Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note

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.
Have you read the FAQ?
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.

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

Copyleft trolling - proceeding to watermark images

The same image, cropped with CSS image crop so the watermark is not visible.

Hi, one year ago we had a major case of Copyleft trolling discovered, with over a thousand images (partly featured) being hosted on our platform as bait to sue anyone for "damages" when re-using the material. Afterwards, we created a new page (the bolded one above) to take action against those who try to indiscriminately sue re-users of Commons-hosted pictures for money. In short: After confirming that a user is copyleft trolling, possible fixes are persuasion of the user not to do this; if continued we have to delete or forcibly watermark images. Those actions prevent both innocent re-users from overlooking the possibility of a lawsuit; and less innocent users on Commons to just follow the set example.

In the case from last year, the user in question has not stopped to extract money from unsuspecting re-users (1, 2, 3) and also a DR against the images has ended in (ca.) 12:19 (Kept). This means that forced watermarking is the last resort left for the community.
Since this is the first test of a new and not fully tested process (the last time we did this was in 2019), it is only prudent to ask again for a community consensus. A script is available that can quickly attach the attribution watermark. --Enyavar (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is interesting especially for the known copyright trolls from Germany. Happy to provide a list. For reference, we have a designated page in the German-language Wikipedia for this phenomenon: de:Wikipedia:Abmahnung. Gnom (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)f=[reply]

This is complicated. We've had many discussions about copyleft trolling as well as alleged cases of copyleft trolling, and many discussions about possible solutions. This much is clear: once we have determined someone is engaging in copyleft trolling, there are several possible approaches, including deletion and forced watermarking. There are parallel discussions about improvements we could make to the Wikipedia/MediaWiki interface to better explain the requirements of CC licenses, but that's something that should happen irrespective of actions on specific users. This particular case involves Diliff, and much text has been spilled debating what to do about these images: VP thread, another VP thread, and a DR. I have trouble determining the extent to which consensus emerged that Diliff has been "copyleft trolling" sufficient to consider an intervention, so figuring that out is probably what needs to happen first. Personally, I remain ambivalent. I don't like the idea of people using Commons to make money through a license enforcement business model, but I also don't think Diliff is as egregious as, say, Verch (who allegedly only uploaded material to Commons in order to profit). Diliff is a different case, apparently just going after commercial sites/businesses. But then again, that includes small businesses and, according to what he said in a past discussion, even when he determines there was no serious offense, he still wants money for the time he took to determine it was not a serious offense. Nearly lost me completely with that response. So yeah, ambivalent. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Consensus has already been established that we should watermark images that are being used for copyleft trolling unless the uploader agrees to migrate to a CC 4.0 license. Diliff rejected that suggestion as he believed that the 30-day grace period offered by the CC 4.0 license had "not been considered from the content creator's perspective with respect to the potential income it takes from them".[1] He also refused to discontinue sending legal threats via Pixsy.[2] The fact that Diliff is demanding compensation for accidental attribution errors even when the reusers have offered to correct the attribution or remove the images entirely[3][4][5], means that Diliff has gone beyond seeking fair compensation for use of his images and is copyleft trolling, IMO. The only way we can protect unwitting re-users from accidentally getting ensnared in this trap is to add a watermark to the images (or delete them). Adding a watermark seems the least destructive path. Nosferattus (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the watermark isn't aggressive enough, it reads more like a threat by the uploader than the warning about the author it is supposed to be. JayCubby (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not elegant, but I support it, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just delete them all so that he learns the lesson. On the down side, we'd be missing on some great photos. Bedivere (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It gives us another tool besides deletion. Will we be able to detect people reverting or overwriting the change? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add a category for those images, then have a process that detects whenever a user other than an admin (or bot) changes an image with that category? Ravensfire (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that Diliff would revert the change; he is largely inactive and has not uploaded new files for five years now.
We should mark the edits clearly as an administrative action with referral to the Copyleft Trolling policy, to discourage other users from reverting. And yes, a hidden category to collect all watermarked files sounds prudent. Not sure how to patrol it by bot, but even if that isn't feasible, humans could also patrol the category for a while to find out if other parties crop the images. (And on that note, determined editors could probably also remove the category as well?) --Enyavar (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a way to crop thumbnails without creating a new file if I recall correctly, so the watermark isn't a nuisance on mainspace articles. Perhaps make a note of that on the affected files, to discourage unwatermarking. JayCubby (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{CSS image crop}}. It's a little tricky and tends to require some experimentation with the exact parameters used. See example I've added at top of this discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 22:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems like a no brainer given the circumstances around copyleft trolling on here. Although it sucks for re-users and other projects but whatever. There doesn't seem to be a better way to deal with it at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Nobody seems to be engaging with the whole "there hasn't actually been consensus that the person whose images we're about to watermark is engaging in copyleft trolling" thing. That seems like the sort of thing we need to do officially, like a topic ban or somesuch. The closest thing we have is a DR where multiple options were proposed and was closed as keep. We also have a discussion closure (fraught -- still waiting for the closing admin to clarify their intentions) that once someone is found to be copyleft trolling, follow steps xyz. Presumably the subtext is not "if you see someone doing what looks like copyleft trolling, go ahead and watermark their images". This thread may suffice to find consensus specific to Diliff, but if that's what's happening they should really be notified and the heading clarified. A little awkward to be the one who has to keep drawing attention to this, since I found Diliff's responses in the last thread totally inadequate, but oh well. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I just notified Diliff on his talk page. Nosferattus (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"there hasn't actually been consensus ...that Diliff is a copyleft ~~troll~~ enforcer"? Really? We have seen about ten examples of people coming to his talk pages asking him if the extortion letters were written on his behalf (I found three just since the DR was closed); and Diliff himself has not been willing or able to provide examples of him waiving the fees he imposed on these individuals. It doesn't matter that he claims to only charge commercial re-uses, because a) we can hardly control him on that and b) that will still affect mostly small companies and also nonprofits. c) It also goes counter to our Copyleft-trolling policy page (edit: which should be renamed, see my next post from April 5).

People have voted to keep his images while still acknowledging that he is a copyleft enforcer because we believed that there was another way to deal with this problem. And I say "we" because I also voted "keep and watermark". I do think that the voting could have been narrowly swung the other way if we had known that watermarking were not an option.

If we're letting this slide we can just agree to delete that Copyleft Policy altogether. --Enyavar (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been soulsearching a bit and decided that I will not continue calling Diliff a "troll". Please also see Commons talk:Copyleft trolling#Name of the policy page.

Regardless of the internal motives and thought processes of Diliff as a Copyleft Enforcer, we urgently need to protect re-users from the consequences of his practice. We absolutely should watermark these images, and also keep Diliff as an upstanding (former) member of the Commons community. --Enyavar (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion: Commons:Village_pump#Copyleft_enforcement_-_concern_about_stretching_of_a_guideline — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat what I said here but it is relevant to this discussion. Enyavar, would you drop this please. We don't need to urgently protect stupid people from being stupid. Thousands of people have used Diliff's images per the licence conditions. Your post lists three, two of which openly admit to not bothering to attribute at all (i.e. they are of the "everything on the internet is free to take" mindset) and the other appears to have had problems with Wordpress displaying the attribution. In none of those cases do we know how it ended up. Hundreds of people ask Diliff how they can use his images and he guides them. Many who want to do so without attribution, for non-profit/charity work, are granted that permission. This is not a copyleft troll, Jmabel, and we all need to drop that kind of Twitter-rant language and start behaving more professionally. The Pixby solution is suboptimal for sure, and nobody here likes it, but there also isn't a professional outfit doing this kind of thing who behave any better.

Commons is an image repository of freely licenced or PD images. It's primary purpose is to serve as a common host for the Wikipedias and other WMF projects. If you guys decide to vandalise images in this repository, Wikipedia is just gonna fork and you'll be irrelevant. The above image with attribution/warning caption is then displayed as an example of use on Wikipedia with the caption cropped off. Are you insane? That's only going to make it worse. Please pursue Wikipedia/WMF to help fix their terrible image use UI. Every other publisher on the internet displays CC images with attribution in text below the image. Wikipedia does not, and seems to think a subtle hyperlink is enough. But it (and your stupid cropped solution) both teach our reusers that attribution is not important. This is Wikipedia/WMF's fault. They should fix it. Let's not vandalise our repository. These images do not belong to us. -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I will respond to only one part of this: you can either take back calling it "stupid" that I demonstrated that something is technically possible when JayCubby alluded to it but did not know how to do it, or I can start a complaint against you for that at COM:ANU. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin -- I think the inline attribution is an interesting prospect, actually. MediaViewer fills the role for the most part, but it could be justified with things like PotD, where there is enough space. JayCubby (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. It is messy. And this going to be a long comment unfortunately. Please at least address the first point.
- Point 1. The added watermark text is questionable, particularly in the atmosphere of a copyright holder enforcing the licence terms. Looking at the CC-BY-SA 3.0 legal code (and I am not a lawyer):
  - Is "Photo by DAVID ILIFF" indicating the copyright holder adequately? Use a "©" surely. It may be indicating a work-for-hire.
  - The code says "credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors" - does this illegible-at-thumbnail-size watermark do that for all use-cases?
  - The code says "If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit" - so in this case by maintaining the watermark you are violating the licence terms.
  - The watermark says "Keep this attribution intact to avoid legal action". You should confer with WMF Legal before baking poor legal advice into files. I am not aware of any cases where Diliff has started legal action, but legal threats and payment requests for sure. Incidentally, the watermarking on File:LL Cool J 2013.jpg doesn't offer legal advice but does it meet the "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation" part of the legal code when it is associating the copyright holder with litigation? I mentioned that because of the call to take the watermark further to warn people about the author - ie make a disparaging comment on the copyright holder's behaviour.
- Point 2. We have editors saying we have consensus for taking action copyleft trolling but please link to me the consensus to designate Diliff as a copyleft troll I must have missed it. And then we have other editors wanting to change the name of the guideline (Copyleft trolling), but wouldn't that make any theoretical consensus designating Diliff a troll invalid. I can't keep up, and going by the comment above and parallel discussions in various forums I am not the only one.
- Point 3. There is the problem of further damaging the reputation of Commons within the Wikimedia space. I don't think anyone is claiming that this watermarking procedure improves the value of Commons for Wikimedia projects. I understand that Commons wants its own identity, but it won't have any identity if merged into Wikipedia due do making free works inaccessible. I am not sure how the {{CSS image crop}} feature works when used outside of Commons, for example for a Wikipedia to use the file without the watermark they will have to wrap it in a template?
- Point 4. About the use of "watermark": The term is not 100% clear, to me at least, as it is not used in the traditional postage stamp or digital sense it is more of a non-destructive additive copyright notice modification to the work, and you may have better luck implementing it if you make that clear - you are extending the image canvas with a notice.
- Point 5. There have been multiple discussions surrounding this topic over the years covering various suggestions that were never implemented, like:
  - putting a {{Copyright holder aggressively enforces licence terms}} on file pages
  - a simple credit line at the top of the file pages
  - getting Wikipedias to lead by example with credit lines
  - the WMF providing a service to track down copyright infringement of Commons uploaders - using the same style of tracking software used by pixsy for example - to get them to comply before copyright holders even notice and legal threats are launched (this is my idea, but I am sure I have seen it somewhere before. It defends free-culture and can also list legitimate uses which uploaders typically desire anyway)

So instead, we let the copyright violations throughout the world accrue until we realised that the payment demands had started. And now we have this reactive watermarking process that does nothing to help those reusers already affected. Ideally those most passionate about protecting reusers (which includes those wanting watermarking) can get something done about educating reusers so they meet licence terms and this money demand situation can be prevented in the future. It is not ideal to have to oppose a proposal so that something gets done, but in this case that something is reducing future harm. I also wanted to note that the section of CC-BY-SA 4.0's legal code of saying you must "if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications" is a nightmare for non-WMF Project resuers so we are going to be having these discussions in perpetuity.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Commander Keane: Without addressing most of that, on Point 1 third bullet point, "upon notice from any Licensor… is an operative phrase. That is, the obligation to remove a credit would only arise upon notice that the licensor wanted the credit removed. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the way I understand it is that the copyright holder informs the reuser that the credit must be removed. Then if not done, copyright infringement has occurred. An aggressive one will say "remove the credit or pay me $900" and if you can't (I have seen cases where the reuser can't pay for website/file server adjustments) they are liable for legal action - contrary to the proposed watermark. I was curious about what licence the file has if credit removal is requested, but that is not relevant here. Commander Keane (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe 1) the watermarking process has consensus, and 2) based on OP's description and the linked discussions, the copyright enforcement actions around Diliff's files makes them eligible for watermarking per that process. I agree that WMF legal guidance on the wording of the watermark would be appreciated, but that shouldn't stop us from making a good attempt today (the watermarks could always be amended based on WMF guidance). Consigned (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to make them unusable for any project we may as well just delete them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image of book cover

Hello everyone!! I need some assistance and orientation. Earlier today, I was expanding the article about Os Subterrâneos da Liberdade, a book trilogy written by the Brazilian writer Jorge Amado, in the Portuguese Wikipedia, which has a counterpart in the English site, at The Bowels of Liberty. In the English article, an image of the cover of the first volume of the trilogy is feature, and employed under fair use (thus, it has been uploaded at the English website). I would like to find out if I can use the same image (it is a cover in Brazilian Portuguese) in the Portuguese version, and, if so, under what license and tag. The image I'm referring to can be found here. Could you please advise me? I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance. StoryCraftsman (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term for anonymous works in Brazil is "publish + 70 years" which seems to have passed this year. So it should be good as long as the artist isn't known. I assume the proper template would be "PD-Brazil-media." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason to believe the cover was published anonymously? Often the cover images of books are attributed together with the copyright information for the rest of the book (often on the back of the title page). –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LPfi: "often" in that era in Brazil? - Jmabel ! talk 01:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. –LPfi (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

question about "victory animation" from old versions of Solitaire (Windows)

Could it be OK to upload a screenshot of the well-known bouncing cards animation from the older versions of Microsoft Solitaire? I mean to crop the screenshot just to show the green background filled with the bouncing cards only (most likely with lower values as their design is quite simple), so no menus, no status bar, etc. I've asked a similar question on English Wikipedia a few days ago but so far nobody answered there Miko101 (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think no- the game, and any images derived from it would be under copyright. The bouncing card is too complex, plus it was an original idea, so it would not fall under any exceptions. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now I know that I can't make directly a screenshot and upload it here. But how about making a photo of a computer running Solitaire, just like an example of 386 running German-language Windows for Workgroups 3.1 with loaded Program Manager ? Miko101 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing for the purpose of copyright. I'm 95% sure this image also fails copyright, so I nommed it for deletion. Solitaire definitely will, as Windows Solitaire is very distinct looking, therefore way more original/creative than plain icons. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open source journal question

Are the images contained within an open source journal considered to be under the same license as the journal article itself? The images appear to be otherwise unpublished, given to the authors of the article by a family member of the deceased subject. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The images do not necessarily need to match the same license as the journal- there must be something written somewhere about what the conditions for use are. From what you have written, it might be that the permission was only given to the journal to use it, and not for reproduction of it elsewhere, or perhaps use not allowed for commercial reasons. But needs more info to find that out. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I will see if I can find more information about the images. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it might help, image info is usually underneath the photos, or at the end of the publication/at the end of each individual piece/article in the publication. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regional libraries and museums

I'm very active in editing pages that have to do with Nevada, specifically southern Nevada (which includes Las Vegas). However, there are a distinct lack of public domain imagery that is not from the War Office Administration specifically during WWII. However, the UNLV Library has an extensive digitized collection of historic photos in similarly high resolution to the LOC. However, most of it says "copyright not evaluated." Much of what the collection has was donated to do them by prominent families who donated their family photos. Almost none of the photographs have attribution other than that it comes from a collection, and there is no information about whether or not has been published before. In terms of the Hirtle Chart? What do I do?? Any help would be appreciated. TheYearbookTeacher (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a good start would be to know the year in which the photo was taken. Gnom (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These can be rather difficult, due to ambiguities in older U.S. copyright law. The date a photo was taken might matter. The date they were donated to the library, most likely does matter, as do the terms of that donation. Basically, for the U.S. before 1978, the length of copyright depended greatly on the date of publication, not creation. Most works were published soon after creation, but family photos probably were not. There are further ambiguities on what constitutes publication before 1978 -- was the donation itself effectively publication, meaning copyright notices had to be present if that donation happened before 1978, or does the library itself claim continued copyright ownership, and only publication when they made them available online? The most common old definition was when actual copies were distributed beyond a limited set of people, or beyond a limited use, or when there were rights to distribute further -- but that could be subtly different between judicial circuits. If the donation happened 1978 or later, the terms of the donation would have to explicitly assign copyright or the family still owns it, and the copyright term would be at least 70pma if the photographer is known.

If publication was earlier than 1989, the copyright notice question could apply, but not after that. So unfortunately, everything really depends on identifying a date of publication, then checking the Hirtle chart from there. But that is not always easy, and if the Library will try to claim rights in order to sell reproductions, even if nebulous, that can be an additional complication, though from their terms they seem to be adhering to copyright law -- but putting the onus on the end user to guess at its status, as they pretty much state they are claiming fair use of any still-copyrighted materials that they do not own the copyright to.

If photos were taken more than 120 years ago and no author is identified, you could use {{PD-old-assumed}}. Other than that, I'm not sure we can assume publication at any time before donation to the library. From a practical perspective, it's highly highly unlikely that any materials donated before 1964 got renewed, so if we can assume at least that as a publication date, those may be OK. From 1964 through 1988, we could maybe claim "no notice", but that is getting dodgier. If publication only happened when these were digitized, then not sure we can claim any of that. From 1989 through 2002, there is an additional complication that if that counts as the publication date, then the works will not expire before 2048 no matter what, if they were created before 1978. Anything donated since 2003 is almost certainly still under copyright, unless taken more than 120 years ago, or the author died more than 70 years ago. If they have marked something "public domain", I'd say it's OK, since they seem to be pretty careful about copyright. But anything marked "not evaluated" you'd have to take into account the above, unfortunately. The most difficult is determining a date of publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about the photographer. I assume many photos in family albums are taken by their friends, who weren't among the donators. For those photos, any publication would not have been lawful, would it? I assume a fair use publication would not invalidate the authors' copyrights. –LPfi (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protests on posted signs containing copyrighted images

I'm most often active on enwiki and image copyright questions always seem to confuse me; apologies if this question has an obvious answer. I was recently at the Stonewall National Monument in NYC and took some pictures of postings on signs that the NPS has put up (example of one of these signs here). People have taped up signs, foam lettering, flowers, etc. on some of these signs as a protest of the removal of references to transgender people from the Monument's website. I understand that the images are themselves under copyright and do not fall under FoP in the US, despite being permanently posted. Would the photos I've taken be uploadable under the idea that the photos are of the protests, and that the images printed on the signs are de minimis in the broader context of the postings on the signs? AviationFreak (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPS link not working. Says that's temporary, but I'm not placing any bets these days. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak: There's no way to judge whether something is de minimis without seeing it. I'd suggest uploading a typical example so we have something to discuss. The worst that happens is that it gets deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I pasted twice when putting the link in it seems. Should be fixed now. One of the images is here - is this a likely copyvio? AviationFreak (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would not come under de minimis, nor would any similar image. Every image is judged individually-de minimis (and everything related to copyright) applies separately, and not in a "broader context". Image is very much a copyvio- I have tagged it for deletion. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by User:Sailor Puck

This user recently uploaded a lot of NFL game programs under CC, among other images, that all appear to by copyvios. Can someone with more experience take a look: Special:ListFiles/Sailor Puck. Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

en:2001 California's 32nd congressional district special election

In this article, election returns from the website Our Campaigns have been used. I would assume this means that the material is freely licensed.

However, in the article there is a photo of the winner, Diane Watson, but none of her main opponent, Noel Irwin Hentschel. There is a photo of Ms. Hentschel on the same Our Campaigns page as the election results. Does Wikipedia's use of the election results on that page mean that the photo also is freely licensed? It seems odd not to have photos of both major candidates. Rontrigger (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Election returns are not creative, and thus are not copyrighted. Photographs are creative works and thus are copyrighted. If Hentschel is notable enough to be in scope and if there is a explicitly freely licensed photograph available of her, then one could be added. Abzeronow (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rontrigger, there are photos of her available in Commons, see Category:Noel Irwin Hentschel. Although the photos are not from 2001, it might still be useful to add a picture of her. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a theatrical picture, though. Her photo in Our Campaigns is professionally done.

I have tried to sign in to Our Campaigns; they claimed to have E-mailed me a temporary password but I didn't receive it. In any case, the site is notoriously difficult to navigate and it's unlikely I'd be able to contact someone who can tell me if Hentschel's photo is freely licensed. Rontrigger (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ObsLogo

Template {{ObsLogo}} is a new license template created by User:Adren~frwiki. To me this template does not seem to meet the requirements of COM:LIC, so I filed Commons:Deletion requests/Template:ObsLogo. Please participate in the discussion - there. Jarekt (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurar el logo del Movimiento Al Socialismo (Venezuela)

Buenas por favor agrega la Categoría:Undeleted in 2031 a este logo (File:MAS.svg) removido por Yann ,este logo estará al Dominio Público en Venezuela (60 años según {{PD-Venezuela}}) AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 2031 yet, Commons doesn't need to do this pre-emptively. Ask in 2031 perhaps? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[6]. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not checking that it existed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it should be undeleted 2032, as the logo dates (supposedly) from 1971 (the party foundation). I say supposedly because we are only guessing the logo dates from 1971. Bedivere (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere:Porque 2032 ,era 1971+60=2031 (por calculadora). AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|AbchyZa22} +1 porque cambia al fin del año. Voy a cambiar a Category:Undelete in 2032. - Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22 can you provide definite proof this logo dates from 1971? Puedes entregar pruebas de que este logo data de 1971? Basta un folleto, lo que sea. Bedivere (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere:Tienes razón el partido fundó en 1971 (54 años) según Wikipedia en español ,pero la primera aparición (publicación) fue en 1973 abajo en el medio aparece el símbolo del puño del MAS color rojo. 2 años después de la fundación. AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel we'd have to undelete this one in 2034 actually Bedivere (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: feel free to change accordingly, I'm sure you know how to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 06:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hehehe, for sure 😃 Bedivere (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Movie trailer (Bedtime For Bonzo)

Hello, recently user @Mellydoll replaced {{PD-US-no notice}} on File:Bedtime For Bonzo trailer.webm with "While it is fine to use an image from this film for educational and other Fair Use purposes, his work is not in the public domain. Please see Catalog of Copyright Entries, Third Series. Parts 12-13: Motion Pictures and Filmstrips Jan-Dec 1951: Vol 5 No 1-2, page 3." It does definitely seem that there was a copyright registration and renewal, but is it for the film only or cover the trailer? $999$ REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The trailer has no visible copyright notice. Bedivere (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1970s Soviet performances of national anthems.

I basically want to check on this before I nominate a file that has been on Commons for nearly 20 years for deletion. File:Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza (1977 Vocal).oga is from a 1977 performance of the 1977 version of the Soviet national anthem. The anthem composition would be free from copyright since it is a state symbol. The performance was done by the choir and orchestra of the Bolshoi Theatre and conducted by Yuri Simonov (b. 1941). The source is this recording is the CD “National Anthems of the USSR and Union Republics” https://web.archive.org/web/20160325163946/http://www.hymn.ru/15-union-republics/index-en.html which had a copyright notice of "©1996 Melodiya."

What I basically want to know is if I'm missing some facet of this that would make the Bolshoi Theatre performance free from copyright? Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alex Spade might know ... --Rosenzweig τ 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have planned to make additional PD-Russia-audio template in near future for many similar cases of audiorecords.

The Russian copyright legislation have two branches - the copyright itself (works of arts, literature, and science - chapter 70 of the Civil Code) and the neighbouring rights (rights for performance, audiorecordings, and some others things - chapter 71 of the Civil Code). The rights for performance (for audiorecording) and audiorecording in the US legislation is part of copyright legislation - so, chapter 71 could not be ignored for Commons (as Commons ignores other rights - museum rights, rights for broadcasting of sport events, etc.).

Audiorecording is in PD in Russia, if all next three conditions are fulfilled

The original work for performance and audiorecording is in PD, or it is not the subject of copyright, or it is not the result of human creative activity.
The performer(s) is/are died and it is passed 50(*) years from performance - in this sentence only human can be performer (* - 54 for performer, who worked during the Great Patriotic War or participated in it).
It is passed 50 years from audiorecording - in this sentence any recorded sound is the subject of neighbouring rights - including both sounds of nature (birds, rain/thunder, etc.) and artificial sounds (music, song, speech, foley sounds, sounds from streets, building sites, sports events). Alex Spade (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, this record is not in PD in Russia. Alex Spade (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does (2) include all performers? I assume it may be hard to determine the identities and possible death of them all (for film in Finland, only a few key figures are counted). (1) seems to be covered, and for the rest of (2) and (3), 2028 is not too far away.

Depending on age of Bolshoi Theatre performers at the time, we may have to wait several decennia before we can be sure all of them are dead – but using the threshold of {{PD-old-assumed}}, we would likewise arrive at 2028, which corresponds to performers of 25+ years being 75+ now. Of course, the performers being many makes the odds of somebody surviving higher.

–LPfi (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of poster board in photo

This photo by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) incorporates a poster board which most likely has its own copyright. However, I imagine that the NRC got a media release from the student or their parent/guardian allowing them to make derivative works, which could have resulted in the poster's contents being sublicensed under CC BY 2.0. Otherwise, the photo may have to be marked as {{De minimis}}. Qzekrom (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis will be fine. Bedivere (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Book from 1970

Hello, this Thai book about Krabi–krabong was published on the cremation of the author on 21 January 1970. In Thailand copyright is life of the author + 50 years. So it has been 55 years, it should be okay with PD-Thailand. Artanisen (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be in the public domain in Thailand, but then again, for uploading here it should also comply with US public domain rules. I don't think this one is expired yet in the US. Bedivere (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it does not have to comply with the US too though. There are many images with PD-Thailand on Wiki Commons. The photo on the cover is from circa 1940. - Artanisen (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Odisha Govt

Hello everyone. This concerns Template:GoO-donation under COM:TAG India. This template was used for works by govt of Odisha which are allowed here. In the list of accounts we have Naveen Patnaik's accounts. He was Chief Minister then but isn't now. So shall we remove his personal accounts and add new CM's account in place. Bcoz since he no longer is part of govt, his uploads can't be considered as Odisha Govt works. Please take care of this situation. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

they should be fine up to the point they left office, so I guess clarifying that would do. Bedivere (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So @Bedivere this needs to be done without delay. Clarification would definitely do it. And also that no more uploads after the day they left office can be considered under this. Also, the second question is, should we add the social media accounts of the new CM? I would request you or someone good at this to do so. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Kafka and Klaus Wagenbach

Since 1951 Klaus Wagenbach collected photographs of Franz Kafka and everything that involves Kafka according to the website of the archive.
In Germany in 1983 Klaus Wagenbach published Franz Kafka: Bilder aus seinem Leben and in 1984 it was published in the United States as Franz Kafka: pictures of a life. It is a book with many photographs of Franz Kafka and his life, with many of these photographs being part of Klaus Wagenbach's collection. In the book there is no credit to the people who took the photographs, only to the archives that provided the images. (see credits page)
Assuming Klaus Wagenbach hasn't contacted the photographers to talk about copyright (which is likely, considering there's hundreds of images), is there any way he could have the rights (in Germany or anywhere else) to publish these photographs because he owned the physical photographs? Kafkafan55 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kafkafan55: Copyright generally doesn't transfer with the physical ownership of photographs, copyright transfer is a separate matter. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: another wrinkle with German copyright is that for pre-1995 works, if the author of a work was ever known, the work cannot be considered anonymous. Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would German copyright law apply here? Kafka was Austrian-Czech. And all photos were taken in 1924 at the latest. Nakonana (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original photographs if made public before 1924 would probably fall under Austrian or Czech copyright depending on where the photographs were first made public. Kafkafan essentially asked a question about German copyright though since Wagenbach had published the book in Germany in 1983. Abzeronow (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused about something else. Commons:Publication basically says that publication is "distribution of copies to the general public with the consent of the author". So, for example, if a photograph was taken before 1925 by a family member of Kafka and kept private in the family's collection, is that considered "not published"? If it was only made available to the public in Klaus Wagenbach's Franz Kafka: Bilder aus seinem Leben, is the publication date 1983? But what if Klaus Wagenbach did not ask for consent to the photographer (since there is no credit to any photographer)? Kafkafan55 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1983/84 was before the 1993 EU copyright directive, before the US joined the Berne Convention and also before the US passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). A lot of those pre-1925 photographs might have been in the public domain in those years in both Germany (copyright had expired – because of shorter term durations for photographs – and wasn't revived until the mid-1990s) as well as the US (the URAA which restored the US copyrights did not exist yet). --Rosenzweig τ 18:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tvh_komplett_ohne_rand-tshirt_weiss.png

Bringen die modifizierten Buchstaben (T und V) das ansonsten simple Vereinslogo über die Schöpfungshöhe? Oder reicht das noch nicht? Meine persönliche Meinung ist: Keine Schöpfungshöhe. Aber liege ich damit richtig? GerritR (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M. E. keine Schöpfungshöhe in Deutschland und auch below the threshold of originality in den USA (COM:TOO USA). --Rosenzweig τ 19:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:MCS 1Line col-pos-claim rgb.png

I think that files license is wrong. The source is a website that has "© Copyright" at the bottom. Unless there was a VRT ticket to for it, I don't see where the CC BY 4.0 comes from, since there's no indication that the uploader has a connection with the copyright owner. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably have been taken to Commons:Deletion requests. I think the file is fine due to mostly being plain text- files below the Commons:Threshold of originality cannot be copyrighted. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the license should be something like {{PD-textlogo}}? 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yeah- it was the uploader's only contribution, so they probably gave up and chose cc4.0 by default. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Publication without restrictions'

Hi, I'm looking at images on the international Red Cross archive here https://avarchives.icrc.org/ some of them say 'copyright ICRC' but also are labelled 'publication without restriction' does anyone know if that means I could add them to commons? DrawingDays (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to "What does "publication restrictions" mean?" on their website "Publication without restrictions: The documents are public, the ICRC holds the copyright and you may download and share the content, as long as you respect the general terms of use." Unfortunately those terms do not allow commercial use which is required by Commons:Licensing

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 16:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg

Sure, German law allows FOP application on graffiti, like this one (File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg) and other two-dimensional artworks seen in public. Nonetheless, it's a derivative of an iconic photo labelled non-free (w:File:Alan Kurdi lifeless body.jpg), isn't it? Should COM:DW apply? George Ho (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The angle is another, so most details cannot be derivative. Does anything resemble the original photo more than if the graffiti author had taken their own photo at the beach? –LPfi (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TO said something about an "iconic photo", but it was actually my first time seeing the specific angle of said still. Nevertheless, I recall that several news outlets had photos that are strikingly similar to the graffiti (approx. the same view), using Google, you can find e.g. https://www.collettivoclan.it/la-fotocosa-del-giorno-la-morte-di-alan-kurdi/ . So, I tend to think that our German FOP won't do here, as the graffiti is too close to an assumed protected source. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the author has used several photos, without copying details from any one of them, it isn't a derived work (in my understanding). Of course, I cannot know whether it is an exact copy of one of them, possibly one that isn't online – but what are the copyrightable elements? What is here that another author couldn't have done in the same way (personal expression of the photographer)? Angle, lighting, composition? Much of that would be different in the graffiti anyway, and much could have been chosen the same by chance. –LPfi (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A photographer doesn't get a right over the entire scene -- just their very specific photograph of it, including the framing and angle. You would have to be able to identify the specific photograph it was derivative of. Two photographers standing next to each other taking very similar photographs are not derivative of each other, so you would have to be able to identify a specific photograph, and be able to also identify that it's not the same as another similar photograph, to be derivative I think. It's possible but the copyright in a snapshot photograph is really just on the specific framing (likely not replicated here) and the angle. If the photographer sets up the scene, i.e. poses people or items, then it's different. But not snapshots. Making a painting of a scene using photographs as a guide is fine and not derivative, provided they don't copy the details very closely. Finding several similar photos but not being able identify the exact one is more an indication that it's OK, I think. While possible, I think the exact photo would need to be identified for a chance of this being derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: please take a look at these media: https://www1.wdr.de/mediathek/av/video-der-vater-von-dem-jungen-am-strand-100.html (singled out photo: https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/wdrforyou/wdrforyou-der-vater-von-dem-jungen-am-strand-100~_v-HDready.jpg), https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Picture-of-Alan-Kurdi-used-in-the-experiments-Note-Picture-by-Niluefer-Demir_fig2_328521095; several other image copies can be found per Google. When comparing it to File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg, it's not only the viewing angle, I think also that the wavelet pattern around the head is quite a unique characteristic (and the foam blotches plus the pant wrinkles too, which are visible on both instances in the same locations), so that we could easily conclude that the graffitto is a copy of this photograph. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closer, but I don't think it's the same. The foam blotches in front are different, and there appears to be water up and behind the feet in the graffiti, while there's a dry patch in that photo. There are likely many similar photos; those photos are not derivative of each other. It may be there is one in particular that does come closer, but for something like this I'd say it really needs to be a slavish copy of a particular photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"[...]likely many similar photos" is probably disproven by w:Nilüfer Demir#Photo of Alan Kurdi seen from the side and https://time.com/4124895/top-100-photos-of-2015/ plus https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/top-100-photos-2015-alan-kurdi.jpg?quality=75&w=3000 (deeplink). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then the graffiti artist probably changed enough details to make it not derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without any of the photos, and despite the foam bloatches, how else would the graffiti artist accurately depict the image of that dead boy lying sideways on the ground? How else would that artist depict the red T-shirt and blue denim shorts? George Ho (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The graffiti artist can use photographs to get an idea of what the scene looked like, and depict that in their own way. That does not cause it to be a derivative work by itself. The question is if they are copying expression -- for a snapshot photograph, that is more the angle and framing, and possibly precise timing. The artist did not copy the framing or the precise timing. The angle is similar, but that is not necessarily enough to make a derivative work. A photographer standing nearby making a similar photograph would not be a derivative work; you'd have to give similar latitude to another artist. The details of the particular photograph do not seem copied to me; the angle of the body is indeed similar but I'm not sure the photographer gets an undisputed copyright on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You baffled me there, Carl: your sentence seems to be totally contrary to the content of COM:DW. Specifically, the explanation of what constitutes a derivative work there does not present itself for saying that changed details make something not derivative. The explanations further down corroborate this, with examples of drawings of Albus Dumbledore and Pikachu given as negative examples. See also Commons:Derivative works#Casebook, and in COM:FAN, it is clearly stated that Commons:Fan art#Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement. I do not understand your opinion of why only a slavish copy can be seen as derivative. Can you elaborate? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to what constitutes actual copyrightable expression in a photograph. It's not like a painting -- if the original was a painting, where the scene was completely made up by the artist, a similar graffiti like this is an obvious derivative work, and some details changed would not change that. It's just that the photographer does not get the sole right to depict the scene -- a photographer standing nearby making their own photograph would be an independent copyright. What makes that second photograph independent but a graffiti, which differs by probably about the same amount, derivative? You would have to slavishly reproduce the photograph. I'm just not sure the general angle on the body is enough for that. You can certainly make derivative works of a particular photograph -- the Hope poster for Obama was one. But the copyrightable expression in a snapshot photograph is not alway the obvious thing of visual similarity. For another example, I do not believe the US Marine memorial sculpture of the Iwo Jima flag-raising is derivative of the famous photograph. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the likelyhood that w:Nilüfer Demir was the sole photographer present is high. All media outlets trace their imagery about Alan Kurdi's death back to her, after all, her wiki article says that she took a photo series. If anybody else would have happened to make images, this person would most likely have stepped into the public by now, at least to participate in the fame surrounding the even (not necessarily out of a morbid or greed-borne motivation, but simply to tell a story too). Furthermore, I doubt that either shipwrecked refugees or rescuers would whip out their smartphones to snap pictures, they would be preoccupied with other things. I'm not aware of such a second photographer, are you? On the other hand, let us compare the details again between https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/top-100-photos-2015-alan-kurdi.jpg?quality=75&w=3000 and File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg:

at the head: the small wave breaks on the forehead of the child. A noticeable triangular shadow is present on both sides, the silhouette of it and the wave is really similar.
- Waves breaking are AFAIK physically basically chaotic phenomena, so each instance of them is unique.
along the wrist, there are foam blotches arranged in a line on both images. Similar foam patterns are also discernible along the shin and chin.
- Foam and waves are phenomena that persists for a few seconds maximum (waves) and at most, some minutes (foam). Hence, a hypothetical second photo used as template for the graffito would have had to be taken at nearly the same moment as the Demir image.
The wrinkles on the pant, the decorations of the shoes and the skin crease of the groin are really similar in both images, again.
by using these named reference points (forehead wave, foam blotches, cloth wrinkles) and also the angle of the shoe soles, the vantage point of the Demir photo is strikingly similar to the viewing angle of the graffito.
- A hypothetical second photographer would have had to stand more or less shoulder to shoulder with Nilüfer Demir. This is unlikely by the described circumstances of the shot.

As conclusion: The graffito is by all appearances (COM:PRP) an unlicensed copy of the well-known photograph by Nilüfer Demir and would have to be deleted. Or can somebody refute this deduction? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson press photos

Due to the nature of the person and the current discussion at Talk:Michael Jackson, I figured I would invite others to share their opinions on the copyright status and discuss at the respective deletion requests of the following files which were uploaded from Getty Images:
File:Michael Selling Pepsi.jpg & File:Michael Selling Pepsi (2).jpg PascalHD (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The PD rationale is that the photos were published without copyright notice in 1978–1989, but the source is Getty. Absolutiva, how did you come to the conclusion that there was an authorised publication without notice at latest in 1989? Does somebody else have any clue why that would be likely? –LPfi (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no copyright registrations without copyright notice in 1978–1989, most photographs are public domain in the United States by these unknown authors. It's from the collection of Michael Ochs Archives, not the photographer. Absolutiva (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the full copy actually distributed so that we can see there was no notice on the front or back? Registration was not required, just that there was a notice on copies actually distributed (though in that time frame, a registration is an important step to recovering the copyright if notice was forgotten). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the pictures were commissioned by Pepsi, they would own the copyright. Quite a likely situation is this case. Yann (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the contracts involved. In any event, a copyright notice would tell us the copyright owner, and lack of notice would mean the copyright owner would not matter. Thought we would still need to search for a registration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am updating the spanish version of "Visual Effects" page

Hello everyone,

I am Alexis Rivera, a computer graphics generalist and 3D animator from Chile. I have been watching some videos where spanish speakers talk about special effects, saying they are the same as visual effects, but they are mistaken. So I want to upload an image of Robert Patrick as the T-1000 in its metallic form, but I don't know if this image can be uploaded to Wikipedia. I need your feedback on this, I would appreciate it.

Best regards, Alexis Lazurita (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be used- the movie is still under copyright, and so is any image taken from the movie. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, just saw it also says if it can be used on wikipedia- non-free images are allowed to be stored and used locally on Wikipedia, but not Commons, if they come under COM:Fair use. I don't know if Spanish Wikipedia (seeing as you are from Chile) allows it (it currently doesn't, so probably not), but the English Wikipedia article w:en:T-1000 does use the image of the T-1000 metallic form. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found the page for Fair use on es.wiki, and they don't allow fair use images w:es:WP:FU. However the spanish version of T-1000 w:es:T-1000 does show a visual effect for the metallic look. File is at File:London Film Museum - Terminator 2 Judgment Day (5754890313).jpg DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was the United States the only country that had copyright formalities?

A lot of older American works are in public domain because the author did not observe certain formalities, such as including a copyright notice or renewing a copyright before it expired. However, I couldn't find much information about formalities in other countries. For example, Commons doesn't seem to have an equivalent of templates like {{PD-US-not renewed}} for countries besides the United States. Wikipedia also treats old foreign works as non-free except those that are unambiguously in public domain due to age. en:Copyright renewal redirects to en:Copyright renewal in the United States, and en:Copyright notice also mainly covers U.S. law.

I do know the 138-year-old Berne Convention did away with most formalities, but there are still some countries that only joined the Berne Convention in recent decades. So I'm curious: were copyright formalities unique to the United States? Ixfd64 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. The phrase All rights reserved came about because the Buenos Aires Convention required a reservation of rights -- that was equivalent to the U.S. copyright notice. Not all Buenos Aires Convention countries were members of Berne (I think Nicaragua only joined Berne in 2000). Mexico had a registration requirement until the late 1940s or early 1950s. I'm sure there were some others. Berne eliminated formalities in 1908, I think. The U.S. probably had the most formalized though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do you think it would be worth the effort to research copyright formalities in other countries? For example, would a {{PD-Mexico-not registered}} be useful to Commons? Ixfd64 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mexico's old registrations are something we can research very easily. {{PD-Mexico}} has the shorter terms they used to have (and have not had any retroactive laws to change that); that is often enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Philippines situation was similar to the U.S. (they were a U.S. colony for about 4 decades), but someone else would probably know more than I do about that. Jmabel ! talk 06:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel yes, you're right. Until 1972 (when Marcos Sr. enacted Presidential Decree 49 which finally applied the Berne treaty here), the Philippines was adhering to the American-era Act 3134 of 1924, which was heavily inspired by the US law of 1909. See also the Memorandum Circular No. 021-2023, released by our copyright office in 2023 to finally clarify the public domain rules here. See COM:PHILIPPINES#General rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some old copyright laws of the UK from the 19th century and earlier, like the en:Copyright Act 1842, required that you register your work to be able to sue others for infringement. But that was abolished a long time ago. --Rosenzweig τ 13:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles A. Willard.jpg

I need help in proper tagging of this image. I doubt that it is a PD-PhilippinesGov work. Just because it appeared in the website of the Philippine Supreme Court does not mean it is automatically a PD work as a "PH public document" work. I suspect its origin is in the US, proper US tag is required for this. I need help from other editors in proper tagging of this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that he is called associate justice. Ruslik (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: "associate" as against "chief". - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is a vectorized recreation of """game""" box art that simply only contains just text allowed?

Hi. I am working on a vectorized recreation of the box art depicted in this photograph of the Linux for PlayStation 2 cover hosted on enwiki. I am curious about whether a de minimis copyright exemption might apply in this case, given that the image as a whole basically comprises of nothing short of just text and very simple geometric shapes?

My one concern about it is the presence of Tux (right) in the bottom-right corner of the box art, the version of which is triple-licensed under the public domain under both CC0 (for Garret LeSage's version hosted on enwiki, which I am using in the recreation) and an attribution requirement for Larry Ewing, the GIMP project and Simon Budig, who are responsible for creating the penguin mascot.

At any rate, would it be technically acceptable for such a recreation to be hosted on Commons? Pivotman319 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances, I believe that either the original box art or a recreation would be acceptable. The Linux logo is available under a free license, the PlayStation logo in the upper right is considered under the threshold of originality, and the remaining content on the box is plain text well under the threshold of originality. Combining these elements does not result in a new copyrightable work. Omphalographer (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The box art is not copyrightable. I'd suggest importing the English Wikipedia image over here, by changing the license accordingly. Bedivere (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll get to exporting this tomorrow and seeing fit with a high-rez vectorized copy, then. Thanks, you two. Pivotman319 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Medina Peralta in 2024.png

hello, i know there are a lot of images from youtube that need to be verified, and i don't know if it's considered appropriate to take a step to request verification of a file, but i recently uploaded an image from a creative commons video posted on youtube that depicts Isabel Medina Peralta, a neo-nazi activist. given that the video is akin to neo-Nazi propaganda, there's a very good chance it will end up striked. so if it's possible, i'd like to request verification of this image, Isabel Medina Peralta in 2024.png, due to its precarious nature. GloBoy93 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GloBoy93 confirmada la imagen, gracias. Bedivere (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Council Open Government License

Hi! I recently added some local councillor portraits (can be found at Category:Portrait photographs of members of Cornwall Council) with a license template I haven't used before and I just wanted to check on a few things before I spend too much time uploading any more.

Template:Cornwall Council links to a page on the council's website which has the phrasing that "Information is generally provided under the Open Government License" but that "Where any exceptions apply to this, we will let you know." - would this be enough to assume that these types of portraits are freely licensed? There are also some portraits which look like they have been taken by councillors themselves, rather than as official portraits - would these also be covered? Thanks in advance! Gazamp (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests the images are licensed under the OPL unless stated otherwise. If these aren't explicitly stated as having another license, I'd guess they are safe. Bedivere (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to also include a link to the Cornwall Council Publication Scheme document [7], which listed out which information are published under OPL, since it isn’t obvious just from the permit page alone. On a side note, maybe a link to the document should be included in the template instead. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's really useful - thanks both! I'll amend the template as suggested to link directly to the document. Gazamp (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tryst with Destiny.ogg

"Tryst with Destiny" was an English-language speech by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, to the Indian Constituent Assembly in the Parliament House, on the eve of India's Independence, towards midnight on 14 August 1947.

I have uploaded the file "Tryst with Destiny.ogg"
Please evaluate whether this file has the right to be on Wikimedia Commons with all subsequent rights.

To be honest: I wrote an article in the Russian Wikipedia about this speech and really want this file—featuring this great address—to appear in all Wikipedias and other projects. However, I know there may be legal complications, and I want to be sure that using this file does not violate Indian law.

ps: I don’t speak or write in English. I use DeepSeek for translation. Я говорю, пишу, читаю и тд на русскомя зыке. VladimirPF (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a DR right now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tryst with Destiny.ogg. The file is certainly public domain in India (Nehru has been dead over 60 years, died in 1964). The U.S. status would be a complicated interaction of URAA and the U.S. laws about sound recordings, needs someone more expert than I am. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV in the United States Ineligible for Copyright - A Complete Legal Fiction

The template PD-automated has been turned into something for which there is zero legal justification for in the United States. Any time a CCTV footage or picture in the country takes a shot of something notable, users upload it to Commons, thinking, erroneously, that the picture cannot be copyrighted. That is a complete legal fiction and the usage of this template for images originating in the US should be curtailed and all such images being justified under this template should be removed. Two of the best examples to counter this ridiculous claim are, first, the Andy Warhol movie Empire, which is an eight-hour film that is composed entire of a still shot of the Empire State Building. The second example is Wolfgang Staehles' time lapse work, "2001", that captured the 9/11 attacks. The former has been inducted into the National Film Registry and is under copyright.

There is no legal precedent in the US that CCTV footage is copyfree. Further, the template is now being used to try to claim that bodycam video in copyfree. There is no end to how this template will be abused because there is no clear directive or policy when applying the template. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of YouTube channels that exclusively use CCTV, bodycam, or otherwise fixed, automated photography for their content and all their content is rightfully copyrighted. I believe this template should be nixed for any all all use within the US and that those photos and videos currently uploaded under this template should be removed or blanked unless their verified authors upload them themselves. -- Veggies (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In COM:CRT/US, we have a sentence that reads "In the United States, copyright can only be assigned to "works independently created by a human author"[8]." This is corroborated with COM:TOO and COM:TOO US. Your hypothesis "There are dozens, probably hundreds, of YouTube channels that exclusively use CCTV, bodycam, or otherwise fixed, automated photography for their content and all their content is rightfully copyrighted." about the copyright status seems flawed. Most fixed camera installations simply lack the human input that is necessary for and behind (receiving) copyrights. The Warhol and Staehle examples aren't opposed to this concept, as these humans used material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication; by this intent, there's a foundation for copyrights. You cannot go by simple technical characteristics, but you have to consider the purpose and intent of something that may be a copyrightable work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyright Office has ruled time and time again that works without a human author (the notorious monkey case or AI, in more recent years) cannot be copyrighted. Who would be the human author of a CCTV camera? The owner of the camera? No, because they did not have any input on its creation. The brand that made the camera? Also had no input on any creative work. It can't be the person who "set it up", because the monkey copyright suit had a person setting up the image that the monkey took, and yet it was ultimately ruled uncopyrightable due to lack of human authorship, because what made the decision about when to snap the camera and how was the monkey (a non human). Similarly, an AI, even if prompted with creative input, cannot produce a copyrightable work. There is simply no human author in which to vest the copyright here. With Empire, Warhol chose to start filming, and chose when it ended, and chose the location with lights for artistic reasons. With 2001 it was a video at a specific time for an artistic reason with specific artistic choices. They chose to film, they chose where to frame the camera for creative reasons. There was human input in both cases, in both the original production and in its representation (the time lapse and slow motion elements and such). If CCTV footage is significantly altered in a creative manner after the fact, or edited in a specific way, or there is some especially creative placement of the cameras for an artistic work that could be copyrighted, but that is almost none of these cases, which are almost uniformly security cameras. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they did not have any input on its creation. Lots of security cameras are remote controlled. There's no way to know on our end which camera footage was or not either. With body cams specifically, obviously whomever is wearing the camera controls what is being recorded by moving or looking in a certain direction. The question would be if something like that is intentional enough to be considered creative. It certainly seems to be in instances like someone wearing a GoPro camera to record themselves doing an extreme sport. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of files of Red Bull videos on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could clearly tell from the way the footage moves, and if you can't tell, you run into the same situation as the monkey copyright thing, where what little influence the human may have is not enough to make them the author - after all, he orchestrated the monkey shoot and set it up and moved into its position, still not enough. On the body camera question: yes, I agree, and so I didn't mention body cameras, because there is creative input in how one moves and operates the camera, whether it is attached to one's person or not. Those are not really "automated", their movement and capture is wholly dependent on a human. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think the monkey footage is copyrightable. Probably CCTV footage that clearly looks automated isn't either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices: The crucial question is “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” - If the CCTV is a static CCTV feed, it's ineligible. If someone's controlling the camera, it likely is eligible. I don't think it makes sense to apply it to body cameras, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree, and have encouraged people not to use {{Pd-automated}} for US CCTV. It would be useful to get WMF Legal to weigh in on the copyrightability of prepositioned cameras via m:Wikilegal -- I was going to request it a while ago, but never got around to sending the email. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think the copyright would vest in? Hypothetically they were copyrightable, who would get it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]