Open main menu

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/06

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Copyright
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


File:Loeicity Official.png

The file is listed as {{FAL}}, but it seems to be the official logo being used by en:Loei City F.C. on the club's Facebook page and I don't see any indication there of a free license. Also, the uploader seems to have uploaded other files which were deleted as copyvios no permission, but I cannot see if these were also tagged as "Copyleft". Does this licensing seem correct? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to access the website at the file's source to see if they license their logo under FAL, but the result is DNS error. I tagged the logo as "no permission". Poké95 08:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Presidential portraits

I am writing a book about the presidents. I would like to include a portrait of each president.

For the first 14 presidents Wiki shows portraits that are copyright free. I am assuming I can use these portraits without any special tags or designations.

When it comes to James Buchanan (who was the president just before Lincoln and is rated by some historians as the worst US president) his portrait was in the public domain but required a US public domain tag. I am not sure what that is, how to display it and why for Buchanan and not the others.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Dave —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:04, 01 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the creators of material on Wikimedia sites provide legal advice. Finnusertop (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

US public domain tag

Could someone show me what the US public domian tag looks like.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 15:58, 2 June 2016‎ (UTC+1)
You mean this? {{PD-US}} --Magnus (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) There are many, depending on why the material is in the public domain. If it was produced by an employee of the US Federal Government in the performance of their duties, then one of the {{PD-USGov}}-related tags will apply (see Category:PD-USGov_license_tags). If it is PD due to its publication date, then please see Commons:Hirtle_chart for a breakdown of which tag to use. You may need to perform a copyright registration or renewal search, either on or . Storkk (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Containerpassagen basierend aus SAT und terrestrischen AIS Daten 03-2016.png

Hey there! The a.m. file was used in a de:wp-article. It is marked as "own work" but it seems to be a screenshot of FleetMon. Could someone check the copyright issue? Brgds, --SteKrueBe (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What could be copyrighted in this image? The depiction of the landmasses, assuming some kind of simplification? Or could it be taken as PD owing to a lack of creative work, as it is a software made depiction of factual and un-copyrightable data? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I was concerned because the FleetMon/JAKOTA Terms of use state (among other) that: JAKOTA grants you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable and non-sublicensable license for beneficial use of the Content accessible on the Site. Third parties have no right to redistribute, resell or in any other way transfer or display Content delivered through this Service to any other party. therefore I assumed that JAKOTA not readily allowed a Commons-use.
Assuming an image is in PD, would we still not publish it if it appears that it was illegally obtained from the image's author? This makes sense. Rybkovich (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
In between i was informed via E-Mail that the uploader is related to JAKOTA and i informed him that it would be good if he gets in contact with commons to solve this issue. Brgds, --SteKrueBe (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
This passage "Third parties have no right to redistribute, resell or in any other way transfer or display Content..." is in fact not compatible with Commons, so it would be helpful if the uploader confirmed the CC licence via OTRS. De728631 (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Welfare party of india logo.jpg

I don't think this file is "own work". Is it possile to convert to another free license or public domain? If it can be converted, the non-free version on en:File:Welfare party of india logo.jpg on English Wikipedia could likely be deteled. It looks like the source for the file was, but there's no specific mention that the flag imagery has been freely licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I tagged the file as "no permission". OTRS permission is needed from the copyright holder (not the uploader) of this file. Thanks, Poké95 00:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

File:" 15 - ITALY - Alfa Romeo Giulia QV bianca Museo Storico Alfa Romeo ad Arese 105 years of Alfa Romeo 03.jpg

The primary focus of this photo seems to be the Alfa Romeo logo, so I'm not sure this is a case of COM:DM. The photo can be freely licensed as "own work", but the Alfa Romeo logo is considered to be protected by copyright, isn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Similar to the above is File:Maserati Quattroporte Trident 001.jpg. Again the primary focus of this photo seems to be the Mazserati trident which is most likely a non-free logo, isn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
There is an entire Category:Alfa Romeo logos, and the snake and crown part of the logo is certainly original enough for copyright. So the question arises: who was the original designer and is the logo probably out of copyright due to old age? De728631 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
That said, the English Wikipedia is treating the Alfa logo as non-free fair use. De728631 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look De728631. I wasn't aware of that category, but many of the files in it also seem to be photos focusing on the logo itself. The English Wikipedia file, en:File:Alfa Romeo logo.png and the file's non-free use rationales says this version of the logo was introduced in 2015. en:Alfa Romeo#The badge says the badge was designed in 1910 by Romano Cattaneo, but en:Alfa Romeo#2015 redesign says a completely new logo was unveiled in 2015. Not sure if that information affects the licensing of any of the photos in the Commons category. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Meadow Park Freehold - RegisterPlanHD432453.pdf

I'm not sure if something like this is acceptable for Commons per COM:SCOPE. It's 5 page pdf file and the only reason it seems to have been uploaded is to try and use it in a naming/content dispute at en:Talk:Meadow Park (Borehamwood)#Incorrect use of Meadow Park Borehamwood. It appears to be a public document of some kind, so maybe it's PD or something; however, I doubt it's own work. Is something such as this OK for Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, this is not own work by the uploader, so I nominated it for deletion. It might be a British Government work, in which case the copyright expires 50 years after publication. I saw recent dates (from this century) in the PDF file, so I doubt that this was published more than 50 years ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a closer look Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Presidential Library Images

Are images, such as File:DIG13875MM 0256.jpg, that are taken for/published by a presidential library in the Public Domain as works of the US Gov, since the libraries are owned and run by the National Archives and Records Administration? Elisfkc (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I would expect that presidential library employees are federal employees, which would mean PD-USGov should apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Youtube video in a computer screen could be considered de minimis?

The copyright holder of the File:Michael Haephrati Desktop.jpg asked why the file was edited to hide the Youtube video (but the original files remains). therefore,

  • Could be considered the Youtube page as de minimis? (please see the first revision of the file). At least Geagea considered that it is not. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's quite small, but the image is of sufficiently high resolution to read the caption. Also, in my subjective opinion, it's the only really interesting thing in that photograph. Together with being in the centre of interest, as a dark rectangle in a bright rectangle, pretty much at the golden ratio, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the intended focus of the photograph. Therefore, I also wouldn't consider it de minimis. --rimshottalk 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

TOO question

Could the ear design on the left side of File:HHF logo small.jpg make it above COM:TOO? Before realizing it had been uploaded here, I uploaded it locally on enwiki under fair use (en:File:Hearing Health Foundation logo.png) because my personal policy is to always err on the side of fair use when I'm not 100% sure. Now that I realize it's been uploaded to both, I'd like to resolve it one way or another. If it's below TOO, we can upload the slightly better version on enwiki here and convert it to {{PD-textlogo}}. If it's below TOO, we'd need permission to keep it on Commons, or delete in in favor of the fair use file on enwiki. Thanks, Nick (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, almost certainly above TOO. The file here has a CC license but we'd need OTRS on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Tagged as a copyvio and subsequently deleted. Thanks for the input, Clindberg! Nick (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Nick (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Advising Utah Historical society on how to upload a photo

Hi, I'm advising the Utah Historical society on how to upload this photo to the commons. I've gone over the CC-BY-SA license so they know what they are getting into! They own the copyright of the scan and the photo, which was taken in 1943. Let's assume they're fine with making a 300dpi version of the file free for everyone on the commons. How should they indicate the copyright of a photo when they upload it (i.e., basically that they are publishing it under much laxer license and it's the original copyright holders)? Can they just mark "this file is my own work"? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC). I posted this question at the help desk too!

Since they have already published the photo, they should send an email as in COM:OTRS indicating their free licence of choice and that they're holding the copyright for this image. And {{{CC-by-SA-4.0}} is just fine in terms of a licence. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you De728631. Is there a way to confirm that an account comes from an institution, or would they have to send a separate COM:OTRS e-mail for every photo they upload? For one photo it might be easier for me to upload the photo and they can just fill out the release, but is there an advantage for me to push that they have their own Commons account? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
They should just send their permission for a bulk of images from an email coming from an adress associated with the Utah State Historical Society. Whoever uploads the images then is pretty much irrelevant once they tell us the file names or the titles of the works in question. I. e. once you have got their permission, you can upload all those images and mark each of them with {{OTRS pending}} and ask USHS to confirm the upload and free release. Of course the USHS is also welcome to create their own Wikimedia account(s), but for the sake of interoperability on the English Wikipedia they should then choose a username that is not just the name of their society but includes a personal element too, like "Jane Smith at USHS". De728631 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I already answered on another desk. I want just to repeat that I doubt that the Historical Society owns the copyright. It can plausibly own the copyright only in two case: (i) the photo was taken by the photographer hired by the society; (ii) the copyright was transferred to the society by the photo's author. In the latter case there should exist a written contract. Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
My understanding of copyright law is that it's possible to own the copyright to the scan of the image. I uploaded the image to the commons and I asked them to fill out the OTRS for it, but I'm guessing the copyright of the original image is in the public domain, since it was published in 1943 without a copyright statement (although I can't tell for sure since they don't include the back of the image online). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: US copyright depends on the date of first publication. If these old images were always kept in private collections and never published until the USHS acquired and did publish them, the society in fact became the copyright holder. A mere scan of an otherwise out-of-copyright photograph would not constitute a work of it's own though (see also {{PD-scan}}), and the image itself would be {{PD-US-no-notice}}. De728631 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
No, the fact of publication does not make the publisher the copyright holder. You misunderstand the copyright law. However it is true that scans of photos are not protected by any copyright separate from that of the original photo. Therefore it is clear that the Society is not the copyright holder and have no legal right to license these images.Ruslik (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
If the transfers happened prior to 1978, there are most definitely ways the copyright could have been transferred without a written contract. At that point, as unpublished works, common law would govern whether there was a transfer or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
But common law can say different things in different states, right? I note that w:Pushman v. New York Graphic Society, Inc. was a ruling by a state court, not by a federal court. Do we have a summary of the situation in different states? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
And this requires transfer of the negative, which I think is unlikely in this case. Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Flickr images - public domain

Hi, I apologize if this is in the wrong place,
I've uploaded this image which was released under a public domain license, Am I right in thinking that if the uploader doesn't provide a reason as to why it's under that licence then it should be deleted ?, and should I avoid uploading public domain images infuture (Unless the uploader states why) ?,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's more appropriate for a Flickr user to use the {{CC0}} license when they want their own work to be public domain. The public domain tag there is more for when it's other people's work is public domain (in which case you'd need to figure out why, and add the appropriate PD tag here). However, people do misuse the public domain tag on Flickr for their own stuff from time to time, and it's been a subject of argument here whether those are acceptable -- personally I think they should be fine when it's obvious the Flickr user is in fact the author (it's basically {{PD-author}} to me) but there have been arguments. We do not automatically accept the Flickr PD tag though since in most cases more research needs to be done manually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Clindberg - Ahhh right, Sorry I've never really understood the whole public domain thing, I wonder then if people actually mean to use {{CC0}} (or the others) but end up assuming PD is the correct one ?,
Oh right well I'll avoid those in future,
Thanks for your help - much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 16:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Font question from wikipedia

Question raised in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. How do we feel about these files? I think it could go either way. But if I had to choose i would go with PD. Vixen looks like spray painted simple text. It doesn't look like there is particular creativity to how the yellow shading was overlaid on the black. Even if the shading of the each letter was specifically designed and took some time to complete that does not equal copyright protected creativity, especially when in font. In Supergirl - there are two colors and the 3d effect is achieved through very slight gloss plus black color underline. Rybkovich (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The general rule in the United States seems to be that lettering is ineligible for copyright not because it isn't original enough but because it's lettering (and 'utilitarian' I suppose - it's meant to be read). Instead of asking whether the lettering is 'original' or 'non-original', the correct question seems to be whether there is something other than lettering in the logos. This document about File:D'ni Letters Vs Numerals.png contains some discussion about this, if I remember correctly. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The Supergirl one is probably OK. I'm not so sure on the other one -- it's lettering, but the question is if there is copyrightable expression separate from the shape of the letters. That one might be arguable if the spray paint effect was hand-tuned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense thanks Stefan2 and Clindberg Rybkovich (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

PD or CC?

There are a number of nice images in a series of perhaps 78 images, of which File:Karl Bodmer Travels in America (12).jpg is a representative example.

(As background, I came across them as part of en.Wikipedia cleanup of images to be deleted from en.Wikipedia, but that shouldn't affect my question.)

I see that the images are all licensed as pd because they were published circa 1839.

However, at the source of the images, it is stated that:

Bodmer's illustrations for the book, "Maximilian, Prince of Wied’s Travels in the Interior of North America, during the years 1832–1834" are all reproduced and available here for free download in four different sizes. The largest are all fairly high resolution jpeg's which have been cleaned up, straightened and edited from the original very high resolution tiff scans of the book.

The bottom of the page indicates that the items are licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0

My understanding is that per Corel, exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright, but derivative works can be.

One question is whether cleaned up, straightened and edited constitutes enough originality to qualify as derivative, and thus, the CC license should be included on the image.

Another question is whether we might be allowed to include the CC license, even if we could "get away" with declaring the editorial work trivial enough that we could treat the material as pd.

I think it is clear that someone went to some effort to make these images available, and it isn't much of a burden for us to use a CC license which merely declares that we and re-users must credit the individual who did much of the work.

Bottom line - should we leave these images licensed as pd, or change the license to CC-BY-SA-3.0 per the request of the provider?--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"isn't much of a burden for us to use a CC license which merely declares that we and re-users must credit the individual who did much of the work" No it is not so simple. We also must licence all derivative works as CC-BY-SA-3.0. It is what "SA" means. Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I know that. What am I missing? That's a requirement for someone who might wish to make a derivative work from this one. What's wrong with that?--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd argue we change the license. --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I actually do not think that merely clearing an image of noise and rectifying the misalignment, that appeared during the scanning, can be regarded as creative. Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The changes they made probably do not qualify as copyrightable, at least in the U.S. The Copyright Compendium lists as an example of what it will not register: Touching-up an aged or damaged photograph in order to restore it to its original condition, without adding an appreciable amount of authorship to the original image. (section 313.4(B) in Chapter 3, "De minimis authorship"). In this case, you could probably use {{PD-Scan}}. On the other hand... it's always possible that some country might respect the sweat of the brow more than the U.S., and call those changes copyrightable. In *that* case... the license is very valuable. So you probably want to have both; the way that copyright laws vary by country means that any sort of PD-ineligible tag is conditional based on country so having the CC license as a fallback is a good idea. I would never remove the CC license unless it's completely bogus (i.e. a direct copy from another source which doesn't have the license). People can get confused by having both a PD tag and a CC tag, but... that can still be accurate. The question is how to make that clear that this *might* be PD depending on where it is used, but in other cases it is CC-BY-SA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Tsar to Lenin

I'm trying to track down the copyright to some clips from en:Tsar to Lenin (video). This book says that the 1937 film was compiled from archival footage that the court considered in the public domain. My question is whether I can pull archival clips from the film (no audio, single scenes) and use them as public domain footage. Or is the footage somehow altered for its inclusion in the film? Alternatively, does anyone know how I can track down the original clips used in this film, which ostensibly would be in the public domain (pre-1920). czar 01:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The film itself was renewed in March 1965, so whatever copyrightable expression which was added by the film is still under US copyright until 2033. That would definitely include any narration, plus possibly the arrangement/sequencing of the clips. As for individual clips... sounds like they were taken from Russia or the Soviet Union. They were PD at the time in the US presumably due to lack of notice (and failing that, due to lack of copyright relations between the countries) though it may be possible that the copyright for some clips was restored more recently by the URAA. If the single clips are PD due to {{PD-Russia}} they are probably fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg, any ideas on how I could go about verifying the clip copyrights? It's archival footage (the difficult collection of which is responsible for the novelty of the film). czar 18:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright of books

I tagged File:உமார் கயாம் (புதினம்) நூலட்டை.jpg for deletion as a copyvio because it's a non-free book. However, the uploader Balajijagadesh mentioned on the talk page of the file that it is covered under File:Tamil-Nadu-Nationalized-Books-Public-Domain-Declaration-Tamil-Version.jpg. If it is indeed deemed to be a compatible license based on that notification from a university established by the state government then I'm happy to withdraw my deletion tag. The issue here is that en:Copyright law of India is a central/federal government subject and not even a concurrent one with the states. Given that is such a notification from a department of the state government usurping copyright valid for our purposes? How does this all play with URAA? I'm not arguing on this one way or the other, I would just like clarification as I have now found that there's more than just these two files that I've found. I'm pinging Dharmadhyaksha and Yann also as they work a lot on India related copyrights. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The English version of that letter is at File:Tamil-Nadu-Nationalized-Books-Public-Domain-Declaration.jpg. —SpacemanSpiff 03:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Also pinging Ravidreams who was the uploader of that document. —SpacemanSpiff 03:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I converted this to a regular DR instead. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the copyvio tag from the other file for now. There are lots of such books and pages on here, so I think a deeper discussion is required, not what I initially thought when I just found these two. —SpacemanSpiff 07:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for bringing this to the attention of Tamil Wikisource community members. We will get back with a response soon. --Ravi (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Football Club Goa.png

Is this logo really too simple for copyright? The design seems to be above the TOO to me and the file is non-free on English Wikipedia as en:File:Football Club Goa.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Which method for deleting single revision from image history?

A copyvio image was overwritten (new upload at same filename). Which link should I use to delete the infringing one from the file history? The [delete] and [change visibility] (RevDel) both have copyvio listed among their uses and pre-set reasons. DMacks (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think [change visibility] is preferable as you can hide the image itself while preserving the history record and upload summary. Ruslik (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Was eventually what made the most sense (for same reason) as I thought it through, too. DMacks (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer talk messages

Magog the Ogre posted a problem with copyright. But we have email giving us permission from the photographer. I enclosed it originally when I posted the photograph to the Commons. How do I send it again?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperless (talk • contribs) 16:01, June 12, 2016‎ (UTC)
I assume this is about File:Exterior Old Town Hall.jpg. External permissions should follow the COM:OTRS process, where the author themselves sends an email to a special address where a team will vet the permission. This process avoids typical pitfalls, some of which you have fallen into here. To be on Commons, files must be "free", that is usable by others outside of Wikipedia too, even in commercial contexts. We also need to allow derivative works. See Commons:Licensing. If someone gives permission for a file to just be on Wikipedia, that is not allowing others to use it too, and says nothing about derivative works, so the file is not "free" and we will delete it. (And technically, Wikimedia Commons is a different project than Wikipedia, so you could argue the upload to Wikimedia Commons is already violating that permission.) The email template is very explicit, so there is no misunderstanding on what rights are being provided -- it is clear to the author what rights they are being asked to relinquish, and it's clear to re-users the scope of what they are allowed to do. Some people may assume the author knows that "uploading to Wikipedia" also implies that others can use it too, but an author when granting that permission may have assumed otherwise. Such terms need to be explicit. In general, we need the author to agree to a particular license (preferable a Creative Commons license like CC-BY-SA or CC-BY), being aware of what those licenses entail, and not a vague statement. So... in this case we would need the author to send an email as specified by the COM:OTRS page. If they do not want to give a permissive license like that once they are aware of what it entails (which would be understandable), then the file should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Bergman photo

Noticed that en:Alan and Marilyn Bergman article lacks a photo and saw that this publicity photo on ebay for The Horse's Mouth, 1958, is decent. It shows the front and back w/o notice. Dealer states it is an "original." A copyright search found nothing. Also confirmed with all-knowing one who said "don't worry, be happy you found it. --Light show (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Vector logos

File:NFABD Brunei.png and File:South Africa Flor.png were uploaded as "own work", but they seem to be non-free logos. They are listed as vector versions which I think means they were re-created by the uploader using some kind of software. Isn't the original logo still protected by copyright? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It depends on when they were created and made public. Ruslik (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • These are PNGs, not vector files. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Photos of roller coasters in France

Hello. Does anyone know if those photos Tonnerre de Zeus, OzIris, Le Vol d'Icare get a copyright ?
They were deleted because there is no FoP in France1. But for some other files were kept, because roller coasters are utilitarian objects (which are not concerned by the copyright)2. Is there a fixed rule about that ? Brgds, -- Fʊɠỉtɾoŋ ‘‘talk’’, 15:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In france the norm for copyright protection is that a work has to be the "fruit of the creation of its author". Works that are exclusively utilitarian or functional are not protected by copyright law but calling a coaster "exclusively utilitarian" is a little bit far fetched imho. (source) Natuur12 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think so, Natuur12? A rollercoaster seems for me to be as utilitarian as some fancy clothing or cosplay costumes, all stuff being made to entertain people. The shape of such a machine is dictated by mechanical laws, so there's not much room for creativity when striving for a giving functionality... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Fancy clothing or cosplay costumes can also have a copyright of course and we often delete cosplay. Our section regarding com:TOO in France even lists a tablecloath as being protected by copyright. The designe of a coaster is always though. It shows many technical aspects but also a lot of creative aspects and there is a lot of room to make creative choises. Color, loopings, hight, where to make a turn etc. Natuur12 (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
See [1]: photos of two different chair models were infringing the copyright of the chair models. Therefore, it seems that no attention should be paid to any utilitarian purposes of the photographed objects when it comes to French copyright as this doesn't seem to affect whether the object is copyrighted or not.
I note that COM:FOP#France suggests that there is no copyright for buildings which are "part of a series". Is this outdated information? The copyrighted chairs are obviously "part of a series". --Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Muur van Mussert10.jpg and File:Muur van Mussert 13.1.jpg

File:Muur van Mussert10.jpg has been submitted on a Did You Know nomination, which means the image would be on Wikipedia's main page if used. We need to be really sure about the copyright issue. I'm unclear about the information provided under Source. File:Muur van Mussert 13.1.jpg is another image in that same article, uploaded by the same person. The author of the nomination is not the uploader of the images and really can't add information other than what is already there. Can you please help us clarify the copyright issues on these? Thanks. Maile66 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The first photo looks like it was taken from some pre-war propaganda publication. If the author died before 1945 or not known, it is in public domain in the Netherlands now. Ruslik (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Both tagged with "no source". Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Pulse Gay Flag Heart Logo - Blue Sky Logo.jpg authorship, copyright

The claim by @7cellardoor: that the jpg was his own work could be questioned, because the underlying artwork is pulse's own logo[2][3]. If the flag photo was also taken from somewhere else is hard to tell, but maybe the uploader really is both the logo designer and the flag photographer? --SI 20:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It may be that the uploader created this image by combining the logo and the image of the flag. In this case the image is a derivative work and can be considered an own work. However the copyright of the flag image and logo still requires separate licenses. Ruslik (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The original logo is too simple to get a copyright, so no issue here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Miss Universe photos.

I'm not sure about the licensing for the following files. Some seem too old and too professional looking to be "own work" and the date information for the others do not match up. Perhaps they are not copyright violations, but OTRS verification is probably needed at the very least, isn't it?

Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • File:Christiane-martel-sexy-foto-bn-mexico-anos-1950-herman MLM-F-69174029 8305.jpg seems to be a photo of a photo -- so it's a derivative work and there is no license for the original. But, may have just been lifted from here anyways. File date there is after upload here, but the filename seems to be specific to that site. If the photo is of U.S. origin, or even Mexico, it may be PD. Actress is French though (may have spent time in the U.S. and Mexico as an actress). Photo is marked as by "Herman" -- can't find any info on that company. Without that, can't be sure of country of origin.
  • File:Luz-marina-zuluaga-miss-universe-1958.jpg -- wider crop here. Country of origin unknown, again.
  • File:Lupita Jones (2).jpg -- scan of printed photo (has dust on it); but looks like it was put up online here years ago so a copy from there most likely.
  • File:Maritza-S2.jpg Looks to be an official contest photo -- see here. Those are marked copyrighted.
So... if more provenance information could be found on the first one, there is a chance at PD status, but not with the info we have. For the second, similar but a lot more doubtful, and no way for the last two. They should all be nominated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you taking a closer look at these Clindberg. Do you recommend nominating them individually or together as a group? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, All tagged with "no license". These images are not own works, are copied from the Internet, and do not have a valid license. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
OK Yann. Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Advocate Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar.png

This file was uploaded in May 2011 as "own work", but it can be found here as a Getty Image from September 2008. The "own work" claim seems questionable and I'm not sure if this license is acceptable for Commons. File:Shashank Manohar Pune 2013.png and File:Advocate VR Manohar.png also uploaded by the same person also do not seem to be "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Getty Images reveals that Getty can't license the file because of country, company or publication restrictions. Does the Getty page mention a licence if you try to access the Getty page from another country? In any case, even if Getty grants a licence in one way or another (which is unlikely to be free), then the licence is still unacceptable as it isn't a worldwide licence. I see that there's a statement at the bottom which suggests that Getty only is able to license this picture in Great Britain, the United States, Ireland and Canada (excluding Quebec).
I'm tagging the file as a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The second image is here; copyrighted by a Bhaskar Paul, which appears to be cropped out in this version. I nominated that. Quick search can't find the third but I would probably delete that too -- very low resolution and more than a little suspicious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2, Clindberg: thank you both for taking a closer look. I'll look again to see if I can find the third image somewhere online. It looks like it might be a crop. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
You might as well consider simply nominating the remaining file for deletion. I note that the uploader has had content taken down elsewhere too. See for example w:SHIWAR: the page was deleted as a copyright violation in 2009, and the user got a notification about this on his talk page a few minutes earlier. Also, he had a couple of files taken down at w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 March 11.
There is also w:File:Chandikadevikatol.jpg which was apparently uploaded by the same user, but an admin deleted and reposted the picture in order to remove a personal attack from the edit summary. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Stefan2. I have nominated the third image for deletion via COM:DR as suggested above. I am not, sure, however, what to do about the Wikipedia files, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Since there have been problems with the uploader's other files to Wikipedia and Commons, I'd recommend listing the remaining Wikipedia file at w:WP:FFD for review. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm the en:wiki admin who re-uploaded that image, though obviously it's been a while. No objection to whatever course of action presents itself. Ultraexactzz (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I need to include an Erasmus+-Logo in a Wikibook which I'm writing at the moment. It is described on the European Commission's website. Is the logo eligible for Wikimedia Commons or should I upload it locally to enwikibooks?

Thank you in advance, -- T.seppelt (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hairy Dude, GW Simulations, JLogan, Morganwahl: you participated in a similar discussion on File:Flag of Europe.svg. Could you maybe help? -- T.seppelt (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
There's another guide here[4] in the form of a slide show and the last slide gives contact details for enquiries. I suggest you use them to ask about its copyright status. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect you will find that the logo is so simple (consisting of merely a flag plus the word "Erasmus+", albeit in one of three specified typefaces) as to be ineligible for copyright in itself. That would make it usable on Commons on the same terms as the flag. But don't use {{PD-logo}} because the flag is copyrighted. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
They didn't reply. I tried to solve it now in this way: File:Erasmus+ Logo.svg. -- T.seppelt (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Problematic uploads by User:Ксения Бережная

That user seems to be uploading a lot of images described as "own work", but it is highly doubtful they are hers. Her work on English Wikipedia focuses on creating Ukrainian biographies of living people, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were paid pieces. Even if they are not (AGF), it seems that the illustrations are supplied by the subjects. Look at w:Valery Shmukler, the images there are nearly certainly part of the subject portfolio; there are some schematics and a bunch of images taken by him or his co-workers of various projects he worked on. There are red-flags a-plenty throughout her uploads (diagrams like File:Схема1 Кондращенко.png, modern art pictures of her subjects like File:Сахара -1.jpg, archival pictures from 90s and older like File:Маляренко3.jpg, File:Кемаль Кадырович 1.jpg, File:3+Бутенко,Попович.1977г.tif (1977...)) I mean, let's face it, what explanation can there be for labeling a photo of space station Mir (File:Маляренко2.jpg) as own work? That user needs to follow WP:OTRS, and for now I think all of her uploads need to be considered for deletion since it is doubtful a single one is actually her "own work". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

So, go and nominate them for deletion. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Do tell me how to nominate all of that user's files for deletion. I sadly do not have half an hour to spend on manually copying and listing each individual file she uploaded, but I trust that there are commons experts who can do it, now that I have presented the result of my investigation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Piotrus: See Commons:VFC for a tool for doing batch nominations (or just click here). --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Files from

Severel files uploaded from and contains license like {{Copyrighted free use}} or {{PD-because}} but I can't see anything about free files in this site. Any idea? examples:

@Zaccarias:. -- Geagea (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Geagea: If you go to there is a link that says "More photos are available here for unrestricted use", and all of the images you listed are at the linked page. --Ahecht (TALK
) 14:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
So if I add {{LicenseReview}} template, You'll pass the license? -- Geagea (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

DC Super Hero Girls logos

Are the following two logos likely to be copyrightable? The shading may or may not be significant, but the logos also have a "swish" element that goes from the "S" to the word "Girls."

--Gazebo (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Since it is from USA, I would use {{pd-logo}} as the swish element does not seem original enough. Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Screen capture of definition of Koyaanisqatsi

I have a screen capture of the film Koyaanisqatsi from the source. Shall I upload it here? --George Ho (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks more like a case of fair use to me: [5] en:File:Koyaanisqatsi poster.jpg, en:File:Koyaanisqatsi album1.jpg --SI 11:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Those latter ones have a copyrightable pattern in the background. The question here is if the translation text has a copyright. Sounds like there really was no Hopi dictionary at the time of the movie, so those definitions were created for the movie. I would lean towards there being a copyright in there, I think, so I would not upload this one either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Úsvit - new logo.png

File was uploaded as own work and licensed as {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-ineligible}}. The lion imagery in the logo makes me question how this can be considered a text logo, because there is nothing simple about that at all, unless the Czech Republic has an incredibly lowhigh TOO. I'm not too sure about the "PD-ineligible" licensing as well. The file can be seen being used at and I can't find anything there clearly indicating that the file has been freely licensed. The uploader was warned about the file at User talk:Novis-M#File:Úsvit - new logo.png in September 2015, but the file's upload date is listed as November 1, 2015. It looks like this might be a re-upload of a file which was deleted as a non-free logo, but only an admin can probably tell that for sure. Is this file's licensing correct? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to change "low" to "high" -- 21:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)]

  • It's certainly copyrightable in the U.S. It's possible that the Czech republic had a threshold for trademarked items similar to what Germany has (or had before a 2013 ruling), where they tried not to have trademark and copyright overlap as much, and only copyrighted highly artistic logos. But I have no real idea. I don't see any evidence in favor of keeping it though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Tagged {{logo}} since it's clearly copyrighted in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus, Clindberg and Stefan2 for taking a closer look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about a novelization

See this?,716767631,716767560,716767588,716767657,716767692,716767682,716767645,716767652,716767575,716767595,716767569,716767564,716767578,716767640,716767618,716767582,716767623,716767613,773103853,773103842,773103848,773103858,773104041&formats=0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0&format=0

that is the 1932 novelization of King Kong. I know for a fact that it fell into the public domain in the late 60s because it was the basis for 2 diffrent lawsuits in the 1970s and 1980s in regards to King Kongs copyright. The problem is is that when I tried to upload a scan it says that it has to have been published before 1923 on the upload wizard for it to be public domain. If that is the case how can this book be in the public domain if it was published after 1923?Giantdevilfish (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)?

The wizard says "1923" because it's easier to say "1923" than to try to fit this entire chart in, and it's the safe option (ie. all works first published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain). --Carnildo (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

So if I wanted to upload this photo how should I tag it?Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Select "Another reason not mentioned above" and input {{PD-US-not renewed}} (or any other suitable template). Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Per here, the cover was authored by Glenn Cravath (1897-1964), which would be good to credit. But yes, it appears to be PD-US-not_renewed. Keep in mind that just scans and straight-on photographs of the cover would be PD; most of those photos on that link are separately copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the help guys. Oh and yes, Merian C Cooper did forget to renew the copyright in the 1960s which led to a huge convoluted mess in regards to who owns what in regards to King Kong.Giantdevilfish (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The cover art would have its own copyright, separate from the King Kong text / story -- but if the book was not renewed, it seems reasonable to assume the cover art was not either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Movie logo doubt

Hi. I've uploaded a couple of SVG movie logos extracted from PDFs, because they are in PD per {{PD-textlogo}}. I've found a SVG logo of The Jungle Book here (2nd page). Can I upload it or it's more than a {{PD-textlogo}}? --Escudero (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It is still a pd-textlogo. Ruslik (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
That might depend on the details of how the textures were made. If someone sat down and drew those in by hand, those would be copyrightable. If someone painted over a rough sheet of paper and basically traced the result, it would probably be PD-textlogo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks like a scan of an old book. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Escudero (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


The file in question is at this address:

I found the image online on the National Army Museum website and obtained permission via email for the image to be uploaded to Wikimedia and used on the Wiki network. Note that the original work is by an unknown photographer and unknown publisher in the 1880s, and that the original postcard now resides in the NAM collection. Please check the information I've provided and tell me if there is anything else that I need to provide in order to prevent the file from being deleted, because I have used it in a Wikipedia page about Ntshingwayo kaMahole.

Thanks, Cadar (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I added necessary copyright tags. Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

How much does it take?

Yesterday I added File:Wikipedia W favicon on white background.png. I downloaded File:Wikipedia's W.svg, which is public domain and "subject to the Wikimedia trademark policy and visual identity guidelines", and gave it a white background to use on my personal desktop, and uploaded it to Commons so anyone else can use it, too. File:Wikipedia's W.svg's info says

This file is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.
™ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
This file is (or includes) one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia Foundation or by one of its projects. Use of the Wikimedia logos and trademarks is subject to the Wikimedia trademark policy and visual identity guidelines, and may require permission.

This morning I found a message from user:JuTa on my Commons user talk page:

This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Wikipedia W favicon on white background.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. If you have created this file yourself, or the file is in the public domain, you can edit the file description page to license it under one of the allowed licenses. If you did not create it and it is not in the public domain, you must ask the copyright holder for permission to release it under one of the allowed licenses, and the written permission must be sent to our permission archive.
Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added (19 June 2016).

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?! I quoted the “ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain” paragraph and the start of the “trademark" paragraph. I wrote in the Summary

English: The official Wikipedia "W" favicon, with a white background instead of transparent.
Source : I downloaded File:Wikipedia's W.svg, which is public domain and "subject to the Wikimedia trademark policy and visual identity guidelines", and gave it a white background to use on my personal desktop.
Author : STyx (original), myself (white background instead of transparent)

I hesitated to say “original work" because I started with someone else's “original work”, which was based on a character from yet another person's font.

I have now put in {{PD-self}} and deleted the warning. I hope that takes care of it. --Thnidu (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A note to fellow admins and file patrollers: sometimes valid licences are not templated, so please watch out before tagging a new image. I have now adjusted the licensing to {{PD-textlogo}} because there wasn't any copyright in the first place and adding a background would create a new creative work. But I also added the original typeface designer for credit. Please not though that while the W is out of copyright, it is still a trademark of the WMF. De728631 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Files from Theme Park Tourist

Once again, I am asking for someone else to review review a large number of pictures I uploaded last night to nominate those images that are past the threshold of de minimis and are in fact copyright violations for deletion. They are in the following categories:

I will support the deletion of any files that you nominate, and if possible nominate them for speedy deletion. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Next time in a situation like this, would it be possible to be more selective of images? One hundred nine-ty four images of people in silly costumes on one day in one place seems a bit high. I recall the removal of over 500 images of girls in sunglasses and bikinis at a carwash that someone else uploaded (yes they all passed flickr review) and I feel the same about this pile as that pile. There is really no reason for 194 of anything which is mostly the same on the same day, girls, bikinis, car washes, Disney etc. This isn't a parade with 194 different floats, for example. Also whoever took those 194 has really terrible framing, many of the characters have no feet. I'm not making any statement about the copyright here, just a request that GIGO applies both to Computers and Commons; and there's really no reason to add to the "G". Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: thanks for the comment. In the future, I'll definitely try to be more selective. I was not the one who took those pictures, so I can't help with framing the pictures better next time. Elisfkc (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

w:File:Marketplace print.png

Shall I upload this image to Commons? --George Ho (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Obvious {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Salzmann Alexander von - Herzschmerz.jpg

How to tag this work of Alexander von Salzmann? He died in 1934, so {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1934}} would be enough for civilized countries. But according to COM:CT#Non-U.S. works yet another tag is required for the US. In the bottom right corner of the picture there is "05" which means 1905, the probable year of creation. Can we assume that the work was published before 1923 and insert {{PD-1923}} or the work (and others of this artist) should be deleted? --jdx Re: 15:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure appears it was published before 1923, so yes, {{PD-1923}} is fine. Or, there is {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1934}}, which is the same thing but combined. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Logo for a government agency

Is it acceptable and legal to upload the logo of a government agency? The particular agency that I have in mind makes its logos freely available at their website. Thank you for your guidance on this. Nolabob (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nolabob. Does "freely available" mean freely licensed or free to download? There is a bit of a difference between the two. There's lots of content on the Internet that can be downloaded for "free", but not all of it has been freely licensed by the copyright holder. Some governmental logos are also considered to be in the public domain, but I think this varies from country to country. Perhaps you can provide a link to the website, so that someone can verify the licensing of the logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Marchjuly. Here is the link, per your suggestion. Looking forward to reading the guidance on this....Nolabob (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nolabob:, thank you for the link. As it happens, these logos are freely available for download on the website but there is no free use licence to be seen so we cannot simply host them at Commons. We need to do some further analysis: The logo for Louisiana Cultural Vistas [6] is not a problem because it consists entirely of plain text and cannot be copyrighted. You can upload this one with a licence {{PD-textlogo}} but you should also add {{trademarked}} to be on the safe side.
The other logos involving graphic elements, however, are a bit tricky. The book-shaped parts in the LEH logo may already be copyrightable and the pelican in Know Louisiana is definitely original enough for copyright. Also the Prime Time logo appears to be copyrighted, wich makes the latter three logos unavailable for Commons. But you can still upload them locally at the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale provided that they are all used in the context of a Wikipedia article. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the analysis. If I'm understanding you correctly, I could use these logs for a Wikipedia article but not upload it into Wikimedia Commons. Is that correct? Nolabob (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Nolabob. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but basically I agree with what De728631 posted. The "Louisiana Cultural Vistas" logo can be uploaded directly to Commons. You can find out more information on how to do this at COM:UP and COM:UH. As for your question about Wikipedia, it does allow certain copyrighted content to be uploaded as non-free content, but there are quite a number of restrictions placed upon such usage. It's hard to say whether a particular non-free file would be acceptable without knowing more, so please read through those pages I linked and if you have any questions then feel free to ask them at en:WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Great! Thank you to you both. You've been most helpful. I will proceed.......judiciously. Nolabob (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Info about Reiss-Engelhorn Museum (REM) of the City of Mannheim v. Wikimedia Foundation

Dear all,

Unfortunately, we have some bad news to share. The Landgericht Berlin, the German trial court in the Reiss-Engelhorn Museum (REM) of the City of Mannheim v. Wikimedia Foundation case, has ruled in favor of REM. The case involved a request to take down several pictures hosted on Commons as public domain (most famously the portrait of Richard Wagner) that had been taken by a photographer employed by the museum. The museum claimed that the photographs taken by their photographer were copyrighted even though they were faithful reproductions of public domain works. We argued that the works contained no originality and not enough effort to justify even a limited German copyright, and further that the Museum’s rules prohibiting photography while claiming copyright on their pictures was effectively an attempt to create new copyright in works that belong to the public. The court held that the photos taken by the museum’s photographer are subject to German copyright protection, similar to any mobile phone snapshot regardless of the subject, and, therefore, are not in the public domain in Germany.

We think that the court reached the wrong conclusion and did not properly consider the harm of this holding on the public domain in a world where people experience and discover their culture online. Therefore, we plan to appeal the case to the Kammergericht Berlin, the next - but not yet final - level of appellate court above the Landgericht. The final level of appeal could then be the so called “revision” at the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Germany’s Supreme Court - if the Kammergericht or BGH actually allow this kind of appeal.

However, there is some good news as well. The case against Wikimedia Deutschland, which was sued as part of the same case as the WMF, has been dismissed with the court properly understanding that it cannot force WMDE or its members to make changes to Wikimedia Commons.

With regard to the images themselves, the WMF continues to be of the opinion that we have the legal right to host the images on Commons for two reasons. First, we respectfully believe that the German court erred in its reasoning, which is why we’re appealing. And second, even if the pictures are considered to be copyrighted in Germany, the WMF continues to stand by our legal position that they are in the public domain in the United States, as explained on the PD-Art page. As such, we believe that the decision whether to keep the images in question remains with the community in light of this ruling. We will continue to support that decision, regardless of what the community chooses to do.

However, we would like to note that the community may want to update the tags used on the pages for the REM images, so that users in Germany have some warning that the trial court has ruled that they do not have permission to use the pictures there. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If Germany still protects X-Rays etc. with at least their simple photograph protection (which seems to be below the EU copyrightable level, but still can be protected country-by-country), I can see them similarly protecting such photographs. Sounds like we do need to update Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#Germany though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if they'd distinguish between a faithful reproduction made by photograph and a scan, since they can produce a similar result and only the technical method differs. Also, the ruling would presumably apply to all PD-Art photographs when used in Germany, regardless of country of origin, although the risk of being sued is probably less for foreign images. --ghouston (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
As I understand the German law (caveat, I'm not a German lawyer), they do distinguish between photographs and scans. So, the REM here got protection because they had an employee take photographs, but scanning an existing document in a printer doesn't create any new protection. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jrogers (WMF): It is possible to share/upload the court ruling? --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've uploaded the German judgment to Foundation Wiki. Unfortunately, I don't have an English version of it. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
See Category:Images subject to Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit. Yann (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I see no special reason to react to this news in the short term. As the case will be appealed, so long as the planned appeal can be seen by Commons volunteers to be progressing in a timely way, and no other take-down notices are published using this case as a precedent, I believe that it is reasonable to take no overnight remedial action, such as changing templates or creating new templates for affected files.
I suggest that volunteers with the skills to make mass changes, step back and ensure there is first reasonable and conclusive on-wiki consultation with the project community, to ensure if action is taken it is agreed as necessary and sufficient. Perhaps someone could summarize this notice on the main VP and link here? visitors from discussions in other places are more likely to first look there. -- (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe there could be an elegant approach to make the museum's attempt to undermine public domain pointless. If I understand this correctly, they claim protection for the photographs of paintings as simple Lichtbilder. In Germany, this kind of related rights lasts for 50 years after first publication (not the full copyright protection of 70 years after the author's death). I wonder: Aren't there any reproductions of the images in question, e.g. the famous Wagner painting, that were first published more than 50 years ago? If they're reproduced in a book published prior to 1966, these older photographs/reproductions anyway wouldn't have the protection now claimed by the museum. Then, we could simply delete the scans in question and instead put scans of the older reproductions on Commons. On the other hand, this would mean accepting that protection, so maybe not a good idea... but it certainly would highlight the absurdity of the museum's approach, relying on protection of its own reproductions in order to try to "protect" from free use not only these reproductions, but also (or mainly?) the actual public domain works being reproduced. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The current policy on the PD-Art situation is that we use U.S. law only, not the law in the country of origin (once the underlying work is PD in the country of origin anyways). We don't have any real need to change that policy to keep these -- just update the PD-Art notes that such photos may be problematic in Germany. Right now it's "inconclusive", and this news would probably shade more to "not OK". Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Under Swedish law, there's a wording which is a bit unclear:
Av det anförda följer, att den som mångfaldigar en fotografisk bild genom fotografiska metoder icke åtnjuter självständigt skydd för sin insats; genom förfarandet har icke framställts någon ny bild. (SOU 1956:25 p. 471)

From the stated follows that the one who produces copies of a photographic image through photographic methods doesn't enjoy independent protection for his contribution; no new image has been produced by this procedure.

This could in my opinion be interpreted in two ways:
  • Protection is only granted if you produce a new image (so if the original is an image, then there's no new protection for the new photograph), or
  • Protection is only granted if you produce a new photographic image (so if the original is a photographic image, then there's no protection for the new photograph).
A photo of a painting is in my opinion a 'new photographic image' (the painting is not a 'photographic image' as the painting is not a photograph) but not a 'new image' (the painting itself already is an image), so the outcome could depend on how you interpret the quote I made. Does the same ambiguity also exist in German law? It seems that the Swedish photo law from 1919 largely were based on the German artwork law from 1907, and the laws might still be similar in a number of ways. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know Germany's 1907 law, but current German law apparently makes a distinction between "Lichtbildwerk" (a photograph that has full copyright protection as a work of creativity: 70 years after the creator's death) and "Lichtbild" (a photograph that is not a work of creativity, but more than a simple reproduction: protected for 50 years after first publication). It seems that the museum and the court in this case assume that photographs of paintings, due to the skill and labor involved, are not just reproductions (such as a photocopy), but protected "Lichtbilder". However, it doesn't seem that the museum has ever gone so far as to claim that these photographs would even qualify as "Lichtbildwerke" with full copyright protection. Myself, I'm from Switzerland, where we don't have this kind of "Lichtbild" protection (either a photograph is fully copyrighted, and for that it must be an "individual expression of thought", or not protected at all). Gestumblindi (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The rule under Swedish law is that it needs to be a photograph and that it needs to be an image, but originality is not needed for copyright protection. It is my understanding that German law works the same. The document I linked to discusses when Swedish law thinks that something is a photograph and when something is an image, and I'm wondering if German law uses the same definitions. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • According to section 52 of [7], it would seem that an EU person who wishes to sue an EU website can choose to sue in any EU country he wishes (provided that the website doesn't use geoblocking which makes the website unavailable in that country). However, according to section 68 of the same ruling, the court must not apply a more restrictive law than the law of the country where the website host is located. In this case, it seems that an EU person (a German museum) has sued a US person (the Wikimedia Foundation) in an EU country (Germany). Does it make any difference that the United States is not a member of the European Union? If not, then I'd imagine that the museum is free to sue the Wikimedia Foundation in Germany but that the German court can't use a law which is more restrictive than United States law. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


Ontario_PC_Logo_2016.svg is not under the CC license, and while it may have been vectored by the original uploader, that doesn't make it free of rights. In my opinion, is too complex to be text-logo. --CoolCanuck eh? 23:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it to PD-textlogo, since I believe it fits. Canada's threshold is quite high, so I believe you are incorrect (as did community consensus). Storkk (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Moving to commons older non-free revisions

A file on en.wp has two revisions, the older of which has a licensing problem (resolved by cropping out the offending element to make the new revision). Should both be moved to commons, with the older one again deleted (in case the uploader does provide a license for the full first image, we don't have to run around en.wp to find it and send it here to commons)? Or only actually move free to commons (not polluting here with nonfree, even if never visible)? en:File:Andres Neumann, 2016.jpg (see also its deletion-discussion via talkpage if you want details). DMacks (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

When I'm moving from it only transfer the last version. I believe it is the same with -- Geagea (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • DMacks, w:WP:F8 only covers those revisions which have been moved to Commons. If there are revisions which are not on Commons, then those do not qualify for deletion under F8 unless they are of reduced resolution. Instead, you would need to find another deletion reason for those revisions, for example w:WP:F9. Old free revisions can be uploaded to Commons using toollabs:magog/oldver.php (to which there is a link from w:Template:Now Commons) upon which they will qualify for deletion under F8. Old non-free revisions should not be uploaded to Commons. List old non-free revisions at w:WP:FFD if you can't find a speedy deletion criterion for those. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The older one was already deleted on en.wp as license violation, and if I were also transferred to commons, I would promptly delete it here for that reason as well. But the new one traces back to the old one as its source. Essentially, editing the non-free one made the derivative free (this licensing situation is based on w:WP:AFD--en:Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_April_14#File:Andres_Neumann.2C_2016.jpg if you're interested). The reason I was thinking about transferring the old one also was to make the attribution path simpler, rather than having the history become split across two different projects. But the cost would be transfer (and then immediate deletion) of that non-free original. DMacks (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Line 1983 Stock.jpg

According to the file description the licence is CC-BY-SA, but the source page says CC-BY-NC-SA. Is this all right? In the meantime the author could change the licence on flickr, so IMO it is all right, but I am not sure. --jdx Re: 11:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The license was reviewed in Feb 2011; it was CC-BY-SA then. If the author changes the license later, it does not affect Commons license. We are bound by the terms of the license available when the file was uploaded to Commons as CC licenses are irrevokable. Ankry (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Potentially problematic uploads by new user

I marked one of User:Illidansart recent uploads with no permission, but looking at his other uploads, it looks like it's not the only one with issues. Could maybe someone take a look at his recent contributions and see if many of them needs to be speedily deleted? TommyG (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Own work?

File:Iraq National Team Logo (2005).png are uploaded as "own work" while File:Iraq National Team Logo (2007).png, and File:COA of Iraq (1965).svg is uploaded as "PD-self". The first two might be simple enough for {{PD-logo}}, but they don't seem to be "own work" if that implies the uploader created the images and is the original copyright holder. The description for each file says it is the logo that appeared on the shirts worn by the Iraqi national football team during a particular tournament, which seems to imply that copyright is owned by whomever runs Iraqi football. Shouldn't a source be need in such cases? The 1965 logo licensed as "PD-self" also seems incorrect because that also implies that the uploader created the logo or holds the copyright on it. Perhaps this is acceptable under another free license, but it seems that the copyright holder would be the Iraqi Republic or whomever created the logo and not the uploader, wouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Pinging the uploaders @Hashim-afc, Nopira: for clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I made the first two logos myself on Microsoft Paint to replicate the ones the Iraq team wore because I thought they were {{PD-logo}}. If they were listed as own work and the author was listed as Iraq FA rather than Hashim-afc, would that be alright? Or would that not make sense. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Hashim-afc. I believe that re-creating the logos might make them either a derivative work or just a simple copy, but that depends on the original logo and how creative you were in re-creating them. Someone else will correct me if I'm wrong. They may be simple enough for PD-textlogo, but that might depend on Iraq's COM:TOO. Did you see these online? That may help figure out who the copyright holder/creator is. Since they seem to be former logos, maybe there's an archived version of the Iraq FA's website which shows them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I based them off of these two pictures: (the picture I based the logo off of was better quality but I can't find that one at the moment)
and this:
As you can see the logos I created and uploaded are based off of the ones the Iraq team wore. Hashim-afc (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the links Hashim-afc. I've been trying to find better versions of these to use as the source. It looks like the files are true reproductions of what is shown on those shirts, so they're probably not derivative works. The logos look simple enough to me to be PD-textlogo, but it might be a good idea to see what some others have to say. If, however, they are above the TOO and not PD-textlogo and are also not old enough for some other type of public domain template such as {{PD-Iraq}}, then they probably will need to be treated as non-free, unless the copyright holder agrees to freely license them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Marchjuly. I found a better link for the first logo:,0,350x237/ It's a better quality image than the previous one. I also think they are both PD-textlogo because both logos are made from the Iraq flag and other simple shapes, and the Iraq flag itself is in the public domain I believe. Hashim-afc (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The photo you've linked to is a little better, and it looks like the same logo, but I cannot tell for sure. There's also no way to really tell when the photo was taken and if it was used in that particular tournament. A source which not only clearly shows the logo, but which can be dated, etc. would probably be better. The association's official website only has archived versions going back to November 2011, but website addresses do sometimes change. Do you know whether another website address was used prior to 2011? If nothing better can be found and you feel this too simple for copyright protection, then I guess you can be bold and just change the licensing yourself. I think that should be fine assuming good faith, but there's no 100% guarantee that it will never be challenged by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The official website used to be called, so maybe the logo is on one of the archived versions of that URL. The first picture I sent you (the really bad quality one) was a screenshot from a video of Iraq playing in the 2005 West Asian Games final, so I guess that particular source can be dated, but unfortunately it doesn't show the logo very clearly. I've been looking for better quality images but can't find any at the moment. I will change the licensing myself now, and will continue to look for better quality image. Hashim-afc (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Screenshots of hacked websites

Are screenshots of hacked websites like this one (from which is currently hacked as I'm typing this) somehow copyrightable? If not, what free license applies to them? Thanks. Brandmeister (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I'd assume they'd be copyrighted by the hacker, or both hacker or source website if the "hacked" page is still very similar to the normal site. Theoretically, a copyright claim may get thrown out in court because of ex turpi causa non oritur actio but that's theory.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that if the hacked page contains simple text, then it's Template:PD-text and if there are copyrightable images (either with text or standalone), then the screenshot may be copyrightable. Brandmeister (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • It depends on how much text. It seems in many cases, like this one, the hacker is going to use images of unknown or third-party origin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"Public domain" vs. copyright tag

I have a question about this image of Triturus karelinii, which I uploaded a while ago but am still not quite sure aboutː The original page on CalPhotos it was published on clearly states the picture is in the Public Domain, and goint to the author's page on the website also shows he uploads his photos with a default Public Domain license. The image however still has a (c) tag in its metadata and on the photo itself. Does that compromise the Public Domain release? Is Commons OK with having (c) tags on photos if there is a free license? --- Tylototriton (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I think such EXIF data are sometimes added automatically? In that case they would not be really informative about the copyright status of the image.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
He may have added the notice earlier, then decided to release it to the public domain later. However, the page does *not* specify CC0, so you should not use that license -- use {{PD-author}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Ceres solarsystem.jpg

On File:Ceres solarsystem.jpg, the original image from Flickr, which is licensed with CC-BY-2.0, does not have the planets' names on it. The version uploaded does have the names on it, and comes from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which has the copyright symbol at the bottom of their page. Is the addition of text enough that CBC has the copyright of the image? Elisfkc (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Not for the U.S. (see Darden v. Peters), and I would doubt Canada. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Israel images

Do the images from the Prime Minister of Israel flickr account qualify for PD-IsraelGov? Elisfkc (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

What part of that tag do you think might apply? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I am guessing they were asking if something like PD-USGov applies to that account. I don't think that such a rule applies to Israeli government works.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was exactly what I was thinking. Elisfkc (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Uploading 1906 work-for-hire document image

I want to upload this image of a w:Message in a bottle. It is a post card printed in 1904-1906 by the Marine Biological Association in Plymouth, U.K. (click for article). It appears to be a work-for-hire (published more than 90 years ago, fortunately) -- not a personally-owned creation of researcher w:George Parker Bidder III (died 1954 so life+70 = 2024 unfortunately). The post card may even lack the "modicum of originality" needed for copyright protection in the first place. Would WM policy prohibit its uploading? I'm not sure which nation's copyright law would govern (I would upload from the U.S.) Please advise. --RCraig09 (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it's eligible for copyright, at least in the U.S. Probably the UK too. It would be subject to the 25-year typographical arrangement copyright the UK has, but that is long gone. You could use {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-1923}} if you wanted to be safe, or {{PD-ineligible}} (or both). It is certainly PD in the US, and the country of origin would be the UK, so we'd need to satisfy the copyright laws in both countries -- which I think is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: RCraig09 (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Multinational gratitude to you, Carl. Your analysis and first two templates constitute a bullseye! --RCraig09 (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Keith Waldrop.jpg

I posted a photo for Wikipedia use some years ago. Various poetry publications keep using it and not attributing it to me, which is what we (you all and I) agreed to. Is there anything we can do? I almost want to get all these publications to use my name because it keeps happening and if it's so good, I'd like some credit, at least. Atrivedi (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You can send them a message reminding them of the requirements of the license, escalating up to a DMCA notice or even lawsuit if you feel like it and they aren't interested in doing this the nice way. Even a periodical should be able to include credit and apology in a future issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
THANK YOU! Atrivedi (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Text logos & TOO France

Wanted a second opinion on whether these text logos would qualify as too original for the French threshold of originality czar 18:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC) The license seems to be incorrect because A. V. Bitsadze was born in 1916, and the photo is alleged to be first published before 1923. The person on the photo is definitely older than 6. Abba8 (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2016 :(UTC)

The file may be in public domain in Russia if it was created more than 70 years ago and is anonymous. I am less sure if it is in public domain in USA as it may be affected Commons:URAA. Ruslik (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Might be a Georgian photo. Both countries may have been 50pma at the URAA date. If the person pictured was below 30, it may still be OK. And if uploaded by a family member... they may have the right to release to the public domain in the US. Technically, the file is marked as "PD-US", which is not PD-1923 but rather a catch-all for a number of reasons why it could be PD, not necessarily 1923 alone -- that "often" is the reason according to the tag, but not always. It's preferable to have a more specific reason, but older uploaded files may still have such tags, and there are certain situations where it's certain to be PD for one reason or another but not enough evidence to know which one, so the tag still has some uses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

File: THTR-1986-Heske.pdf

Ich wurde auf diese Diskussionsseite verwiesen. Meine Frage:

Ich habe vorgestern ein Dokument aus einem behördlichen Vorgang von 1986 in die Commons hochgeladen, welches ich über das Umweltinformationsgesetz von der NRW-Atomaufsichtsbehörde erhalten habe (THTR-1986-Heske.pdf). Es handelt sich um Details zu einem Störfall im Reaktor THTR-300 vor 30 Jahren. Auf Einsicht in das Dokument hat gemäss UIG jedermann kostenfrei Anspruch. Daher gehe ich davon aus, dass ich es auch verbreiten darf. Ist das richtig ? Das Dokument, dessen Inhalt - ausser über UIG-Anfrage, s.o. - nicht zugänglich ist, ist z.B. für den Artikel THTR-300 wichtig. Der Inhalt des Dokuments ist nämlich recht brisant: Nachdem ich es im Literaturverzeichnis des THTR-Artikels mit dem Hinweis: "Zugänglich über UIG" aufgeführt hatte, bekam ich sogar eine Vandalismusmeldung auf den Hals mit der Vermutung, das Dokument sei nur erfunden.--Rarian (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

File:The Certificate of Pre 2nd Kyu in Japanese Kanji Examination.jpg

I am wondering if this file is acceptable as {{PD-self}}. This is a certificate for passing a certain level of the Japan Kanji Apptitude Test. The text written on the certificate basically just says who passed the test, what the test was for, when it was taken, and who gave the test. The boilerpoint text seems fine (the personal information has been whited out), but I am wondering if the design of the certificate is protected by copyright. The file's uploader Yappakoredesho has also uploaded a few more files of certificates/diplomas and Japanese currency as "PD-self" which does not seem correct, but I am not sure. Can photographs/scans of diplomas or currency (coins) be uploaded to Commons as "own work" and licensed as "PD-self"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Certificate of Pre 2nd Kyu in Japanese Kanji Examination.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking Stefan2. The same uploader has uploaded some other similar files. Would look mind taking a look at these as well? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Some of the user's files are modern Japanese coins. What's the copyright status of those? There's no section for Japan at COM:CUR, but we seem to have lots of coin images on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Projection Mapping on Buildings

Here is a question that I expect a lot of discussion about. Does projection mapping on buildings, such as File:Cath. St Jean (2).JPG fall under Freedom of panorama. I have been operating/uploading Disney projection mapping shows (Celebrate the Magic, Star Wars: A Galactic Spectacular, & Tree of Life Awakenings) mostly under the idea that projection mapping images are to be treated similar to logos, with the threshold of originality and such. My question is whether this is the correct way to treat them or not. I have just opened up two deletion requests on images that I feel do not follow this guideline (1 & 2), so input over on those pages is welcome as well. Elisfkc (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If FoP provisions include a "permanent" requirement, like most of them do, then no. Projection mapping in and of itself may not be copyrightable, depending on the country -- many countries (like the U.S.) have a requirement that copyright must exist in a fixed medium, which is not the case for light shows like that. France and some others might be different, given the ruling on the nighttime Eiffel tower light show. Obviously, if a copyrightable work is being projected, that can cause it to be a derivative work (such as the second link you nominated, and probably the first though I'm less sure of its nature). I don't think I'd nominate the others you mention -- most of that is probably PD-ineligible in the first place, and if not de minimis. The French cathedral one might be borderline given their laws, but most of the detail there seems to be the architectural work itself, so it may not be clear-cut. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Given that it's all done with computers nowadays, if the image or video being projected is non-trivial, it's going to be stored in a fixed medium.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
If you are projecting a copyrighted image or video directly, sure. If it's a sequence of lighting, and it's just colored light being projected... the computer program or whatever which controls it may be copyrightable, but not necessarily the visible result. There's a lot of different possible scenarios. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

UK Public domain...

Most of the news media in europe and US should have noted the UK voted to leave the EU,

This means that eventuially ( within 2-3 years) the following template cannot be reasonably applied to UK works Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure.

Thusly Over the next two-three years ALL the images using it will need to be partioned between UK and remainder EU works.

Nothing is changing overnight, but it might be worthwhile firming up the UK originating images ( English Wikipedia use PD-UK-Unknown or PD-US-1923-abroad).

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Such works should have been using {{PD-UK-unknown}} anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
On what basis?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Also affected {{PD-anon-70-EU}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Same thing. PD-UK-unknown is the UK-specific incarnation of the general EU rule. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I must admit I didn't expect to be discussing the UK referendum on WP or Commons so soon after the event :-) If Carl is right, and I have no reason not to assume otherwise, then {{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} need amending and the documentation updating to point out that they shouldn't be used for images originating from the UK. I think what has happened previously is that some users have gone towards a pan-European approach and used one i.e. EU set of templates for images from across the EU. Nthep (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Aside is that all Commons maps of the EU will need updating as well. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
... for some types of work. Photographs are mostly exempt from that (might be a very few exceptions in the 2030s) since they were based on date of creation until 1957. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, "some types of work" is covered by "sometimes". The exact British rules are a bit complex, but the general rule is that if it was first published less than 50 years ago, then you need to check whether one of those complex special rules for unpublished works applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Right, but since the vast majority of uploaded works are photographs, that part of the law rarely applies to uploads. Photos are a straight 70pma if a known author; no need to check publication status. PD-UK-unknown can be based on publication, but none of the pre-EU-directive laws matter there either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
As of now, {{PD-anon-70-EU}} has a note indicating that essentially the template should be not used for works of UK origin and that for such works, {{PD-UK-unknown}} should be used instead. Would it be useful to add a note about works of UK origin to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}? --Gazebo (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding anthems to the {{PD-RU-exempt}} list.

The copyright status of government anthem in Russia, is one of the issues touched upon in the recent First National Anthem Of Ingushetia undelete discussion I am proposing that "anthems" be added to the state symbols and signs list. This is based on text from:

The "Public Domain. Textbook." by Sudarikov S.A.
"In the Russian Federation in the first category of un-copyrightable objects are ... state symbols and signs (flag, emblem, anthem, awards, banknotes and other signs)"
Untranslated text - "Aвторские Права. Учебник. Судариков С.А.":
"В российской федерации к первой категории неохраняемых авторсим правом обьектов относятся ... государственные символы и знаки (флаг, герб, гимн, ордена, денежные и иные знаки)"
LINK Rybkovich (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This will only apply to the lyrics and notes, but not to any specific performance. Ruslik (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, ill make it clear in the description. Rybkovich (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly, some anthem performances are also PD-RU-exempt - these performances are named reference performances (ru: эталонное исполнение) или reference recording (ru: эталонная запись). Alex Spade (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Panorama Rights in Belgium and deleted files on Commons

Since a couple of weeks, Belgian law changed and now, there is no copyright anymore on works in public space. Fortunately, an amendment to restrict the freedom of panorama only for not commercial use, has been rejected, so any picture taken in public space "that respects the work" can be published in agreement of the norms applied by commons. In the past, some of the photos I downloaded on Commons have been deleted, in application of the now obsolete law. Can you restore this deleted files? That would be very fine.--Flamenc (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should wait untill the law has been published in the Belgian official journal. Natuur12 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this change retroactive too? If not, it would only affect new uploads taken after enactment of this new law. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd guess it would only affect possible *infringements* after the law takes place -- whether that is old or new photographs. It would be pretty nonsensical to base such infringements on when the photo was made. But we'd need to look carefully at any transitional provisions or other wording in the new law to be sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Normally, the date of creation only matters if you want to sue the photographer for violating your copyright by taking a photograph. If you prefer to sue a publisher for violating your copyright by publishing a photograph, then this would probably instead depend on when the publisher published the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
And suing the photographer for *taking* the photo I'm guessing would almost always be a losing cause -- there are always exceptions to copyright for certain uses (Article 22 in the Belgian law) and the photographer could always simply use them under those limitations (such as for private use). It is only when the photo is used outside of those limited uses when it becomes a true copyright violation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Personal use means that the photographer took the photo for the purpose of only using it personally (although he might have discovered other purposes later), I think. It's probably difficult to prove that the photographer violated the copyright, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Law approved 16 June 2016, see the text (in Dutch & French). No restrictions mentioned, so it seems "old" photographs are allowed too. Vysotsky (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like full FoP, though Google Translate seems to indicate it is for works *designed* to be in public -- so a work which was note made to be permanently public but then made permanently public by someone else may be different. But it's a significant change from the looks of it. I think we do want to wait until the law actually takes effect though -- sounds like there is approval from the King and being published in the official journal before that can happen, at least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
According to the w:InfoSoc Directive, an FOP exception can only cover works made to be located permanently in public places within the European Union. Therefore, that limitation applies to all EU countries which have some kind of FOP. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
As the law is official and approved and pubished in the Moniteur Belge-Belgisch Staatsblad, can you please restore my pictures?--Flamenc (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Flamenc: could you link to the publication. I tried to find it but was unable to. Basvb (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Basvb: «WETSONTWERP tot wijziging van het Wetboek van economisch recht met het oog op de invoering van de panoramavrijheid TEKST AANGENOMEN IN PLENAIRE VERGADERING EN AAN DE KONING TER BEKRACHTIGING VOORGELEGD— PROJET DE LOI modifiant le Code de droit économique en vue de l’introduction de la liberté de panorama TEXTE ADOPTÉ EN SÉANCE PLÉNIÈRE ET SOUMIS À LA SANCTION ROYALE» (sorry for capitals, they are in the original)--Flamenc (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
That is the parliament website, not the Moniteur Belge-Belgisch Staatsblad. I don't see any mention of this law at . Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The current issue of Moniteur Belge-Belgisch Staatsblad doesn't seem to cover this law. De728631 (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: You're right, in my enthousiasm about this change, I made a mistake. As the law has been aproved in plenary session and as it is a "monocameral" law, there only remains the formal procedure of "Royal approval" and publishing it in the Moniteur-Staatsblad. The King cannot refuse — the late Boudewijn, the present king Philip's uncle, did it once in 1990 about an abortion law and it was a big constitutional drama («Koning weigert handtekening»)—. I cannot imagine this will happen again. But you're right: I will have to be patient untill the law will be published, and enjoy my coming holiday to read the fascinating literature of the Moniteur Belge-Belgisch Staatsblad :-).--Flamenc (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Official freedom of panorama in Belgium: approved by the king of Belgium and published in the Moniteur Belge / Belgisch Staatsblad, 186e jaargang N. 180, 5 July 2016. Vysotsky (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see the law listed here. There is no mention of an effective date, so I assume it was effective upon publication, i.e. 5 July 2016? If so, looks like we are good to go. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Although... someone edited COM:FOP#Belgium to say that it will take effect 10 days after publication -- so would that be 15 July then? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)