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.

Combining a Wikipedia screenshot with own photographEdit

As I want to show a comparison of German Wikipedia's main page in the desktop browser version and in the Wikipedia App, I created this image: File:Hauptseite 01 november 2017 desktop und app vergleich.jpg. It contains a screenshot of the desktop version and a photograph of my smartphone displaying the app. Not very good quality, granted, but it will do its job for the comparison. However, it took me much more time to think through and apply the correct licensing (I hope) than creating and uploading this image. The browser and phone screenshots contain a total of five embedded pictures (two of them are the same one), two of them are not PD and require separate attribution in derivative works, e.g. File:A selection of cucurbits from Alkmaar, The Netherlands 05.jpg. I found {{Pictures in Wikimedia screenshots}} and tried to use that for attribution; however, the template is not very sophisticated and doesn't allow actual inclusion of individual licensing templates (I would have liked to use the full {{PD-scan|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1925}} from File:Illustration Bryonia alba0.jpg, but the template only allows for simple text in the "license" parameter). I also added {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} as well as {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} for the part containing my photograph of a mobile phone resp. my derivative work as a whole (I would have no problem with licensing my contribution to this "work" as PD, as there is very little creativity on my side involved, but I think this could lead to confusion). Well, what do you think of the result? Sufficient? Suggestions for improvements are welcome. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

All those photos are Commons:De Minimis - they are small and unimportant as any photos can used instead of them. So, I think that you do not need attribute specifically all photos. Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not quite sure - after all, part of the point of the comparison (in German Wikipedia's Kurier) is to show which exact photos were used (the manually selected pumpkin photo in the desktop version vs. the automatically selected first image from the article in the app version), so they're actually not replaceable for the purpose of this image. They're quite important. Therefore, I think it's better to attribute the photos. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
If you look at an example shown in Commons:De Minimis (a photo of an airliner cabin with some images on screens), you will find that your situations is practically the same. Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No, those d minimis photos were not the intended focus, and not included intentionally and had no way to be excleuded from the photos. In screeshots (and simialar photos), de minimis does not applly. De minimis is not a messurment of percentage of the overall image, but weiter o not they were intentionally included or not, and if the photo would be the same without them. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
That's how I see it, yes. The photo of the airliner cabin wouldn't be substantially different with other (or no) images on the screens, they're not what the photo "is about", so the screen images are de minimis. In my Wikipedia screenshot, however, the images are part of what the screenshot "is about" (they're part of the very reason I took the screenshot), so they can't be de minimis. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This does not make any sense. The photo in the screenshot is random and replaceable with any other image. And what this photo shows is irrelevant. Ruslik (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
No, it isn't (in this case). As soon as you specifically want to show a particular part of an image (with a photo or a screenshot), that part can no longer be de minimis. The pumpkin photo in the screnshot is relevant in a discussion about differences of the main page layout in desktop view (with the manually chosen photo for the featured article) and in app view (with the automatically chosen first image from the article). So, the photo isn't "random and replaceable with any other image" at all for this purpose of discussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Twitterbird Twitter bird logo copyright reviewEdit

twitterbird icon
eligible for copyright?

Here we have an upload of the Twitterbird. Does this image pass Commons:Threshold of originality, making it copyrighted art? Alternatively, does it meet {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-logo}}, making it public domain and eligible for upload into Wikimedia Commons along with the {{Trademark}} template?

I know that this bird has been deleted 100+ times, and maybe 1000+ times. Just the same, I would like to question its copyright status and how the Wikimedia Commons community determined it.

Previous discussionsEdit

Guidance from TwitterEdit

Twitter publishes usage guidelines for their trademarks on their website. They also present a text work which they call the "terms of use". I looked this over. In this text, I see some trademark guidelines but no mention of the copyright of the logo. There is a mention that Twitter has copyrighted works in the ToS, but that could be anything. In various Wikimedia Commons copyright discussions many people link to this trademark guidance from Twitter, but so far as I can tell, no one has pointed to anything in this text about copyright. Anyone could write them at trademarks‎-at-twitter‎.com for clarity. To date I am not aware that anyone has.

Summary of previous deletion rationalesEdit

  • Some users claim that the twitterbird image is beyond the the Commons:Threshold of originality and is therefore eligible for copyright. Wikimedia Commons cannot host this image until and unless Twitter grants a free copyright license.
  • Some users claim that the twitterbird image is not beyond the Commons:Threshold of originality and is therefore ineligible for copyright. Wikimedia Commons can host this image without permission from Twitter or anyone else because it is in the public domain.
  • Some users claim that Twitter's trademark guidelines prohibit misuse as a trademark. They go on to argue that Wikimedia Commons requires trademark release so we have to delete this. This is flatly incorrect - Wikimedia Commons judges copyright and not trademark. Commons will host content which is copyright compliant, regardless of trademark status.


The Apple logo is of similar complexity to the Twitter bird. The US Copyright Office has said that the Apple logo is too simple to qualify for copyright protection.
  • Keep, public domain, ineligible for copyright The bird is a simple geometric shape which conforms to {{PD-shape}}. The twitterbird is measured and designed like any logo would be, but copyright in the United States is a system for protecting creative works beyond a threshhold of originality and does not protect en:sweat of the brow for arrangements of simple geometric shapes. In 2016 the United States Copyright Office denied a copyright registration by Apple which sought to assert copyright over a variant of their "Apple" logo. In fact, the Apple "Apple" is too simple to qualify for copyright, and the Twitter bird is no more complicated than the apple is. Both Apple and Twitter made their logo by measuring shapes in about the same number of steps and I have the opinion that a copyright office ruling for the one is sufficient evidence to justify a Commons upload for the other, until and unless someone raises a justification to distinguish them as art.
Like all the online communication platforms, Twitter itself encourages anyone and everyone to republish and reuse their logo, and in all of their published guidance, they make no assertion of copyright for the twitterbird. It does not make sense to me that Twitter could simultaneously assert and defend copyright claims on this bird, while also aggressively encouraging the distribution and dissemination of the art on every website, while also not granting any copyright permission or license for reuse, while also making every organization in the world comfortable to republish the logo if anyone felt legally vulnerable about a copyright violation. I am unable to find proof anywhere that Twitter grants copyright permission to anyone to use this art. Twitter's active distribution of the art is not proof of public domain status but all this republishing is consistent with universal treatment of the logo being ineligible for copyright and all the users' presumption that they are not infringing copyright by using it without copyright permission or a copyright license from twitter.
I could be mistaken about any or all of this. Can anyone point to any evidence of a copyright claim from Twitter, like a US Copyright Office registration or Twitter's claim for the same? Is anyone aware of Twitter ever doing a DCMA or other takedown request for the copyright of its art? Is there some historic conversation in Wikimedia Commons which already went over this and established the copyright? Is there some reason why it is clear that the twitterbird passes threshhold of originality, or is this a matter of Wikimedia Commons amateur opinion? Commons amateurs are usually right, but just the same, I want to check in for opinions here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a good case study. My literal reading of {{PD-shape}} is that the Twitter logo and the Apple icon are more than a couple of simple geometric shapes, and a copyrightable creative work. However the Apple icon ruling does put a dent in our simplistic interpretation, so there is doubt over whether there is "significant doubt". However, this is a liminal case and there would have to be a set of good legal examples to shift the definition of PD-shape to include any silhouette style logo made of a series of non-simple geometric shapes or curves. Comparing the Apple icon to the Twitter logo, the only creative part of the Apple icon is the curves that are the top and bottom of the apple, those curves are not a regular polygon or simple cropped ellipses. However the Twitter logo is more complex, with a series cropped and intersected ellipses needed to reproduce the bird. Consequently precautionary principle leads us to stay on the side of caution and Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as the two cases are sufficiently different in nature to introduce doubt, and in the light of how recognizable the logo is, we have to consider it significant doubt. BTW, this thread is too long, and it would be a morning's hard work to read through the DRs listed as prior discussion. There's enough here to create a summary essay to inform the templates, even a very specific essay would be a good way of having one maintained place to keep the Commons cases and legal precedent together. It's not realistic to expect unpaid volunteers to keep going around this loop. -- (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I think Fæ says it well. I might argue from a human perspective, the apple is a simple "geometric" shape, much like the fleur-de-lis, but however you cut it, it's easy to argue that Apple's logo is on one side of the line and Twitter's the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete IMHO the bird is over the line, I can draw the apple logo without giant problems using MS Paint ;-) or even as a pencil sketch by hand. The Twitter bird takes a lot more effort. In addition, the apple logo is a logo made of two generic shapes, an apple and a segment of a circle. Twitter has many more shapes, more difficult shapes. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The Apple logo has a clear TOO-status since we have been given "words about it" from the USCO, the Twitter logo however is still open for interpretations, and my interpretation is that it is above that threshold. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The apple is not an inherently simple shape, however, a basic silhouette of an apple has been used for a long time, and the corporate version really isn't all that different other than the bite. So, you could argue that it is a minor variation on a basically standard shape. If you search on Google images, you will see a lot of results of the corporate logo, but you will also see regular common icons of an apple which are of a very similar style. The specific shape is obviously its own trademark, but copyright is harder. There is also a high probability it was published without a copyright notice before 1989. While bird silhouettes are common, they vary a lot more -- a similar search shows a lot different results, and you really can't call Twitter's a small variation a bunch of existing ones -- it pretty much stands on its own as a separate work to me. Much more complex, and many more lines unique to that specific drawing. Secondly, Twitter has four copyrights on "Twitter Bird Logo 1" through "Twitter Bird Logo 4". VA0001939828 (2009), VA0001950612 (2010), VA0001939830 (2010), and VA0001950611 (2012). Per this article, the logo here dates from 2012, and they had earlier variations. I would assume this is the Twitter Bird 4 and that the Copyright Office agreed that it is above the threshold, and accepted a registration for it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Resolved

I appreciate all the responses and am satisfied by the outcome of this discussion. There is agreement that twitter has a copyright for the twitterbird. Here are some points that stood out to me in the feedback:

  • Carl identified a US Copyright office registration for the art. To me, this is the most persuasive supporting evidence, because so far as I know, Commons has never argued against their judgement.
  • I like Carl's argument about the silhouette of an apple being more like other apple icons than the twitter bird is like other bird silhouettes. I find that argument persuasive. That argument seems to not be in the US Copyright office evaluation, even though it seems to me like a good argument for them to make.
  • Fae said that this could be a case study. I agree and perhaps someday this conversation can be part of that.
  • Prosfilaes and Hedwig both seem to say that the apple is obviously simpler and the twitter bird is obviously more complicated. I acknowledge that but based on the drawing procedures in the link that Carl and I both shared, I disagree, because the digital drawings of each appear to take about the same number of algorithmic steps. If threshold of originality could be measured by counting lines of code or steps in a procedure, I think these are the same. I can agree that by the standards of a human tracing an approximation, the apple seems simpler. I am not sure how I feel about making judgements based on steps versus human ability to describe.
  • Jonatan has been great to work on both this and the related project at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Screenshot-2017-10-28 MEO - Televisão, Internet, Telefone e Telemóvel.png.

Thanks everyone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not that the apple is obviously simpler; note that I compared it to the fleur-de-lis (e.g. File:Azulejos Portugueses - 123 (6970734985).jpg), which is not a simple shape, but one so standard that it's hard to sustain copyright based on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The Copyright Office says, among other things, that common symbols and shapes, such as a spade, club, heart, diamond, star, yin yang, or fleur de lys are not protectable. I would say the basic apple silhouette is at this point a "common symbol" even though it's not exactly a *simple* shape. The New Orleans Saints tried to copyright their logo -- a fleur de lys -- and that was rejected. My Google searches were to show how similar many different representations of an apple are, and if a particular graphic is just a "minor variation" of one of those, it may not be eligible for copyright. The Twitter bird though is much further from any common ground of a bird depiction, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Images From FlickrEdit

What images from Flickr can be added to Wikipedia. As I understand, Non-commercial no-derivatives copyright restrictions don't suffice. Despite it being released under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. To replace the file, would this image be appropriate Bob Collymore ICT authority The image was shared by ICT authority Kenya which is a governmental body in Kenya. It's licensed under Creative Commons by 2.0. The image marked for deletion due to the Non-commercial no-derivatives copyright is Bob Collymore Deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelost byte (talk • contribs) 07:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Thelost byte (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Flickr license for "Bob Collymore ICT authority" appears to be {{cc-by-2.0}} which is acceptable for Commons per COM:CC#by (Attribution), so it should be OK to upload as long as you are sure that the Flickr account holder and the person who holds the copyright on the photo are one and the same. Some Flickr users upload images whose copyright is actually held by someone else, so you need to be careful of Flickr washing. I've seen some instances where a Commons bot verifies a Flickr license as being OK, only for the file to be deleted per COM:DR because of Fickr washing. So, this is one thing you need to be aware of when it comes to Flickr. The Flickr account is under the name ICT Authority, but typically it is the person who actually takes the photo who holds the copyright on it. So, I'm not sure if that makes a difference when it comes to this particular photo. It might be sufficient to assume that someone working for ICT Authority took the photo, but further verification might also be needed per COM:OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Social Media Phone.jpgEdit

Is File:Social Media Phone.jpg acceptable as de minimis? Or can we host it at all? (note that the Facebook logo is too simple for copyright). -Animalparty (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, both the Instagram and the Twitter logo are above the threshold of originality (TOO) in the US and are not de minimis as showing these social media apps (including Facebook, which, as you mentioned, is below TOO) are the central focus of the photo and primary purpose of this file (as can be readily determined from the file name and description "Social Media"). I've nominated the file for deletion. —RP88 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Top 10 designer dresses at Miss World 2015.jpgEdit

This image (with the Beauty Crown LVKA water mark in bottom right) looks as suspect as all the other images that User:Sarangsarangsarang11 has uploaded this month: File:Duuchin Otgonjargal.jpg, File:Miss Tourism Queen International 2016 winner.jpg & File:Otgonjargal Davaasuren.jpg . With Beauty Crown LVKA being such a prolific publisher of Miss World images I can't find a match of previously published images there are just too many to search through. Any ideas, as this uploader's history of copyvios suggests a permanent ban this time around. For the curious... Sarangsarangsarang appears to be the English pronunciation of 사랑사랑사랑 ( Love, Love, Love) and a popular pseudonym, so we must be careful not to get him confused with anyone else. P.g.champion (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Yes, certainly not OK. User blocked: no useful edit, only copyvios. Files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Flickr PD photographEdit

I transferred File:Keaton Jennings batting for Durham CCC.jpg with flickr2commons as it was the only free image I could find anywhere to crop and help with this request: [1] at the en Graphics lab. I assumed it would be ok, since it appears to me to be the work of the Flickr user, and was marked PD. However, the review bot doesn't like that, and I'm not sure how to proceed.
Can an appropriate tag be applied, and if so, what (perhaps {{pd-author}} because on his Flickr user page he says "I love taking photos of varied subjects with my Nikon D3200m" which matches the EXIF, and he has tagged the image PD)? I have asked the Flickr user via Flickr mail if he would be prepared to add a CC license, but don't know when or if he will respond, so I'm looking for guidance on the assumption he may not respond. -- Begoon 23:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The text you are seeing in the license section is from {{Flickr-public domain mark}}, the result of past discussions on Commons regarding how deal to deal with images at Flickr that are identified with the Creative Commons "Public Domain Mark". Unlike CC0 or the other Creative Commons licenses, the Public Domain Mark is not a legal instrument; there is no accompanying legal code or agreement, and in of itself is not sufficient to release a modern work into the public domain (and in some jurisdictions this isn't actually possible). CC says of the PDM "It should only be used to label a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions around the world, typically very old works. It should not be used to attempt to change a work’s current status under copyright law, or affect any person’s rights in a work." In the situation where a Flickr user has erroneously indicated via Public Domain Mark that the copyright to their own modern work has expired, I've seen good success with asking them (either via mail or comment) to relicense the image with CC0 or some other CC license. It may help to point them to Flickr's "Manage your photos' licenses" page that explains how to change the license on a photo. —RP88 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, well as I mentioned, I've already asked them if they would be prepared to do that, so I'll wait for a response. -- Begoon 01:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Asking them to fix the license is probably the best you can do. Generally Commons has treated obviously modern Flickr files with a PDM as non-free if their license on Flickr isn't updated (and it wasn't PD for some other reason) although, if I recall correctly, exceptions have been made in the past. For example, Commons might keep such a file if the Flickr user was from a country that permitted authors to release works into the public domain (e.g, there is legal precent for this in the US, but may not be possible for authors in Germany, etc.) and there was evidence that the choice of PDM instead of CC0 was a misunderstanding on the part of the Flickr user (i.e. there was other evidence that the uploader intended to waive their copyright, perhaps by virtue of a public domain statement in their profile or file description). —RP88 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
the dictatorial reign continues. outsiders are astonished that a claim of "public domain" should be disparaged here. let the wiki'splaining continue. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't personally put it quite that way, but I will confess that it does seem a little silly to me that we deny ourselves the use of content such as this, where the author's intent is so clear. I haven't received a response to my request yet, so it looks like the file may be deleted and I'll be unable to help the editor looking for an article image, which is a shame. Never mind. -- Begoon 23:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
To me, if we are fairly sure the Flickr user is the author, a public domain mark is good enough. If someone puts on their website, "I place these in the public domain", we accept that -- so a statement like that must have legal effect. I don't see this as being all that different. Using CC-Zero is of course better, if they can be convinced to change to that, but I think the PD mark should be enough. It is basically {{PD-author}} to me. That tag should not be auto-transferrable by Flickr bots, as additional research should be done on anything marked that way, but PD-author should be a reasonable result of that research, to me. That Flickr author has several more shots taken with the same camera from the same angle in the stands, so I think it's fairly obvious they are the author and have rights to license it (or place in the public domain). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Carleton Ravens logo.svgEdit

Can this be accepted as {{PD-textlogo}}? It kinda looks like it might be either really close or above COM:TOO#Canada and it doesn't really look like a pure text logo at all with the raven imagery. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably yes as it is in USA. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Ruslik0, but en:Carleton University is a Canadian university; it's not located in the USA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
In terms of Canadian law, the logo does seem "non-obvious" and not "so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise".
Our TOO section on Canada looks like it was out of date. In 2014 it was defined explicitly in terms of "an exercise of skill and judgment. By skill, I mean the use of one’s knowledge, developed aptitude or practised ability in producing the work. By judgment, I mean the use of one’s capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion or evaluation by comparing different possible options in producing the work." IMO this would pass that threshold. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this file Rhododendrites. Do you think this should be further discussed at COM:DR or is it a candidate for speedy deletion per COM:FU? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: IMO probably DR, since it doesn't seem like an "obvious" judgment. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Maxresdefault.png - simple logo?Edit

Is this logo File:Maxresdefault.png simple enough to be tagged as PD? Otherwise it would probably need to be removed (the uploader is unlikely to be the copyright owner). It also needs a better filename, but I wanted to check the copyright first. GermanJoe (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It is stylized 'VTV8'. It is simple enough and is probably not copyrightable in USA. In Vietnam I do not know. Although the copyright law there should be similar to that of France. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi all, I'd like to restart a discussion on the template mentioned in the subject. There has been previous discussions on the topic in here (@Sgconlaw, Pere prlpz:) and here (@Martin H.:). Just to refresh its status, there was a change in the wording in the licensing conditions and it was decided that only images uploaded between 2007 May 26 and 2012 November 26 can be uploaded to commons. Nothing has changed in the meantime, but I'd like to provide again the current legal conditions in the site the template refers to (from here):

The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised. Images marked "Pool Moncloa" are freely accessible.
The reproduction of any content must take place under the following terms:
  • It is not permitted to distort the content of the information.
  • The user must cite the source and the date of the documents subject to reproduction.

These conditions were deemed as not compatible with Commons licensing policies. However, there are similar conditions that are being currently considered as valid. For instance, see {{attribution-gencat}}. In there, the conditions are pretty much the same:

The legal notice permits the reproduction, distribution and public communication of the work and, furthermore, the transformation of the work in order to make derived works, for everyone and without time limits, and provided that it does not contradict any license or notice that a work may hold. The following conditions must be followed:
  • Not distort the meaning of the information. (see moral rights)
  • Always quote the source of the information.
  • State the date of the latest update of the information

This template has been requested to be deleted (see here) and the result was, as you can see, Keep (on the ground that the "distortion" clause refers to moral rights).

Therefore, I'd like to get a new community opinion on the status of {{GobiernoEspaña}} as, to my understanding, the current licensing conditions are perfectly valid and therefore any image from the site, provided that it's been created by the Government of Spain, can be uploaded to commons under an attribution license. Thanks --Discasto talk 16:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say that is a free license. The "distort" clause is, as usual, referring to moral rights -- made clear in this case by the preceding clause which explicitly allows derivative works, so there can be no doubt here. It sounds like the 2012 decision was purely because commercial use was not explicitly mentioned, which I think is too high a standard. To be "free", commercial use must be allowed, of course. But there is nothing that says a license much mention that by name -- but rather, simply that the terms of the license allows it. They explicitly say "for everyone", which encompasses all users, anyways. Technically, a license that does not explicitly restrict by commercial use (or other user-based restriction) basically does allow commercial use, since they are not limiting the license. It's just that many informal license statements become problematic, because not everyone really thinks through the implications when they make such statements, and may not have really meant to allow such use (leading to problems). However, careful institutions where such language has been passed by lawyers would not make mistakes like that -- so in those cases, to me, if it appears like an unfettered license with no restrictions on commercial use or derivative works, then they are allowed. In this case, derivative works are explicitly allowed, and the license is also given to "everyone", which is more explicit than many, so I think it should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, if both governmental templates have the same conditions there is no reason to keep one as invalid. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@Cookie, Clindberg: Discussion hasn't been massive but, in fact, no opposition has been raised. I'll let the topic open for some days and, if no further discussion takes place, I'll refurbish the template and ask for restoration of images deleted on the grounds of no proper permission. As far as I understand, the template must be a variation of {{attribution}}, musn't it? --Discasto talk 09:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Template should have the exact language they give at the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


Is it safe to assume this is below c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom? The UK has a much lower TOO than the US which is why en:File:New Openreach Logo.jpg is only being treated as PD in the US for English Wikipedia. If the Commons version is OK, I can convert the licensing for the local file and tag it for a move to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be surprised to see an argument that this meets even the low threshold of originality set in the UK -- just some text in a basic font. Assuming, however, that it does meet the threshold in the UK, but does in the US, I was under the impression that Commons would still host it with the obligatory tags/warnings. I hope someone better versed in TOO than I will clarify. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe Commons only accepts files which a clearly "free" in both their country of origin and the United States, which is probably why Wikipedia uses en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for some files uploaded locally. Again, I'm not sure whether the logo is PD in the UK, mainly because of the en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg example given in COM:TOO#United Kingdom, but there's no need for Wikipedia not to treat essentially the same logo the same way if it is. I'll also try asking about this at en:WP:MCQ or en:WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure a word mark in a standard font would not be copyrightable in the UK -- there was some online guidance to that effect at one point, but can't find it at the moment. The EDGE logo case specifically called out that the two Es had been specially modified for the logo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 3.0 Spain licenseEdit

The owner of this site clearly wants to make the pictures on the site widely available for non-commercial use on most liberal terms explained on the link. At the bottom of the page we read "This work is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 3.0 Spain license." Is there any way that one can take advantage of this liberal permission and place a photo from this website into Wikipedia? What tag would I use? Jzsj (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons does not accept non-commercial or non-derivative CC licenses such as the one on that website per COM:CC. All files have to be uploaded under a license which allows unrestrictive use for any purpose, including commercial or for derivatives. It might be possible to upload the file locally to one of the various Wikipedias per COM:FAIR#"Fair use" allowed on some Wikimedia projects, but not all Wikipedias accept non-free content and those that do tend to have quite restrictive policies on how such content may be used. Information on English Wikipedia's policy on non-free content use can be found at en:WP:NFC and en:WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Lord Edmund Davies.jpgEdit

I suspect that File:Lord Edmund Davies.jpg is a copyright violation and that claimed author is not the photographer of the original image. This is a photograph of Lord Edmund Davies (1906-1992) that was probably taken in the 1960s. It has the look of a press photograph, although it is a photograph of a photographic print, not of a picture in a newspaper. It is the first upload of a new contributor and I cannot find the image online. Should we give the uploader the benefit of the doubt or nominate this for deletion? Or should this be handled in another way? (Alerting Rainich, the uploader) Verbcatcher (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If it is under the crown copyright, it may be in public domain now. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no indication that this is Crown Copyright, and this would contradict the uploader's claim. I am seeking guidance from the community on the threshold to be reached before a suspicious file should be nominated for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)