Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

< Commons:Village pump
Community portal
Help desk Village 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.

File:Chairman McWatters Official Headshot.jpgEdit

Is the quoted source part of the US Federal Government? This image was uploaded before (File:Lacey Crowley.jpg) and deleted (No OTRS permission for 30 days). Now uploaded by a "new" user. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

source National Credit Union Administration: "The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is the independent federal agency created by the United States Congress to regulate, charter, and supervise federal credit unions."
I don't see a problem. Are you sure File:Lacey Crowley.jpg is the same image? Who is Lacey Crowley? - Alexis Jazz 19:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
File:Lacey Crowley.jpg was not the same image. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry cut and paste picked up from wrong line, doh! File:J. Mark McWatters.jpg (Marking as possible copyvio because Not "Own work". Metadata shows Author as Steven Halperson Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
don't know why you would question a US government website. here is another one File:Fryzel300dpi.jpg. you realize we have thousands of head shots just like this one from the State Department? for example this one with no author, because transfer sucks File:Victoria Nuland State Department.jpg, and this one File:Gross-Powell.jpg with no source. they archive so poorly, it will be a long time before there is a CC or PD image of these living notable people. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The photo wasn't taken by a government employee, according to the exif data. It was taken by Steven Halperson of Tisara Photo. It is very probably a work for hire arrangement, but that doesn't make the photographer a government employee. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
work for hire = employee as opposed to contractor. you are speculating on who has the rights. (i.e. you do not know if they hired a contractor to come in one day, and also sign a release, and did not bother to change exif.) see also this one File:Jeffrey Zients official portrait.jpg "This photograph is provided by THE WHITE HOUSE as a courtesy and may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal" you really need to drop the "exif is true, and other metadata is false" line. these are all low risk items in use; the fact that the US government screws up the metadata is nothing new - are you here to provide encyclopedic content, or to delete things? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Slowking4, why are you being so aggressive and nasty about this? We're just discussing whether or not one image is properly licensed. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
you seem confused about what a work for hire is. we are discussing what your standard of practice is, or if you have one. we could spend our time deleting images with metadata problems, or we could work to improve that metadata, and mark the problems. to the extent you delete low risk items in use, you are harming the encyclopedic project. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Since I don't have the ability to delete anything, I guess I will continue "harming the encyclopedic project", then, with civil discussion about whether images are correctly licensed. I'm sure you'll keep doing whatever you think is best. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
never stopped deletion threats (or block threats) by others. why don't you upload one image? clearly by your edits, you are here to delete things. there is no civility enforcement on this website, but if you want to elevate this discussion, go for it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a big project and it needs people to volunteer in many areas. Some people will upload images, some people will look for copyright violations, some people will be nice, and a few will be insufferable assholes. We choose what we want to do. If I want to upload an image, I will, but if I don't, I'm still welcome to be here and work on whatever interests me. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
here would be your study guide -- Sean Illing, A Stanford psychologist on the art of avoiding assholes, Vox, September 26, 2017 Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chairman McWatters Official Headshot.jpg. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan Central Weather BureauEdit


Do we have a template for this? - Alexis Jazz 09:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: There is {{GWOIA}} which has exactly this licence text. You just need to add the url to the Weather Bureau's licence page and the institution's name. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: @Jcb: we have a problem here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
This template is not recognized by the system as a valid license. Newly created license templates must be reviewed and added to the list of accepted licenses by an administrator before they are used. Jcb (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: Would you please advice on the proper procedure to get a license template formally recognized? I did a search on "list of accepted licenses" in the Commons namespace but found nothing helpful. --Wcam (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Probably the best thing to do is to leave a request at COM:AN. Several admins are familiar with this specific process and I am not one of them. Jcb (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb, De728631, Alexis Jazz: I am a Taiwanese Wikimedian. I can confirm that GWOIA is a universal agreement in Taiwanese government, just like CC 3.0. You even can find the announcement in the Office of Taiwanese president website. I think it's enough to avoid delete those files.

By the way, there a similar file. Aotfs2013 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This is simply another case of {{Attribution}} so I suggest we add the that template to {{GWOIA}} to get an output as seen here. That said, Commons:License template validation has not been adopted as a guideline and Both Commons:Image copyright tags visual and Commons:Copyright tags have always been edited by non-admins. So I'd like to see the policy that requires approval of newly created license templates. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: how about Template:GWOIA/Sandbox? I think that would solve it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes that may work, but imo the boxes shouldn't be nested because you get a second frame for the "attribution" part. These individual template boxes are usually stacked instead. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: that's just a matter of preference. Stacking is also fine. Will you do that? If you do it can be tested and if it works as expected Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Please make GWOIA template a license template can be closed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the main Template:GWOIA accordingly and it works from a technical perspective. Now let's wait for approval at the admin board. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


I'm wondering if Commons can accept this as {{PD-textlogo}}. The file is sourced to JPG Unternehmen/Sky Signature.png, but the parent company of en:Sky Deutschland is the UK-based en:Sky plc, and the UK's threshold or orginality is quite low compared to some other countries; for example, English Wikipedia is treating essentially the same logo en:File:Sky plc logo.png as non-free. If Commons can accept this as PD, then it would seem to be able to also accept that non-free one on English Wikipedia as non-free as PD. This file is being used on quite a number of Wikipedia's other than English Wikipedia and some of these might allow COM:FAIR content to be uploaded like English Wikipedia does; so, if Commons cannot keep this, then perhaps it could be re-uploaded locally and used that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

File is being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sky-Logo2017.png so any new comments should probably be made there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Deprecate licenses that depend on but don't use death year?Edit

I know that to do that completely would be a nigh-impossible task, but maybe we could at least ban new files with bare PD-Old and the like? To take one moot example, File:Step by step greene.jpg can correctly be held as PD-US, but it was also uploaded with a PD-Old tag. Except there's no listed death date for the artist, and I can't find one on the web; even the Library of Congress lists him without birth and death dates. He could have died any time after 1919, with a slim chance he made it to the 21st century. We have files all over Commons in similar situations, where PD-Old is used but there's no reason to trust it. Can we demand that new uploads that use licenses that depend on death dates actually include a death date, instead of a handwave?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We need an exception for very old works. I don't think that we should demand a death year if the uploader states that the work was created or published more than 200 years ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I wrote COM:WORSTCASE about that. That isn't a policy suggestion, it just looks at when it's no longer physically possible for the author to not have been dead for a number of years. Some people use the debated {{PD-old-assumed}} template. I don't think 120 is enough.
I was just thinking of asking if {{PD-old-auto-1923}} and similar templates could be adjusted so they could also take a "before" deathyear. (instead of an "in" deathyear) I know I can use {{PD-old-70-1923}}, but a while ago I tagged a file {{PD-old-60-1923}} and that won't automatically change to 70 after a few years. Actually, it may make more sense to make the template accept a year of creation. - Alexis Jazz 23:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
PD-old-100 is a better tool for that than PD-old, and PD-old-assumed is clear about it being 120 years old. There's some magic bureaucracy that some people seem to claim that PD-old-assumed needs to go through, but it seems to be bureaucracy for the sake of avoiding the clear consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hardly bureaucracy, it's a question of completely missing policy changes and meaningful guidelines. Right now, the application of PD-old-assumed truly sucks and is as often used to justify hosting files which should be deleted as those which actually are over 120 years old. -- (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Your one example of that was on Wikimedia for seven years under a PD-old license before spending six months under a PD-old-assumed license. We host tons of files which should be deleted under other licenses; why should PD-old-assumed be any different?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stick to the facts. The number of images under the PD-old-assumed license has halved in a couple of months. That is because it is routinely applied incorrectly to images where the uploader cannot be bothered to do any checks whatsoever. Commons should not be hosting photographs just because they "look" old enough.
-- (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure we could run a bot that would replace the PD-old-assumed license with the PD-old license and go back to tagging PD-old-assumed items with PD-old. It wouldn't make these files any better tagged, but it'd end this argument. Right now, the application of PD-old truly sucks and is as often used to justify hosting files that should be deleted as those which are actually from authors who died more than 70 years ago.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Strangely enough it would be better. At least with PD-old, nobody believes it is adequate and everyone wants to use a better license. In comparison when an uploader slaps PD-old-assumed on a file, there is a presumption that it is probably valid, when in fact nobody actually knows how it can legally apply or not, as there are no meaningful guidelines or consensus on how it should be used. -- (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
yeah, we could actually research licenses and improve metadata, but no one trusts anyone, to actually do research, and put remainder in "unknown". everyone's perpetual arguing about bright lines creates the sub-optimal status quo. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


I'm not sure this should be licensed as "cc-by-sa-4.0" without OTRS verification. However, it might be OK as {{PD-textlogo}} since it seems fairly simple or even as {{PD-FLGov}} if the flag is the same one being discussed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably PD-FLGov, though it sounds like the uploader is the probably the person who prepared the graphic for the town, so it may not be completely false. Not sure that I would remove the existing tag, though adding PD-FLGov may make sense. I think it may be a bit above PD-textlogo. Technically, the exiting tag may need OTRS verification, though if the graphic of that size was not previously available, that may be enough to avoid. Not sure it's worth spending too much time on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Carl. I've added {{PD-FLGov}} per your suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Photos from Press Information Bureau (PIB)Edit

Hi, This is an issue that we have gone over in the past at an extensive un-deletion discussion here ([1]) and then a follow-up discussion I had on Magog the Ogre's talk page here ([2]). I did a quick search through this forum's archives and also found this ([3]) which was the most recent one. However, recently I came across this image File:Ram Nath Kovind 2017.jpg which was attributed to PIB. I have specific questions on this - (1) Are we now allowed to upload images released under PIB on Commons? (2) If I understand the wording correctly, now, can this be extended to Indian Government ministry websites? To be more specifc, can we now upload images from Indian Army and Indian Air Force? The only reason I ask is not bring anyone in trouble but to get a clarity on what current status of this issue is. Even in the past discussions we have different editors who had different views about this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: The discussion has been moved here now. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Adamgerber80: I don't think until we've a clear OTRS permission from the Army and the Air Force, we can upload these images. I say this because, images from these websites have always been an issue, and were ultimately deleted in most of the cases. However, now considering {{GODL-India}}, I think this is a good opportunity. But I am not one hundred percent confident about validity of the template. You might also want to look at the discussion on the template's talk page as well, issues were raised by editors in the past. So before extensively using this template, please have a community wide discussion (ideally a RfC), especially considering its potential usage; images from all Indian government websites is a pretty big lot. Pinging the template creator as well, @Jkadavoor: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 16:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Does this template at least mean that PIB images can be uploaded? I understand that Indian Air Force and Indian Army might require a longer discussion. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Yes; any data owned by the Goverment of India or its agencies (states, institutions, ministries, etc.) that are not confidential in nature are now free to reuse with modification and commercial use rights per the order of the parliament published in the Gazette of India. This overrides any previous reservations or rights granted. See Template:GODL-India and NDSAP for more details. Jee 02:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Adamgerber80: I am saying that there should be a discussion about the template itself in-general. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 04:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The template now has 63 transclusions only. But considering all the goverement departments, agencies and ministries, that is fairly a very large count of images, say 10,000 or may be more. So please have a community wide discussion about valid usage of the template, and arrive at a consensus. As the statement is not as clear as PD-US, I am advising this just to be on the safe side. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 04:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Link to the previous discussion in this board. Jee 14:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur with @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: that this does involve a huge amount of images and we before we embark on an endeavor to upload them. We need a community wide consensus on this. I am going to ping some editors who were involved in the past to see if we are all in agreement on this. @LX:, @Yann:, @Jameslwoodward:, @Clindberg:, @RP88:, @1989:, @Christian Ferrer: and @Elcobbola:. Thoughts on this? Is only PIB okay for now or can we extend this to others? Sorry for pinging a bunch of people. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Please a have a look at this. Also notified the Indian community mailing list, and other social media groups for better and increased participation. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 17:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the document at is an acceptable license for Commons. First, it is explicitly revocable, see section 7c. Commons requires an irrevocable license. Second, it applies only if the agency publishing the data has the right to do so. There is explicitly no warranty of that (see 4d). A user could, therefore, publish an image in a book, for example, and then find after the fact that it was a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Keep the content from the Indian government I interpret 7c to mean that the Indian Government may revoke a license if it mistakenly applied it. The circumstances that it names for revocation include if it has applied a license to a logo or personal information. It is true that Creative Commons licenses are supposed to be irrevocable, but in this digital age of mass uploads we at Wikimedia Commons have routinely removed licenses and content upon seeing plausible evidence that someone uploaded the content in error. In this section 7c it does not seem to me like the government is seeking to assert a right to change their minds or policies later, but just saying that they will clarify in case of error about some specific cases which usually should be obvious if any human reviews them. This entire text conflates trademark and copyright, which is typical enough, and this revocation right seems to want to protect trademarks, and not the copyrighted content which Wikimedia Commons collects.
I am not worried about the lack of warranty in 4d. This happens in lots of mass uploads, including collects of the United States Federal Government and many archives with high variability. My interpretation of this is that they intend for works by central government employees to be open content with open licenses, but sometimes these websites might include the work of non-governmental employees because not everyone who works for the government and publishes to the website understands open content. When that happens, the government copyright policy does not apply.
I will share a US government example. Before I do, note that my example is not perfect, and I am just describing a general situation. In the United States, the government requires that prescription drugs have a package insert giving instructions for using the drug. The US government has the public repository of these drug instructions and warnings. Any example of a en:medication package insert will look familiar to anyone in the United States or many other countries. Despite this information being a right for consumers to have, and despite the US government being the only official publisher and editor of this content, this information actually has pharma company copyright. A large amount of US federal government publications are like this.
Note - please do not look too hard. It seems like sentences and passages from all these research documents get copied around because protecting copyright is not a priority in these public documents, but I am sharing this more as an example of what happens than a solid case which is familiar to me.
Overall I think the intent of the Indian government is to provide open content and we can accept that. Maybe we need limits and review but there is something here, and it is not as if works of the US federal government which are even built into the Commons upload process are perfect. Commons has a standard and this Indian content might align with our expectations such as the US government imprecise copyright practices. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User:Bluerasberry; this is my understanding too. The only way a GODL license get revoked is the content was mistakenly licensed. This is applicable to any other licenses too. Jee 03:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Note the use of the words "permanent right to use the data" in the preamble. Note also the little contradictory sentence "...and for the duration of existence of such rights" in the section Permissible Use of Data. One can think this sentence has an aspect of something revocable that tells us if we withdraw our license you lose the rights accosted by the license, but one can also understand that the duration does not end as long as the conditions explicitly explained at the section 7 "Termination" are meet. And there is nothing in this section 7 that says the license could be revoked other than a failure to comply with the terms or than with the identification and discovery of licensed data (that should be) exempted from the license. To contradict a bit the analysis of Jim, if we compare to Wikimedia Commons, we could dare to make an analogy with the copyright violations deleted here, I mean when we identify/discover a copyright violation, the irrevocable license in the file page is no longer valid for the simple and first reason that this license was in the fact not applicable in first instance and we delete the file; In other words we delete an illegitimate publication of the file, I think they describe the exact same thing that we do with the copyvios here: when/if they identify/discover a data published under the said license, and if this data is listed the section 6 then the license is no longer applicable (should never have been applied) to this data. And there is no more warranty (section 4d) there for "liability for any errors or omissions", than there is here warranty that 100% of the Wikimedia Commons files are not copyright violations. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Is GODL is equivalent to CC0 ? I would like take data from site to commons. [4] . Is there any restriction that, Data:... .tab can be only CC0 in commons ? example:- York -- Naveenpf (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
GODL is an attribution license, similar to Open Government Licence. As attribution is needed, its not equivalent to CC0; but free enough for Commons. Jee 01:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Air Chief Marshal Pratap Chandra Lal.jpgEdit

File is described as photo of a portrait displayed in a museum. While the photo might be a simple mechanical reproduction and thus not eligible for copyright per Commons:2D copying, I'm not sure if the same can automatically be assumed for the portrait itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This work of art is not old, so we need the permission from the artist. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Yann. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Measuring instruments and other stuff surrounding a scan of an old bookEdit

I found this old dusty book 📖 from the Tokugawa Shogunate, however these scans were made with various other objects surrounding the book, could this still be considered to be "in the public domain"? Note 📝: I don't have the tools to cut the book out from the rest of "the clutter". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Upload mistakeEdit

Who can I remove a photo (File:Argyle location.jpg) that I uploaded by mistake? It is not my own work and I don't own the copyright.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanwill (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I've tagged it for deletion. Ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Kim JuhyunEdit

All files except File:대한민국 총리 고건 서울종합방재센터 방문70.JPG have EXIF/file description which says "누구인지 구별 가능한 특정 인물이 사진에 포함되어 있을 경우 사용 전에 서울특별시 소방재난본부 및 해당 인물의 승인을 받으셔야합니다. 감사합니다.". This translates to "If there is any personally identifiable person in the image, you have to (nb. more of 'must' nuance.) get a permission from "Seoul Metropolitan City Fire/Disaster response center" and the respective person's approval for usage". I'm not sure if this is an acceptable (copyright or non-copyright) restriction for Commons image. — regards, Revi 09:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • "personally identifiable person" matter is a Non-copyright restriction. According to the related page, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia, and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations." also, there is no problem in this case since the example image depicts the persons' normal business. Puramyun31 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Add {{Personality rights}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

File:DD News Logo 2015.jpgEdit

File is licensed under a "cc-by-sa-4.0" license which seems unlikely given that a variation of the logo used here and the fact that the uploader has a history of uploading content under incorrect licenses or without proper permission. The question, however, is whether it can be converted to {{PD-logo}} given that the country of origin appears to be India since COM:TOO#India seems to imply that in some older cases the UK's TOO is followed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Photo of Andor Z. Kún published 1920; cover of printing of notes 1918/19Edit

I would like to upload a photo (portrait of Andor Z. Kún) to illustrate my article about André von Kún. This photo was published in the Hungarian magazine Ország Vilag 26.9. 1920, page 39. The photographer was Rezsö Papp. It is not possible to determine when Rezsö Papp died. Is it possible to upload the photo?

Also I would like to upload the cover of a printing of notes from Kún (Op. 28 - Receruca -nóta, Szöveget irta: Kalman Tibor, Zeéjet szerzette: Zombori Kún Andor. Copyright by: Komédia Budapest 1919) Is that allowed? I have also a cover from a printing of notes from 1918 (Op. 13 - Béke induló (Andor Z. Kún). Musikverlag Kálmán Nádor, Budapest 1918.) Maybe this cover is allowed, because it is 100 years old?

Thank you for your help!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastenaci (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
It is in public domain in USA as {{PD-US-1923}}. I am not sure about Hungary and the copyright law that was in force in 1911. From this book it appears that according to the Copyright Act of 1884 in force at that time (and until 1970) the term of protection for photographs was only 5 years. Ruslik (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Being granted permission to upload all media by a deceased authorEdit

I would like to know if it's possible to be granted permission to upload all media by a deceased author via the usual OTRS. As in, an email is sent to the OTRS team that grants the permission to upload the media of an author under a CC license. In this case Ayik Umar Said. Aumars (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aumars: Yes, with the permission of the heir(s).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Cover of "Flights by Olga Tokarczuk".jpgEdit

Not sure if book covers can be uploaded? ALso if they can, I'm not sure what license this is. Please help. Thanks! ⇒ Lucie Person (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That particular book cover is {{PD-text}}, Lucie Person. This is not true for most book covers and most book covers with any graphics on it at all cannot be uploaded here. For this specific one, I have made the necessary changes on the file information page for you. --Majora (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Majora:, Thanks so much! I appreciate it! ⇒ Lucie Person (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Problem with FlickreviewR 2Edit

I have just uploaded three Flickr images using the Upload Wizard:

I initially failed to specify the source URLs, and FlickreviewR 2 added error messages to the file pages. So I added the Flickr URLs and restored the {{Flickrreview}} tags. FlickreviewR 2 has now passed the images, but says that the licenses do not match the cc-by-2.0 in the Flickr pages. But the licenses in the Commons file pages are {{cc-by-2.0}}. Is this a bug? Otherwise, what have I done wrong, and how can I fix it? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You had no licenses at all on the file information pages, Verbcatcher. The bot works off of what is on the file information page versus what is in Flickr. Nothing does not equal Cc-by-2.0. That's why the message says that. --Majora (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I had inadvertently deleted the {{cc-by-2.0}} when I removed the error message. But the current files look odd, FlickreviewR has added a license and contradictory message about 'the licence given above'. I will try again to clean it up by adding {{cc-by-2.0}} and {{Flickrreview}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Slovenia work for hireEdit

So I found 11 videos from a Vimeo user called Kinomotel (Special:Search/insource:"Kinomotel") and I was about to DR them since this is a work for hire for various companies but then I did some searching and found If you look at article 99 #3 you'll see the section in question (search for work for hire to make it easier, it is only mentioned once). Am I reading that right? If I was going by US rules then the work for hire would belong to the client but Slovenia apparently does the opposite? Unless specifically outlined in a contract. There doesn't seem to be anything about this in our copyright info on the country (which is much more in depth than many other sections already) so I wanted to double check with others here. Thoughts? --Majora (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)