* The image is "PD-Kenya", Kenya only awards 50 years protection, so up to 1972. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|RAN]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
* The image is "PD-Kenya", Kenya only awards 50 years protection, so up to 1972. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|RAN]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
::{{tl|PD-Kenya}} assumes that the photograph was published, which may not be the case here. If this is a passport-style photograph but not used in a passport, it has not been published. If the photograph has been used in a passport, we would need to determine whether that is sufficient to constitute publication; the image would be presented to security and transport officials but not generally accessible to the public (i.e. no publication in the traditional sense). [[User:From Hill To Shore|From Hill To Shore]] ([[User talk:From Hill To Shore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
::{{tl|PD-Kenya}} assumes that the photograph was published, which may not be the case here. If this is a passport-style photograph but not used in a passport, it has not been published. If the photograph has been used in a passport, we would need to determine whether that is sufficient to constitute publication; the image would be presented to security and transport officials but not generally accessible to the public (i.e. no publication in the traditional sense). [[User:From Hill To Shore|From Hill To Shore]] ([[User talk:From Hill To Shore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Many thanks for the advice so far. From the stamp on the photo, it was used in a passport. So, what is the situation with passport photos? In general? [[User:MerielGJones|MerielGJones]] ([[User talk:MerielGJones|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.
One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
SpBotarchives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.
Counter productive image deletions
Images by Nobu Tamura[1] (who is noted exactly for creating images for Wikipedia[2], our most prolific artist of prehistoric animals) were deleted per[3] on very shaky grounds by Ellywa with very little discussion, even though it's not a clear case at all. These DRs come up again and again because NT has uploaded images here with one licence, but elsewhere (his blog[4]) with a non commercial one (even though the blog also states the low res versions found there are of the commercial CC variety), but that should not be a problem, as dual licences are allowed. Another source of confusion is that he initially uploaded his images under a different name, Arthur Weasley[5].
I find it counterproductive and even ridiculous that these deletion requests keep coming up, and harmful that the images were deleted in this case with almost no discussion, and no examination of their context. I think the images should be undeleted and we should have some mechanism to prevent further deletion of NT's images here. Ellywa noted in the DR that NT is inactive on Commons now anyway, which is ironic, since the main reason he is inactive is exactly because people kept nominating his images for deletion. Perhaps a creator template needs to be made for him on Commons like the one for Dmitry Bogdanov[6] which lists both their usernames to avoid further confusion and pointless deletions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "shaky grounds" have been explained on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Protocetus. These four images were not uploaded by Nobu Tamura, but by three other users. These users took the NC licenced files and changed the licence into CC_BY_SA. This appears not correct imho. I did not delete files uploaded by Nobu Tamura themselves. Ellywa (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why deletion was the best course of action as opposed to replacement and revdeling, as the author indicates that low res versions are permissible for use. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said. The artist was not involved in these uploads. A Revdel would not result in other versions of the uploads. The artist could give permission for these images. Then they can be undeleted. So please get into contact with Nobu Tamura and ask to send permission to VRT. The email address is easily found. Would love to undelete the beautiful drawings as a result! Ellywa (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to find heads or tails in this now because of the premature deletion, but images of his with BW in the filename were usually uploaded by his alternate account, Arthur Weasley[7], including some of these that were deleted, another important aspect which wasn't discussed during the DR. So yes, most of this was uploaded by him or with his permission, heck, he was even a prolific editor at one point, so it would be more than easy to just ask him, he is still contactable, before second guessing. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is sad to say that the massive paragraph detailing the failings of commons admins posted by none other than the author of all these works is relevant again. ArthurWeasley and NobuTamura are the same individuals, discussions should be made before deletions, we give authors the courtesy even when it might not be right under a strict application of rules, and more, because the goal is not to police images so intensely and rapidly that everyone becomes disillusioned with the process entirely, which has happened before and will happen again. IJReid (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The back history of this is difficult to find. The files on the DR were indeed uploaded by several different users, but per the DR they are all apparently derived from just one, File:Protocetus BW.jpg, so that is the only one that matters. That was indeed uploaded by the alternate account long ago, so it would appear to be uploaded by the author. A few years after upload, the author looks like they tried to get several images deleted as inaccurate, but most/all were rejected as being in use. The user then changed the license on all their uploads to an NC license, which an admin apparently took as a user-requested deletion request, and deleted them (including the one in question), despite most being in use (maybe that was missed). They were restored the next day during this discussion (which is no longer in any archive, so hard to find). It also ended up at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive_35#Dinosaur_extinction_across_wikis. I presume the history was similar to File:Dromaeosaurus BW.jpg, which was also deleted at the time. They then tried to delete at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dromaeosaurus BW.jpg, but was turned down. The original upload was by the user, but they gradually added reference to their alternate username, and two different external sites, before removing reference to the en-wiki account and only leaving the second website (which was likely not in existence at the time of upload). In 2018, a permission statement was added to that file, which seemed to indicate a mention of the free license for lower-resolution files was on the source website at the time (can still see something similar at a different image page). Unsure if a similar permission statement was on this file, but it appears to be of the same basic history, which was that the files were validly licensed by the uploader, with external references being added later. On File:Ichthyornis.jpg, the uploader themselves eventually reverted the change to the license on that file, so they appear to have later understood the irrevocable nature of the original license. The file in question was uploaded before the source website existed, although the *date* mentioned on the website page is years earlier, which likely confused the nominator into thinking it existed on that website before the upload here, which appears to be inaccurate (the Internet Archive histories of that website don't start until 2012, and indeed the date on the source URL is also 2012, while the file was uploaded here in 2008). The other website mentioned looks like it started in 2009. Several other uploads here from the author date from 2006. That all leads to a situation hard to diagnose, as evidenced by that an admin nominated this file for deletion again, and another admin agreed. But it would appear to have been uploaded here before the author started a website for their works (and then changed or merged identities, as their external email address also changed over time, same as Wikipedia usernames, looking at the history). Really not sure of the best way to document all of this to prevent future deletion of that user's uploads. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that one of the reasons the artist started nominating his images for deletion were due to recurring deletion requests by others, he just got fed up. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that, but can understand. Admins delete so many copyvios every day, things that look like they meet the same pattern can sometimes not get investigated as thoroughly. Might be good to have a VRT confirmation that they are the same user, so that one of those tags could be added to the files -- that can more often stop quick deletions. Removing reference to the Commons username might also have hurt. A note added to their user page linking their newer user account might also help, to see they are the same person. Really though, the "source" should be "own work" uploads, since that is in fact the source of the permission, with the external website mentioned as "other versions". And maybe the author field could mention the original uploader, and mention the new username as well, to make clear the connection. The history is therefore unfortunately partly disguised on the file pages themselves, and while understandable, it does make things a bit harder on others coming into it today. Very unfortunate results (over and over, it seems). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: If I understand well, you are implying that that User:ArthurWeasley~commonswiki is the same person as User:NobuTamura. I did read the current talk pages of both, but did not find any reference they are the same person. In the history of the talk page I found some comment from you it is the same person, but this was deleted by ArthurWeasley~commonswiki. Doing more research I found this redirect from en:User:ArthurWeasley to Nobu Tamura, but that redirect was made by an anonymous editor. In addition I found a deleted edit of Nobu Tamara redirecting an unused user page User:ArthurWeasley, which might also indicate it is the same person.
Being a relatively new admin, I was not aware of this possible relation. But I cannot find any "proof" that both users are the same person. If we want to avoid such DR's in future, it should be written somewhere quite clearly that uploads from ArthurWeasley~commonswiki when attributing Nobu Tamura as author are legitimate. Otherwise this will occur again and again I'm afraid. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same person, he just switched to his real name after some years as his art got more exposure. I and others at the dinosaur Wiki project were in touch with him regularly (he used to edit too), and he uploaded many of his images here first under the AW name before even posting the same ones on his later blog. The easiest way to confirm would just be to send him an email (listed here[8]). I just noticed he already has a creator template listing both names, as I requested earlier:[9]FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellywa: As part of the history of one of the files mentioned above, there is this edit, which shows the uploader account changing emails from the old alias to the new username, in 2009 long before any of the deletions came about. In fact, the author username is that account in that edit, but the visible text was the newer name, so I guess later on they simply eventually created an account under the desired Nobu Tamura name. It seems pretty clear they were the same person, as I'm sure similar credit changes were done on many of their uploads. I too was unaware of any of this, but it's possible to go digging into a lot of old edits and page histories. Granted, there is no hint of this on the page anymore, and the files look a lot like images simply copied from the web. Agreed that the page descriptions should contain some of that history, to tie things together, and would make deletions far less likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't hurt either, although that template (nor the Wikidata entry) seems to link to the actual user accounts, so given the "source" entries of the files it would still look like they were being copied from that external source, so if there is no mention of the CC-BY-SA license on that source page then there could still be issues. I still think the "source" should be {{Own work}}, the author field could link to both user accounts (and also use that Creator template for good measure), and the website be linked to in the other_versions section. I think that would be the most accurate/clear. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, modifying the creator template would probably be easy enough (will give it a try), but modifying the file descriptions themselves would probably need a bot, because it's hundreds of files... FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: If a deletion request is closed after being open for 6 months, like this one, deletions are not "premature". And please don't attack Ellywa, she simply set herself the – obviously thankless – task of closing the oldest deletion requests, and I don't think she or anyone else enjoys aggressive threads like this one. If you think any closing admin missed some facts, just tell them without all the incendiary rhetoric. Thanks. --Rosenzweigτ13:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any "aggression" directed at the closing admin specifically, it is clearly a general statement because this has been occurring for years by various admins. I called it premature because little attempt was made to address my arguments in the DR. And I think such actions are indeed very harmful for the project when ongoing, hence the, let's say, hyperbole, and admittedly, frustrated desperation. But yes, I will take this to UDR. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet war correspondent's photos and mil.ru license.
The photo that I took from the pages of the newspaper "Krasnaya Zvezda" was nominated for deletion and deleted Commons:Deletion_requests/File:RedStarNewspaper56.jpg.
The archive of these newspapers for 1941-1945 was published for free use on the website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation [12].
Example of another similar foto that not deleted: [13] and it's source [14].
I, as it should be according to the rules, asked the administrator a question, who summed it up - why did he do it? User_talk:Yann#DR_on_File:RedStarNewspaper56.jpg And receive a very interesting answer: that only the Soviet Union owned the copyright to these photos. And since it does not exist, the copyright has returned to the author and belongs to him.
But as I think: the photographer was a war correspondent of the "Krasnaya Zvezda" newspaper and serves in the Soviet army. Taking these photos was his job, his duties in military service. And the results of his work belong to the Soviet army (as a newspaper owner) and now to its legal successor - the Ministry of Defense of Russia (as the current owner of the newspaper [15]). And today Ministry of Defense of Russia may use it as it want. And this foto could be published by "mil.ru" with free-license.
Am I right or wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kursant504 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I would remove the hilt and the colored elements (the purple and yellow ones) and just render the blade (the gray area where the Triforce is also on it) :). --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as the title of the section suggests I would like an image of an antibody, specifically Nirsevimab. There is a resource from Sanofi (the company developing it) that can be found here, but I am highly inclined to believe that it is copyrighted. Could someone please do this for me? Thank you! X750 (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ruthven Yeah thought so. How do we proceed? Is someone able to create something line an SVG for this? I mean it's not particularly imperative but it would be nice. X750 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G. Yup, I have understood Wikipedia's guidelines surrounding non-free content, that is why I came here. It would technically fail NFCC, because someone could just recreate it, but obviously then you run into the problem of getting permission from Sanofi & AstraZeneca. Take en:Tirzepatide, a user I collaborated with simply uploaded an SVG of the compound, but it was technically in the public domain since it was based off of an image found on ChemSpider. So, should we wait till nirsevimab is published to some sort of public antibody database (especially since we can then see its amino acid sequence)? X750 (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I think this Image should be renamed because it shows Nazi Symbols, also it lacks the legal disclaimer for these Symbols. I hope I am in the right section for my requests.
Tryout123 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryout123 The file name is indicative enough: I don't see reasons to rename the file. The alternative would be Doppel_Siegrune.png, but the English name is good enough. Ruthven(msg)09:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recently corrected the ID of the flower on this image and the image was renamed. I just checked the original image on Flickr again and it is just named "Flowers in the rocks", with the additional note "Mom took this picture". This note is also part of the Exif metadata of the latest version, but not of the image uploaded to Commons. I have no idea where the precise location and the previous (wrong) ID for the plant came from, but I assume that Flickr pages can change. Bart Everson is the uploader on Flickr and he is incorrectly named as the author of the photograph on Commons. I am not sure whether "Flowers on the rocks" is an image title that must be mentioned on the Commons page. What should we do here? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Trade. Assuming that you're asking about File:40-year old guy doing ahegao.jpg, then I think an argument could be made that the T-shirt is actually only one of many elements in the photo and that the imagery that appears on it would be consisdered COM:DM. If the photo was cropped or otherwise taken to focus in entirely on the T-shirt, then that might be a problem; however, I'm not so sure that's the case here. While the T-shirt wearer does seem to be trying to make the same facial expression as what's on the shirt, I'm not sure that makes the photo a COM:DW in which copyright of the T-shirt needs to be separately taken into account. This kind of photo would likely be considered a type of COM:COSPLAY and the photo might just be considered to show someone "merely cosplaying". -- 21:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
"T-shirt is actually only one of many elements in the photo and that the imagery that appears on it would be consisdered COM:DM" is clearly untrue, as evidenced by actual use of this file and composition. I nominated it for deletion Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mateusz Konieczny: If you're going to quote someone, you shouldn't en:cherry-pick the quote to suit whatever meaning you want to attribute to it. The entire sentence was ..., then I think an argument could be made that the T-shirt is actually only one of many elements in the photo and that the imagery that appears on it would be consisdered COM:DM. This doesn't mean that I was unequivocally stating the T-shirt imagery is de minimis, but that someone could try and argue that it was. It's fine that you nominated the file for deletion, but I never implied that it shouldn't be nominated for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was not intended as quote, but to preempt a possible argument against deletion (and you found the most plausible one). Note that it was not formatted as quote nor claimed that you are wrong @Marchjuly: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you refer to something posted by another editor verbatim between a set of quotation marks, then it's almost going to be seen as quoted text. If I misunderstand the intent of you post, then that's fine but the use of quotation marks does make it seem as if you were quoting me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I checked only deletion request text - and here I quoted it. Sorry for that. My intention was to express that this potential argument is really weak Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only text relating to copyright claim on the PDF, AFAICT, is from a stamp (?) on page 3: Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted [...] Further reproduction outside the ERIC system requires permission of copyright owner, but then, the text is also available in 2022 for free download online. Fish bowl (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1842 drawing of UK school
I'm wondering if anyone here on Commons could possibly help sort out whether en:File:Grove House School.jpg is PD. The file was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, and it is currently being discussed at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 April 18#File:Grove House School.jpg. It seems a bit odd that a drawing of en:Grove House School which is supposed to date back to 1842 would still be under copyright protection, but it's not clear when it was first published; it's now also not clear whether this is the original drawing or a reproduction subsequently created. If the file is not OK for Commons because it's still protected under UK copyright law (which is the likely country of origin/country of first publication), then perhaps it would still be PD in the US. In that case, it might not need to be treated as non-free content locally on English Wikipedia, a could be possible relicensed as en:Template:PD-USonly or some other license for use on English Wikipedia only. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything would definitely depend on date of publication, or at least "making available to the public". The questions would be, how did the Bruce Castle Museum obtain the work in the first place (it's possible publication happened then, or before). If they are simply claiming copyright over the photographic copy of the drawing, that is {{PD-Art}} by our policies, but that might be a valid copyright in the UK, though that is far from clear and would be against more recent EU law (which the UK no longer needs to follow). But, that could be the basis for their copyright claim. If that museum did get the drawing from the original family legally but never published it, there are certain publication dates which could be problematic. If it was first published before 1989 in the UK, I think the term there would be 50 years from publication. If first published 1989 or later, it will expire in 2040 in the UK (unpublished works got 50 years starting in 1989 with their new copyright law at the time, regardless when published after that, other than pre-1957 photographs). There is also a 25-year publication right due to the publisher, no matter how they got it, so that could also be the basis for their claim. For the U.S., it would have needed to be first legally published between 1946 and 1977 (term would be 95 years from publication) or 1978 and 2002 (term would expire in 2048), otherwise it's PD. Determining "publication" can also be challenging, for both countries. The more provenance info the better (when did the museum obtain it, and from who, and has it been on display, etc.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PD-1996 would work if it was published before 1946 (since the 70pma would have expired by then; we only need to deal with the 50-year-from-publication posthumous terms from their old law). If published then or after, and before 1978, it was still under copyright in the UK on the URAA date, and the U.S. term would be 95 years from publication, even if since expired in the UK. If first published on or in 1978, and before 2003, then they hit that odd window of U.S. law which would give them 70 years protection from 1978, so would only be PD in the U.S. in 2048. If first published since 2003, it would be fine in the U.S. but still under copyright in the UK until 2040. Of course, you would have to explain how it was not legally published until then -- how did the museum obtain it in the first place, is the usual question. Most of the time it's unlikely for something to remain truly unpublished that long (or be legally published, with copyright owner's consent, if it was truly unpublished). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can contact the museum, Deborath Hedgecock, with a list of questions but I'm doubtful I will get a reply. I'll ask them where they got it, from who and has it been on display. I send it in the morning. Scope creep (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have forwarded an email to Deborah Hedgecock re: the questions above. The school closed in 1877 and was converted into a church, so it was completed before that. Scope creep (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it was created in 1842, so it's obvious the author died long ago. The copyright term is however dependent on the tortured question of publication date, due to older copyright laws in both the US and the UK. It's honestly pretty difficult for something to remain truly unpublished for that long, but it's possible. Hopefully the museum has some provenance information. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: If the image was made before 1902 and the author is unknown, it qualifies for our {{PD-old-assumed}} tag. While it is theoretically possible for works from so long ago with an unknown author to be in copyright, Commons community consensus is that if 120 years have passed since creation, it is assumed to be safe to upload. If additional details become available to give a more precise licence then that will be great. However, it isn't a requirement to be that detailed (as that level of detail doesn't exist for many old images). From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore and Clindberg: The only thing I would add to what's be posted so far is that Scope creep posted on English Wikipedia something about this being a "reproduction". I'm not sure what that means so maybe Scope creep could clarify. Is it a case of COM:2D copying? Is it a case of simple digitalization (maybe that's why the museum claimed copyright over it)? Did someone create a "new" drawing of this school using the original 1842 as reference? Perhaps "reproduction" was just used by Scope creep in a non-copyright related context, but it was used at the end of an already long discussion about the image on English Wikipedia and never really got clarified, except by a different editor who seemed to imply that a reproduction would be a "clear derivative work" so that means it too would be PD; that reasoning seems odd and incorrect to me, but I might be missing something. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two things I found. It was a shop, selling the original lithograph, [16]. This document from Library of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain on page 12 states the same thing, by W.D. Sparkes 1842. The software is not letting me link to the document, but its states on page 12:
“Grove House School, Tottenham” [Pict. Box L 1/23]
Reproduction of pencil drawing by W.D.S. [W.D. Sparkes], 1842
Grove House School, Tottenham (1828-1877) was conducted by Thomas Binns
I have found an online shop dealing in rare prints that is selling a lithograph of this image.[17] (edit: same shop as linked above) Having a lithograph of the image means it was definitely published (lithography is a printing process to reproduce multiple copies) and it was probably before the advent of photocopiers. In terms of derivative work, the lithograph process itself involves recreating the original. Normally the lithograph is nearly identical, so no new copyright is produced. However, even if there are significant variations, most images labelled specifically as lithographs were published before 1920, so are PD in their own right. The lithograph process is a technique still used today in printing but you don't tend to see images labelled as such. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright status assessment of IMS Vintage Image photo
Can anyone help sort out whether this photo would still be protected per COM:United Kingdom? The photo is of the comedy due en:Dukes and Lee and looks to have been taken on 1 August 1977. Since the pair were both British and their performances seem limited to the UK, it seems fair to assume that's where the photo comes from. There's no visible copyright notice on the back of the photo, which would probably make it {{PD-US-no-notice}} in the US, but I don't know whether there's something equivalent to the US's "no-notice" license under UK copyright law. The site hosting the photo is IMS Vintage Photos, and that appears to be based out of Lativia; IMS seems to be something like Getty Images, but I'm not sure whether IMS may have any copyright claim over the photos it hosts. FWIW, there are a number of photos uploaded to Commons from IMS found in Category:Photos from IMS Vintage Photos which are licensed as PD for one reason or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Taisei Project" is a doujin work of Touhou Project. Recently I noticed a batch of works related to Taisei Project uploaded by Zache, including portrait of characters from GitHub repository (released under CC-BY 4.0), screenshot and recorded videos of this game (YouTube video released under CC license, soundtrack released under CC-BY 4.0). Kind of wondering if such is compatible with guideline of fan art, which said "[...] certain types of fan art are in principle allowed provided they do not copy any creative element of the original work of fiction". But for derivative work of Touhou Project, there are some sort of special rules which allow such uses, just like the description field of this portrait of Kirisame Marisa, "The copyright of derivative works belong to the creators of said derivatives. If there is trouble regarding the derivatives of my work, I cannot take responsibility". Is such kind of statement an OK sign for uploading such doujin works? It is hard for me to judge, so I raise my question at here. Stang★18:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"PD-EU-no author disclosure" and proving a negative
{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} The template currently reads: "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication." This needs to be reworded, I constantly see the argument being used at deletion that the uploader has to provide "reasonable evidence" that a photographer has never been attached to an image, but Evidence of universal absence is impossible. What evidence is actually expects when a person scans an image, or downloads an image. Whatever requirement is demanded needs to listed in the template. I would like to see the paragraph reworded to list what is required. Perhaps saying: "If you found this image online please list the url for the website" I don't know what is expected when you scan an old photograph yourself. Perhaps: "I attest that the original photographer was not named on the original image". --RAN (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The EU directive is for anonymous and pseudonymous works. To know that a work was truly published anonymously, and not that the author's name has simply been lost via Internet copies, you really do need to know something about the initial publication. If we don't know that, then it's hard to apply that section of law. The other part of the EU directive is that for some countries, the initial publication with no author disclosure means the work is forever 70 years from publication (i.e. a later disclosure of the author within 70 years won't turn it into 70pma). That again needs evidence from the original publication. If we don't have that evidence, or at least beyond a significant doubt, then the works in question are more like orphan works, which are not OK here. So yes a slight rewording may be in order, but the necessary evidence really doesn't change -- you do need to show reasonable evidence that work was indeed anonymous, at least initially. Just providing an Internet URL with no provenance information is not enough to apply the law/tag in question. If there is no author named on a photo you have, then what is the provenance of that photo? If that copy was the original publication, then yes the scan would show anonymous publication (you can scan the entire work, and maybe a scan of the back as well, then overwrite with the version you want to use). If you don't know where the photo came from, then we may not have enough evidence to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Publication according to the definition in Berne and URAA agreements is "made available to the public", not appearing in a magazine or newspaper. See: Commons:Publication. If an image exists as a print not in the hands of the commercial photographer, it has been made public. It is rare that an original negative remains in the hands of the commercial photographer. This happens when an archive like the Library of Congress buys the original negatives, like the Bain Collection. --RAN (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we boil it down, what you are trying to accomplish is to shift the burden of proof (here: that some work is anonymous/pseudonymous) from the uploader to whoever is arguing that the work is not anonymous, as evidenced by your “If you found this image online please list the url for the website” line. Which would mean that it would be ok for anybody to upload to Wikimedia Commons, as an "anonymous" work, any picture they found online without a credit, as long at it is at least 70 years old and somehow connected to an EU country. Then if someone points out that the work is not anonymous at all because the author's name actually is known, you say Oops, we'll apply some "clawback" or whatever your favorite term is and generously allow deletion. Which of course is in no way compatible with Commons:Project scope/Evidence, one of the core rules here. So no, I don't think that the template needs to be reworded to allow for more unsourced uploads with dubious claims of anonymity. --Rosenzweigτ20:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of universal absence is impossible, but convincing evidence of absence is possible. And that is what is needed to use this template Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the "convincing evidence of absence" you are expecting, show an example of what you expect. --RAN (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A valid example would be a file sourced to a reputable GLAM (gallery, library, archive, or museum), which publishes an image with a mention that the author is unknown. Yann (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or finding what appears to be the first publication, with no author being named. In an old book, or newspaper, or something like that. Or an entire postcard or publicity photo (not cropped, and back visible, with no credits there). Or, a source with good provenance information, and/or a source which would have mentioned an author if known, as Yann mentions. Some countries had a copyright term based on time of creation; those would need less evidence obviously. The "anonymous" terms however do come with a need to show some indication of the anonymity (which means an uncredited author on the first publication). If there is an author name credited, the terms are 70pma, even if you can't find when they died, so in those cases a death date becomes necessary (until PD-old-assumed can be used). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, in France there is no FOP. Second, these two questions: FOP and license are not related to each other in any way. Ruslik (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize for the poorly worded query. I’ll try and rephrase things. Can this file be kept as licensed even if there’s no FOP for buildings in France? Does the original Flickr license accepted by Flickrbot apply to only the photo or also the photographed building?Finally, just to clarify the Not sure why the Flickr licesned ended up being changed, but perhaps it's due to France's FOP of my post, I was speculating out loud whether the reason why the Flickr account holder changed the license was related to France’s lack of FOP. Perhaps the Flickr account holder found out later that the license the originally chose had issues. However, in hindsight, the only way to know for sure why the license was changed is to contact the Flickr account holder directly. The question for Commons though is still whether the original Flickr license is still OK. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks simple at first glance but there are several specific decisions made by the author that make this chart copyrightable imho: The line colour, background colour and the use of the grid are elements that can be adjusted to make the chart look just like this. So there is enough creative input to warrant a copyright. On that note, the image looks Python-ish where that output results from choosing a specific plot style, i.e. it was the author's intent to make it look like that. So, the standard OSM CC licence should be alright. De728631 (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I edited the Licensing section to add this template:
This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason:
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer.
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse
The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details.
I just want to confirm if this is enough or if I should do something more. Any info that can help me learn how to do this better next time is welcomed. Thanks --Beethoven (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is exactly the right license tag, no need to do something more. Generally, when you pick up images from the internet that are obviously out of copyright due to old age, you should use the {{PD-art}} wrapper because you didn't scan or photograph the original work yourself. As to the proper copyright situation, when the authors have been named, we try to find the lifetime dates if there is significant doubt that they could have been alive well into the second half of the 20th century. For unknown authors or unknown lifetime dates, you may also use {{PD-old-assumed}} if the work was created more than 120 years ago. All these, however, would also need an appropriate US copyright licence like PD-US-expired though. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do these images meet the threshold of originality in this country?
This section was moved from the main Village Pump - I think this is a better place to get expert opinions on matters like this. --El Grafo (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This and this logos are uploaded as non-free on Wikipedia. The copyright laws of their country of origin, Japan, is stated on COM:TOO Japan. It looks like the threshold of originality is quite high in Japanese law. Does anyone here think that these two logos are below that line and hence could qualify for exporting to Commons? --Morita Akio (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
already here - should it stay?
@Morita Akio Regarding the second one, we already have the one on the right. However, it appears that this was uploaded with a German perspective on copyright/TOO rather than a Japanese one. From my personal POV, this feels way too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. El Grafo (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Morita Akio: These logos may have been designed by one of Sony's US subsidiaries, do you have evidence otherwise? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
How to add photo to Ellinor Catherine Cunningham van Someren page?
Sorry to trouble you, but I can't understand how to do this. There is a passport photo of this late entomologist (Ellinor Catherine Cunningham van Someren, died 1988) inherited by her son. The problem is how to provide the copyright release text. Her son is an elderly gentleman who does email but will not upload the photo himself or use the on-line release generator (Wikimedia VRTS release generator). I can email the text from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates to him, declaration of consent to use copyright-protected media, and I hope he will be willing to email the completed version back, copying in [email protected], with the photo attached. I can upload the picture and paste in the release text into the box Another reason not mentioned above on the second page (Release rights) of the upload wizard. Also put a template for Permission pending on the Ellinor Catherine Cunningham van Someren page. Somehow this will get matched to the email? Is that the thing to do? The various FAQs and Wizards are confusing for this situation (or I have not yet stumbled over the one that explains it) --MerielGJones (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know precisely but she looks middle aged, so say 1955 - 1965 (born 1915, died 1988). Also, was taken in Kenya where she lived. MerielGJones (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-Kenya}} assumes that the photograph was published, which may not be the case here. If this is a passport-style photograph but not used in a passport, it has not been published. If the photograph has been used in a passport, we would need to determine whether that is sufficient to constitute publication; the image would be presented to security and transport officials but not generally accessible to the public (i.e. no publication in the traditional sense). From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the advice so far. From the stamp on the photo, it was used in a passport. So, what is the situation with passport photos? In general? MerielGJones (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Postcards from Paper Jewels
I have concerns about 755 images of postcards, from colonial-era India, in Category:Postcards of India by Paper Jewels. They seem to be good-faith uploads by new users, so please be kind. They are from the website https://www.paperjewels.org/ and may well be PD by dint of age, and (in some cases) being by unknown creators.
About the images, their "Image rights" page says: "Use as you see fit, even commercially. Do credit the original artist, photographer or publisher and PaperJewels.org." [18]. So, the general copyright notice of their website does not seem a claim of copyright on the images of the postcards, but a copyright on whatever is original to their website or to their book, and their request of credit to the website can be understood as a request not for authorship but for credit as the source, which is fair. The mistakes in the description pages of Commons look like the sort of mistakes that are very common from many users, e.g. lack of research, naming the website in the author field, placing a bogus CC license. I suppose that many can be fixed and the files kept, some others will probably have to be deleted. The problem is to review them individually and do whatever additional research may be necessary and, if you want to do it systematically, to organise a workable method of review. If one or a few uploaders uploaded a large proportion of those files, they could be asked to do their share of the work. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I nominated File:Detour (1945).webm, which was taken from a Criterion Collection Blu-Ray disk for Featured Pictures. It was pointed out that, since The Criterion Collection restored a public domain movie, it might not be eligible for protection. So it would be nice for some clarification. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a restoration as restarting the copyright clock because they are restoring the film to look like it did when first released. The US courts only awarded a new copyright for colorization because of the creative decisions about what colors to add. --RAN (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Movement Strategy Implementation Grant for the creation of an all-purpose file tool
Hello! I'll be developing an all-purpose file tool that includes the feature to detect potential copyright-violating images that also appear on the Internet. I thought it would be a good idea to request a Movement Strategy Implementation Grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information about the scope of the tool and the grant on m:Grants:Project/MSIG/EpicPupper/Fortuna. Feel free to leave comments, questions, suggestions, or ideas on the grant talk page, and endorsements or offers to translate or localize the tool in the relevant sections. Thanks! EpicPupper (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The back history of this is difficult to find. The files on the DR were indeed uploaded by several different users, but per the DR they are all apparently derived from just one, File:Protocetus BW.jpg, so that is the only one that matters. That was indeed uploaded by the alternate account long ago, so it would appear to be uploaded by the author. A few years after upload, the author looks like they tried to get several images deleted as inaccurate, but most/all were rejected as being in use. The user then changed the license on all their uploads to an NC license, which an admin apparently took as a user-requested deletion request, and deleted them (including the one in question), despite most being in use (maybe that was missed). They were restored the next day during this discussion (which is no longer in any archive, so hard to find). It also ended up at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive_35#Dinosaur_extinction_across_wikis. I presume the history was similar to File:Dromaeosaurus BW.jpg, which was also deleted at the time. They then tried to delete at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dromaeosaurus BW.jpg, but was turned down. The original upload was by the user, but they gradually added reference to their alternate username, and two different external sites, before removing reference to the en-wiki account and only leaving the second website (which was likely not in existence at the time of upload). In 2018, a permission statement was added to that file, which seemed to indicate a mention of the free license for lower-resolution files was on the source website at the time (can still see something similar at a different image page). Unsure if a similar permission statement was on this file, but it appears to be of the same basic history, which was that the files were validly licensed by the uploader, with external references being added later. On File:Ichthyornis.jpg, the uploader themselves eventually reverted the change to the license on that file, so they appear to have later understood the irrevocable nature of the original license. The file in question was uploaded before the source website existed, although the *date* mentioned on the website page is years earlier, which likely confused the nominator into thinking it existed on that website before the upload here, which appears to be inaccurate (the Internet Archive histories of that website don't start until 2012, and indeed the date on the source URL is also 2012, while the file was uploaded here in 2008). The other website mentioned looks like it started in 2009. Several other uploads here from the author date from 2006. That all leads to a situation hard to diagnose, as evidenced by that an admin nominated this file for deletion again, and another admin agreed. But it would appear to have been uploaded here before the author started a website for their works (and then changed or merged identities, as their external email address also changed over time, same as Wikipedia usernames, looking at the history). Really not sure of the best way to document all of this to prevent future deletion of that user's uploads. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Info file is now under deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Extension siège L'Oréal (43707042205).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
