Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcut: COM:VP/C · COM:VPC Welcome to the Village pump copyright section This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives. Commons discussion pages (index) Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion Copyright Proposals Graphics and photography discussion Image improvement Photography critiques Categories for discussion Deletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests #wikimedia-commons webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator 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 oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Why does the UploadWizard default to CC-BY 3.0 (without the SA)?

It seems that the UploadWizard latterly offers CC-BY 3.0 as the default license. Why that? Isn't the CC-BY-SA the major license of our project? I personally don't consider it a good idea to motivate people to upload under a no-Copyleft-license. // Martin K. (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It defaults to Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 unless you've chosen something else in your preferences. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@LX: Thanks - that solved the problem. // Martin K. (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Sweden (or lack thereof)

I have updated COM:FOP#Sweden with information about the latest ruling against Wikimedia Sweden. The ruling can still be appealed (but is based on a statement on interpretation of the copyright act made by the Supreme Court). While deletion might be premature at this point (possibly with the exception of requests from concerned uploaders), I do feel it is disingenuous to offer up files with {{FoP-Sweden}} in its current state given what we know now. Even if one somehow takes the position that Commons' hosting of these files is not only legal but also consistent with our licensing policy, the fact remains that if anyone does what Wikimedia Sweden did (provide links to files hosted on Commons), they risk prosecution and would be held liable unless the current ruling is overturned. We owe it to reusers to point this out. Therefore, I propose a rewrite of {{FoP-Sweden}}.

Current version

This reproduction of an architectural work or work of art, is covered under the Swedish law of copyright for literary and artistic works (Law 1960:729, paragraph 24), which states that "Work of art may be depicted if it is permanently placed on or at a public place outdoors. Buildings may be freely depicted." See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Sweden for more information.

Proposed version (based in part on {{FoP-unknown}})

It is not clear whether freedom of panorama applies to this image. This is a depiction of a building or work of art in Sweden. The depicted work is believed to be protected by copyright. According to Article 24 of the Swedish copyright act, "Works of art may be depicted if they are permanently placed on or at a public place outdoors. Buildings may be freely depicted." It has been widely accepted that this provision made distribution of depictions such as this one legal. On 4 April 2016, however, the Supreme Court of Sweden issued a statement that Article 24 does not extend to publication in online repositories, and on 6 July 2017, a lower court ruled that linking to depictions of copyrighted artworks hosted on Commons constitutes copyright infringement. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Sweden for more information. The implications of these decisions on Commons' ability to continue to distribute this and other depictions like it are currently under analysis. Reusing or linking to this file may have legal consequences. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe the copyright belonging to someone else. See our general disclaimer for more information.

While I'm not happy about the situation, I would be happy to get input on the proposal. If you want to suggest changes, please do so below rather than editing the initial proposal, as that tends to make proposals like this rather confusing. Also, I understand that this is a sore topic. To keep the discussion focused, please start another section if you want to discuss how stupid the rulings are, whether or not we should delete affected files, whether or not we should stage protests or anything else not related to the wording of the template under the current circumstances. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest two templates: one for art and one for architecture. We may come to different conclusions with respect to these two categories. Edaen (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I agree in principle, but I think it would be better implemented using a template parameter controlling categorisation and the "building or work" part of the text. Easier to maintain, less duplication of content, and more straightforward to migrate.

Unless there are any significant objections or developments, I plan to do this later this week. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I think your proposal is sensible and I agree. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done – I've changed the layout and English text according to the above and updated the Swedish translation to match. There is now an optional parameter to indicate the type of work depicted, which will categorise the file into Category:FoP-Sweden (artworks) or Category:FoP-Sweden (buildings). See the template documentation for details. The de, fr and mk translations need to be updated and have been tagged accordingly. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@LX: Thank you. I updated the German translation accordingly: Template:FoP-Sweden/de. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Advice on whether or not something can be used

Hello, I am seeking advice as to whether a picture can or cannot be uploaded. As you maybe can tell from my user talk page, I have had some problems with this in the past, which were both honest mistakes, but this time I thought I would ask here first before I did anything. I am talking about this photo from Flickr, and I want to know if it's okay to use under creative commons? https://www.flickr.com/photos/sweetone/5502114362/ Thank you. Kmwebber (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber

No. Please read Commons:Flickr files. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Kmwebber, good on you for asking, but no, that photo can't be used because its license is CC-BY-NC-SA, meaning non-commercial. Commons files need to be free for all purposes including commercial. seb26 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both, and thank you for the flickr reference. I will just have to make do without a photo and that's okay! Thanks for the help! Kmwebber (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber

Would written testimony, provided by a private person, submitted to the US Congress have copyright protection or would it be considered, under US law, a copyright free work form the US government

Would written testimony, provided by a private person, submitted to the US Congress and entered into the official record have copyright protection or would it be considered, under US law, a copyright free work form the US government?

Casprings (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Government works are works that are created by government employees in course of their duties. So, any text written by a private person is copyrighted to that person. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Netherlands Indies banknotes and/or "coin-notes".

Would money 💴 from Dutch India fall under Dutch copyright law preventing me to upload them in 70 yes, or are they free to upload? --58.187.168.206 08:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What specifically do you mean by "Dutch India" ? Dutch East Indies became Indonesia, so I would suspect that their currency would fall under current-day Indonesian law. For Ceylon, I would assume current-day Sri Lankan law, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Netherlands Indies gulden (East Dutch India) should be PD due to their age if we can consider them to be anonymous works. Otherwise it will depend on the day off publication but still a fair amount off them would be PD. Older "local" (please let this not be offensive) like the Sumatradollar are most certainly PD. I believe that they used Guldens as a currency in some trading posts and other colony's. Then there is the Netherlands New Guinean gulden (obviously used in New Guinea) but I don’t think those are PD due to their age. Natuur12 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Book copyright notice and renewal

Hi, Is this book (Studies on hysteria [by] Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud. Translated from the German and edited by James Strachey, in collaboration with Anna Freud, assisted by Alix Strachey and Alan Tyson.) in the public domain because of lack of notice or renewal? See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freud - Studies on hysteria.djvu and Hathitrust record. I don't see a notice in IA scan. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This edition was published in 2004, translated by James Strachey (1887–1967). On an early unnumbered page it says "This is a reprint of Volume II of the Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Hogarth Press, 1955)". I see no reason to conclude that this translation is public domain. It is likely that the original German text is public domain. The illustrations of Freud and Breuer might be public domain, but the image quality is poor and we already have better pictures of these men. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it was published in 1957. Yann (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a reprint of a British book, so the lack of notice or renewal wouldn't be relevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure? It is not the same publisher. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This copy may have been published in 1957, but Verbcatcher is entirely correct that it says it's a reprint of the 1955 Hogarth Press (i.e. British) edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. For my information, what are the criteria which make the difference between a reprint and a new edition? This is confusing to me because the publishers of the UK and US editions are different. This is only relevant for us if the US edition might be in the public domain for some reason. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A new edition would only have a copyright on any new material. Any previously-published material still has the same copyright. A "reprint" sounds explicitly like it added no new expression. A "new edition" may have a new foreword, maybe reworded text, etc. But anything in that new edition which was simply copied from the old edition doesn't get its copyright extended. A "new edition" which simply changes the font or something would not create any new copyrights (other than typographical-arrangement ones for the few countries which have those). It's usually a matter of figuring out if there is any new expression in a "new edition". Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's clear for public domain material and new material published in a new edition. But the notice/renewal system still confuses me. If a text was published in the USA without a proper notice (or if the copyright was not renewed), this text is in the public domain in the USA, right? Isn't that sufficient for us to host this text? May be this can be uploaded in the English Wikisource. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If a text was published anywhere without a proper notice or wasn't renewed, it was public domain in the USA. That's why other countries insisted on the URAA. Using the fact that US publishers relentlessly copied such works as a reason to upload them violates both international and US copyright law, as well as the spirit of Commons policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure whether URAA applies to works which US PD status had been already exploited before URAA. If not, the book is still PD in US. And its "country of origin" (in the meaning used in Commons' rules) may be disputable. @Clindberg, Prosfilaes: could you comment on this? Ankry (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If you were actively exploiting a work when the URAA came around in 1998, then you could continue until the copyright holder filed a notice of restoration or notified you directly, at which point you had a year to sell off stock. Since the WMF was not in existence prior to the restoration, it's not relevant to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

And if the point of Common's "country of origin" rules is that countries with the rule of the shorter term can use any work in Commons safely, then using a work from England and Germany because it was published in another country that no law considers its "country of origin" is counter-productive. I know it's debated and complex, but ignoring reprints that happen, especially in nations that don't respect international copyright law, should be one of the easier decisions for Commons to make.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As Prosfilaes said, yes without notice it became public domain in the U.S. But that was the entire reason for the URAA -- to restore those works such that the notice/renewal formalities were essentially removed, and stop existing as well as future exploitation. The URAA would not apply if the original U.S. publication was within 30 days of the foreign publication, but otherwise, copyright was restored. If you were actively exploiting it at the time, you were a "reliance party" with certain limited rights, but those could be cut off as well. Commons is not a reliance party, and would count as a new exploitation, and would be a copyright violation. "Country of origin" is the Berne definition, which would be the country of first publication. If it was published in multiple countries within 30 days, things could get more interesting, but all we have documented here is a 1955 UK publication and a 1957 US publication, so it is not a US work and any loss of copyright due to lack of notice/renewal would have been restored by the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, it is clearer now. Thanks for your detailed explanation. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted file

I'm thinking of uploading an image that was previously deleted - [1] (I'm not the original uploader of the image). I was considering uploading it to English Wikipedia using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (i.e. public domain in the US but may not be transferred to the Commons) as the image had been previously published in 1921 in Britain, e.g. Leeds Mercury, 25 April 1921 - [2] (subscription required but free with limited access). However, thinking about it, I think it may be eligible to be uploaded to the Commons as the photographer appears to be unknown. Gettyimages which claims copyright on the image [3] credited the image to Topical Press Agency and an unnamed photographer (using a generic term "stringer"). A book which has this image gives the photographer as "not known" [4] (it gives the names of other photographers where known for other images). I intend to scan the image from the book (it is better than the deleted file) and upload it, but I'm interested to know whether this is something I should do here before doing so. Opinions would be appreciated. Hzh (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In general: Do not reupload a deleted file. If you think a files should be undeleted, file an undeletion request here. Jcb (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Is my reasoning valid though? Hzh (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently not. For images from PMA+70 countries with unknown author, we use 120 years as a cut-off. So if there is evidence that the work would be from before 1897, the file could be restored with {{PD-old-assumed}}. Jcb (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, could well be. Does the 1921 newspaper mention a photographer? If not, it was published anonymously, and if the photographer was not made known before 1992, it would qualify for {{PD-UK-unknown}} it would seem. If the originally published version was a crop, and this is not, that may be different -- then we may not know a publication date of this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, no photographer is mentioned in the 1921 newspaper. Hzh (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

About the image being cropped - Getty Image has another that has not been cropped - [5], however, the one published in 1921 was cropped, similar to the one previously uploaded to the Commons (the one uploaded however appears to have been trimmed a little at the bottom). Hzh (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As long as the uploaded portion had been published in 1921, I'd say to request undeletion as PD-UK-unknown and PD-1923. Documenting the 1921 publication (and lack of author there) is key. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We do however, know the publisher. It was Topical Press Agency. So they would have just a 50 year copyright. So the name of the guy that pressed the shutter does not apply to this type of vintage image. Getty may have bought the library but they can only charges for the reproductions of the physical media they currently hold and not claim reproduction fees for reproduced images published before they acquired the collection, since pre published images before purchase, have long been PD. P.g.champion (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The UK's retroactive copyrights in 1996 would give the Topical Press Agency a 70 year copyright if no photographer named, and a 70pma term if they were named. The old 50 year term is now pretty much meaningless, other than for Crown Copyright works. However, it looks like even the 70 year term would have expired before 1996, so it was not technically restored either. Unpublished works get trickier though, since the 70 year term in the new laws are from date of publication. But, it's probable even the wider crop is PD as well in this case. The published one is more definite. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments, I've learnt a lot. I'll start requesting undeletion soon. Hzh (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Postcards with coins from the 1900's.

On Bing Images there are a lot of these images of postcards with coins on them, so far here on Wikimedia Commons I've only seen 1, and it seems very likely that all of these could easily find a place on Wikipedia articles, however I cannot seem to fond the authorship of them and I'm not sure if I am allowed to just download the images from Bing and then upload them here, do they get "re-copyrighted" after someone published them without alteration, can I upload postcards from the 1900's with unsure authorship? --58.187.171.100 07:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The mention of Austria-Hungary on these cards indicates that they were published between 1867 to 1918. They appear to be anonymous. The images liked from this page indicate that there is no attribution on the backs of the cards. The card you have linked to is marked "Made in Germany", and the others that I have looked at give German text first, so it is reasonable to conclude that German law applies. They appear to be public domain and would tag them with {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-anon-1923}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:พล.ต.อ. จักรทิพย์ ชัยจินดา.png

Not sure if File:พล.ต.อ. จักรทิพย์ ชัยจินดา.png has been uploaded under the correct license. --Uhooep (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It may fall under number 3, "Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units". I'm unfamiliar with the connotation of the official statute, how broadly their courts interpret it, etc. Reading Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Thailand, I see this: "Thai state documents are public domain, though creative works produced by or commissioned by government offices are protected by copyright."

I don't know of any valid, alternative license tag, so I'll nominate it for deletion. Guanaco (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Listed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:พล.ต.อ. จักรทิพย์ ชัยจินดา.png. Guanaco (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Cyprus banknotes

Regarding File:Cyprus-1-pound-1955-F-verso.jpg, File:Cyprus-1-pound-1955-F.jpg and File:Cyprus One Pound Note 1978.jpg, what is the copyright status of images of Cypriot banknotes? There are no details for Cyprus at Commons:Currency, but many former British territories impose copyright on banknotes. However, File:1 Palestine Pound 1939 Obverse.jpg asserts that it is public domain; do its arguments stand up and do they apply to 1955 Cyprus banknotes? Verbcatcher (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Threshold of originality on fonts in Australia?

I'm currently working on extracting the tram number icons from [6] to place in the infoboxes of their relevant articles. The font used for the numbers (and the moon icon for some routes) is, however, developed by PTV themselves (it's called 'Network Sans' and a Google search led me to this listing). I was originally hoping to upload them on Commons as {{PD-ineligible}}, but given Australia's low threshold of originality, I wanted to seek a second opinion first. In the case this isn't possible, I'll upload it locally instead. Pizza1016 (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Sodelhi-bhaskaracharya-college-of-applied-sciences--1369552354.jpg

Tagged as own work but I can find it here and here. Doug Weller (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that this is a copyright violation and I would have nominated it for deletion. However, a Commons administrator has since tagged it with {{No permission since}}, and will presumably delete it if no credible permission is added. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Doug Weller (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Psy press conference (September 2012)

Hello.What is the solution to this fop violation?Cropping or deletion?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If you mean the cartoon character in the background, it is not related to FOP at all. So, the solution is to delete images that display the full image of the character. On the other hand images like this one can be kept. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

en:file:Hank_Mobley.jpg

It is a 1956 image. Can we upload it here on Commons?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 14:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you should look at Commons:Hirtle_chart and decide this yourself. The publication date and publication circumstances will be the key. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Public domain?

Hi there. I added this image from Flickr. The photographer marked it as "public domain", likely so it could be shared, but this caused an error which I'm not sure how to fix, because the image does not meet any Commons criteria for public domain. If someone could have a look at it and tell me if it can be fixed I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• It looks to me like what needs to be fixed is the copyright mark of the original file— the Public Domain Mark is supposed to be used by people other than the original author to mark very old images that are (almost certainly) in the public domain, not to mark one's own recent work and place it there. It seems the person who created this image made a mistake in choosing the intended license— you could try contacting him via Flickr mail and asking him to change/ correct it, though I realize this is not the ideal solution. KDS4444 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@KDS4444: Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. For me, PD-author would be fine in this case, as it seems pretty obvious the Flickr user is the author, and they marked it public domain. But it would be better if they marked it Creative Commons Zero, as that is more explicit and also one of their options there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Technical schematics - discussion

I recently placed a question regarding copyright and technical schematics for the Hindenberg airship on the main Village Pump page, and was encouraged to mention the question here for more-expert advice. In the interest of centralizing the discussion, could editors please see (and comment on) the discussion there? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:LTC Elizabeth Reynard (1897-1962).jpg tagged as PD, but don't think so

Resolved

This file is tagged as being in the public domain, and taken before 1923, but that doesn't make sense. That would mean that she was less than 26 years old in the image.

Normally I wouldn't question it outright, but I am working on a series of articles in Wikipedia where the same user, Elisa.rolle, has been incurring copyright violations and was recently blocked for that activity.

Is there a template to apply to tag this image for review? Some other process?

In the short run, I removed it from the Wikipedia article about this person.

Thanks!CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I found the image on this WWII site.CaroleHenson (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, one more update. Since I removed that image, she posted a message here... with a link to another image where the subject is in a uniform. She is saying that any images of a person in a uniform are in PD. I thought the picture had to be taken by the federal government to be PD. Is being in a uniform sufficient to be PD? Arggh, this is getting complicated and confusing.CaroleHenson (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A uniform means nothing. At. All. If a work of the US federal government and proven to be such, then PD no problem— but military portraits can be taken by anyone, so this alone tells us nothing. The WWII site you indicate above provides no sourcing information, and so is not helpful in this matter. Also, the source for the image (as originally indicated, sort of) is here, and that source does not show the image anywhere (meaning the file should be marked as having an invalid source and marked for deletion unless one is found). Even if the image had come from that page, the photo credits at the bottom of it don't suggest that any of the page's images are in the public domain— if it was taken before 1923, that would not matter, but without knowing when the image was taken, we have no way of assessing this. Commons policy is when in doubt, delete— so far there is just too much doubt on this image. KDS4444 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. Is there something that I need to do? I don't know what templates to apply here at commons (I don't think they are the same as the WP templates).CaroleHenson (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I put a tag on the file, I hope I did it right.CaroleHenson (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The image has been deleted, which is probably the correct outcome in this instance. Nothing more to do or be done. KDS4444 (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Licencia en español: File:Serie 2700 de FEVE.JPG

File:Serie 2700 de FEVE.JPG y otros archivos tienen esta licencia:

Se prohíbe la reproducción total o parcial de los contenidos de esta Web sin citar su origen o solicitar autorización, salvo en las páginas en las que se indica expresamente otra circunstancia.

No sé si requiere ambos "citar su origen" y "solicitar autorización". ¿Es suficiente uno o el otro? Guanaco (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The specified source is dead, but the document from which the image was extracted is archived here. This document does not indicate a variation on the website's standard licence conditions. My knowledge of Spanish is inadequate to interpret these licence conditions. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Logo NOJM.jpg

I'm not sure if the licensing on this is correct. According to the source provided for the image, this does not appear to have been released under a "cc-by-sa-4.0" license. The museum is, however, located in the United States which means that this logo is probably OK to convert to {{PD-textlogo}} and add a trademark tag. I am asking about this because pretty much the same file has been uploaded locally to English Wikipedia non-free content as en:File:New Orleans Jazz Museum Logo.png. The only difference between the two logos is the additonal text "A Gift To The World" found in the Commons logo. If the Commons version is OK and only requires a tweaking of the license, the English Wikipedia version does not need to be non-free and can be converted to PD and tagged for a move to Commons. Is there any reason why the Commons version would not be considered OK? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a clear PD-textlogo. I'll go ahead and take care of this.  Doing… Guanaco (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. We now have File:New Orleans Jazz Museum logo white.svg and File:New Orleans Jazz Museum logo black noborder.svg. I've replaced the image on enwiki. Guanaco (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this Guanaco. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use?

Hi. I would like to upload this picture into the Commons, or upload it to a specific page: http://collections.mnhs.org/cms/largerimage.php?irn=10313556&catirn=10767792.

The picture is aprox. 107 yrs old. Since this isn't for any commercial use, am I able to use it under Fair Use? Thanks Justbean (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justbean: Fair use images aren't welcome on Commons, but some of the other Wikimedia wikis will accept them. Very old images are often in the public domain, but you have to know the rules and find the correct copyright tags. For Commons, they need to be in the public domain in their country of origin and the United States. This particular image appears to come from Minneapolis circa 1910, so all that's needed is {{PD-US-1923}}. Guanaco (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Guanaco! Appreciate the time and help. Justbean (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair use is not allowed on Commons. However, you may be able to upload it as public domain since its copyright might have expired. Do you know in which country and in what year the photograph was first published? There doesn't seem to be enough information on the site itself. - Pizza1016 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Pizza1016, thanks for reaching out. Think Guanaco got me all squared away. Appreciate your willingness to help! Justbean (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Guanaco!! Justbean (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Guanaco (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:New Metlink Signage.jpg

Is this photograph covered under {{FoP-Australia}}? The subject (i.e. the sign) is a 2D work, but it has been on the repository for almost a decade so I thought I should ask. I have a somewhat similar photograph I wish to upload. - Pizza1016 (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, This looks OK to me. Yann (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

How to re-license these?

File:Marion Morgan dancers, between 1914 and 1927.jpg LOC file with no known restrictions produced between 1914-1927. We have no template for the Genthe Collection where this is from. Thanks, We hope (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Some of this collection may be restricted, but those images are marked as such. We hope (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Two more from this batch, but from FDR Library:

• File:Eleanor Roosevelt (2nd from left) and Lorena Hickok (1st from right), 1933.jpg
• File:Eleanor Roosevelt, Marion Dickerman, and Nancy Cook on Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada in June 1926.jpg

1926 and 1933. FDR Library says for both "To the best of our knowledge, this image is in the public domain and can be used without further permission." We hope (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

We hope, I will post about this image, but it's valid for all the images from the Library of Congress, if you search for the file: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/agc1996000114/PP/ and then search for Rights Advisory, the Library of Congress marked the photos as "No known restrictions on publication." This is valid for all the Arnold Genthe Photos I uploaded. Regards, --Elisa Rolle 14:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this is dated between 1914 and 1927, it's not clear which copyright tag here would apply. Some of the Genthe Collection is restricted-see the link above. "The photographs Arnold Genthe made for his own use are considered to be in the public domain." Other photographs, however, may have been produced as "work for hire" and copyright may be held by the original client." All LOC images are NOT necessarily in the public domain. We hope (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

We hope, I will try to be more clear. Image by Image (not the collection as a whole), I checked the decision of the LOC: if you click on the About this image page (for the picture above is http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/agc1996000114/PP/), and you go to the Rights Advisory section (that is in all LOC ABout image pages) for this picture in particular the LOC states: "No known restrictions on publication." This is a decision the LOC has already taken. And this is valid for all Arnold Genthe, Francis Benjamin Johnston, Historical Building Survey photos I uploaded. Moreover, I even personally contacted them regarding Carl Van Vechten due to the claim from a publisher, and they confirmed that the Carl Van Vechten photos donated by Saul Mauriber at the LOC are in Public Domain. Regards, --Elisa Rolle 14:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

And I will also try being more clear. This particular file I've asked about a proper copyright tag for, has NO possible restrictions. Many of the others from this collection uploaded by you may possibly be restricted, as per the link above. If it was valid for everything in the Genthe Collection why is this upload of yours File:Miss Marion Carstairs, 1928 or 1929.jpg Marion Carstairs- listed as being possibly restricted? "Publication may be restricted" ? See the link above. We hope (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

We hope, I uploaded those files from the Genthe's collection since after contacting the LOC (and you can do if you want, they usually reply very fast) they will tell you that, for the work for hire, you have to contact the heir... and Miss Marion Carstairs, like Miss Alice DeLamar, or the other misses you will find, do not have any heir who claimed the copyright of these photos at the LOC. Regards, --Elisa Rolle 14:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer hearing from those who have no involvement in these uploads. We hope (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

We hope, this is why I told you to contact the LOC instead of forwarding my contacts... I was sincere when I told you they reply fast, I think to me they replied in one day max. Write to them and ask, if they have a claim from an heir, they will give you the contact so you can check. If they do not have a claim, it's up to you to search for the heir. In the case of Miss Marion Morgan or Miss Alice DeLamar, you can easily find notice online they died without direct heir. Alice DeLamar left 25% of her estate to Eva La Galliena, who died without directs heirs as well, and in any case, if they did not renovate the copyright before 1977, the photo went in Public domain. (A work is in the public domain. This applies to [Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.] Date of Publication [1923 through 1977] Conditions [Published without a copyright notice] Copyright Term [None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities]. This applies also to [Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad] Conditions [Published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996]). Regards, --Elisa Rolle 14:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

And once more I am posting-I would prefer to hear from those NOT involved in these uploads. We hope (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

We hope, fine, I was trying to help, so I will give you one last input (that I hope will be confirmed by whoever you want): Arnold Genthe died in 1942 (75 years ago), therefore the copyright for author, as general rule, is expired 5 years ago. So even the restrictions due to it being a work for hire, have expired. Whoever own a portrait, even of themself, do not own the right to the reproduction, that is of the author, and after 70 years from the death of the author, those rights expire. Regards, --Elisa Rolle 15:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Whenever possible, please use the {{LOC-image}} template. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Best guess is {{PD-US}}. It is quite likely they were published without notice at some point (i.e. given to the Library by the Roosevelts then published), or not renewed. Either that, or the Roosevelts dropped copyright when they gave the images to the presidential library (which would be {{PD-Author}}). But they likely became PD due to formality issues as well. But yes, if it is also available at the Library of Congress directly, add the LOC-image template in the "other versions" section. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl. The 2 Roosevelt photos are from the FDR Library-what about the one remaining from LOC taken between 1914-1927 since it "straddles" the line between pre-1923 and PD-1978 no mark/copyright not renewed? We hope (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Using image under restrictive license when license's application to specific image is compatible with "Attribution" tag

I have a clean record and I don't want to make a dumb mistake, so I'm asking first. Made a gif of this LIGO video which I feel would be helpful on a few articles (especially on the Simple English wiki). LIGO has quite the license, but I believe it makes my image compatible with the "Attribution" copyright tag. If not this image, I'd like to extend the question to images where this is indeed the case. Thanks in advance.

Here's my proposed wikitext license for such images:

This image is consistent with the LIGO Image Use Policy in such a way that it is compatible with the "Attribution" copyright tag. The policy can be found here and reads,

“Unless otherwise noted, images and video on Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) public web sites (public sites ending with either a caltech.edu or mit.edu address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; LIGO does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

1. that neither Caltech (for caltech.edu) nor MIT (for mit.edu) make any representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and do not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and make no warranties as to the quality of the images. Neither Caltech nor MIT shall be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech and MIT harmless from all liability arising from such use.
2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy Caltech/MIT/LIGO Laboratory".
3. that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, MIT, LIGO, or the National Science Foundation (NSF) must neither be claimed nor implied.

Special Cases

• If an image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person. For more information, contact the LIGO Information at +1.626.395.3064.
• Caltech and/or MIT contractors and vendors who wish to use LIGO images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests to Caltech Media Relations Office, telephone +1.626.395.3226.
• Some image and video materials on LIGO public web sites may be owned by organizations other than Caltech or MIT. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than Caltech or MIT is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image.”

Gizatsby (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2017‎ (UTC)

I see a fair amount of good content here. Let's make a custom license tag at {{LIGO}} or something, and then we can apply it to their content. The template can categorize these images into their own category, which will be a subcategory of. Guanaco (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've created the {{LIGO}} template, and we can improve it later. For now it just does {{Attribution}} and fills in the credit line. Guanaco (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sweet! I guess we can take this to the {{LIGO}} talk page then. Gizatsby (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)