Jump to content

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ 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.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
Please note
  1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
  5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

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.


Gestioné una donación de fotografías a Commons pero me borraron las fotos (sí se mandó el correo de confirmación) :c

[edit]

Gestioné una donación de fotografías para Commons y a pesar de que la persona con los derechos envió el correo de confirmación y este fue recibido, estas fueron borradas, alguien podría explicarme porque sucede esto? Anteriormente he gestionado donaciones y no hubo problemas; sin embargo, desde que actualizaron la interfaz de subidas sí, ya van dos donaciones que me son borradas.

Las categorías en cuestión fueron estas:

Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria

Category:Donación Archivo Jorge Quispe Mamani QM Keen (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QM Keen habría que ver cuáles fueron los archivos subidos, tienes una lista? Bedivere (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

En mi página de discusión está la lista que hizo el bot, las copio aquí:

Me pregunto si las fotografías pueden ser vueltas a poner en Commons o tengo que subirlas otra vez?

QM Keen (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the messages on your talk page, the files were tagged by a bot because there was no license template with the files. Yes, the files can be undeleted. Please do not reupload copies of the same files. If they are undeleted, please make sure that they have license templates. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QM Keen Tal como dijo Asclepias, los archivos no tenían licencia y por eso fueron borrados. Si enviaron correo con autorización a VRT pronto deberían ser restaurados Bedivere (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cómo me aseguro que las fotografías tengan la plantilla de licencia? Es decir, yo seleccioné la opción de Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International en el Upload Wizard al subirlas e incluso en el correo de confirmación esta misma licencia es la que se otorga para la donación. Se supone que tengo que poner una plantilla manualmente al código de cada fotografía?
Ahora, sobre su restauración, si bien la última donación que me borraron fue hoy, la primera fue el 25 de enero, en el que también me las borraron cuando también mande el correo, entonces, dado el considerable paso del tiempo entre la primera borrada y el hecho de que hasta hoy no las hayan restaurado (a pesar del correo de confirmación) me hace pensar que no serán restauradas.
Tengo un nuevo archivo de fotografías que he gestionado para su donación, esta vez no quiero que sean borradas, me podrían acompañar con el proceso? Para esta vez asegurarme que no sean borradas. QM Keen (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Este es el texto de una de tus subidas:
{{User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag|month=March|day=8|year=2025}}

==={{int:filedesc}}===
{{Information
|description={{es|1=Fotografías donadas por La Comuna Universitaria. En estas se ilustra las manifestaciones realizadas el 9 de enero del 2025 en la ciudad de Juliaca a los dos años de la masacre ocurrida en la misma ciudad.}}
{{en|1=Photographs donated by La Comuna Universitaria. These represent the demonstrations held on January 9, 2025, in the city of Juliaca, marking two years since the massacre that took place in the same city.}}
|date=2025-01-09
|source=Archivo La Comuna Universitaria 
|author=María Herrera - La Comuna Universitaria
|permission=
|other versions=
}}
{{Location|-15.493306|-70.13557}}

==={{int:license-header}}===
{{Permission_pending}}

[[Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria]]
[[Category:Demonstrations and protests on January 9, 2025 on the 2nd anniversary of the Juliaca Massacre 2023 (principal day)]]
Como puedes ver, no incluiste la licencia y por esa razón fueron borradas. El bot las pilló rápidamente y las etiquetó como sin licencia. Así, Krd las borró. Yo podría restaurarlas con el compromiso de que agregues las licencias y esperando también la recepción del permiso en VRT. Bedivere (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfecto, muchas gracias, también podrías restauras las fotografías que subí el 25 de enero? Las de aquí: File:Instalaciones del colegio Agro Industrial Pucará en 1998 15.jpg , en estas también se envió un correo de confirmación.
Ahora, podrías indicarme cómo agrego la plantilla en cuestión? Entiendo que es con código cierto? Además, cómo puedo agregar la plantilla a todas las fotografías, que son más de 30 juntando ambas donaciones. Por último, cómo puedo hacer para que al subir otra vez una donación de fotografías no ocurra este problema? En el upload wizard hay un paso en específico? Tengo más de 100 fotos más para subir y no quiero que ocurra esto otra vez :c QM Keen (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Solo debes elegir la licencia al subir. Y si, se agrega el código de la licencia (no la agrego yo pues tu las subiste). Debes hacer eso cuanto antes pues te las pueden borrar nuevamente. Bedivere (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Entiendo, haré lo que mencionas, si no te molesta te escribiré por aquí para ver si todo esta bien en esta nueva donación que haŕe. Muchas gracias y por favor avísame cuando las fotos borradas sean restauradas, muchas gracias. QM Keen (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Están restauradas @QM Keen, desde mi mensaje anterior. Bedivere (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @Bedivere, gracias por restaurar las fotografías. Acabo de agregar la plantilla de licencia Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International a las fotografías alojadas en las siguientes categorías, ambas son donaciones gestionadas para ser liberadas en Commons:
Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria
Category:Donación Archivo Jorge Quispe Mamani
He notado que las fotografías alojadas en Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria tienen la siguiente plantilla:
Sin embargo, el correo de confirmación hacia el equipo de VRT fue enviado ya incluso antes de que las fotos fueran inicialmente borradas y en esta se menciona explícitamente lo siguiente: "Consiento publicar dicha obra bajo la licencia libre Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International", yo puedo proporcionar la declaración de consentimiento si es necesario, solicitar una captura del correo a la autora (María - La Comuna) o pedir que se reenvía el correo y avisarte, agradecería mucho que me indiques como puedo resolver este problema, no quisiera que las fotografías fueran eliminadas de nuevo. QM Keen (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tienes que esperar a que los voluntarios de VRT revisen el correo, puede que sea necesario que acredites que tienes los derechos, esto es especialmente importante si se trata de donaciones con material generado por terceros. No es un proceso simple y ahora solo queda esperar. Si llegan a ser borrados nuevamente, cuando lo revise un voluntario serán restaurados. Bedivere (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok gracias por al ayuda QM Keen (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganímedes (no se me ocurre otra voluntaria que podría ayudar) Espero estés muy bien. ¿Podrías dar un vistazo a la solicitud de QM Keen, cuando puedas? Te estaría muy agradecido. Bedivere (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Hola, gracias por avisar. ¿Tienes el número de ticket que recibiste con el email de respuesta automática? --Ganímedes (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QM Keen Favor dar respuesta a Ganímedes. Bedivere (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, lo solicitaré a la autora de las fotos lo más pronto posible. 2803:A3E0:1812:4840:D7D:574E:9346:5F0 16:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @Ganímedes el del mensaje anterior era yo solo que no me loguié en mi cuenta, en fin, aquí te paso el ticket de confirmación: 2025031010010953 QM Keen (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
La poseedora de los derechos de autor debe contestar la pregunta que le ha hecho el agente en el ticket. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Atte @Mussklprozz. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, ayer la autora me dijo que ya respondió la pregunta, acabo de ver que las fotos fueron borradas :c, podrían restaurarlas porfa @Ganímedes @Bedivere QM Keen (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @QM Keen, recibimos la respuesta de María Herrera el 25 de marzo (a través de Ticket:2025031010010953), y he solicitado que se restauren sus imágenes. A continuación, añadiré una nota de autorización a los archivos. Pero, ¿qué pasa con las otras imágenes, en particular las de Jorge Quispe Mamani? Para ellas también necesitamos la autorización del fotógrafo. Un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias por restaurarlas @Mussklprozz. Por otro lado, sobre las fotografìas de Jorge Quispe Mamani tenía pensado que ya estaba todo bien con ellas, el autor envió el correo de confirmación hace meses, en enero. También hice la donación de las siguientes fotos: Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria - Maira Teran Ulloa, el correo ya fue enviado, agradecerìa que me confirmaras si esta todo bien con ellas. QM Keen (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @QM Keen, sobre las fotografìas de Jorge Quispe ¿podrías decirme los números de los dos ticketes de autorización en enero? Entonces puedo ver el procedimiento. Mussklprozz (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara poster by Jim Fitzpatrick

[edit]
Guerrillero Heroico by Alberto Korda

The photograph Guerrillero Heroico, seen to the right, is in the public domain.

Famously, in the 1960s Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick used that photo as the basis to create this art piece [1] which became viral/memetic. Fitzpatrick did not copyright his version of the image at the time.

Per this article,[2] Fitzpatrick states: In my youthful arrogance and ignorance, I declared it was 'copyright free for the masses'. The Evening Press allowed me to publicise it and spread the word. It was a reaction to the fact that it already at that point had been stolen from me – it had been run off in England and spread from there. I decided if they want to make it, what in these days would be called 'viral', I’ll make it proliferate so I announced it was copyright free, stuck to it and never took a cent from any licensing deal.”

According to these articles Fitzpatrick sought to copyright the image in 2011 [3], [4], [5], however I don't see any follow up stories confirm that Fitzpatrick ever actually received copyright for the image. This is likely because Fitzpatrick was more interested in establishing moral rights to the image than actual copyright.

I do not have an advanced understanding of international copyright law, but if Guerrillero Heroico is public domain, and Fitzpatrick's work was never copyrighted, surely that suggests that Fitzpatrick's Che poster is either public domain or close to it, right? CeltBrowne (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Che ! by Jim FitzPatrick
Not answering the question, but just mentioning that:
  • A search returns several discussions about it on Commons in the last 19 years. Maybe you can try to see if a general conclusion can be drawn.
  • Commons has several variations of the poster in Category:Derivative works of Guerrillero Heroico.
  • On his website Fitzpatrick claims a 2010 copyright on the 1968 poster, while also saying that he had released it from copyright in 1968. The poster was first published in London, UK? I suppose that he would have a copyright if it weren't for that release. So, is he claiming that he unreleased it from the public domain in 2010? Not sure how that works.
-- Asclepias (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it is quite easy to recreate this poster independently of Fitzpatrick's work, and we can't see the difference, so I don't see how there could be a copyright as the original work is in the public domain (at least in USA). Yann (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Asclepias for taking the time to reply.
Looking through the past discussions on this topic, most of them seems to have taken place in the 2000s.
Fitzpatrick trying to retroactively assert copyright in the 2010s doesn't seem like something that can be done, but someone could correct me there. By his own account though, he did not copyright the work at the time of creation. In fact, he declared it copyright free.
This discussion on the Commons in 2011 [6] took the view that Fitzpatrick's work was not transformative, but a mechanical reproduction.
This discussion [7] regarding File:Che por Jim Fitzpatrick.svg seemed to come to the conclusion that it be kept. Despite the file name though, it is a replication of Fitzpatrick's work rather than a duplicate.
These discussions would seem to align with what Yann has just stated.
A recent related discussion in 2024 occurred here [8] and involved @ALE!, Fred J, Kjetil r, Infrogmation, Cinabrium, and Oudeís: That discussion seemed to be about a photograph derived from Guerrillero Heroico (I don't have the ability to see the deleted file). I wonder if those users who commented on that case could comment on this one, but tell us their specific view on Fitzpatrick's work. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, en.wikipedia tags its copy of the poster, there, as a non-free image. According to the upload comment by Holly Cheng, that copy was sent to Wikipedia by the artist in 2008 and it is accompanied by OTRS ticket 2008120910022806. It would be interesting to know what the ticket says exactly. I guess it may be a non-commercial permission. On the 2008 Wikipedia copy, we can note the difference in the writing at the bottom, compared to the later copy. The artist also has a few edits on en.wikipedia, as Jim fitzpatrick artist in 2008 and 2011. We know at least that the artist claims to have a copyright. As the initial question says, there were news articles circa 2010 about the artist applying for copyright, which may mean requesting a registration of copyright in a country or in several countries, although a follow-up has not ben found to tell the result. From the discussions on Commons, two types of arguments are mentioned against the copyright. One is that the poster artwork would not be creative and therefore would be uncopyrightable. The other is that the artist released the artwork to the public domain and that cannot be undone. Considering the whole situation, Commons should try to reach a solid consensus on a rationale if it wants to keep the artwork as public domain against the wish of the artist. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still looking for further input from other users, as I don't know that we've come to a conclusion here yet CeltBrowne (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I was hoping to upload the flags of the local government areas of The Gambia, as none of their flags are currently present on Wikipedia other than Banjul. Flags of the World has put together a list of these flags based on photographs from government socials. I was planning to digitize these designs and upload them to Commons.

Are these flags considered to be in the public domain? I'm not sure if they're actually official or if they're just used de facto. What are the laws like regarding flags in the Gambia, or are there any? Do I need to obtain a license, or would this be considered fair use? Omnigrade (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to your last question, certainly in some contexts they could be used on a fair use basis, but Commons does not allow that on this site, so that option is not relevant here.
For some of these that show coats of arms, it is possible that the coat of arms is old enough to have lost copyright. Certainly none of what I see there is below the threshold of originality.
Basically, though, this seems like a research question on several fronts (whether the flags are official, if so what would be their copyright status in the Gambia, etc.) I don't know if you are likely to find someone more interested than you in taking that on.
- Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the Gambian Copyright Act of 2004 and according to Chapter II, Part IV, section 30 (page 37 in the linked PDF), "reproduction of a short part of a published work for teaching purposes by way of illustration..." is permitted without authorization, "provided that the reproduction is compatible with fair practice and does not exceed the extent justified by the purpose." Would this mean that, regardless of the copyright status of the flags, they could be uploaded on Wikipedia (but not necessarily Commons) as non-free files used in an educational context? Omnigrade (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a decision for each Wikipedia, in whatever language, to make for itself, not a Commons decision. But, yes, that sounds like "fair use", and the English-language Wikipedia at least makes some allowance for that, while Commons does not. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I’ll try uploading them on English Wikipedia. Thanks for your help! Omnigrade (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

License tags for File:Masjid Asy-Syafii di Ponpes Al-Qosim Jambi.jpg

[edit]

File:Masjid Asy-Syafii di Ponpes Al-Qosim Jambi.jpg is a YouTube screenshot of a CC video. It was modified to erase the channel logo in the top right corner, according to the author statement with Google Photos, presumably resulting in the metadata line "AI-Generated with Google". However, I don't think {{PD-algorithm}} is the correct tag for this, considering human authorship of the source material is pretty obvious. How else should this be tagged? --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperGaruda: No freedom of panorama in Indonesia, so unless that video came from the architect or that building is a lot older than it looks, we probably cannot accept that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; looking at historical Google Earth aerial imagery, the building was only completed around 2017. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about media from losbarcosdeeugenio.com

[edit]

Hello,

I came across several images sourced from https://www.losbarcosdeeugenio.com. For one of these pictures, I started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yıldırım (F-243).jpg, as the licensing seems ambiguous to me. The webpage lacks a clear, unambiguous stipulation that everything is / was licensed under an allowable Creative Commons license or that external contributors agreed to such a licensing. I'd like to collect some opinions before opening DR for everything from there. Likely relevant adresses:

I'm currently a bit lost about what to do; I would feel too insecure to pass a license review, for instance, if those images would have ended up in these queues. At least, I'm certain that the webmaster's statements about licensing are not up to current standards expected for Commons hosting. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CC icon that was on the bottom left of the page in the archives since 2005 links to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.1/es/deed.en. The wording might not be the clearest, but the "Starting january 2005 this site is subject to a Creative Commons license ( see FAQ section ), this basically implies that all contents of this site can be reused by other people" is under "Conditions are as follows:" for "Sending pictures to this site".
However for this particular file, the date on the file page on Commons is listed as 30 June 2006, but I can't find the date anywhere on the source page and the original file's exif data on the website has ModifyDate in 2004 (the one on Commons looks like it was modified in 2010 at upload).  REAL 💬 ⬆   12:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User stripping licences when cropping

[edit]

Whenever User:Oleo crops a photograph they mark the source field as Own work – cropped from [link to file] and fill in the author field as their own name. They also give the image a CC-zero licence irrespective of what licence or public domain rationale the uncropped image might have had. (For example, File:Tania Maria Monterey Jazz Festival 1981.jpg is CC-BY Brianmcmillen, the crop at File:Tania Maria (1981).jpg is CC-zero naming Oleo as the copyright holder.)

Oleo was asked not to do this last May, but they are still doing it.

What's the best way to triage this from a copyright perspective? VisualFileChange suggests that over 150 of Oleo's uploads are tagged in this way, but I'm not sure if there's a safe "licence missing" placeholder template that I can swap in. Belbury (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small technicality: The example above with File:Tania Maria (1981).jpg is not cropped. It's a brightened copy of the 439x599 reduced-size image. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Belbury, you can very well report this offender at COM:ANV (or COM:ANU, but I think that the behaviour already qualifies as vandalism = consciously harming Commons) for copyfraud. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please take it to ANU, not ANV. This is presumably not deliberate harm, and while it is likely to lead to a sanction of some sort, it probably won't be the indef-block that is almost inevitable for a vandal. Also, they should be informed of the ANU discussion on their user talk page. ANV is really meant for things that are beyond discussing. - Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will if they continue. I'm just asking for advice on an appropriate way to clean up the 150 or so files that have false copyright information, for now. Belbury (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury: For starters, you might use VFC to throw them in a maintenance category so it's easier to work out just what files we are talking about.- Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Category:Uploads from Oleo with incorrect summaries now contains every upload where Oleo has described the file as being their own "refixed" or "cropped" version of some other image, with their name listed as the author, and where they have given it a {{Self}} CC-zero licence.
(Some of these uploads will have started as public domain before Oleo copied them, but a CC-zero self template is still the wrong one to use.) Belbury (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing fortunate here: they've consistently indicated what they cropped, so it should be straightforward (if time-consuming) to fix the licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely consistently, sadly. I haven't yet looked through all of the files which aren't either in this new filter category or already up for deletion, but from a quick spot check, File:Mose Allison (cropped).jpg is a cropped and brightened version of Mattb4310's 2007 CC-BY-SA photo File:Mose Allison.jpg, with the summary box instead saying (before I fixed it two minutes ago) that it is Oleo's own CC-zero work from 2024. Belbury (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's occurred to me that I should probably add {{Wrong license}} to all of these, so that anybody considering using one of these files without credit, before it's fixed, should be made aware of potential problems with it. I've added the template to all 142 files. Belbury (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have strongly warned Oleo on their user talk page and emphatically requested that they participate in this discussion. If they understand (or come to understand) the issue and will go through and fix these themself fine. Otherwise, this calls for a block. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now given Oleo a detailed explanation of the issues with their uploads, at least the issues I'm aware of. If someone thinks I missed something, please also engage. - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog Drummond

[edit]

Just checking, but i want to use a photo from this site. The book is published by the Gutenberg project Australia in the public domain. Is it ok to upload some of the stage photo's to commons? Geerestein3 (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure all the images there are PD? Wondering particularly about https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks08/0800431h-images/BD01-Cover-00.jpg, which appears to be the cover of a modern edition, and is not clear about the provenance of the picture.
Other than that, though, you should be good. If it's PD in Australia that end is covered, and anything published before 1930 is PD in the United States ({{PD-US-expired}} for the latter). - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geerestein3: If possible, we need to determine the original sources of those photos, when, where and by whom they were first published. The PGA site identifies the first photo as published in this edition published in the US by McKinlay, Stone & Mackenzie, marked as copyrighted in 1919 and 1920, so it's ok for Commons. The photo seems signed. Even if not required, it would be a nice touch to mention a credit, if you can identify the signature. The photo with Matthews is presumably from the US play in the 1920s and likely published somewhere in the US at that time, so it's probably ok for Commons, although it would be good to find the precise publication details if possible. The other photos do not seem to be precisely described in the PGA site, but if the PGA used them, they may be ok also. Maybe you can try to find their original sources for better certainty. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geneva Lux 2024

[edit]

Are the art installations satisfying conditions of COM:FOP Switzerland? According to this, "it usually runs from mid-December to early January." In this case, December to January 2024. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is a screenshot from YouTube uploadable?

[edit]

This picture c:File:Diego Sarrió Cucarella coat of arms.jpg seems to be a screenshot from this https://www.youtube.com/live/b_dxFU7Jo6c?si=8zz8dByApoZYvFmd youtube video - more specifically of the cover photo. Is this considered consistent with the licence specified by the uploader ? Kailingkaz (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that provenance is accurate, then at the very least it is not licensed correctly. Is there any indication that video is free-licensed? I don't see any. Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about an official account

[edit]

Hello,

while browsing through new files, I cam across uploads from NBC Malta, which is, by own declaration, "the official account of the National Book Council of Malta." Notwithstanding that this declaration lacks a bit of a statement about paid editing, I have a bit of problem to reconcile the declaration of "own work" with Commons policies. Malta is, as far as I know, a civil law country and thus most likely not able provide for a transfer of creator rights, only of usage rights (same situation as in Germany, moral rights cannot be transferred, only the derived permissions of use). Until now, there's a mix of media uploaded with wildly varying EXIF. Some examples:

This IMHO clearly shows that several natural persons were involved in making the imagery over the years. "Own work" may thus be a bogus statement. Or is it allowed under Maltese law that a judicial entity claims authorship for works made by distinct individuals? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Own work" is usually more about who owns the copyright and therefore has the rights to license it. Most of the time that is the original author, but in work for hire or heir scenarios it can be different. So... that seems fine to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between "author" and "copyright owner". The account described is claiming to be the author of works by other people, This is not right, not least because the date of death of the author is what determines the eventual expiry of copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. If you are the author but not the copyright owner, you do not have the right to license the work. So it's the copyright owner which is more important here. "own work" is fine as far as I'm concerned for an owner of a work by hire (or an heir). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are other problematic files, for example File:Joseph M. Pirotta Premju Nazzjonali tal-Ktieb 2019.jpg, which was on facebook [9] in 2020, five years before the copy on Commons. It can't be on Commons without evidence of permission. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I skim-read the Maltese copyright law that is linked in COM:CRT/Malta. The law defines an author as such:

"author" means the natural person or group of natural persons who created the work eligible for copyright but in the case of an audiovisual work it includes the principal director but excludes the producer of the first fixation of the audiovisual work;

So, by law, the authorship claim of NBC Malta seems indeed to be not valid. Furthermore, in part three about moral rights (page 31 in the linked PDF), an actual author has the right to get named as producer of his work. This corroborates my thinking about a separation of moral vs. "commercial" rights. Given that NBC Malta is officiating in an official manner, the person(s) responsible for the operation of the account should be able to provide evidence of their agreements with the actual media producers to COM:VRT. I still think that, in the light of foundation:PAID, Commons rules about copyrights (COM:L, COM:CARES) and the actual Maltese law, we as Commons community should strongly request that the National Book Council offers us statements about the concise usage rights and how these got transferred to him. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is far too stringent. NBC Malta is likely the copyright owner, and the one who can license it, so "own work" makes sense. We should list the individual authors though if they are known -- both entities are important to the copyright (the owner to get a license, and the author to know how long the copyright will last). But it's the copyright owner which is of immediate importance when it comes to self-licensed works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NBC Malta is likely the copyright owner — NBC Malta legally cannot be the copyright owner because copyright is not transferable in Malta, just like in Germany, and a case of "work for hire" does not change the situation. Only the author of the work can be the copyright owner. NBC Malta may have received usage rights from the copyright holders which come with a permission to re-license the photos, but since NBC Malta is not the copyright holder we likely would need to see said permission. Nakonana (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point I guess, the "own" template is a source tag, indicating that it does not come from another website, but comes direct from the copyright owner. It is not an author tag. I don't think we have other tags to distinguish work for hire owners, or something like that, so "own work" is still the most appropriate tag. If not, suggest the correct one. There is nothing wrong with the uploads -- while we should respect moral rights, they are not legally binding in the U.S., and moreover they are Commons:non-copyright restrictions, so they do not affect the licensing here and are not a deletion reason. Just fix the information with what you found. If NBC Malta is not the copyright owner, or the owner of the economic right, then there may be an issue. I am assuming they are employees or something like that, using a variety of cameras. If not, then yes there is a problem, but at the moment this still seems correct enough under "assume good faith". Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg is correct. The relevant copyright question is just whether or not the uploader has the right to license the file. If there is no significant doubt of that, then there is no issue. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, "suggest the correct one" is indeed doable. For that, I looked up the documentation of {{Information}} and found this: {{Creator|Personal name}}, it's in the explanation of the Author field. This seems much more appropriate than thess misleading {{Own}} statements. I do not take objection about the licensing, AGF says that the operators of this "official account" should have the manpower and the brains available to clear the rights situation beforehand. But, in this field of tension between common law copyright and the European civil law creator's rights, I advocate for (enforcing) a better documentation of the creation history. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean about "enforce". The concept of "free" is linked to the economic right only. There can be no deletion over moral rights errors. Just fix/enhance the author field with any relevant information, once known. If you think the "own" template is misleading, OK, but it's a source template which is just an indication that the uploader owns the copyright, and the work came directly from them -- that is not the uploader's mistake. It is not necessarily an authorship claim. We use corporate names in the Author field all the time when we don't know the human author name. Despite moral rights, many companies don't bother. Those are technically anonymous, but the copyright owner is important information too. If these files were commissioned, copyright ownership can be bit murkier. It can depend on country, what is required for the economic right to be transferred. Or if just an agreement to release under a free license, doing the VRT technicalities more correctly. But, we normally don't delete over that unless files appeared elsewhere on the internet prior to upload here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be appropriate for me to chime in here as a member of Wikimedia Community Malta (WCM), which is very much involved in the NBC Malta account being created and the related images uploaded through that account. These uploads relate to a Wikimedian in Residence program our user group initiated with the National Book Council (NBC) of Malta. You can see it announced on public media in Malta here.

The main focus of this work is on the National Book Prize of Malta. The images uploaded are largely (if not all) from National Book Prize award ceremonies. They were taken by photographers commissioned by the NBC for their use. Through discussions with our user group via the Wikimedian in Residence program we initiated with them recently, they've agreed to release relevant images from these events from their institutional archive. They own these pictures because they paid for them to be taken during an event they organized. As the person uploading the images is an employee of the National Book Council and a newbie to Wikimedia, I'll gladly answer any questions about this specific project and the work associated with it; particularly since I'm the person who brokered the collaboration between WCM and the NBC.

Meanwhile, let's assume good faith as we continue to discuss this. Offering direct assistance with handling this aspect of the project is most welcome, especially since there are many more images that we're aiming to see uploaded through this collaboration. --ToniSant (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these explanations, ToniSant! I won't doubt the validity of the licensing, your posting is really credible. As the opener of this thread, I think that it's valid to break down the issue to one of a requirement of better documentation, not only for our own sake, but also for the benefit of any re-user of the imagery. Is there any way that the book council sends a mailing to VRT that documents his holding of any relevant rights? With that as a base, a custom {{Information}} template could be developed, that can be applied to any future NBC uploads. At the very least, using {{Creator}} in the source field would be very welcome, if not outright necessary. We should aim to provide the best available documentation of rights and creation history possible, shouldn't we? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An example of such a custom Information or Source template is {{Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung-source}}. As you hinted at a cooperation seemingly larger in size or longer in duration, it should be good to have a similar NBC template (but, even if I'm advocating for it, I likely lack the technological knowledge to build it. Hopefully, a colleague with suitable abilities can take over if we agree on the need for it.). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think that Yann should hereby be pinged to have an update about this subject, as he tagged some NBC files with "Missing permission". Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I tagged a few files where EXIF data says "Author: STEFAN STAFRACE, Copyright holder: STEFAN STAFRACE PHOTOGRAPHY". At least these need a VRT permission. I don't have much confidence, as against all evidence, this user only answered "I have a copyright to this file." Yann (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the background provided by ToniSant above, Yann? Most likely, an inexperienced staff member reacted to your talk page messages. Yes, the situation needs to get cleared up, by messaging VRT about the necessary right transfers and also by providing a declaration about paid editing (per TOS), but I think that ToniSant is primed now to help sorting things out. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that message. Yann (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your useful input. This is a learning exercise for an affiliate's partner as well as for us, the members of the affiliate for whom this is the first major engagement with Wikimedia Commons. So, to be more specific, can you please give us simple pointers as to how to handle your recommendation to message VRT? If you can't do this yourself, perhaps someone else can help us...but we need simple directions we can use to work with the uploader accordingly.
@Yann While your efforts here are greatly appreciated by me and other experienced Wikimedians, it would be very helpful if you also showed that you fully understand the context in which these uploads are taking place. I hope you'll forgive me for saying that your very justifiable actions can be (and are) perceived as aggressive towards a newbie, who is genuinely trying to help. Deleting images or marking images for deletion is not as helpful as engaging with us to get the images cleared in an appropriate way. Thanks again! -- ToniSant (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToniSant: Hi, As shown by Grand-Duc above, we have serious doubts about NBC Malta owing the copyright of some images. Unfortunately, we may have to delete the files if a confirmation of the permission cannot be obtained. Hopefully, we will get it. So there are basically 2 possibilities: if the copyright was transferred (which can only be done in writing), we need a proof of that by email. All documents will remain confidential, that's the whole point of the VRT system. Or the copyright was not transferred, and the authors (Stefan Stafrace for the images I tagged) must confirm the license themselves. Please ask if you need any more information, we are here to help. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were these first published elsewhere? Normally that is the only time we really delete if we don't get VRT confirmation. The human authors should be documented, certainly, but not sure these should be deletion candidates unless first published elsewhere prior to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thanks for all this. It's all well and fine, even if we disagree completely with your doubts about NBC Malta owning the copyright; we're assuming good faith particularly because we're familiar with the way these things are handled in Malta, regardless of what copyright laws may say for the country or the region. What we need is some time to handle this properly – definitely more than 7 days – because it involves a government agency (in this case, the National Book Council) and things tend to move a little more slowly in such settings. Your support and patience are greatly appreciated while we support this uploader accordingly. We just need some time to sort this out, and it may indeed need to be done through the VRT route rather than some other way since there are multiple images and photographers involved here, and this is a project that's designed to go on for several months, if not years.
@Clindberg: Some of the images may have appeared on social media sites like Facebook to promote the books that have been used (without copyright clearance or breach intended) but they will have come from the National Book Council directly (such as via their website) rather than from the commissioned photographer who is only interested in being paid for the gig rather than retaining copyright on the images. Deletion has been problematic for us established Wikimedians working with this newbie uploader and we appreciate being given some time to work with the uploader in good faith and appropriately to ensure appropriate right clearances, where appropriate. -- ToniSant (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand-Duc: creating an information template (or something similar) to be used by NBC Malta in relation to the WiR program WCM has running with them is something we can definitely work on. I'm making this a priority, along with getting the National Book Council to contact the VRT. However, this won't happen before Tuesday (at the earliest) now because the weekend is upon us and Monday is a public holiday in Malta. Thank you very much for this suggestion! -- ToniSant (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToniSant: We often have people and organizations who claim to have a copyright while they only have the right to use the images. The speedy deletion requests can be contested like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Noel Tanti Premju Nazzjonali tal-Ktieb 2021.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giza Pyramids during "Forever is Now" exhibition.jpg

[edit]

This image won the grand prize (1st place) of Wiki Loves Monuments 2023 competition. However, this image shows a work of art that was exhibited as part of an arts exhibit ("Forever is Now"). COM:FOP Egypt is unclear on the permanence of public art, only a generalized clause that states prohibition of reproduction of artworks unless these are located in public spaces. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the "permanent" wording is part of the law, I don't think that part is a problem. Not all countries specify that, and the restrictions of that nature are only a problem for the ones which do. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo del Liverpool F.C.

[edit]

Buenas en que año estará al Dominio Público el logo del Liverpool como este (en Wikipedia en inglés File:Liverpool FC.svg) según el sitio web (https://1000logos.net/liverpool-logo/) dice que fue creado en 1999 en Reino Unido (UK)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyleft trolling - proceeding to watermark images

[edit]
Example watermark

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".[10] He also refused to discontinue sending legal threats via Pixsy.[11] The fact that Diliff is relentlessly demanding compensation for accidental attribution errors even when the reusers have offered to correct the attribution or remove the images entirely[12][13][14], 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]

Problemas al subir una Donación de contenido

[edit]

1.- La autora de las fotografías Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria - Maira Teran Ulloa - Wikimedia Commons que donó a Commons me pidió poner su nombre real "Maira Teran Ulloa", anteriormente la categoría estaba con el nombre de "Maia Teran Ulloa", el correo de confirmación de estas fotografías fue enviado haciendo referencia a la categoría con el nombre incorrecto, a la cual le añadí la plantilla de bad name, el número de ticket es 2025032510023439, comunico esto para que no haya errores a futuro con el correo de confirmación y las fotos sean eliminadas.

2.- Las fotografias siguientes:

QM Keen (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deberás esperar a que el ticket sea resuelto, o seguirán siendo borradas. Yo ya las restauré una vez pero no puedo hacer más. Paciencia. Bedivere (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload a screenshot from a copyrighted movie properly

[edit]

I have been searching and finding various unclear info about how to upload a screenshot from a copyrighted film. Can someone guide me step by step? Johannes Fabian Schmidt (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes Fabian Schmidt. You can't upload any such screenshot to Commons for the reasons given in COM:SCREENSHOT without obtaining the COM:CONSENT of the copyright holder of the film; this is because Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type. Some of the various language Wikipedias do, however, allow such content to be uploaded locally to their projects, but only when their project's policies and guidelines are met; for example, English Wikipedia does allow copyrighted screenshots to be uploaded as non-free content, but English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is very restrictive and each use of the content on English Wikipedia needs to satisfy its policy to avoid being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"English Wikipedia does allow copyrighted screenshots to be uploaded as non-free content"
that sounds good, how can I achieve this? What do I have to enter where? Johannes Fabian Schmidt (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which Marchjuly linked above. And any further questions about that belong on the English-language Wikipedia, not here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iwo Jima War Memorial - a revisit

[edit]

Some prior discussions:

We have NPS claiming the monument as copyright protected (but not listing current rightsholder). Now, this 2011 paper seems to imply that its copyright was recognized despite of ambiguity and inconsistency with {{PD-US-not renewed}} rule.

As per the footnote on page 512, the Reg. No. is VAu000265428. Then, according to the footnote on page 513, "For instance, Felix de Weldon received Registration Number VAu000265428 on August 20, 1993, listing 1986 as the date of creation. MARINES RAISING FLAG ON IWO-JIMA, Registration No. VAuOO0265428. Interestingly, DeWeldon did not credit Joe Rosenthal, who took the iconic photograph Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, as a preexisting work in his copyright registration. Joe Rosenthal, Photographer at Iwo Jima, Dies, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 21, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/business/media/22rosenthalcnd.html."

According to Clindberg here, "there are two original registrations of sculptures of Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima, but those were apparently separate works made in 1986 and 1993. There is a 1998 *registration* (not renewal) which lists six titles, one of which is 'Iwo Jima war memorial', but that seems quite a stretch to be valid, as a 1998 initial registration for a work from 1954, which would have required a renewal 27/28 years after that."

This may need some discussion, since it seems the Copyright Office "recognized" the alleged copyright registration of this memorial courtesy of the 1993 registration of the 1986 work (which may be an exact copy of the same monument by the same sculptor). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statue has a copyright notice on it from 1954. It certainly was protected by copyright, but the 28 year clock started then. There had to be a renewal before that was up, no question. If De Weldon got a registration on a work created in 1986, fine, but that must be a different work than the statue near Washington, D.C., even if it's similar. VAu000265428 lists date of creation as 1993, which again can't be the same work. It's certainly possible for him to have made another sculpture, or kept working on one so there were changes, with the result having additional copyrightable expression that he gets a copyright on that new expression. But nothing can affect the copyright on the 1954 statue other than a timely renewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1014773395"