1x-101 and Clindberg: Thanks for the responses. Am I correct in assuming that there are no copyright issues with the creation and editing of the User:Gazebo/CC-license template and the related templates (such as User:Gazebo/CC-relicensed and certain template sandboxes) even though, among other things, the edit summary for this template creation has no hyperlinks and the Wikimedia Terms of Use, section 7 (particularly section 7(g)) specify that hyperlinks are required when attributing copied text if it is possible to use a hyperlink?

I do not know when (if ever) I will upload additional images that I have created. At the same time, I would like to be able to make use of the User:Gazebo/CC-license template in the future if the opportunity arises and I also would like to be able to access Commons pages on which the template is used without worrying about copyright issues. On Commons, when dealing with copyright, it is sometimes hard to know as to how careful is too careful. --Gazebo (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg and Gazebo: It does seem that text on Commons follows the opposite of the precautionary principle, for reasons I cannot understand.

Though CC licenses don’t require hyperlinks, section 7(b) also contains the problematic wording hyperlink (where possible). I am not sure what to think here.

The text copied (which seems to be limited to the style markup) may be below the threshold of originality, but section 7(g) provides no exceptions for such situations. Brianjd (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure which license you are referring to when you give section numbers. Anything below the threshold of originality is immune to any copyright license, since it's not copyrightable, and no rights are attached to it which would need a license in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg The section numbers follow on from Gazebo’s comment; they refer to the WMF Terms of Use. Section 7(g), which applies to users who re-use material hosted by WMF, contains attribution requirements, with no exception for material in the public domain.

For material that is copyrighted, the situation is worse (although you claim that this specific material is not copyrighted, this discussion will set a precedent for other material). Users rely on section 7(b) to avoid having to follow the full attribution requirements of CC licenses (author name, link to original work, indication of modifications, etc). So any hyperlink requirement in section 7(b) is a copyright issue as well as a Terms of Use issue, even though CC licenses themselves do not require hyperlinks. Brianjd (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, goodness, that is the terms of use, not a copyright license. The WMF can't attach any additional conditions onto the works themselves. They don't own the copyright. The limit of punishment from that is losing access to your account here. Re-use of material is governed by the copyright license, and is limited by copyright law. The terms have a generalized version of attribution licenses; it does not replace the specific requirements of the license itself (nor does CC-BY-* allow any other conditions to be attached). I don't see a hyperlink requirement; a list of authors is also fine as the third option (e.g. the page history tab). Hyperlinks are just one of the options they mention for attribution. (CC licenses do require some hyperlinks, I think, at least to the license itself.) If material is public domain, there is no U.S. requirement to attribute authors. In other countries with moral rights, there still can be. So it's always best to attribute. But when it comes to the terms of use, I don't think the WMF is going to start kicking people out if they edit like any other Wikimedia project edits locally. Article 7(g) is about when you use works externally; the editing tools here generally preserve licensing requirements for local changes. None of that should really apply for local editing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg When you write your comment as one long paragraph that jumps between many different issues, it is hard to read.

I don't see a hyperlink requirement; a list of authors is also fine as the third option. I assume this is a reference to the WMF Terms of Use, sections 7(b)(iii) and 7(g)(iii). Of course a list of authors is also fine, but no list of authors was included in the edit summary quoted above. So I don’t see why you had to mention this.

For the rest of your comment, the gist of it seems to be ‘don’t worry too much about the WMF Terms of Use while editing here on WMF projects’. The WMF Terms of Use are not like other policies, which are edited on a best-effort basis by volunteers, subject to the limits of community discussion. The WMF Terms of Use are supposed to be carefully written by paid staff, as far as I know. So we shouldn’t be simply dismissing them.

I don’t see anything in the WMF Terms of Use that says section 7(g) applies only to external use. Brianjd (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clear, I am not saying that the WMF Terms of Use do require a hyperlink; that is a question for others to answer. I am saying that if they do, as at least one user here thinks they do, then that seems like a significant problem for the reasons described in my other comments. Brianjd (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's talking about re-using content outside of Wikipedia. When you re-use or re-distribute a text page developed by the Wikimedia community. Use on Wikimedia is not distribution, and editing is part of being developed by the Wikimedia community. At any rate, these are terms of use, not a copyright license. There is no way the WMF would create a terms of use which would make violators of most every editor. Trying to hang on every word of that is a waste of time; I'm pretty much done with this discussion. If the WMF has a problem with behavior, they would bring it up somewhere first. If the WMF doesn't care, then there's nobody else enforcing the terms of use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Matr1x-101 meta:Attribution was last edited in 2016 and contains no justification or citations. It could really use an update. Brianjd (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Physics wallah logo.jpg[edit]

I'm concerned that this file was uploaded "from Physics Wallah platform", by User:Owaisahmadwiki giving no evidence that they have legal standing to license it. On the other hand, it may be that it is simple enough that it is not protected by copyright at all (which is why I haven't simply nominated it for deletion). --ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ColinFine Part of the standard procedure for deletion requests is to ensure they are linked from the file description (for an open request) or file talk page (for a closed request). I have added a link to this section to the file talk page.

According to the Wikipedia article, Physicswallah is based in India; the Indian threshold of originality is similar to the US, where I suspect this file would indeed be below the threshold. But I am no expert at this; I hope other users take a look too. Brianjd (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yann has tagged this file as {{PD-textlogo}}. Brianjd (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be inclined to leave it until en:WP has looked at whether it passes WP:NOTABLE or not. Then (if needed) clean up on the basis of non-notable spam. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Question Why would we defer to a sister project discussion instead of simply applying our own Commons:Project scope policy to the subject? It seems to me that the question is one of licensing, not notability here--if it passes the licensing question, it can be kept regardless of en:WP's notability guidelines. Josh (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  @Joshbaumgartner The original question here is about copyright, but in many cases, it’s easier to avoid the copyright issues by just deleting the file as out of scope. We can’t do that as long as the file is legitimately in use on another project, but when you see comments like Decline G4 - article differs from deleted version in that the sourcing in this version is somewhat better than the sourcing in the deleted version. I reccomend a new AFD. That said, if this one is deleted too, I reccomend this title be salted., it’s a strong indication that we will eventually delete this file as out of scope. Brianjd (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - - Clearly this does not meet the threshold of originality, so notable or not, there is no reason or need to delete it. Ww2censor (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - @Brianjd: I understand WP deleting on notability grounds, but my question is what relevance that has to us. Files do not need to be in use by a sister project to be retained, or we'd be deleting half the files we have, so WP's deletion is irrelevant to Commons policies. Josh (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - It does not directly -- our policy is "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". If the subject is notable (and we usually piggy back on en-wiki's definition for those), then it's educationally useful. Obviously if a file is in use, it's automatically useful. Failing that, it can be harder. Should we accept any logo for any company at all, if below the threshold? We would probably want some way a logo could be useful, other than just being below the threshold of originality, if the company it represents is not really notable. Anyways, it's in use right now, and the en-wiki article has some grounding in notability (and I don't think it's under discussion yet). I think it's definitely PD-textlogo as far as the U.S. is concerned. If the article is ever deleted from Wikipedia, then there could be a DR to debate the merits, but I wouldn't worry about it until then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Joshbaumgartner Basically agree with what @Clindberg said. I have said repeatedly that we have poor guidance on when things like this count as notable (or realistically useful for an educational purpose, to use the policy’s words). Brianjd (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thank you, Clindberg for the additional rationale. It will be interesting to see the impact on the volume of unused files we currently have if that approach takes hold...might even make my life easier over in categorization. Well best of luck! Josh (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logo[edit]

Have a look at this logo please. I assume that it meets the threshold of originality. There is no indication that the uploader actually is the artist (= copyright holder). Ignore? Nominate for deletion? Opinions please. --87.150.8.9 22:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Festival4Family.gif. Brianjd (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screenshots of non-WMF pedia sites[edit]

Does the licensing of File:Portada L'Enciclopèdia.jpg need to be tweaked since it's technically a screenshot of the main page of en:L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian? I don't believe it's a site operated by the WMF, but it seems to use similar software and have similar licensing. I know that {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} is used for screenshots of WMF project websites, but I'm not sure whether there's something similar for non-WMF pedia types of sites. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the Free Screenshot wrapper template now, and I think that's the best we've got.

Wikipedia-Screenshot is very specific, and also adds the wrong license in this case. Felix QW (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Felix QW. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artworks by Charles Sheeler[edit]

Hi, We have a number of paintings by Charles Sheeler (American artist, 1883-1965), which do not have a proper license. They may be in the public domain for some reason, but the license should be fixed. Here is a list. Thanks to anyone for checking the copyright status. Yann (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, nobody cares, so I changed the license to {{PD-Art|PD-US}}, at least a plausible license. Yann (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doctored version of free image[edit]

File:Prime Minister Boris Johnson - Cornwall visit ahead of the G7 (51236132111).jpg

The above image is available under OGL and cc-by-2.0. It was recently in the news ([1]) after a version from which Boris Johnson had been erased was tweeted.

Can the doctored version be uploaded under the same licence(s), treating the changes as de minimis? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so. Removing someone from a photo invariably involves creative decisions, unless it's done by AI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google is advertising that their new Pixel 7 phone can do just that, but I'm not sure how much human involvement there is. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you examined the image in question? My point is that any creativity involved is minimal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might be small, but not sure what "small enough" is there. Something different was done with the circular emblem on the rocket, for example. Also, this would be the United Kingdom threshold of originality, which can be very very low indeed. If it was the result of an automated algorithm, then no. If it was placing part of another photograph on top, the other photo may have a different copyright, even if the doctoring process itself didn't create anything. If it was imagining what was behind there and inserting new content, then sure there could be a copyright. Could be as innocuous as inserting stains on the floor, or stuff like that. Stuff that may seem irrelevant to the point of the photograph can still be copyrightable. The details on how something was done can matter a lot. 23:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs)

Again - please examine the image in question to which I have provided a link, above, rather than speculanting on hypotheticals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did. How were the alterations actually made, or are you speculating? This is also the UK TOO you are talking about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not speculating about anything; I'm arguing that the material difference between the images does not meet UK TOO. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the British threshold of originality, which follows the sweat of the brow doctrine, I doubt that we can conclude that the objective differences are insufficient to have been brought about by a sufficiently original process. For the US threshold of originality, it could well be a different matter. Felix QW (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ending credits of a movie (screenshot)[edit]

The movie is 'Home of the Brave' (c)1949 Screen Plays II Corp.
I want to highlight that a leading black actor's movie credit in 1949 was placed at the end of the credits, even though his was the leading role.
If I cannot use a frame or screenshot from the movie, see 'Home of the Brave Full Movie' on Youtube at time 1:25:48, can I still just list the ending credits in a text field? Lacis alfredo (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, copyright in the movie has been renewed in 1976 (see page 90 of the July-December Copyright records of that year, available at https://archive.org/details/1976motionpictur3301213libr/page/90/mode/2up), so the movie will be in copyright until 2045. Felix QW (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lacis alfredo: However, the image may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although uploading under non-free use regulations on the English Wikipedia would require the screenshot significantly to enhance the reader's understanding beyond the mentioned alternative of listing the ending credits as a text quote, which may not be obvious. Felix QW (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: If it's a screenshot of just the credits, then is there a reason {{PD-text}} wouldn't apply? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DOD-affiliated sites treating non-DOD works as being in the public domain + Flickr users requiring prior permission to reuse while simultaneously using Commons-friendly licensing[edit]

Don't know if I can combine questions like this, but one query popped into my head while I was typing up the other, and I don't think I'll be able to clear my head of said query otherwise.

Firstly, I've noticed quite a few works on DVIDS etc. which have been rather obviously created by people who aren't affiliated with the US DOD in any way but are being treated as if they were in the public domain anyway. For an egregious example, here's a Flickr mirror of a British serviceman's photographic work that was uploaded to DVIDS (and later taken down in the rush to purge the site of anything remotely looking like Afghanistan)... and here's the Defence Imagery version, complete with Crown Copyright notice. On the one hand, we probably should be deferring to the copyright situation in the actual author's home country, but at the same time the fact that such works have been hosted on DVIDS in the first place, complete with VIRINs that actually reflect the non-US origin of the work, means that the situation probably isn't so clear-cut. "What do?"

Secondly, I've come across at least a few Flickr images where the original author forbids reuse without prior permission, but at the same time the images in question are filed under Commons-friendly licensing (see more or less this entire photostream for example). On the one hand, the requirement for permission means that the images aren't as reusable as the licensing would indicate, but why then have they chosen to upload their work under something that gives them no real recourse if someone doesn't care about getting permission and that, in most other contexts, already expresses or implies permission to reuse? Theoretically the basic licensing arrangement trumps anything else (pretty sure there was some sort of discussion about this in the context of certain PD-USGov works), but the stated requirement for permission does pose something of a moral quandary. Some variation or other of "Yes, I know you wanted me to ask for permission first, but then you should have uploaded that image under a standard copyright licence, shouldn't you?" doesn't seem like a good answer if, after someone uploads such an image here, the original photographer notices this and decides to come knocking. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by your first question, but as to your second one, I would say this sets up a situation of "dual-licensed" works. That is, the works are licensed by the author under both a permissive CC and their more restrictive whatchamacallit. IANAL of course, but it seems that if you choose to use a license when releasing a copyrighted work, any court worth its salt will hold you to the terms of that license, notwithstanding your out-of-band attempts to place additional burdens on licensees. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, For the first question, it is not clear if you are taking about US or non-US works, as we have Commons:VIRIN, which is about US works.

You are right that the account on Flickr seems confused. The picture you linked above is under a free license, but the account informaton says Images uploaded to Flickr are free for dissemination by media outlets and all other interested persons or organizations for newsworthy or educational media products. They are not, however, and in accordance to Flickr policy, to be used with the intention of reproducing and selling the images without prior consent of the releasing authority... They should be contacted to make clear that the license is in contradiction with this statement. Yann (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese FOP and attribution requirement[edit]

COM:CRT/China#Freedom of panorama.

It is long held by Commons community that mandatory attribution is needed as per Chinese freedom of panorama.

But according to German Wikipedia at w:de:Panoramafreiheit#China, there is no need for mandatory attribution if the public art is not signed. The citation used is this, and it is stated that "Whether the author’s name should be specified depends on whether the sculpture at issue is signed or not. If the publicly displayed sculpture itself does not indicate that it is a work based on another’s painting, the general public can make fair use of the work, and is under no legal duty to trace and/or indicate the author of the original work." This seems to show that users who are the general public are not bound to comply with attribution requirements. But if the user is not the general public (like in the case, Shaoxing Municipal Bureau of Water Resources), they are mandated for "higher duty of care and is obligated to mention the original author."

Should this legal literature (based on the Wang Juxian vs. Shaoxing City case) have a bearing for our more lenient approach on Chinese freedom of panorama?

Tagging peoples involved at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/China#FoP: court rules use of photo of an outdoor sculpture on postcards as infringement: @Wcam, Liuxinyu970226, Teetrition, 沈澄心, and 廣九直通車: . Apologies for disturbing, regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't it already written in COM:CRT/China#Freedom of panorama? Also this does not exempt the attribution requirement entirely. When the attribution information is available where the artwork is on display, attribution is still mandatory. Wcam (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attribution is mandatory unless the attribution cannot be given due to the special characteristic of the manner of exploiting the work (由于作品使用方式的特性无法指明的除外) according to Article 19 of the Regulation for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of PRC. However, this provision can hardly apply here because one can easily give attribution when he uses images.

In this case you gave (Wang Juxian vs. Shaoxing City), Wang Juxian, the plaintiff, is the author of the 2D painting. Shaoxing City, the defendant, took the photo of the 3D sculpture and print it in the book he published. The 3D sculpture is created based on the 2D painting with the permission of Wang. The Court said that in this case, both the person who created the 2D painting and the person who created the 3D sculpture are clearly engraved on the plate of the sculpture, so the defendant must give attribution to both authors. However, the Court stated, if the 2D painting's author is not clearly indicated (not available to public), unlike this case, people who use the 3D sculpture do not need to give attribution to the original work's author but still need to give attribution to the DW's (the sculpture's) author. Teetrition (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture is not own work.[edit]

It is not possible to identify users registered, but the names they choose tells something about them. User:SteinarGlimsdal has uploaded File:Kjetil Haga.jpg as own work. The picture is created by Kathrine Nygård and is previously published here - https://www.glogerfestspillene.no/artist/kjetil-haga/ . User:SteinarGlimsdal is an employee at Blå Kors Norge https://no.linkedin.com/in/steinar-glimsdal-ba6a5542 where Kjetil Haga used to work. This does not make him the owner of this workout it is possible he in this role had access to photos of Haga. This picture lacks a licence from its creator Kathrine Nygård and probably should be deleted. ツ^ツ Dyveldi ☯ 16:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds to me like a classic case of referring the uploader to COM:VRT. Felix QW (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably years to late for OTRS. The user made a few edits: user edits and then stopped. All of the edits was connected to Blå Kors who Steinar Glimsdals employer at the time. The user should have been contacted at the time and made aware of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Probably would have helped the user.

- Glimsdal uploaded two pictures. The other one is File:Geir Gundersen - foto Steinar Glimsdal.jpg and as is typical of own work this file does give information about the camera that was use. File:Kjetil Haga.jpg does not give any such information.

- Steinar Glimsdal used to work for Blå Kors and they might well have bought the right to use a copy of the picture from the photographer. This might have led to a misunderstanding of what own work means. Blå Kors may have owned the right to limited use of the picture. Blå Kors might have a contract with the photographer which could have resolved the matter. Glimsdal no longer works for Blå Kors and it is highly unlikely that he have bought the rights to publish it on commons as a private person. ツ^ツ Dyveldi ☯ 14:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all I do not think I am the right person to refer the user to OTRS (COM:VRT) or follow up. I am not that experienced on Commons. ツ^ツ Dyveldi ☯ 15:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry if it came accross as explicitly telling you to do something. I just wanted to point out that in these situations, the community usually requires VRT approval to keep the image. While what you are saying sounds plausible, I doubt the image would be kept should someone file a deletion request without evidence of permission or transfer of copyright from the photographer. Felix QW (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright question - conceptual art/malleable works & copyright eligibility[edit]

Already asked this and it was archived before anyone chimed in - this is a pretty unique copyright eligibility question, if anyone with high-level art copyright law knowledge can add their advice, it would be really appreciated.

Several images of works by Félix González-Torres are currently on English Wikipedia as fair use, non-free content. One was previously uploaded, I added the rest to show the different cited phases of his career and types of artistic output:

I wonder if any of these images can be migrated to Commons; there is currently at least one image of one of these works on Commons:

File:"Untitled" (Portrait of Ross in L.A.) by Felix Gonzalez-Torres.jpg

These works are claimed to be copyrighted by the artist's estate, via the Felix Gonzalez-Torres Foundation. However, I'm bringing this query here as none of these works seem to satisfy the "fixed medium" requirement for a work to be eligible for copyright protections. These works are visually malleable, per the extensive certificates the artist included with the works, meaning they are not eligible for copyright protections.

1: Work consists of two stacks of paper, each with a common phrase in plain text ("Somewhere better than this place" and "Nowhere better than this place"). The artist included an "ideal height" on the certificate and language allowing viewers to take papers from the work and allowing to be depleted as well as replenished, meaning it does not have a fixed state.
2: Work is a simple string of lightbulbs. The certificate allows the owner to display the work in any shape or layout of their choosing, meaning it does not have a fixed state.
3: Work was conceived prior to the artist's death but executed a decade after he died, consists of two marble pools sitting side by side, but they specifically are variable in their materials as he never specified what they should be made of (as described when unveiled in 2007 for the Venice Biennale). Official description of the work's medium at both the institution owning the work (Glenstone) and the artist's estate is "Medium varies with installation," meaning it doesn't have a fixed medium or state.
4: Work consists of strings of beads hung in an entranceway. The certificate allows the owner to change the size to fit any entranceway of their choosing, meaning it does not have a fixed state.
5: Work consists of two black-framed, battery operated clocks. The certificate specifically allows the owner to buy new replacement clocks, only stipulating the color of the frame and the fact that they must be identical to each other in size (no size specified), meaning they do not have a fixed state.
6: Work consists of a pile of candy dumped in a corner. The certificate has an "ideal weight" but specifically allows viewers to take the candy, as well as allowing the owner to install the work in any layout of their choosing and allow it to deplete/replenish it on their own schedule, meaning it does not have a fixed state.

Additionally, the certificates for each of these works apart from #3 allow the owner to replace any and all components of the work with the same or similar commercially available components.

Would love some insight as to whether these can be migrated or if higher quality versions can live on Commons. Asking before I do any moving, as I made the mistake earlier of migrating a different image by another artist before asking for advice. Thanks all! --19h00s (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For cases like (2), wouldn't the lack of fixed instructions rather lead to a co-authorship of the artist and the owner/curator than to a failure to satisfy the fixed medium requirement?

Perhaps threshold of originality could be questionable, although I suspect that for contemporary art intended as art courts may be more lenient than for industrial designs.

(I didn't want to comment earlier for lack of specific expertise, but since no-one else commented either, I figured it might be helpful) Felix QW (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how en:File:Untitled Perfect Lovers.jpg could get a copyright. Others are not much better in this regard. I only find some creativity in en:File:"Untitled" (Water), 1995, Felix Gonzalez Torres at BMA 2022.jpg. Yann (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

en:File:"Untitled", 1992-1995, Felix Gonzalez-Torres at Glenstone.jpg could be copyrighted by whoever executed the marble pools, perhaps, as unlike the clocks they may not be considered utilitarian in themselves. On (1), maybe the two sentences of text could be copyrighted, but perhaps not. Regarding (5), I completely agree with Yann (talk · contribs) that putting two items adjacent to each other is insufficient to pass the threshold of originality as a composition. Felix QW (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We use a similar stone in the kitchen to make Chapati. So yes, this has a direct utilitarian purpose. You can buy it online. Yann (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep in mind that the requirement for fixation is optional in the Berne Convention (Article 2(2): It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form. The U.S. requires it but many countries do not. So, the treatment of such things could greatly vary, and we generally respect the law in the country of origin. For example, Christo and Jeanne-Claude's wrapped Reichstag likely got a copyright in Germany, but not the U.S. I doubt most of the works you list would get a U.S. copyright registration, for the reasons you question. The first one with stacks of paper might get a selection and arrangement copyright, once you add in the phrases. It's close. The rest, I doubt. The string of lights, if there was something particular in the actual sculptural parts of the light mounts, maybe, but not its positioning. I generally get the feeling that judges may be more likely to say something is copyrightable than the Copyright Office, unless cases get appealed to the higher courts, where judgements are a bit more consistent. I don't see any copyright registrations for that artist, other than involvement in a book. But, the Copyright Office typically rejects things like this from what I have seen in their appeals decisions, and attaches no significance to symbolic meaning or anything like that -- just the fixed expression which is there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For context, González-Torres was American and primarily worked in the U.S. - apart from the marble pools, which were technically first presented in 2007 in Italy, all of these pieces were also first displayed publicly in American galleries/museums, so I imagine we'd use the U.S. rules to make a judgement here. The artist's estate/Foundation attaches copyright notices whenever they publish any images of these and other similar works, and seems to make news outlets/publications license images of the works, so I would imagine they must have at least tried to get these works registered on behalf of the artist at some point? Or would they have known that they'd be rejected, so they just wouldn't try in order to retain the presumption of copyright eligibility? More of a rhetorical question than anything else, but interesting to think about.

What's the technical procedure for including images of allegedly copyrighted works like these on Commons? Is there a copyright tag for unique cases like this? Thanks everyone for your help - won't migrate any images until there's a consensus on what can be used here. 19h00s (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, they own the copyright of the pictures they take. So, do they specify whether the copyright is for the objects or for the pictures? Unless they do, I would assume it is for the latter. Yann (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a bit of both - their public archive includes some photos originating from the Foundation/estate, some photos originating from curators/members of the public/other artists. Each photo has a photo credit and "courtesy of..." language, but they've amended a copyright notice for the entire site - example from their archive. 19h00s (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Italian photos PD in the UK post-Brexit?[edit]

I uploaded these pics with Italy as the country of origin since they're over 20 years old. The photos in particular is of a singer from a UK-based band:

But I'm wondering if PD-Italy still stands with the rule of the shorter term after the UK left the EU. Thanks. 웃O O 15:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. The UK copyright law still has many references to the EEA, so not everything changed. But the particular one for the rule of the shorter term, Article 12(6), they changed in 2019 to just say the "United Kingdom". As always, the details are in the changes they make to their own law on the matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever the answer to that question may be, these two photographs are not ok for Wikimedia Commons since they are still protected by copyright in the US. {{PD-Italy}} is only meant for Italian photographs created before 1976. --Rosenzweig τ 15:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

مجوز انتشار تصاویر حاصل از نقشه های گوگل ارث چگونه است؟[edit]

گوگل ارث یک منبع نقشه متن باز است. آیا تصاویر و نقشه های ایجاد شده توسط این منبع باید به صورت تصاویر شخصی ثبت شود یا برای آن ها از گوگل مجوز انتشار گرفت؟ Alim arjmandi (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is the permission to publish images from Google Earth maps?

Google Earth is an open source map resource. Should the images and maps created by this source be registered as personal images or should they be published by Google?

translator: Google Translate via — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alim arjmandi: سلام و خوش آمدید Google Earth یک سرویس انتفاعی است که توسط گوگل ارائه می شود. تصاویر ارائه شده توسط آن سرویس دارای حق نسخه‌برداری Google هستند و تصاویر و اطلاعات اصلی دارای حق چاپ توسط Google و گاهی اوقات دیگران هستند. چه چیزی باعث می شود فکر کنید منبع باز است؟

Hi, and welcome. Google Earth is a for-profit service provided by Google. The images provided by that service are copyrighted by Google, with underlying images and information copyrighted by Google and sometimes others. What makes you think it is open source? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

سلام و خوش آمد به شما. سلام شما را می‌پذیرم ولی حالا بعد از 10 تا 15 سال در ویکی پدیا بودن یکم برای خوش آمد گویی، دیر نیست؟؟؟

ببینید شما سوال من را با سوال پاسخ می‌دهید. شما باید بگویید مثلاً طبق ماده فلان، تبصره بهمان آیین نامه ویکی پدیا مثلاً مجاز یا غیرمجاز به گذاشتن فلان تصویر هستید.

از تهدید به تعلیق عضویتتان خیلی ممنونم. پیش از این دوستان قبلی هم از این تهدیدات کرده بودند.

گمان نمی کنم من آدم این اندازه نفهمی باشم که منطق شما را نفهمم و شما با تعلیق عضویت مرا تادیب نمایید.

به حق مولف اعتقاد راسخ دارم و همواره تلاش کرده ام آن را برآورده سازم. من در ایران زندگی می کنم. قوانین مشخصی در خصوص حق مولف داریم. تصویر را از یک وبسایت امریکایی برداشته ام. از جزئیات قانون حق مولف در ایالات متحده اطلاع ندارم.

حالا می رسیم به سوال شما، این که چه چیز باعث می شود که من گمان کنم منبع باز است؟

من برای رسیدن به این تصاویر از هیچ گذرواژه، رمز عبور یا قفلی استفاده نکردم. شما هم توانایی استفاده از آن را با همین شرایط دارید.

در صورتی که جزئیات قانون حقوق مولفان و مصنفان ایران و امریکا و ویکی پدیا را برایم بگویید، ضمن قدردانی، حتماً آن را رعایت خواهم کرد. Alim arjmandi (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeff G.: در ضمن من تصور می کنم صداقت بیش از اندازه به خرج دادم که باعث شده است شما این رفتار را با من بکنید. این پرونده یکی از نقشه های مشابه موجود در ویکی انبار است: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%BE%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87:Karunrivermapfinal.jpg

ایشان دقیقاً کار مرا انجام داده است. یعنی نقشه را از یک سایت دارای حق مولف برداشته است، ولی به جای اشاره به پدید آور آن، نام خودش را به عنوان پدیدآور ذکر کرده است. این کار دزدی است نه کار من. من صادقانه گفتم نقشه از یک شرکت ماهواره ای است که من آن را ویرایش کرده ام.

اگر با این روش مشکل حل می شود؟؟ باکی نیست. من خودم را پدیدآور اثر معرفی می کنم. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alim arjmandi (talk • contribs) 10:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Translate of the Persian input: Hello and welcome to you. Hello, I accept you, but now after 10 to 15 years of being on Wikipedia, I'm the first to say hello, isn't it too late???

See, you answer my question with a question. You have to say, for example, that you are allowed or not allowed to post a certain image according to such and such article, Bahman's note of the Wikipedia rules. Thank you very much for threatening to suspend your membership. Before this, previous friends had made these threats.

I don't think I am such a stupid person that I don't understand your logic and you punish me by suspending my membership.

I firmly believe in the author's right and I have always tried to fulfill it. I live in Iran. We have specific laws regarding copyright. I took the picture from an American website. I don't know the details of copyright law in the US. Now to your question, what makes me think it's open source?

I did not use any passwords, passwords or locks to access these images. You also have the ability to use it under the same conditions.

If you tell me the details of the copyright law of Iran, America and Wikipedia, I will definitely comply with it.

@Alim arjmandi: (in English) Google Maps content are not freely-licensed. You took a screenshot or a photo of a part of it, you just made a derivative work of it. It is still under Google's copyright. To make it simple, anything from Google Maps is off-limits here. Copyrighted website and contents, cannot be exploited commercially. Commons requires freely-licensed content that can be exploited commercially in a free manner, as per COM:Licensing. This is the link for your question on the details of Wikipedia copyright rules (to he exact, Wikimedia Commons as it is a sister website of Wikipedia). For Google's Terms of use (in English, you may need to translate those to Farsi/Persian), see this. For the permitted uses read here. A common rule on the use or Google Maps is that it is not allowed to be used in advertising. This alone makes Google Maps incompatible with Commons:Licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also User talk:Alim arjmandi#File copyright status. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eclipse Public License[edit]

Hi, anyone know this license? Is it o.k. for using with uploads on Commons? --217.239.3.173 21:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. Category:Eclipse Public License. Borysk5 (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More germanely, you may use {{EPL-2.0}}, but you will have to login before uploading here, please do that. There are also many other reasons to create an account and log in. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Submitting my own photo to my own Wiki page/ public domain/ commons[edit]

Hello. I am a musician, name Lenka Lichtenberg.Somebody created Wiki entry about me years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenka_Lichtenberg I just did some preliminary edits, and replaced a horrible photo that was there with one a professional photographer Bo Huang took in a session I paid for. I own the copyright. I received an automatic warning that the copyright / license info I filled out is incomplete or wrong. I am completely lost as I don't see an option how to fill description/ license for my own photo when somebody else took it but I own, or how to create the appropriate copyright tag for this. Can you please help me, what tag/ license type to write where? English is not my first language and this is SO over my head. Thank you!!! AnickaHanicka (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you own the copyrights? Copyrights typically belong to person who did the photograph not the one who paid for it. Borysk5 (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The easiest would be if you would forward evidence of permission from the photographer via COM:VRT. Alternatively, if you have a written work for hire agreement with the photographer that explicitly includes a transfer of copyright, then you can also forward evidence of that via COM:VRT. Felix QW (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indian banknotes[edit]

There is currently conflicting information regarding the copyright status of Indian currency. According to COM:CUR India, Indian banknotes are released under the GODL, while the header text at Category:Rupee (India) suggests that only banknotes before 1962 are in the public domain and uploading images of later banknotes is not admissible. Do we have any actual evidence that all (or even any) Indian banknotes have been released under the GODL? See also the potentially related discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India. Felix QW (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think anything is automatically released under the GODL. Like the British OGL, it needs to be specified somewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Kann ich die Titelseite eines Buches einscannen und das Bild auf die Seite der betreffenden Person stellen, wenn ich das Zitat des Buches gebe? 193.81.164.223 14:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schau mal Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Book_covers. --Túrelio (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freedom of panorama[edit]

I'm wondering if this photo violates COM:FOP. It was a commissioned mural, completed by 16 artists. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition of derivative work?[edit]

I was adverted that several files I uploaded were derivative works. I was bit puzzled how FOP licensed works, or others that are in the Public domain can be deemed as derivative and not properly licensed for derivative works. To all the files I uploaded I added that I was one the author of the file and also its source and if they had an original creator I added ...by ... in the description of the file. If this is really seen as no properly licensed, I'd be glad if someone would explain it to me. The one adverted me, was not really communicative as also to an other editor who's files he also deemed as derivative works. Other so called derivative works are those, some are newspaper articles from Brazil of the 1800a one a street name plaque in Brazil, which would probably count with a FOP. How does AFG work in commons?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO Xunks is overly expansive and not careful enough at tagging images for deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jaanilinn.jpg for the conversation we were just having). I just noticed File:Brave Search.png in your list, which was previously kept at DR. For a derivative work, while source information for the original work is nice to have, we have in practice never considered it mandatory when it can be clearly inferred from the rest of the file description that the image is free, such as sculptures in countries with FoP or works indicated as being over 120 years old in 70 pma countries. (And in the case of the latter, having an incorrect license is not a reason to nominate the image for deletion, but to fix the license.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet Xunx is on the lose and believe they are doing the right thing... If that file of a painting of 1480 or similar get deleted... The file of 1480 is of a new editor with their first edit on commons on the 12th January and created an account on any project of Wikipedia on the 11th January. There was a AlbertBenchea08 who made 5 edits in August 2021 also to a consort of a Sultan and the current uploader has also a focus on consorts of sultans. I guess AlbertBenchea won't come back until a week and then the files will be lost except someone fixes it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file didn't have a license (I fixed it), the date was wrong, and there is no category. Yann (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah great, one of the mentioned here in the discussion tagged for deletion was fixed. How about the newspapers from the 1800s or the street name plaque from Brazil? Will you bring them back from deletion? Xunxs creates a lot of work for many of us and if this discussion does not stop Xunxs I will report them somewhere else. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this file allowed on commons?[edit]

This file is listed as being published in 1962, ergo it is no longer protected in the EU. But does it also need to be unprotected in the US, as stated in Commons:Copyright rules?:

Files uploaded to Commons should be free both in the country of origin (as defined by the Berne Convention) and in the United States of America, . . .

Does the lack of protection in the EU carry over to the US? In its listing on IMSLP, it explicitly states "Non-PD US".

I'm compiling all the royalty-free recordings I can find of Ravel's music, and I set a rule that if it can't go on Wikipedia, it's not going in the compilation. If this file should be deleted, I have found another recording of the same piece under a free license.

Thanks. - Toast for Teddy (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Toast for Teddy I am not familiar with sound recording copyrights, but I note that Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia, and some Wikipedias allow some fair use and FoP works that are not allowed on Commons. Perhaps your rule should be ‘if it can't go on Commons, it's not going in the compilation’. This probably wouldn’t apply to sound recordings, but I like to mention it anyway. Brianjd (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brianjd Probably should've specified that.

Amended rule: If it can't go on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons, it's not going in the compilation.

- Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The recording is still protected in the US, both by copyright (because of URAA, US sound recordings would not have a federal copyright) and as a sound recording per the MMA/CLASSICS/CPAA act. Yes, that is confusing, but from what I gathered (see the long version in my deletion rationale for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conservet Deus su Re.ogg) the protection for sound recordings by the MMA/CLASSICS/CPAA act is not the same as copyright, even if it basically works the same way. The term used by the MMA/CLASSICS/CPAA act (instead of copyrighted) is protected from unauthorized use. Anyway, the URAA-restored copyright runs to the end of 2058, while the protection per the MMA/CLASSICS/CPAA act lasts up to and including February 14, 2067 (see the terms at Template:PD-US-record-expired). --Rosenzweig τ 13:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically right, but one note -- it's not the same as normal U.S. federal copyright, but it's still copyright, just with some different contours. Recordings made since February 1972 have normal U.S. federal copyright; earlier recordings had only been protected by U.S. "common law copyright", which relied on state laws and court rulings, so could differ state to state (but over time strongly protected commercial recordings, without a firm end date of protection). See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc. for a court case over that situation. The MMA/CLASSICS/CPAA law finally pre-empted common law copyright in sound recordings (as the 1976 Copyright Act had done with unpublished works). But, to preserve some aspects of the common law copyright I guess, the terms and contours for those pre-1972 recordings are a bit different than regular federal copyright (though the penalties are the same). It's still messy, but it's better than the common-law copyright situation. The upshot though is that the U.S. protects sound recordings longer than other types of works. Pre-1923 recordings expired last year, and 1923+ recordings will start expiring next year annually for a while (but with pauses to further increase the term of protection for recordings made closer to 1972). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17 U.S. Code § 1401 is very careful not to call it copyright though, it's protection against “unauthorized use of pre-1972 sound recordings”. --Rosenzweig τ 17:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, as it is not the same thing as the "copyright" defined in 17 USC 101, i.e. "federal copyright". But, neither was "common law copyright". It is, however, part of the protection required by the Berne Convention (as was common law copyright before it). If you want to call it something other than copyright, or copyright but an entirely different type with very special rules for that particular type of work, I can't argue. It is basically however a replacement for what was "common law copyright" for pre-1972 recordings. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auto-Creative Sculpture Copyright (specifically, stable fixation)[edit]

Are auto-creative sculptures copyrightable? (I originally asked this on the Wikipedia forum but was referred to this forum instead, apologies to anybody who sees me double posting)

Context: I have an image taken in Chicago (so we are talking US copyright law) of David Medalla's auto-creative kinetic art sculpture Cloud Canyons. It is a sculpture series and a good description of the sculpture can be found here:

"This work is a kinetic sculpture consisting of wooden boxes arranged in a circle on the gallery floor with a tall plastic tube placed at their centre. At the bottom of the tube is a quantity of soapy liquid that is turned into foam by compressors located inside the wooden portions of the sculpture. This results in the foam being projected upwards and out of the tube, forming a jet of bubbles that extends above head-height. [...] Although the materials and construction for Cloud Canyons No. 3 are controlled by Medalla each time it is installed, the sculpture changes constantly once it is on display due to the varying shapes formed by the foam."

Based on my cursory, uneducated understanding of US copyright law, there is a requirement that it be fixed in a tangible medium (something to that effect). So this question is not at all on the "originality" requirement. I am just curious whether the work would meet the fixation requirement, as there is no consistency in the auto-creative work. An American case that has come up from my Googling is Kelley v. Chicago Park District (7th Cir. 2011). On that note, does it raise an issue on authorship as well? [Edit: Someone brought up that the base and tube would fit the fixation requirement, which makes a lot of sense. I guess I'll keep this query up if anybody has any counter-arguments although I think the base and tube thing pretty much answers this.]

The question came up because I uploaded the photo onto Wikipedia under fair use [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_Medalla,_Cloud_Canyons.jpg], but am wondering if it would actually be possible to upload it to Commons. The photo itself was taken by my brother so I guess he is the copyright owner of the photo, but he is OK with me uploading it to Commons (granted it is acceptable/not infringing on the copyright of the artist, if any). Kting97 (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd see a rather more substantial objection to its copyright as being US limitations on whether "robots can create art", and if they do, they certainly can't copyright it (neither can animals).

The design of the base and pipes is utilitarian, not artistically creative. The shape of the bubbles thus generated is either random (not copyrightable) or created under the influence of the mechanism (of varying sophisitication) and again, that's not copyrightable.

A similar machine using PU foam (which sets rigid) would certainly be "fixed in a tangible medium", but it would still have the same exclusion from copyright.

I dimly recall there's some case law on this (as applied to a book cover) where designs had been produced by a harmonograph. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are New Mexican Mugshots in the PD?[edit]

Hey y'all I'm creating an article for Solomon Peña on the English Wikipedia, and I was wondering if in his US state, New Mexico, makes mugshots fall into the Public Domain. His mugshot is located here. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Knightoftheswords281: Sorry, no per COM:US and en:Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truth Truck - original, derivative, licensable?[edit]

Hi, I found File:Truth Truck OSU.JPG uploaded by @Ibagli. It does not appear to be the case that Ibagli is the builder/designer of the truck, but probably took the photograph. The truck appears to have a collage of photographs, paintings, embellished text, etc. The copyright status of its component parts should be questionable: the photograph of Father John I. Jenkins could be from anywhere. The painting of two hands clasped seems to be a creative work; who could begin to guess its provenance?

The associated websites are dead links; in fact Planned Parenthood USA has usurped one of them! They are the only Truth Truck now, boyo! All gallows humour aside, there do seem to be a plethora of Truth Trucks of various build quality and budget size.

Taken as a whole, I would say that the "Truth Truck" would be either copyright of its owner, or uncopyrightable due to infringement by components. Does Ibagli have standing to place this photograph of it into the public domain in the United States? Elizium23 (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elizium23: I tagged it as an unsourced DW. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 04:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubts about the copyright status of a 2019 photo in the article Lucile Randon[edit]

I originally asked this at Wikipedia:Teahouse and someone who replied to me, said I should ask here. Below is what I said on Wikipedia:Teahouse, which I have just copy and pasted.

The main photo from 2019 in the article Lucile Randon is licensed as having been released into the public domain by Gerontology Wiki. I have several doubts that this is true however, and am leaning towards it being removed due to it being copyrighted.

Anyone can edit the gerontology wiki, so the photo doesn't belong to that wiki itself as far as I am aware. The person who uploaded it to the Gerontology Wiki licensed it as puiblic domain there, but did not provide proof they are the copyright holder. Many of the photos uploaded there are copyrighted and can be found elsewhere online, so clearly no one is actually checking copyright status on that Wiki. Also the person who uploaded the photo to Wikipedia has a different username than that of the user who uploaded it to the Gerontology Wiki.

Should the photo be removed until it can be confirmed that it really is in the public domain? Or never added back if it is proven that the photo is still copyrighted, or it's supposed public domain licensing cannot be confirmed? Greshthegreat (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to file in question: File:LRandon.webp. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this French local newspaper article from 2021, the photograph is labelled as "photo VLP", but I have no idea what that means. Skimel (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Greshthegreat, From Hill To Shore, and Skimel: Then VLP needs to send permission via VRT. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ping @Interstellarity who uploaded the image from Gerontology Wiki. @Jeff G. "V.L.P" stands for Valérie Le Parc, who is a photographer for the newspaper Var Matin. Skimel (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skimel Ok, then Valérie Le Parc or Var Matin needs to send permission via VRT. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, so until Valérie Le Parc, the photos copyright holder gives permission to use that photo of Lucile Randon on Wikipedia, it cannot be used on Wikipedia due to it being copyrighted. I will remove the photo from the article Lucile Randon until such permission has been given, if any is ever provided. Greshthegreat (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Greshthegreat, @From Hill To Shore, @Jeff G., and @Skimel and thanks for the ping. I agree with your assessment that the photo is likely copyrighted. While I do not to the image being deleted from Commons, it could qualify as a fair use image that could be uploaded to enwiki directly. I'm not sure if you know anything about nonfree images on Wikipedia since this is a different project than here, but I would be interested in your input. Interstellarity (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be hard (not impossible perhaps but pretty hard) to justify the use of this image as non-free content in en:Lucile Randon per en:WP:FREER and en:WP:NFC#CS. Since Randon has just recently died, a new photo of her cannot certainly be taken, but that doesn't mean a previously taken photo cannot be found that is either (1) already released under an acceptable free license or (2) could possibly by changed by its copyright holder to an acceptable license. When it comes to recently deceased persons, it's expected that a reasonable effort be made to find a free equivalent image instead of just immediately uploading a non-free one right after a person dies. How "reasonable" is defined depends on who you ask, but many feel that this involves something more than simply a cursory Internet search for "free images of XX". There are some who also feel that "reasonable" also includes trying to contact copyright holders using en:WP:PERMISSION emails and ask them if they'd be willing to relicense an image for Wikipedia purposes. This doesn't mean you need to start emailing the persons family or firends while they're still grievieng over their loss, but it could me contact others not be personally connected to the deceased and asking them. It could also mean waiting a reasonable amount of time before trying the email approach with family or friends. Again, how much time is "reasonable" depends on who you ask, but some feel a few months is OK. Some users have been able to obtain freely licensed images this way since some copyright holders are apparently more than happy to help out. If you're going to try this approach, it's been to look for personal photos posted on social media or personal websites, or perhaps organization websites; any images you find being used in newspapers or other publications, most likely have some commercial value (particularly if attributed to stock image companies like en:Getty Images) since those images have been monetized and pretty much never allowed to be uploaded and used a non-free use. Another thing to consider whether there are already some freely licensed or PD images of the subject already being used in the article. This makes it harder to justify the use of a non-free unless the non-free image itself is somehow the subject of sourced critical commentary. Obviously as people get older, their appearance will change but Wikipedia articles don't really require non-free images to show this unless there's something about the subject of the article's appearance that is covered in the article and would be strongly contexutually tied to seeing a non-free image of the person. Now, having posted all of that, there are lots of people who also feel that a non-free image of an individual is OK to use regardless immediately after someone dies. So, you often see non-free images being immediately added (sometimes within the hour) after someone (particulary someone who's death is covered by mainstream media outlets) has died. In some cases, this might be OK because quite a bit of effort was made into trying to find a free equivalent image to use while the person was still living, but in others it's just done because some feel all articles should have infobox images, regardless of their licensing. When that happens, the non-free image usually ends up being the subject of some dicussion (often quite heated) either at en:WP:FFD, en:WP:MCQ or en:WT:NFCC with each side arguing their side is right. Generally, nothing ends up being resolved since there's no agreeable middle ground; so, the same thing pretty much happens again the next time someone else uploads a non-free image of a recently deceased person. Bascially, it's a roll of the dice in which suchnon-free images are assessed on a case-by-case basis; sometimes the image is allowed and other times it's not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Interstellarity: You could contact Valérie le Parc and ask for permission to publish the photo under a free license, if you haven't already done so. The worst that could happen is she says no. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Ixfd64: , I am not entirely sure on how to contact her although I am willing to do it. I didn’t see an email on where I can contact her from, but if you could help out, great. There could be a chance she says yes, no, or doesn’t respond at all. Interstellarity (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't able to find any direct contact information either. Although I did find her LinkedIn and Facebook profiles, VRT generally requires an email. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright a image for a wikipedia page[edit]

How to have correctly copyright this image for the Gizelle Bryant page.

The BET Honors 2016 - Arrivals Featuring: Gizelle Bryant Where: Washington DC, District Of Columbia, United States When: 05 Mar 2016 Credit: Derrick Salters/WENN.com Davinia Priscilla (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davinia Priscilla: Hi, and welcome. Please have Derrick Salters/WENN.com send permission for it via VRT. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canada[edit]

Has anyone here a particularly good knowledge of Canadian copyright, court cases and legal commentaries? If yes, then their help would be welcome in the tricky case of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ice sculpture in Quebec city downtown.jpg. Thank you! Gestumblindi (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

also, please note that someone has erroneously instated the false "creative commons" license back onto the photo which i never approved in direct conflict with my wishes and requests. this is a particularly egregious action i am not happy about. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The photo is by Wilfredor and you didn't touch it, as far as I can see. Are you the sculptor? Or maybe you are in the wrong thread? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please escalate my deletion to speedydeletion/copyright violation[edit]

this is a direct copyright violation of my own work and i am being hindered in the process of requesting speedy deletion. i am unfamiliar with the workings of wikipedia and am requesting assistance in the prompt removal of my illegally hosted content on this website.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image was uploaded by your account and released more than 3 weeks ago under a free licence. While we allow uploaders 7 days to request speedy deletion in the case of mistaken upload, this is much later than that. This has been converted into a standard deletion process at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg where a more detailed discussion can take place. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since VNZ denies being the person who uploaded the photo, then we have a case of a compromised account. A putatively unknown user has accessed the Wikipedia account of VNZ, found this photo file on the HDD, and uploaded it to Wikimedia without the permission of the person now controlling the VNZ account. I humbly recommend an immediate indefinite block to be imposed upon @VoidseekerNZ, pending investigation and assurances that the rightful owner and creator of the VNZ account has regained control and revoked access to unauthorized persons. Elizium23 (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i humbly suggest that a block is uncalled for and is only meant to be used as a preventative measure, not a punitive one. i'm not sure what future good it will serve. i will change my password and email promptly and secure my desktop, i dont want a repeat of this myself as this is a commercially sensitive work that was never meant to make it to the internet, lest of all in this high of a definition. this is an endangered species in NZ, a high poaching target that possibly contains sensitive exif data, and it is a commercially sensitive photo to boot, hence my urgency and annoyance at the lack of speedy deletion for clear copyright violation in my eyes.

unless you know of some further risk of my copyright being hosted against my wishes i don't see what purpose a block would serve. once my personal copyright info is removed from the site then i will be happy to let the matter rest. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So which is it??? An unknown person got into your account in a way you don't know how? You've promised to change your password and email address, but what if your adversary has installed a keylogger and will capture that data as soon as you enter it here? A block is meant to protect your account and the project from harm, and since you don't seem to know any details of your compromise, we're all going to assume you're still compromised.

By the way, if you're serious about security and you're protecting sensitive data, then I suggest enabling MFA everywhere possible. It is available to editors here, and is easy to use. Elizium23 (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)HReply[reply]

with all due respect, you are being rather antagonistic and it seems like you're trying to push me into reacting or something. perhaps i've misread, but your tone is rather dismissive and condescending, and not very helpful. i also don't see how it helps solve the issue, nor does it fall in line with a key wikipedia policy of "assume good faith". i can guarantee you my computer is secure, and if there are further issues with my posting then i could see how a block would be warranted. currently, your ambitions seem punitive, and i am going to respectfully exit the conversation here and remind everyone that all i am doing here is asserting ownership over what is legally mine - something you are advocating against. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Elizium23 is not antagonistic, he simply points out that your version of the event relating to this upload does not make much sense. SV1XV (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i still fail to see how any of this is relevant to a discussion on copyright of this image. it's all rather distractionary from the main issue and does nothing to solve the problem. what i am requesting is not contrversial. it is a perfectly normal routine for wikimedia to delete images with uncertain licensing history. and yet, everyone here is throwing up obstacles at every opportunity, which seems to my eyes to be a violation of wikipedia principles, such as the precautionary principle for example. there is already a strong set of policy and precedent informing us on how to deal with ambiguously licensed works. so why are we sitting around going back and forth when it's a relatively simple thing to sort and the policy documents are quite clear?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@VoidseekerNZ: I'll admit: I'm really confused. How can you simultaneously say "anyone" could have performed an action that requires access to your drive and your account, and that you can "guarantee" your computer is secure. It just doesn't make sense. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

because i have since bought a new device since that date, i have 2 factor auth, and a clean brand new email. since when did i have to provide a malware scan to assert authority over my own legal copyright? and why are a half dozen people on this website actively trying to steal my legal intellectual property in clear violation of wikipedia principles such as the precautionary principle? i really need some assistance because im out of my depth but i certainly know it is highly illegal for people to just put free licenses on my work when i have quite clearly stated multiple times this is theft and the license was given without my consent or knowledge.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone using your account uploaded it with a free license and someone with your account says it is their picture uploaded with out their permission. A prosecutor is not going to treat the refusal to delete as a highly criminal act; in fact, I doubt we'd even be liable in a civil court in any situation, since we (the volunteers) are not hosting the file, and we have no duty to you. For the law to come into play, you'd need to file a DMCA notice under penalty of perjury, which might be a highly illegal act.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what would happen if i lied and i never took the photo and im uploading a commercial photo without permission? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presumably you would get a warning and be told not to do that again under risk of a block Trade (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@VoidseekerNZ: If you were to make that claim after this lengthy set of remarks that say quite otherwise, we'd probably delete the photo, but also block your account on the basis that we can't trust a thing you say. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

so the best solution to a copyright issue is to lie about it? it is ridiculous to me the way this system operates. someone told me on discord that if the image had been uploaded under a different user and then i made the CC claim it would likely be deleted by now. i have to say this is an incredibly frustrating system to try deal with where i am punished for telling the truth. i was not even home the week this photo was uploaded, it occurred on december 26th and i was away for the entire holiday period so there is no possible way i could have consented to this fraudulent CC license. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A key problem we have here is that you keep changing your story and you keep making false claims about the licence releases your account has made (and changed) on other websites.[2][3] While our guideline here is to assume good faith, we can't take all of your contradictory comments and actions as truthful, as that is an impossibility. If you had made an honest assertion to begin with and stuck to the one version of events, we would have looked into the situation and come to a conclusion. The more you try to change your story, the less trust people will have in you and the longer this will drag on as we try to work out what is true and false. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

im sorry but when did i EVER change my story?? my story is very simple. i did not grant the CC licenses and if it was done by my computer, it was done without my knowledge. that is what has happened. now everywhere i go im accused of lying and nobody is listening to me. these photos are ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. any CC licences you are digging up are incorrect, hence why i am telling you. there is nothing to revoke, i am not trying to revoke a CC licence, these licenses were never grante by the owner in the first place!

please see below, inaturalist has just recently recognised my copyright claim and deleted this specific photo and they have removed the fraudulent CC license! i am hoping wikimedia / wikipedia / whoeverpedia can find their way to a prompt solution with this info that other research based organisations are quite happily respecting my wishes about this flagrant theft of my intellectual property.

https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/115638245 VoidseekerNZ (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeating the question I asked at DR: Why is the user that flagged the image the same as the user who uploaded the image? Usually one doesn't make copyright claims against one's own uploads. On iNaturalist it was uploaded in 2021, so I don't think you're going to get us to believe that it was uploaded with that account without authorization and somehow the owner of that account didn't notice for two years. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously this request is an effort to revoke a free license, for reasons unknown. AFAIK Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. SV1XV (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can you please provide evidence that i ever granted a license for this image? i have stated EXPLICITLY that i have never given knowing consent of these images! if you have evidence that it was me who uploaded this photo to wikipedia than go ahead and prove it please, because these flagrant attacks on my character are uncalled for and i am close to making a post in the ANI noticeboard or something requesting mediation as these consistent allegations that i am acting in bad faith are extremely detrimental to this entire process. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I asked at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg: "@VoidseekerNZ: Have you discussed this matter with your son? Has he reached the age of majority?"[4] — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 09:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

im sorry but the last thing i want to do is start sharing more sensitive information about my family of all things VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a plainly ridiculous thread - you are clearly not operating in good faith, and other editors are under no obligation to accept at face value what are honestly nonsensical and constantly shifting explanations. Your account uploaded the image(s), but you don't seem willing to give a clear, thorough explanation of how it happened. The story has changed multiple times just in this one thread, and you seem to be trying to weaponize the site rules and guidelines to get your way. The editors in this thread have been clear, kind, and very helpful, and I don't think they deserve the vitriol you're throwing their way. 19h00s (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Your account uploaded the image(s), but you don't seem willing to give a clear, thorough explanation of how it happened. "

As stated multiple times, i am unable to give a clear or thorough explanation of how it happened. it happened without my consent and is a falsely created license. if i knew that it would solve a lot of problems.

"The story has changed multiple times just in this one thread,"

i never stated i knew the explanation. i offered hypotheticals to show that the assumption that i am the one who uploaded the image to Commons is based on unsound logic and lacks evidence.

for what it's worth, the only one currently throwing vitriol in this thread is you. i simply came here to seek request early on when i knew less about where to be posting things, and if wikipedia had a delete function i would have already deleted this thread. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can i please request a lock of this topic as i placed it in the wrong forum and it seems unproductive at this stage VoidseekerNZ (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great news[edit]

Works by AFP / Reuters are cc-by-sa-3.0: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Gandalfosaurus&ilshowall=1 C.Suthorn (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think these are OK. See REUTERS PICTURES LICENSE TERMS, linked from the EXIF data. Yann (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this comment is ironic. Borysk5 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Чехов А.П. Три сестры. Радиоспектакль МХАТ, 1947.opus[edit]

File is licensed pma 70+4 as per COM:Russia. Is performer’s copyright valid on Commons? If so, many actors there are died less than 70 years ago. What local policy one can find on this issue? --188.123.231.62 20:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In any case, this recording would still be protected in the US since it was still protected in Russia at the URAA date. Therefore, we should not host them here anyway. Felix QW (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]