Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

< Commons:Village pump
Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Shortcut: COM:VP/C · COM:VPC
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Commons discussion pages (index)

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


FULL DISCLOSURE-----good afternoon, i work for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and i had a question regarding the licenses that are required to upload photos onto Wikimedia Commons. i understand all media files need to be under a creative commons license that allows the free use of the photo. However i have run into trouble with the legal department in regards to the "remixing, editing, transforming" portion of the license. They are perfectly ok with the sharing of the photos across the various sister sites of Wikimedia however the last part is what is causing a concern. I looked at the creative commons website and noticed they have several licenses that allows the image to be shared freely but with some restrictions, i.e. remixing, editing,transforming. they include--- Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 CC BY-ND'& Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 CC BY-NC-ND. In the Upload Wizard these licenses are not available to select, is it safe to say that is due to the fact Wikimedia commons does not accept these license at all or am i able to add certain restrictions to the photos.

The purpose of this is we have updated photos of the new CEO ans building and want to ensure that the photos that are being used on WIkipedia articles are updated and correct and not outdated. thank you all for your time, my email is enabled so feel free to reach out. Thank you all again DaP87 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi DaP87. Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept any free licenses which place restrictions on either commercial or derivative use per Commons:Licensing. You can see which CC licenses Commons accepts at Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags.
In addition, although this is not really so much an issue with respect to Commons, you need to carefully read en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and en:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure if you intend to edit anything about your employer found on English Wikipedia on behalf of your employer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[Note: Posted edit by Marchjuly to strikethrough "free" per discussion below. -- 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)]
@DaP87: you can license them as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, that way derivatives are allowed but are required to be licensed with the same Creative Commons license. I don't know why exactly you want BY-NC-ND, if the goal is to stop 4chan from drawing silly moustaches on the face of your CEO the only solution is not to publish the photos, anywhere. No license or copyright restrictions will help against that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
you could also use a hybrid license like this example User:Fir0002/credits. -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Marchjuly and Alexis jazz in regards to the restrictions I feel they are worried that someone might edit the photo completely, and I understand that the only way to avoid that would be to not publish at all. I just wanted to make sure I explored every possible option out there before reporting back. In regards to editing pages directly that is not something I intended to do. I was going to use the Template:Request edit and propose some changes i.e. new updated photo. Also understanding that my request might not go through. I want to make sure I do everything correctly, thank you both for the insight and thank you Slowking4 § for the email. happy editing!! DaP87 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Slowking4, please stop recommending Fir0002's example licence template. It doesn't achieve what this user wants, and makes it more likely the image is unusable legally outside of Wikipedia, thus making it more likely to be used illegally. We should be encouraging users to embrace free content, not reminding anyone of the underhand tricks used by folk who never got free content, and ultimately left the project because of that. -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
i will advise GLAMs on all their options. it does exactly what they want: NC + wikipedia only, but it is too bizarre for many to believe. no incidents of illegal reuse, rather the copyfraud is on the CC-BY-SA. it is not underhanded, Fir200 was very forthright about what he was doing; it is the community here that permits licenses that are an assault on free culture. photographers leave not because they "do not get it", but because the toxic culture does not collaborate with content creators. if it is so underhanded, close the loophole. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@DaP87: do not follow Slowking4's advice. That license will cause you more problems than it'll solve. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@DaP87: If you upload content to Commons, even under the license Slowking4 is suggesting, it's going to be assumed that you are pretty much OK with others downloading and using the content. You can set terms that you expect others to comply with by licensing the content in a certain way, but that's about all you can do when you upload the file. Commons is not going to track down everyone who downloads the content and make sure they're abiding by the terms of its license; you or your company is going to have to do that and you pretty much only going to be able to do that after they've download it and used it in someway. Commons/Wikipedia might be able to police itself so to speak and remove any further re-uploads of your content which violate its licensing policy or the license you've added to the file; it's not, however, going to go searching for violations out in the real world or on other websites. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

" doesn't accept any free licenses which place restrictions on either commercial or derivative use " - Marchjuly

By definition this is incorrect, if have those restrictions it is not free.

You should read this: [1]

The only CC licenses that are free are cc-by and cc-by-sa only, see:[2] also to understand.

Double licenses also allow commercial uses and derivative work, different rules, but they allow.

All our images are free was defined here Commons:Licensing, but the only cc licenses accepted to be free was not defined by us, but for something bigger then us. The correct sentence would be:

"Wikimedia Commons only accepts free licenses, for that reason licenses with restrictions on either commercial or derivative are not accepted by themselves."

Peace -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I've corrected my original post accordingly. Thank you for catching that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@DaP87: If it would help you to persuade your colleagues, we can give you many examples of other bodies, in fields of work related to yours, who have made images available under an open licence - for example, Carl Zeiss Microscopy and the Wellcome Trust. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Siri replyEdit

Siri answers 'what is the gender of an angel?'.jpg

Please see File:Siri answers 'what is the gender of an angel?'.jpg. Do I need to obscure the "starburst" icon that precedes the word "knowledge"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it's Commons:De minimis, although it's a subjective area. Category:Siri is a mountain in Pakistan, by the way. --ghouston (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Common questionEdit

This is probably a common question. Sorry if I ask yet again. But, is a scan of a really old document copyrighted? Or, is it in the public domain like the original document? Can I upload a scan of an old document made by somebody else without asking permission? Thanks. SharkD  Talk  01:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The image is from here. The document itself is from 1913. SharkD  Talk  02:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
If the original document is public domain and the scan is a simple mechanical reproduction of it then the scan is also public domain, see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Smithsonian Libraries seems to be the ultimate source of the images. Can I upload the whole PDF? How do I display only one page of a PDF? SharkD  Talk  03:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You can upload the whole PDF (assuming that it is public domain), but if you want individual images for use on Wikipedia then these will need to be separated. You could probably do this with a PDF editor, but I would just copy-and-paste each image into an image editor: display the image on your computer, copy the displayed image (Alt-PrintScreen on Windows), paste it into an image editor such as Microsoft Paint, then crop and save the image. It helps to have big screen as you get a higher-resolution result. This is crude but it works. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe I will request single page selection as a new MediaWiki feature. SharkD  Talk  04:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
might want to go to internet archive, and upload to commons as multipage book on commons, IAuploader,[3] - oops, there you go File:Atlas of the Munsell color system.djvu. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
For more suggestions of how to extract images from PDF files (including how to do it losslessly), see Commons:Extracting images from PDF. --bjh21 (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Make a new copyright tagEdit

Can someone make a new copyright tag on the Seychelles News Agency? The licences are shown on here. The logo itself is PD-text. The pictures on the website are mainly used used to illustrate articles about Seychelles. Thanks.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I have uploaded several images from this source. As well are pictures of the Seychelles it is a useful source of portraits of visiting dignitaries. The applicable licence is shown under each photograph on this site. No new tags are needed, use the following:
  • Copyright All Rights Reserved / Copy, distribute, and display the copyrighted work - only if given permission by the author or agency. – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
  • Creative Commons 4.0
    • Attribution CC BY - use {{Cc-by-4.0}}
    • Attribution-ShareAlike CC BY-SA - use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}
    • Attribution-NoDerivs CC BY-ND – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
    • Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
    • Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
Please also copy the name of the photographer and tag uploads with {{LicenseReview}} to allow the licence to be recorded, in case it changes on the website.
Verbcatcher (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I checked the website. I agree with Verbcatcher. Great opportunity to get content from en:Seychelles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Canadian field naturalistEdit

Just verifying, this published by the Canadian field naturalist in 1998 is now open access, right? All the images used are okay for upload under CC-BY 4.0? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think so? Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you are confusing an open access journal and a free licence. Open access journals do not charge to read the papers published in them. Some of them may use some sort of a free licence. There are many that use non-free licences, or even do not claim any licence simply allowing allowing people to read those articles at this time. I looked at the paper and found no mention of any licencing terms and also was unable to find such on the website itself. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 18:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Image of commemorative coin from US Mint fair use?Edit

I would like to add images of the obverse and reverse images of the coin in question for the entry on the Booker T. Washington Memorial half dollar, but I'm having a hard time figuring out if the images on the US Mint website are fair use.

EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

EponineBunnyKickQueen, being legal U.S. tender and authorized in public law, I would assume that {{PD-USGov-money}} would apply. Even if it didn't, however, Commons does not accept fair use material. Huntster (t @ c) 21:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
No, PD-USGov licenses apply to works of the Federal government itself. They do not apply when a third-party transfers copyright to the federal government, as is the case with certain commemorative coins (see Commons:Currency#United_States and and indeed with this coin, whose author is Isaac Scott Hathaway, not a federal employee. There are also two copyrights: 1) the coin itself and 2) the photo thereof. Even if the coin were free (it isn't, at least by virtue of authorship - publication date and compliance with formalities may be relevant), the photograph isn't free (the US Mint has a unique structure, like the US Post Office, which is why you see "© 2018 United States Mint All Rights Reserved" on its page; you do not see such a notice on "typical" federal sites.) Эlcobbola talk 21:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Huntster and elcobbola. I've entered a photo request for the coin. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Elcobbola, as that's the case, I'd guess that the U.S. coin categories are probably packed with violations. This little corner of copyright is horribly tangled. Huntster (t @ c) 10:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Elcobbola, I'm unaware of any special exemption of PD-USGov to the US Mint. They are part of the Treasury Department, completely unlike the US Post Office. They most certainly have trademarks, and there are some special insignia-type laws around some of their stuff, but in general I don't believe their stuff is copyrighted (if done by employees, which are federal employees). They can own copyrights transferred to them, true, and many coin designs are just licensed, which may explain the copyright notice on their web page -- but at no point does their terms of use page claim copyrights over their own works. However, if that coin was put out in 1946, it would have also needed a copyright notice and, if it had that (doesn't look like it), a renewal. If the coin is PD due to lack of notice and/or renewal, and the photo was taken by a US Mint employee, it should be fine. The only problem I can think of is if there was a (published and renewed) original that the coin design is still derivative of. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand this comment. I never said the US Mint gets a "special exemption." I never said the US Mint "claim[s] copyright over their own works." I made no comment about trademarks. I explicitly noted "publication date and compliance with formalities may be relevant." Unique structure could perhaps have been better phrased as practice/warrant/circumstance--they deal commonly in works created non-federal entities and thus no work should be assumed to be federal by its mere appearance on a US Mint site ceteris paribus (thus the need to disclaim when other federal sites do not, and the mint agrees with me - "you should not assume anything on this Web site is necessarily in the public domain.") I very clearly began my comment with "PD-USGov licenses apply to works of the Federal government itself", which does not consider and would not change by structure; I, again, have no idea what you think you are responding to. Эlcobbola talk 19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You were comparing them to the US Post Office, who does own the copyright to works done by their employees, and the Mint, which does not -- I guess that was my immediate reaction. You also stated that the photograph portion of the copyright would also not be free, but presuming that was done by a mint employee, the photo should be PD-USGov. You explicitly said the photograph isn't free and gave as a reason the mint was like the post office in that regard, but there is no valid comparison on that score, I don't think. The only issue would be the copyright on the original design by Hathaway, which is indeed a potential issue, but that would appear to have not complied with formalities. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, like the post office in that "they deal commonly in works created non-federal entities and thus no work should be assumed to be federal by its mere appearance on [their] site". The US Mint says "you should not assume anything on this Web site is necessarily in the public domain" and has a general "All Rights Reserved" notice. Unless you have evidence the photo was taken by a federal employee, it is not free by our standards. Эlcobbola talk 20:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I would just disagree on that point then. I would have no problem making an assumption that the basic photos were done by their employees, and are OK. I would need some evidence that there was some special commission that would make them copyrightable. AS the notes to the law says, it can be assumed that, where a Government agency commissions a work for its own use merely as an alternative to having one of its own employees prepare the work, the right to secure a private copyright would be withheld. Photos like that would fall under that type of work, if not actually done by employees. The coin design would be where any issues could come in, but doubt that is a problem in this case due to formalities. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


It would be helpful to have additional input on this question at the Help Desk. Additionally, if allowed, should we consider creating a template specifically for colorization of public domain black and white images? GMGtalk 16:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The U.S. Copyright Office was reluctant to have any copyrights based on color choice. When it came to colorizing an entire film though, a court did rule that was copyrightable, but I believe they said they would not register a colorization copyright on just a few frames (which would presumably also mean a single image). However, I do wonder if something like that got into a court case -- judges may decide differently, depending on how it was done. Anything done by algorithm should not be a problem, but if done by hand, it would depend on country, and possibly be quite variable. I would probably tend to just upload the original black and white, unless we also have a license for the colorization. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Intel free pressEdit

Should all of these images be listed for deletion? They're just copies of images from news posts. Intel obviously doesn't hold the copyright to them all. Product shots, photos of screens, adverts etc.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The first one I looked at appears ok. File:Rhino home (14981417661).jpg is soured to, where it is licensed as CC BY-SA 2.0 (click on 'Some rights reserved'). The Flickr account is Intel Free Press, which appears to be controlled by Intel Corporation. This is supported by a link to the 'Intel Free Press' page at Can you identify any problematic files? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Lots of official product images, as part of news stories..
  1. File:Logitech Wireless Touch Keyboard K400.jpg
  2. File:Asus UX 31 Ultrabook PC.jpg
  3. File:IHome iDM12 Bluetooth Portlable Speaker System.jpg
  4. File:CM Storm Inferno Gaming Mouse.jpg.

--BevinKacon (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

These might be allowable as 'utilitarian objects' see COM:UA. I think we have to trust Intel's claim to ownership of the copyrights of these photographs, the issue is whether there are applicable copyrights on the pictured objects. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about pic from Open-i service of the National Library of MedicineEdit

Hello, am I permitted to upload that pic to WIKIMEDIA COMMONS?? You can see that there is a link in this page to a license. It's seems that they allow to share, even for commercial purposes, but I want to be sure. Thank you, מתן י (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the licence specified is allowed on Commons as Template:Cc-by-3.0. Thincat (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
But please when you uploading the file add {{LicenseReview}} below the license. -- Geagea (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

An American goes to Sweden..Edit

I got this question from another user and it left me slightly puzzled.

An American illustrator (1850-1951) creates some illustrations for a Swedish book by a Swedish book author (1858-1940) that was published in 1907. It is unknown if the illustrations were a work for hire, for the sake of argument, let's assume they weren't.

US copyright has expired (PD-1923), no question about that. The copyright for the text expired in 1940+71=2011. No question. The issue is the illustrator. Died in 1951, so if they had been Swedish the illustrations would clearly expire in 1951+71=2022. But they weren't, it was an American. But the book was Swedish.

Now, does Commons consider the source country to be Sweden? Would this Swedish copyright, if it exists, even be enforceable for the American heirs of the illustrator? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Country of origin is country of first publication, so that would be Sweden. Authors could absolutely publish works in other countries to get better/different protection. They would not be subject to the URAA (unless the author actually was living in Sweden), but that is moot here. Sweden would use 70pma, and any country using the rule of the shorter term would compare against Sweden's term. Work for hire is also moot. The illustrations can be uploaded to en-wiki as PD-1923, but not to Commons until 2022. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: thanks! Just out of curiosity: if they had been work for hire, would the copyright for the illustrations have expired in 2011? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Sweden has any different terms for work for hire do they? In general for the EU, it goes by the human author's lifetime, regardless of who owns the copyright. The text expired in 2011, and the illustrations will expire in 2022. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

can these images be uploaded to the commons?Edit

location of images:

By my reckoning these five illustrations are in public domain, but I would really appreciate a person knowledgeable in copyright confirming this. I cannot find a death date for Ms. Cohen.

The images are by illustrator Ellen Gertrude Cohen, created in 1891 and appear to be published in Britain in that year, but it is unclear of the publication. They are on a site that implies copyright, but they are not marked. May I upload all five images to the commons? If so, which tag? "in public domain in U.S."?

Thanks for taking a look. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: COM:WORSTCASE being an actually useful essay? Who knew! Try {{PD-old-assumed}} combined with {{PD-1923}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
freebmd gives a match for an Ellen Gertrude Cohen as born in December 1860 -- seems more likely than 1846. There is an erroneous birth date of 1876 out there as well. There are a number of death records for an Ellen Cohen, but hard to figure which is the correct one, if any of those are. There was one in 1899 and another in 1933, which would be the only real possibilities in the search results, though many records are missing and it's possible she died overseas anyways (or married and changed her name). This page claims it is a portrait by her done in 1934, but no idea if that date is correct -- most other "hits" stop in the early 1900s. Country of origin would be the UK, as that was a London newspaper or magazine. They are definitely PD in the US, as {{PD-1923}} (published more than 95 years ago). The UK is on the edge -- they are OK only if she died more than 70 years ago. That is likely for someone who was born in 1860, though not definite. The only tag you can use is {{PD-old-70}}, or maybe {{PD-old-assumed}}, and hope that is correct. There is a combined {{PD-old-70-1923}} tag. The question is if that is a significant doubt, or just an unlikely theoretical doubt, around the COM:PRP policy. It is not impossible that someone could nominate that for deletion, and I'm not sure how that would end up (would be a consensus call). We normally don't delete stuff more than 120 years old with unknown authors, but in this case, it is a known author. But may be worth it to upload, and see what people think. I would additionally use the {{PD-Art}} tag, since the source site is claiming copyright on the digital reproduction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thank you Alexis Jazz and Clindberg! Here's the article Ellen Gertrude Cohen. Best WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A question of copyright.Edit

Greetings. I would like to upload some historical content related to the Rhodesian regime, such as the badges of the of the Rhodesian Air Force. Everything prior to the UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) would naturally fall under British copyright law as Rhodesia was a British colony. But after UDI, Rhodesia was considered an illegal regime by the UK, the United Nations, and practically every country on the planet save one or two. And it was not a signatory to any international treaties, least of all any regarding copyright issues. So I am unsure if any works of the rebel government can be considered copyrighted, as practically the whole planet considered the regime and everything to do with it to be illegitimate. Am I understanding this correctly? Fry1989 eh? 01:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If the regime was illegitimate, then it was a private organization whose works are protected under British and Zimbabwe copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Not just illegitimate, but illegal. That is why I am confused. Are illegal organisations allowed to claim copyright? Fry1989 eh? 17:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, even illegal organisation can still be protected under the copyright laws. But this case seems to be a little more interesting and I cannot even make up an opinion on whether the copyright would apply in this case, precisely because this regime had no international copyright treaties. What is the current Zimbabwe law regarding this, does anybody know? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 21:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Did they repudiate any international copyright treaties? The treaties binding the pre-independence state arguably would still be binding to the post-independence state. It seems likely the Berne Convention continued to hold over Rhodesia, and that Rhodesia intended to uphold it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WIPO text of the Copyright Act of Zimbabwe, Sept. 2004. Repeals the 1967/1981 edition. Zimbabwe got its independence as a new nation in April 1980. Vysotsky (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess this means I would not be able to upload the images as intended. A shame. Fry1989 eh? 17:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Kishore Kumar imagesEdit

  1. File:Kishore Kumar dans Bhagam Bhag (1956).jpg
  2. File:Kishore Kumar in New Delhi (1956).jpg
  3. File:Kishore kumar.png

1 and 2 are from films released in India in 1956, so they are {{PD-India}}. What would the U.S. copyright status be? {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}? What about 3 in India and the U.S.? It seems unlikely that the photographer would have died over 60 years ago if it was published circa 1953–54. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Text copyvio?Edit

Is the texte on page Category:Olivio Kocsis-Cake a copyvio from, or is it an allowed copy? --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. Apparently there is no free licence for this text, so the verbatim copy was indeed a copyvio. I have no removed this from the category page. De728631 (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing license from derivative fileEdit

There is a image I've found, File:Thumbnail of "We are not" video.png, which is a screenshot taken from File:Wikipedia - FactsMatter2016.webm (licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0). The problem is that the uploader doesn't mention that it is a derivative file and licensed it as their own work. Should the file be nominated for deletion or can the license be modified in order to correct the license? EdTre (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Because this is a simple screenshot (a single frame from the video), no additional copyright exists apart from that of the makers of the video itself. As such the person who has created screenshot can claim own work as much as they want, but they have no legal right to do so. I would simply correct the licence in the description. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Using CC-BY-SA 2.0 image from

I'd like to use this image

on wikipedia article

It is licenced under CC-BY-SA 2.0 (as are all images on

Why I try to upload it I can choose

 The copyright holder published this work with the right Creative Commons license
   CC-BY-SA 2.5
   CC-BY-SA 3.0
   CC-BY-SA 4.0 


 The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license
   CC-BY-SA 2.0

Which should I choose? Why isn't CC-BY-SA 2.0 listed under the general case and only on the Flickr case?

Tantrie (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

In such cases when the licence isn't available I select anything and immediately change the licence template after upload. An example is here. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tantrie: There are many ways of doing this. If you want to use the Upload Wizard, select "Another reason not mentioned above" and enter {{geograph|5865313|Chris Fletcher}} (with the correct image ID and author) or {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} in the box. You can also follow the "Find out How to reuse this image link on the Geograph image page which leads you to a page at the bottom of which are two further methods of importing images to Commons, either using Geograph2Commons (which is very easy when it works) or copying and pasting into Special:Upload (which is what I usually resort to). --bjh21 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I created [4]. Tantrie (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC) copyright noticeEdit is the official website of the Iranian supreme leader which is available in multiple language versions. Footer of the English version reads "All Content by is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." However, this is the only indication of publication under a free license on the whole website. Other language versions (including two Persian portals: [5], [6]) have not mentioned a free release. A third Persian portal for teenagers reads "All rights reserved" [in Persian]. Other language versions do not appear to have any copyright notices.

Most images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons come from the Persian portal, for example File:Ali Khamenei meets with Emir of Kuwait Sabah Al-Ahmad 02.jpg (source: direct link, gallery link). Does the copyright notice on the English portal apply to the whole website or not? Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Technically the notice applies to the entire website (including the Persian Fersian language version) and legally the Creative Commons license is irrevocable, however it's so ambiguously placed that I personally wouldn't upload anything from that website. Have you tried contacting the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for clarification? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it is better to consult with fellow Wikimedians first and then contact the website if needed (because they probably do not bother responding).
Addendum: The footer reads All Content by <a href=""></a> is licensed under a <a href="">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Note how they have provided a link to rather than 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
If the copyright notice specifically includes "English." In the link then it doesn't apply to any other language version, simple as that. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
So we should only accept files from for now.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

PD-shape questionEdit

File:Concrete, Washington flag.svg is a not-quite-exact vector derivative of an image found here. Is the original flag design complex enough for copyright in the United States? clpo13(talk) 21:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow. They wen't full Liberia with that one didn't they? GMGtalk 21:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, needs more trees. clpo13(talk) 21:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow, this is the first website I couldn't retrieve due to the latest EU policy: "We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time." De728631 (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: Try accessing this archived link and complaining to your MEP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The archive link works for me. Now, how to contact this MEP dude... De728631 (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you should contact the website that insists on using cookies in a way that conflicts with GDPR, or perhaps cannot be bothered to work out whether they are actually in conflict with GDPR. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: Such contact might have to involve leaving Europe or using a proxy (I would not advise either).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can use images from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but I want to make sure...Edit

The IPCC is a hybrid entity, although under the umbrella of the United Nations. From the organization's website:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the international body for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The IPCC produces the world's most authoritative international report on climate change (global warming) which includes some well-designed, informative graphics. I had hoped to upload some of those graphs and charts, e.g., Slide #5 from Fifth Assessment Report - Synthesis Report - a SlideShare presentation IPCC published to accompany Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Citation:

IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

But the IPCC intellectual property statement seems to preclude uploading any IPPC image to Wikimedia Commons:

Unless otherwise stated, the information available on this website, including text, logos, graphics, maps, images, audio clips and electronic downloads is the property of the IPCC and is protected by intellectual property laws.

You may freely download and copy the material contained on this website for your personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell, redistribute, compile or create derivative works therefrom, subject to more specific restrictions that may apply to specific materials.

Reproduction of a limited number of figures or short excerpts of IPCC material is authorized free of charge and without formal written permission provided that the original source is properly acknowledged, with mention of the name of the report, the publisher and the numbering of the page(s) or the figure(s). Permission can only be granted to use the material exactly as it is in the report. Please be aware that figures cannot be altered in any way, including the full legend.

Reproduction of video files is authorized free of charge and without formal written permission provided that the original source is acknowledged.

For media use it is sufficient to cite the source while using the original graphic or figure. In line with established internet usage, any external website may provide a hyperlink to the IPCC website or to any of its pages without requesting permission.

For any other use, permission is required.

Is my understanding correct?

Many thanks - Markworthen (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Markworthen: Those terms are completely non-free, because they prohibit commercial use, redistribution, derivative works and "any other use" that's not explicitly allowed. However, data is not subject to copyright protection, so simple line charts, area graphs, scatter plots etc. may be uploaded as {{PD-ineligible}}. LX (talk, contribs) 08:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Markworthen (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

One user ID, three photographers?Edit

Various explanations are possible, one of them being that Maxwell, Ton and Faena are three names legitimately used by the single person who here goes under the name of PhotoFan76. But I must say that more obvious explanations [cough] raise the possibility of copyright infringement. What's the best way of investigating this kind of thing? -- Hoary (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that Brandon Maxwell, Tommy Ton and Sebastian Faena are different people, so they cannot all be PhotoFan76. Also suspicious is that the EXIF data shows these images come from different high-end digital cameras, and that our images are low resolution. There are strong reasons to suspect that the licenses attributed to these images are incorrect. They should be tagged with {{subst:npd}} (see Template:No permission since). Verbcatcher (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Hoary, Verbcatcher: ✓ Done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Cover of an old popular tech magazineEdit

An article of the Russian Wikipedia ru:Техника — молодёжи about old (since 1933) Soviet/Russian popular science/tech/SciFi magazine currently uses a FU cover image in its infobox. I indend to replace it (similarly to some other magazines) with the cover of the very first issue, considering it better complying the rules of FU. However for this specific case [10] I would like to ask, whether it may actually comply to PD-ineligible, PD-texlogo or similar free license, and be actually eligible to upload to the Commons. Tatewaki (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)