< Commons:Village pump
(Redirected from Village pump/Copyright)


Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


[edit]

Should files with restored copyright by the URAA speedied as copyvios? 2A02:A31B:20DD:6F80:4425:79F0:ED98:FDAA 12:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to have regular deletion discussions IMO, to give room for debate and time to check the several factors there are to be considered when it comes to URAA. --Rosenzweig τ 13:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, they shall be discussed carefully on whether to keep or delete. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello

I wanted to ask if it would be possible to upload pictures of Erika Szeles and Roza Shanina.

There are some of Shanina under Category:Roza Shanina, but my favorite picture of her is missing. The image (I love her smile in this photo). Author is unknown, unless one of you knows more. Would it be possible to upload it here using Template:PD-Russia-1996?

There are no images of Erika Szeles on Commons, but her photos went around the world in 1956. Image 1, Image 2, Image 3 (on the front page of a Danish weekly magazine). They were made 1956 by the Danish photographer Vagn Hansen. Unfortunately, there is no further information about the photographer here, including whether he is still alive or when he died. Would it be possible to upload it here using Template:PD-Denmark50?

Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A colored version of one of the photos of Szeles is on Ru Wiki[4], but it's marked as a copyrighted, non-free image.
Maybe you could upload a local version on the wiki where you want to use the photo instead of uploading it to Commons? Nakonana (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again.
@Alex Spade: Thank you for your detailed information. It's a shame that nothing more specific can be found about Shanina's photo. Regarding Szeles, the question remains how exactly one interprets the description "Note that "photographic works", which must display artistic merit or originality, enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer...". Personally, I do consider these photos to be original. Any other opinions?
@Nakonana: I know the colorized version from Szeles, and there are also colorized versions of Shanina's image, but they are derivative works. I didn't want to upload it for a specific wiki, but rather so that all language versions can benefit from it. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I do consider these photos to be original. Russia's threshold of originality is very low, so there's a high chance that the photo would be deemed original by a Russian court, too, and thus would qualify for copyright protection as outlined by the law. We would need to know who the photographer is and when they died to determine whether 70 years have passed since their death for the copyright protection to have expired. Without this information, we must assume that it's still protected per the precautionary principle. Nakonana (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the answers, I will refrain from any uploads. Regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Snippet video of live concert performance

[edit]

I wrote a featured article about a song some time ago. I'd like to upload a short video I took myself showing it being played as the encore of the group's 2025 world tour, to add to the 'live performances' section of the article. The video consists of about 25 seconds of the song being introduced as the final song, and then about 20 seconds of the song itself, basically just enough for it to be fully recognisable. It there any copyright restriction on uploading a short live-recording of a song that is obviously copyrighted? Obviously the audio quality in the crowd could never compete with the actual audio, and I deliberately only uploaded a portion of the song significantly less than 10% of the full-length. Can this theoretically be uploaded on a Creative Commons licence with myself being the author? And if not, could I upload it under non-free FUR? Thanks. I've never tried to upload video of anything before. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Wikipedia. I thought someone here might just happen to know the answer. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having poor quality audio and video does not give one a pass on copyrights. Even the first half of the video would have a copyright — not just the music and lyrics. So do not upload any part of the video. You have a derivative copyright on your video, but you need a free license from the performers. Glrx (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I appreciate it. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Damien Linnane should ask on Wikipedia first but I wonder if it could be uploaded there under fair use since it's going to be used in an article. I have no clue what their policy is for music or videos, but this would be an acceptable use case if it was an image. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that. FYI, the Wikipedia FUR policy for music is it's OK to upload a portion of a song as long as it's less than 10% of the song length, but I don't know if this also applies to video. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Robial's graphic creations and logos (2)

[edit]

Hello,

In the discussion page of the deletion request[5], I provided evidence and sources that these graphic creations are indeed protected by copyright, and that the criteria of "simplicity" or lack of "originality" cannot be retained, due to the sources highlighting that in 1984, they were considered avant-garde and particularly original. And at least, if Commons precautionary principle rules applies[6], these files has to be only uploaded on fr.wikipedia.org. Tisourcier (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may have been "avant-garde" for the area of logos, but ultimately it's just text and the font isn't particularly artistic or unusual. There have been court rulings that logos that consist of simple text are not copyrightable. The only thing I can think of that might justify a deletion based on the precautionary principle is that the logo is from a country where simple text logos are copyrighted and/or a country with a very low threshold of originality, so that even simple designs are copyrighted, for example a simple Black Square. Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category with movie props from 2001 - Space Odyssey

[edit]

I harbour the doubt that a lot of imagery in Category:2001: A Space Odyssey - film props and subcats is actually a copyvio when I'm going with Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Movie props, as space suits, spacecraft models and other things are most likely not utilitarian. Am I mistaken or not? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume things like cutlery and functional chairs are fine, whatever drove their design. The space suits are probably OK: I've never really heard of a U.S. case where anything this close to being clothing was deemed copyrightable. Models of spaceships might be problematic: if there's an issue, that would be the most likely. The images of HAL 9000 look awfully simple to be granted copyright: it's hard to imagine what could be copyrightable in File:Stanley Kubrick The Exhibition - TIFF - 2001 A Space Odyssey (15781843143).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 05:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube Channel Logos

[edit]

What are the rules on using channel logos for articles?

For context, I am attempting to use https://www.youtube.com/@kairikibear/, for a draft, and since other channels have their profile picture listed, or a photo of the person, I wanted to double check. Alex.Dybala (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex.Dybala: The logo there (if I'm looking at the right thing, the manga-ish image of a head) is way too complex and recent to even possibly be in the public domain. There is a small chance you could get the copyright-holder to license it. If you are thinking of getting it onto Commons (which I don't think is very likely), start by reading Commons:Uploading works by a third party.
Assuming you are talking about the English-language Wikipedia, what is much more likely is to get it directly into en-wiki on a non-free basis, and not involve Commons at all. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content and en:Wikipedia:Logos. NOTE that you cannot upload a non-free logo to use in a draft article. Get the article accepted in en-wiki first, then add the non-free logo. But that is all en-wiki stuff, and any further questions you have about that should be asked there. - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg

[edit]

Buenas, para los administradores, una pregunta es posible publicar logos,imágenes, etc. que fueron expirados bajo las leyes anteriores por ejemplo como este (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg) el logo de Acción Democrática en Venezuela fue expirado bajo la ley anterior (antes de que creara la URAA)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22: ¿En que año expiró? En 2006, según el enlace. Claro que 2006 es más tarde que 1996. En 1996, obtuvo derechos en el EEUU por medio de URAA; estos derechos duran 95 años, desde la creación del logo. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel:OK,como creo nuevo template en caso que que Parlamento creara nueva ley? AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Créeme, si el parlamento venezolano aprueba una nueva ley, alguien creará el template. Pero no le veo la relevancia: si el gobierno venezolano cambia la ley venezolano, eso no afectará los derechos de autor en Estados Unidos, y los últimos son el problema aquí. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

See my addition to COM:CRT/France for some context.

In a nutshell:

  • Before 1902, the French law only protected paintings, engravings, and other assorted literary and artistic works but not sculptures (and architecture).
  • Protections were 10 years p.m.a. in 1793–1866, extended to 50 years p.m.a. from 1866.
  • In 1902, the author's rights law extended this protection to sculptures, but also including architectural works despite not reflected in the amending law's title. The amending law only explicitly cited "sculptures" in its title and in the first paragraph but the amendment includes "les architectes, les statuaires". This implies the French law treats eligible buildings as equivalent to sculptures, since at most 1902 (so in France, buildings = sculptures, not utilitarian objects). At least, we know one aspect of French opposition to US or UK-style FoP rights: buildings are no different from sculptures in France.
  • The 1902 amendment seems non-retroactive (my hunch knly), so all French buildings and sculptures that aren't engravings finished before 1902 are public domain by default (perhaps?). Yet it may no longer be relevant, as it is most likely that the designers of all works made from 1902 and before are already dead for more than 50/70 years.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The EU copyright directive was fully retroactive so it does not matter much what the old laws were (unless possibly longer). They are at least 70pma regardless of what the old laws were. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg does that also mean any unprotected work (like, for example, pre-1902 French buildings and sculptures) becomes protected courtesy of the French law's compliance to the EU Copyright Directive? [Provided that the architects or artists aren't yet dead for more than 70 years.] JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It just takes one fully retroactive law to render all earlier ones mostly irrelevant. It could still have an effect on the URAA since that law did not happen until after the URAA in France, but that's moot for architecture since U.S. law doesn't protect pre-1990 buildings at all (and photos of architecture are not derivative works there anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I noticed a lot of Norwegian politicians lack their portraits on Wikipedia. Based on the Stortinget's official website "Portrettene kan lastes ned og benyttes fritt, men ikke til videresalg." which, when translated, means "The portraits can be downloaded and used freely, but not for resale."

Can the portraits from the website then be reuploaded to the Commons based on that statement?

Halikandry (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That notice isn’t enough for Commons. “Free use but not for resale” is a non-commercial restriction, which conflicts with Commons’ requirement that all files be usable for any purpose (including commercial) under a free license. Because Commons must allow downstream users to redistribute or relicense images (including for commercial projects), a “no resale” clause makes these portraits ineligible for Commons. You could:
  • Ask Stortinget for a fully free license (e.g. CC BY-SA 4.0) that permits any use, including commercial.
  • Host them on English Wikipedia under local fair-use or local-only licensing, if allowed (probably not in case they are still alive)
Until they are explicitly released under a free license compatible with Commons policy, they can’t be reuploaded here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Europe logos

[edit]

I've noticed that logos of the Council of Europe were uploaded locally, except those without lettering:

Former logo (1999-2013)

  • Former logo (1999-2013), no lettering
    Former logo (1999-2013), no lettering
  • Current logo
    Current logo
  • Current logo, no lettering
    Current logo, no lettering

Aren't they {{PD-simple}} or {{Textlogo}}/{{Trademarked}}?--Carnby (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing tag

[edit]

I have uploaded a copy of a Sanborn Insurance Map available from the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division, Sanborn Maps Collection. The LOC says "The content of the Library of Congress online Sanborn Maps Collection is in the public domain and is free to use and reuse." What is the appropriate tag/licensing to use? It is not PD-old, since the file happens to be from 1944. It is not PD-Gov, since the map was not made by the US government. What do I use? TwoScars (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any particular reason why maps published after 1 January 1930 should be in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LOC explicitly says all the material in the collection is PD. LOC (USCO) is the foremost authority alongside the courts on copyright in the US, I would trust their assessment. 19h00s (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TwoScars: Probably the same as the other files in the Sanborn maps categories, such as Category:1944 Sanborn maps, PD-US-no notice. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TwoScars and Asclepias: At random, I looked at File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Ashville, Pickaway County, Ohio, 1940, Plate 0001.jpg. The page claims {{PD-US-no notice}}, but that image has "COPYRIGHT 1941 BY THE SANBORN MAP COMPANY" in the upper right corner. The license claim is clearly false. Perhaps the map could use {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but I have not checked for a renewal. Glrx (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also ran File:Sanborn_Fire_Insurance_Map_from_Council_Grove,_Morris_County,_Kansas,_1944,_Plate_0001.jpg through Google OCR, which found the following strings:
  • COPYRIGHT 1937 BY THE SANBORN MAP COMPANY
  • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS
  • MAP MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM
  • WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE
  • SANBORN MAP COMPANY.
Glrx (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Not renewed" seems very likely, but someone needs to do the legwork.
Keep in mind, renewal cost time and money, and there is not a lot of market for a 26-year-old map when you have a new one to sell. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the LoC has done the research and only scans maps that have aged out or were not renewed. See
So post-1930 maps that were downloaded from the LoC should use {{PD-US-not renewed}}.
The LoC also states that some maps were renewed.
Glrx (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glrx: Very good observation. Apparently the copyright notice is on the first plate of each series. Given that thousands of Sanborn maps were mass uploaded by a bot specially performing that task, I had assumed that the copyright had been verified. It is also confusing that the Library of Congress does not provide the complete copyright information in the section for the Sanborn maps collection, where users are likely to look for that information, but instead provides it in the general section for fire insurance maps. Well, at least that last page at LoC says that the Sanborn maps on their site are either PD-US-expired or PD-US-not renewed, so no copyvios but possibly many pages to adjust (half a million files uploaded by the bot according to the bot operator ? [7]). -- Asclepias (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is discovered here should be added as a note to Category:Sanborn maps. DMacks (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing tags US for two old Italian photos (Romano and Orlando)

[edit]

Hello, I'd like to add a US licensing tag to the following two photos:

  1. File:Santi Romano.jpg
  2. File:Vittorio Emanuele Orlando.jpeg

If I understand COM:TAG United States correctly, Template:PD-1996 is the appropriate tag: in the source country (Italy), the photos were already in the public domain by 1996, as the 20-year term from creation had expired by then. Is this correct?

Also, the date listed for the second photo may be incorrect. If this information is accurate, it should be 1910 rather than 18 May 2016. Should I go ahead and correct it?

Thanks for your help. Gitz6666 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything published before 1930 is {{PD-US-expired}}. That is the preferred tag. Otherwise yes if PD-Italy applies, if it was taken before 1976 the PD-1996 is the one. PD-Italy is usually for snapshot-type photos though, not studio portraits. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gitz6666: And yes, if we know a date with reasonable confidence, correct it. Very often, we get dates of scans or uploads, not identified as such.
  • Also useful in this respect: things like {{other date|before|1930}} (which produces "before 1930
    date QS:P,+1930-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1326,+1930-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
    ") and {{other date|between|1900|1914}} (which produces "between 1900 and 1914
    date QS:P,+1950-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1319,+1900-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1914-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
    ").
Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanations. I'll apply the PD-US-expired tag to Orlando's photo, since it was published in 1910. As for Romano, I'll go for the PD-1996. I will also correct the date in Orlando's photo. Thanks, Gitz6666 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attribution vs Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses

[edit]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pope Leo XIV childhood home.jpg. What about simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. In particular, the license must meet the following conditions:

  • Republication and distribution must be allowed.
  • Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
  • Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
  • The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. @Bedivere: as closing admin.

And a general question to all users: doesn't this template contradict the COM:L policy? 92.243.181.223 07:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It gets into arguable details. "Used freely" is a difficult phrase, as in our case, "free" does not simply mean without cost, but is more about the "freedom" of the file itself -- to not be able to be put back under more restrictive copyright later on. See https://freedomdefined.org . Someone saying "freely" may very well have the first in mind, which is very different. But, "however you’d like" is worded differently -- that directly states any use at all, including republication and modification and distribution and commercial use (usually, commercial use must be explicitly restricted if you want to do that). The perpetual condition is more difficult -- whether a license is revocable by default or not when not explicitly mentioned has come up in some court cases. I believe the rule is that when there is consideration involved, i.e. money or something else coming back to the author, it is by default not revocable (this can differ based on country of course; I'm talking about the U.S.). And I believe that "credit" has been ruled to be consideration in some court cases, though not sure in reference to the revocable question. The {{BSD}} license, among others, do not mention revocability yet are some prime examples of free licenses. The problem with off-the-cuff licenses is that when parsed from a legal perspective, subtle differences in word choice can have large impacts, and they can be very arguable either way, so those come down to community consensus. The WTFPL is considered fine, for example. {{Attribution}} was one of the very early license tags here, and though we greatly prefer a more specific license, we continue to allow that. A custom license means it should get greater scrutiny -- the DR seems reasonable to discuss it. But if that was the exact wording of the license -- I can't see it at the source offhand -- I'm find with the outcome, too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's forget 'freely', that's not important. What about all those musts, which are not present at the source? 92.243.181.223 08:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a repeat of some concern at Template talk:Attribution only license#Disservice?. Ping also the participants of that thread: @Jean-Frédéric, Wittylama, Kaldari, Christoph Braun, McZusatz, Effeietsanders, KKoolstra, and Botev: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The situation in the DR is problematic. The creator of the file didn't use the wording in {{Attribution}} which I believe complies with COM:L (they probably never read that wording), instead they simply wrote "you may use it however you’d like with credit", which is the example of what not to do in COM:L#Acceptable licenses. I think there's a reasonable chance that they did not fully understand what it means for a file to be released freely by our definition (e.g. republication, derivative, commercial, perpetual, non-revocable).
{{Attribution}} should not be used when someone says "sure go ahead and use my file" - that's insufficient for us. It is appropriate for some other scenarios like those discussed in Template talk:Attribution only license#Disservice?, or if the releaser explicitly agrees to its wording. Consigned (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it more simply, I think the file is eligible for {{No permission since}}, in that it is missing evidence "the author agreed to license the file under the given license". I don't think the author's statement "you may use it however you’d like with credit" is equivalent to "anyone may use it for any purpose, including redistribution, derivatives, commercial, in perpetuity" stated in {{Attribution}}. Consigned (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What part exactly of "you may use it however you’d like" is supposed to be incompatible with "anyone may use it for any purpose"? Also, it was in response to the question "Would you be willing to release it using a Creative Commons license..", so this can also be said to be a permission for them to release it under a CC license.  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:999real, do you see clearly how many musts are missing in the response which you like so much? One of two things: either you are wrong, or you declare that Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses should be rewritten. --92.243.181.223 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "however you’d like" do you think does not include those areas?  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My eyesight must be damaged. If the policy requires that all this must be directly stated, it does not at all resemble that nothing needs to be written, everything is implied, as you claim. 92.243.181.223 14:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does not require them to be explicitly mentioned. Those conditions must be actually present -- that's not the same thing. The word "freely" in the example is critical, as that is a different word choice and can imply restrictions. If a license does not restrict commercial use, then commercial use is allowed. Similar with derivative works, though many seemingly simple word choices can actually imply restrictions. The revocable one is harder, though they explicitly require credit, which can be enough consideration to make it irrevocable by default. Each wording must be taken on its own, to see if there is any meaningful restrictions in the wording. You're usually looking for (possibly unintentional) restrictions on what can be done. Using "freely" and not using something "however you'd like" is muddier. It's hard to read any kind of restriction in that wording, so I'm fine with it. I'm sure there can be some arguments, but you can't just point to the lack of words "commercial" and "derivative works" -- you have to show why some of the required freedoms aren't there in the wording. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Clindberg, it is surprising that you manage to see in the policy what is not there and not to see what is clearly and unambiguously stated there. First of all, the word "freely" is definitely not stated as "critical", since it is accompanied by the words "or similar". Secondly, the words "must" are specifically highlighted in bold. Your statement is an amusing attempt to prove that black is white: to replace the thesis "Everything that is not explicitly permitted is prohibited" with the opposite one: "Everything that is not explicitly prohibited is permitted". Legally, such attempts are null and void. In fact, it is easy to show that whenever these conditions are mentioned in the DR, it ends in deletion:
92.243.181.223 05:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of those look correct to me -- those look to be materially different. You have to see what is allowed by the copyright owner. "however you'd like", unless the "you" was addressed to one person in particular, is not limiting anything at all. What would be a use of the picture which would not fall under the allowed scope of "however you'd like" ? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vice versa again. Instead of "You have to see (or to guess) what is allowed by the copyright owner" must be "The copyright holder must explicitly state what exactly is allowed" – that the policy is all about. 92.243.181.223 05:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct -- they must state what is allowed, and not. "Whatever you like" is precisely such an explicit statement, provided it is the general "you". Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one, the creator said "you may use it however you'd like", which is very different than "anyone may use it for any purpose". Consigned (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC). Adding: But even if they said "anyone may use it however they'd like", per the policy COM:L that would be insufficient: simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. Consigned (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't have someone specific in mind with the wording "you", i.e. it was addressed to anyone reading it, then no, it's not really different than "anyone". If it was addressed to one person in particular, then yes that is a problem.

Update that would probably clarify the issue: [8] --92.243.181.223 16:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asked so that we can be extra safe. I think the current attribution is just fine though Bedivere (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it different than the example that COM:L gives as being insufficient: simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient ..? -Consigned (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the photographer statement is actually sufficient. But as you point out it does conflict with the example given at COM:L. And then again, the attribution template seems to work fine for this particular image and many others which use it. As Carl points out above, I think the user statement that "I took this photo, you may use it however you’d like with credit" checks out the first three conditions, while the fourth (irrevocability) is probably dubious. So that's why I think the uploader would do a great service by asking the photographer if they can explicitly use a license. Pinging the uploader @Darth Stabro Bedivere (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not a problem of this particular image, but rather whether the templates {{Attribution}} and {{Copyrighted free use}} are within our policies or not. Bedivere (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! That's what I stated in the very first comment. 92.243.181.223 05:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can see in my response to Сarl that he proved absolutely nothing with his reasoning, rather, he demonstrated its legal inadequacy. 92.243.181.223 05:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bedivere, {{Attribution}} is essentially an outdated template, like those incomplete permissions that are forgiven for COM:Grandfathered old files out of respect for the history of WM Commons. I would call using it for current DRs an oversight on your part. 92.243.181.223 07:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem with {{Attribution}} itself. If I posted a photo on Twitter with the comment I allow anyone to use this photo for any purpose, provided that I (John Doe) am properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted then someone could upload it here and {{Attribution}} would be the perfect template to use. The problem with the tag is that it's being mis-used in cases where people did not post such a statement, instead they simply wrote the material may be used freely by anyone - if someone simply writes this, it's not appropriate to use a license tag that puts more words into their mouth. Consigned (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It's not clear how COM:SIG Japan applies to File:Signature Hisahito.png, but it's clear that this is almost certainly not the own-work of its uploader Spectra321578 unless the uploader is claiming to be en:Prince Hisahito of Akishino. If it's truly the uploader's own work and they're not Prince Hisahito, it seems that Commons shouldn't be hosting it because doing so would be considered misleading at the very least. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The signature is based on his name, what's not clear? This is my own work, why are you butting in? Spectra321578 (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a genuine trace of his signature or an artists recreation Cyberwolf (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
genuine of course Spectra321578 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a grey area imo they traced the signature or photographed the signature which makes them the creator of said image and content but content was originally by someone else so… Cyberwolf (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is no problem with considering it "free," but it should probably be described as a "traced signature" rather than just a "signature", and both authors should be acknowledged. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do it interestingly? Spectra321578 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An situtation

[edit]

So I play IRacing (a paid service) using the ARCA car (a paid add on) on which i created a custom livery myself

I then took a “screenshot” its a photo as defined in iracing and is referred to such in the hobbyist space “sim racing photography” where you manipulate a big set of controls (literally a photographers dream). I assume this goes under de minimus as the background is just racetrack un less NASCAR copyrights the track surface. The model is technically owned by Chevy but i painted over a lot of it Cyberwolf (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The model itself is copyrighted by whoever created it. Also, I would suggest that the rest of the software highly influences how you can take the photo (think lighting, camera angle, color distribution etc.), so the software authors would probably also have copyright in the created image. If this software is not free, I don't think it will be possible to release the image under a free license. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stock certificate? Police pass?

[edit]

Any thoughts on this stock certificate and this police pass, both of which are from the SoHo Memory Project. Do they fall below the Commons:Threshold of originality? RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both appear to be {{PD-US-No notice}} which does not require a judgement call near the edge of TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks. File:SWN Goldstein Press Passes.jpg and File:SWN Wollper stock shares.jpg RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Leo XIV video from Kanal13

[edit]

Hi, We have a copy at File:Newly elected Pope Leo XIV makes first appearance to crowd in St Peter's Square (Kanal 13).ogg, which has a free license at the source, and a number of screenshots. There are claims that part of the video is copied from Vatican News, which is (c) ARR. I think we should decide quickly if the license of Kanal13 is valid, as these files are used on many places. Thanks for your opinions, Yann (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Banknotes of Libya

[edit]

We have a lot of images of Libyan banknotes in Category:Banknotes of Libya. Many of them are incorrectly licensed under a free license. Some have {{PD-Libya}}, but that doesn't really seem to apply. Unfortunately, COM:CUR and COM:CRT/Libya do not have any guidance on Libyan banknotes. In the absence of further information, I would suggest to treat all of these as copyrighted non-free per COM:PCP. Any thoughts? Best regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One in {{PD-Libya}} is "It is a work created by a legal public or private entity and 30 years have passed since the year the work was created". This sounds similar to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iran#Currency where the copyright expires after 30 years  REAL 💬 ⬆   23:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of retired bishop Michael J. Bransfield

[edit]

The WP article on retired bishop Michael J. Bransfield has no photo of him, but an official photo published by the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston (West Virginia) formerly appeared on the website of the diocese

https://web.archive.org/web/20130327140711/http://www.dwc.org/

in the site's banner image.


It also appears in numerous news articles such as

https://wvpublic.org/bishop-bransfield-reacts-to-popes-message-of-a-throw-away-society/

https://x.com/usccb/status/1040194037054169088

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2019-07/pope-imposes-sanctions-on-us-bishop.html

https://www.laregione.ch/estero/estero/1391446/monsignor-bransfield-e-le-spese-folli

Is it possible that this photo (assumed to be professionally taken and non-free) may be suitable for use in Wikimedia Commons until such time as a free-use replacement may be obtained?

--

Alternatively, can this photo

https://flickr.com/photos/wvumc/8241713697/in/album-72157632165246906

which has a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license, be potentially usable?

Thank you for whatever guidance you can provide. Bistropha (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read Commons:Licensing; non-free files or files under restrictive licenses are never acceptable on Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bistropha: If you want this for the English-language Wikipedia, see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. If you want a better understanding of policy, guidelines, and processes for uploading third-party content on Commons, see Commons:Uploading works by a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not even on the English Wikipedia a fair-use photo of the bishop would be acceptable as they are still alive and a free photo could still surface. Bedivere (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all. I'll keep looking. Bistropha (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Can this Vulgate be uploaded here? RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Europe #2

[edit]

There are two vector version uploaded locally: former logo (1999-2013) and current logo. May I upload them here, specifying where they come from, with {{Euroflag}} and {{Trademarked}}?-- Carnby (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1031030268"