Open main menu

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.


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.

Pics Parque de la ciudadEdit

Could you please describe how can you evaluate the copyright of the pics that i´ve taken? I have all the original pictures and uploaded them one by one , added commnents, places where the attractions are installed and reference of each attraction as a way of document.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando.gabriel.rey (talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably should give us an example of a particular file that you want us to evaluate. Abzeronow (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Flickr CC license, but clear statement to the contraryEdit

I noticed File:Werribee Gorge State Park (24183086928).jpg, among a large number of other images from this same Flickr account. Though the images are tagged with CC-BY, the description has a very clear and very contradictory statement of copyright: "You are welcome to use this photo . please ask before you use. No part of this picture may be reproduced or transmitted in any from or by any means without prior permission. ... All rights reserved © by Travellers travel photobook". In a case like this, do we accept the CC license as valid? --B (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

On flickr, you have to make a deliberate effort to select the "CC-BY" option. Maybe the Flickr owner does not understand the implications of CC-BY, but that is his problem, not ours. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@B: changing the license on Flickr for all your photos is easy, but descriptions need to be updated one by one. So if the photographer decided some time after uploading to release their photos, they could have updated the license but leave the description like it is. Sometimes they explain this on their about page. Flickrmailed em.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@B, Ronhjones: got an answer: "Restrictions for commercial use. Thanks"
So now what? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Technically he has already released the images under "CC-BY", and that is irrevocable. The Flickr review bot has already approved the image. He can change the Flickr license if he wants, it makes no difference now. I don't see any reason not to keep the image. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones:@Alexis Jazz: I 100% agree that Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. But I created a Flickr account just now to see the interface for myself - here is the interface - - and the interface is noticeably lacking an anything resembling a legal code. When we post to Commons, there is a legal blurb right over the "Publish changes" button that explains the what the license means and posts a link to the legal code. But at flickr, it's kinda unclear if you don't already know what these things are and if someone at the same time they uploaded the image made a statement making it clear that they did not intend to publish it under this license, I'm not sure how solid of a foundation we would be under. --B (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
They obviously wanted to release the image under some CC license, otherwise (if I remember correctly) the default is "All Rights Reserved". Our whole basis for accepting a Flickr image mainly resolves around the Flicreview bot, which will only check the license showing, and cannot evaluate any extra text. If we start deciding that every flickr page needs reading first by a human, then there are a huge amount of flickr images that were bot passed and the text not read. If the Flickr owner did not check what the license means then we should point him/her to en:Ignorantia juris non excusat Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
With respect to the difficulty of bot-based evaluation, we have that problem for other things too - for example when people upload AP photos or photos they found somewhere on the internet and purport to license them. I think there are two completely separate cases that need to be considered separately: if someone decides after the fact that they didn't really mean it or they don't like it because Wikipedia is doing something they don't approve of or they realize how valuable their image is and don't want people using it for free, then our answer is "tough cookies". But if someone, at the time that it was uploaded here, very clearly and unambiguously stated that they did not intend to issue a license, as evidenced by the fact that our image description page spells out some things very contradictory to what the license says, then I think that should be treated differently. Whatever the flickr uploader thought they were doing, they obviously didn't intend to grant this license. --B (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Licensing terms are not laws, so Ignorantia juris non excusat is not really relevant. What is, however, established legal principle (and common decency and common sense) is that you cannot in good faith rely on an agreement if it is clear to you from the start that the other party has misunderstood the terms of the agreement, which it should be if they're making statements directly contradicting the supposed agreement. LX (talk, contribs) 19:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Well maybe someone should ask the flickr user? As an aside, here's something similar I found a while back Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ivan doan pilgrims 2016.jpg Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz did ask. You responded to the comment containing the quote from the Flickr user. Like six posts up. LX (talk, contribs) 09:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I meant ask them why the "CC-BY" is showing when they said "non-commercial" - do they realise what CC-BY stands for? Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The answer was clear enough, I told them to use some NC variant in the future. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Paintings by Thomas Worrall - how to record copyrights?Edit

Wikipedia-user RSJ123 has uploaded eight paintings of Thomas Worrall (1872-1957, so he died less than 70 years ago), see Category:Thomas Frederick Worrall. According to his own writings he is the owner and copyright holder of these pictures. What is the proper way to record this? (So that other people know this AND so that others know that other paintings of Thomas Worrall are -usualley- not allowed at Commons)? And should this recording take place in all eight files? JopkeB (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Thomas Frederick Worrall. Yann (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The uploader needs to clarify how they own the copyright. If he or she is an heir and inherited the copyright, they are fine -- using {{cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} is a common way to indicate that, though technically the "own" tag is correct as well. If they are paintings the uploader has simply bought, they likely do not own the copyright and cannot license them. So the situation should be explained a bit more. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing watermarks from Creative Commons works?Edit

BevinKacon tagged a bunch of photos with {{watermark}}). User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 asked BK about it. With the following in mind:

Should {{watermark}} even be allowed on Creative Commons 2.0 and 3.0 works? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, but doesn't this interpretation clash with the permission to make derivative works explicitly given by the license? After all, for example you might want to crop a part of the image that is relevant for your use case, and this might be a part outside of the area where the watermark is located? We don't accept "ND"-type licenses here, derivatives must be possible. Would one then have to re-add the watermark to the derivative work? Gestumblindi (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: Cropping just enough from the bottom to remove the watermark does not result in a derivative work (in the legal sense). It's an interesting thing to bring up though, because no crop is ever legally a derivative work (you can't claim copyright for your mad cropping skillz). But at least if you create a crop to show something that's relevant for your use case, the lost copyright notice is just collateral damage. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I might be inclined to contend that it could be a new, derivative work after all, if you crop something from a larger image that is totally incidental to that original image, but now becomes the main subject with a new focus and a new "message" of the image created through cropping, so to speak. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: not legally. "A derivative work is one which is not only based on a previous work, but which also contains sufficient new, creative content to entitle it to its own copyright." No matter my mad cropping skillz, I can't claim copyright over a crop. But if the copyright notice is merely collateral damage (the goal of the crop not being to get rid of it), its omission is arguably de minimis. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I wouldn't count on all judges in all countries agreeing with that Commons interpretation (which is based on the U.S. Copyright Act only, it seems), as the requirements for copyright protection and threshold of originality vary a lot around the world. Sometimes, very little creativity is seen as base enough for protection. On the other hand, I don't quite see why you'd invoke "de minimis" in such a case - that's about something completely different, it seems to me. After all, in such a case you would not incidentally include something that is protected by copyright, though not essential to your image, but on the contrary, take a part of the protected image and emphasize it. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: for DW, you can also read w:Derivative work. I highly doubt a crop will be eligible for its own copyright anywhere in the world. For DM, I linked the Wikipedia article. It's not a Commons thing. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: The Wikipedia article on DW is dealing mainly with U.S. law as well (lots of U.S. court references; has just small parts on Europe and Canada that aren't very enlightening). The "other alterations" in the Berne Convention wording doesn't necessarily exclude crops, anyway. With regard to DM, the Wikipedia article doesn't change my view; that is, I don't see how taking something from a copyrighted work to especially present that specific part could be claimed to be "de minimis". I think you're mistaken there. The copyright of the original work will remain (leaving aside the question of an additional copyright for a derivate work), and thus also the requirement to "keep intact all copyright notices", if it can be interpreted that way for watermarks at all. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see now what you mean - you think of a part of the original image that was de minimis there and therefore you'd contend that it wouldn't be protected by copyright if extracted? The result could be interesting: If we argue that the small part of image X isn't protected by copyright, because it's a small, incidental part, and if we also follow the view that the crop wouldn't create a new copyright, we would end up with a public domain image? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: that's an interesting idea but not what I meant. If you crop an apple from a photo that shows a variety of fruits and a copyright notice is lost in this process, it would be unintentional. Strictly it violates the license, but the law does not concern itself with trifles. If you weren't removing the notices on purpose but they just happen to be on a part of the work you didn't use, it's a trifle. Taken literally, I could put a copyright notice on every single page of a book with 100 pages and release the book as CC BY-SA 2.0. Now, if you want to incorporate just one paragraph in your own work, you'll also have to include 100 copyright notices. From what I can tell this is strictly correct, but unrealistic. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
What is the definition of "keep intact"? If you have a CC-licensed Word doc that uses the Times New Roman font for the entire document, including the copyright notice, and I change it to use the Verdana font for the entire document, including the copyright notice, I assume most of us would agree I am keeping intact the copyright notice. So what about if I move the copyright notice from the picture to two inches below the picture? Why is that not meet the definition of "keep intact"? Obviously, this requires that you actually do, in fact, include the copyright notice on the image description page - you can't merely crop it out and not replace it. But it would be hard to argue that moving the words "Copyright 2018, User:B" down and changing their font is not keeping them intact. --B (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@B: "keep intact" was never really defined. But moving a copyright notice to the description page likely doesn't keep it intact. It's far less visible and re-users are unlikely to copy the notice from the description page. Moving the notice into metadata or just reducing its visibility while keeping it readable would perhaps be enough to keep the notice "intact". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The failure of reusers to abide by the terms of the license is not our problem. If we "keep intact" the license, we have met the requirement. It doesn't say "keep intact with the same prominence it previously had". --B (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@B: If you download the image through the Wikipedia media viewer you won't even see the notice on the file description page. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Yet another reason that the Wikipedia media viewer should be turned off. --B (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

de:File:Flag African Union.svgEdit

The image subject is in several wikis (listed on the German page) as a non-free image. I was thinking it could be here as {{PD-textlogo}} and be much more useful. It's only a simple country outline with some stars. What do others think? Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It may be so. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Mynewsdesk (again) - Plea for checking EXIF-dataEdit

The problems with images from mynewsdesk has been up for discussion several times here on Commons (for example here and here), and now I just want to add a plea: Please, when checking an image from this site, just don't check if the image is published on mynewsdesk with CC-tag (that is not the problem here), but check if the uploader/responsible person on the mynewsdesk-post is the same as the copyrightholder in the EXIF-data. The problem with this site is that people not owning the copyright to images are making the uploads, thinking they are just posting a press release and does not realise that they are at the same time re-licensing someone elses copyrighted work (and when that happens the new license is null and void and those pictures should not be here). //Vätte (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Another problem is that the CC licenses on this website do not have any version number, so they are invalid. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Why is this not a "bad source" and why should we not delete all uploads sourced from it? -- (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Accrording to COM:PRP, all images where the camera data does not match the article authors name should be deleted from this source.-BevinKacon (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2, BevinKacon: Then the license review of images from Mynewsdesk seem to be failing :S And , I agree. //Vätte (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Apex High School.pngEdit

I think this is probably {{PD-textlogo}}, but I'm almost certain it's not the uploader's "own work" per Moreover, I think some of this uploader's other uploads need some review since it appears that he/she is misunderstanding the meaning of "own work" per this declined undeletion request. For example. File:Mdt Risk 180515.gif might possibly be {{PD-USGov}} or something if it comes from the en:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but it's certainly doesn't seem like "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Sanity checkEdit

Now, I know if I have an image of a purely 2D work that's PD, and I crop a modern image down to nothing but a faithful reproduction of the work, then I basically eliminate the intellectual property rights of the modern photographer, because I've taken out any bit that is an original contribution. But what about an engraving on a bracelet? Specifically, this image. It's not purely a 2D work, since it's a piece of jewelry. But I'm not totally sure that I can treat the engraving as a 2D work (the text) made on a 3D work (the bracelet). Thoughts? GMGtalk 15:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: an engraved or die-struck object, even if mostly flat (like a coin or medallion), is considered three-dimensional with respect to the copyright on photos because the appearance of the artwork is strongly conditioned by the choice of lighting & viewing angle. These are considered creative contributions on the photographer’s part, or at least an exercise of “skill and judgement” beyond mere mechanical reproduction.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Odysseus1479. That was kindof my intuition but I wasn't sure. GMGtalk 23:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Thanks for the link to a short but fascinating story! I really liked how putting the effort in to find the relatives of the woman who originally owned the bracelet led to an unexpected benefit for the people of the town, who were able for the first time to see what their atea looked like at the end of WWI. Thanks! —Geekdiva (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Files removedEdit

Everytime, i upload files which are not to be used for any for-profit activity whatsoever. It serves as an identification in the articles. What should i do? Any advice will be highly appreciated. The file in question is JKPSC.png Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Farooqahmadbhat:, thank you for attempting to contribute, however, you need to keep in mind that you can only contribute works that you are legally able to distribute. We cannot accept copyright violations regardless of their educational use. Most of the stuff that you find on the internet or on your computer that comes with installed software cannot actually be distributed to others. There are two types of content which can be distributed: The first is any work that has fallen into the public domain due to its age, most countries for most works have a rule of author's death + 50/70 years (if you are unsure about the date of death of the author, you can use the assumption that the person has lived for another 50 years after making a photo, painting, etc). The second type of work that we accept is a work that has been licenced by the copyright holder in such a way as to allow others four freedoms: freedom to use, freedom to distribute, freedom to modify, and freedom to distribute modified versions for any purpose including something that the author disagrees with or makes financial profit for the distributor; in addition to that the community has decided to ban at least one free licence already, because some people didn't like others using it (GFDL). Keep in mind that here I have summarised the whole situation only very briefly, to read and figure out more you can look at COM:Copyright, COM:L, and COM:Scope. If you have further questions, you are on the right page to ask more questsions. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)



I strongly doubt the uploader is really the copyright holder of this logo, so it shouldn't be labeled as such. I'm not sure if this file is even allowed on Commons, does it meet the threshold of originality or not? -- Spinal83 (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The textual part is below the TOO. However the graphical part may be problematic. What is not known is when the logo was designed. If it is very old, it may be out of copyright anyway. Ruslik (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I filed Commons:Deletion requests/File:01% 20Hooghoudt% 20Corporate% 20Logo-hr.png. Feel free to comment there. DMacks (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

My photograph uploaded against my wishesEdit

Portrait of Arthur Wellesley by John Hoppner. I took a photograph of this original oil painting. I have been alerted that it has been added to Wikimedia Commons in contravention of my copyright of the photograph which I took of this oil painting. I can prove that I took the photograph that appears on Wikimedia Commons. Why are my wishes as the photographer being over-ruled by the wishes of people who have taken my photo without my permission? I want this image removed. Thank you. Jane Branfield (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jane Branfield. The copyright for a painting belongs to the painter. If you take a picture or scan of a painting, that photograph is a faithful slavish reproduction, and does not create a separate copyright, unless it includes some other substantial original creative contribution that would be covered under applicable laws. File:Arthur Wellesley by John Hoppner.jpg reproduces only the painting, and no other original creative contributions on the part the photographer, and so the photographer would not retain any intellectual property rights to dictate how the image is used, because their image is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from any other equally non-creative photograph or scan of the same image. GMGtalk 18:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
and older version here File:Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley KG CCB GCH CoR 1st Duke of Wellington2.jpg this case lacks a source link, which has rotted. and the tote bags and iphone cases are for sale. not a flattering fact pattern. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Huh? GMGtalk 17:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nazi plunderEdit

We have this situation, described in detail in the category discussion here Category talk:Photographs by Wilhelm Hlosta: In 1938, the photographer Wilhelm Hlosta took over the atelier of Max Schneider (of jewish descendence). Hlosta re-labelled Schneiders pictures to his name. Under Hlosta's authorship, the pictures are now in Austrian State Archive. From there, some already made their way into Wikimedia Commons, more will come, for sure. There was an article about this in 2011 (in German), but nothing happened since then. Can Wikimedia do something about it? --Usteinhoff (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Usteinhoff, if a court has questioned the photographer, you can add a note to Category:Photographs by Wilhelm Hlosta (if it applies to all) and the Photographer field of each file.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
This might be relevant to this DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:WilhelmStekel.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
No, it was not a court. We have to use common sense. Schneider was officially appointed to make photos of members of the medical faculty. Some of them are dated at the early 1920ies. Hlosta was then younger than 20. Even if Hlosta is today listed as the author, this cannot be true. My question is: Will Wikimedia repeat Nazi plunder, because it is not cleaned in the outside world? --Usteinhoff (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Return of copyrights seems not to have been covered by the Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany article, was it in fact covered by the agreement? I think it should have been covered by both.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G., this is about Austria. Not covered by the agreement. --Usteinhoff (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Adolf Hittler's grave (sic) in a Romanian newspaperEdit

I found this scan of an old Romanian newspaper 📰 from a Japanese website but haven't been able to pin down the moment this was published, when do newspapers published in Romania enter the public domain? Although Adolf Hittler died on October 26th, 1892 in Bucharest this newspaper article is significantly newer. Is there an online database where I can date Romanian and Moldovan newspapers? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:PD-Romania - 50 years for newspaper. So if published in 1968 or older, it's PD Romania. With a translation, you could likely estimate the year.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"Please feel free to use my content..."Edit

This site has released its content with an informal license:

Please feel free to link to or use these loops, but I would appreciate if credit is given:
(Brian McNoldy, Univ. of Miami, Rosenstiel School).

Am I correct that this is insufficient for Wikimedia? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is insufficient. You could contact the author and ask him to release the material under CC-BY-SA (simply writing it and linking to the website of the Creative Commons license is sufficient). Skimel (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Questionable uploadsEdit

Yes check.svg Resolved

I don't have time at the moment, but can someone look into the uploads by User:Jhandoffer. They look pretty random, and all own work. But unless they're 118 years old, then something is wrong here. GMGtalk 19:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like User:Mifter has done the particulars. Much appreciated. GMGtalk 13:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

COM:HIRTLE, {{PD-traditional}}, and the Music Modernization ActEdit

Commons has a reproduction of Peter Hirtle's US copyright chart at COM:HIRTLE. As of this writing, Mr. Hirtle's actual chart has a note saying that it has not been updated with regard to the Music Modernization Act (MMA.) Even though it is probably not possible at this time to fully update the Commons page (especially if there is an interest in keeping the page consistent with the actual chart), it might be useful to add a similar note about the MMA to the Commons page near the top.

Speaking of the MMA, some of the information in the template {{PD-traditional}} regarding sound recordings and US copyright may be outdated.

For both COM:HIRTLE and {{PD-traditional}}, I opened topics on the relevant talk pages, but it seemed useful to subsequently mention the issue here as well. --Gazebo (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Urgent consensus requested! 400,000 edits! PD-1923 expires in a month!Edit

{{PD-1923}} becomes incorrect 1 January 2019! This template refers to United States copyright law and in less than a month, the year should either change to 1924 or more likely we should decide on a template name which does not reference a year and instead is perpetually applicable.

There are proposals at Commons_talk:Public_Domain_Day#Propose_rename_to_not_mention_a_year_-_template_problem. Comments requested there! That page links out to discussions elsewhere!

Note that this is about 400,000 templates! If anyone is willing to perform 400,000, this task requires that kind of support also as described in the technical section on that talk page!

Thanks to anyone who comments in any way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I've redirected {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-US-95}} to {{PD-1923}} for now. I'd oppose PD-old-95 because PD-old is already used for x years PMA. Also, don't forget:
400,000 edits is something I could do with VFC, but I'd rather not. And it's much more anyway. PD-old-100-1923 is good for a million all by itself. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I hope we can just redirect {{PD-1923}} to {{PD-US-expired}} (or whatever) rather than actually making 400,000 edits. Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Yep. It's why we use templates.
Neither am I convinced this needs a massive consensus process. Copyright terms are a technical issue and this change is unlikely to be seen as controversial enough to warrant a big proposal or big vote. If a handful of competent long term contributors talk out a sensible solution, it'll happen.
BTW, if it does mean 400,000 edits, this is a small script task, rather than VFC, we just need to specify it well. Not yet exclamation mark time. :-) -- (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This is not an urgent issue. Simply rename the templates, preferably changing the substring from 1923 to 95 or US-95. Then redirect the old template, and protect pages as needed. Please do not go and update each file with the new template name; this is obnoxious for users and unnecessary. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)