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 Commons:Upload help 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.

1933 publicity still

I want to upload this picture here of Merian C Cooper looking up at the huge King Kong bust. https://horrorpediadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/kk10.jpg

• Is it in the public domain? It was a publicity photo from the early 30's and its from a defunct movie company (RKO).Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a precedent of RKO publicity photographs being in the public domain. See en:File:Bette Davis and Herbert Marshall "The Little Foxes" (1941).jpg, en:File:Natalie Wood 1951 photo.jpg, File:Bringing up baby publicity photo.jpg, and File:Ginger Rogers Portrait.jpg. All cite copyright or film industry experts who claim that such stills were either never copyrighted in the first place or copyrighted but not renewed. They're all licensed either on Wikipedia or Commons using {{PD-Pre1964}}. clpo13_(talk) 16:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Honestly, it's hard to know for sure without more information than just the image itself (and I could not find any). RKO is long defunct, but the rights to the 1933 movie itself have passed (through a long sequence of owners) to Time Warner, and it is under copyright for another decade. It's likely that this photo was either never copyrighted, but I don't see any plausible way to 'prove' that without seeing images of the edges and back of an original published copy. Given the many lawsuits around the ownership of this movie, it's characters, and it's story, if it was copyrighted it was quite possibly not allowed to lapse.

It's worth noting that there are probably more images using the 'these were never copyrighted' argument on Wikipedia itself than on Commons. While there are files here making that claim, and even a template that includes a version of that boilerplate text (which was itself imported from Wikipedia), such files are not uncommonly deleted if they go to DR unless there is more evidence that just the generic claim... it often depends, frankly, on 'who shows up' at a deletion discussion. Revent^talk 16:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So what should I do? Should I just upload it on the wikipedia and use the same template as the ones that cplo13 cited in his example or should I upload it here with that {{PD-Pre1964}}?Giantdevilfish (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest waiting a bit before you decide... other people might find more information, or agree that it's 'likely enough' to be PD. Revent^talk 00:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's preferable to see the entire front (and preferably back as well) to make sure there were no copyright notices. I do see other versions on the net which do have the entire front; just a white border with no other markings. It's not really appropriate to claim PD-US-no_notice purely based on other similar photos; we should be able to see lack of notice on a copy of this work in particular. But, given other internet copies, it seems that is the case, so I think {{PD-US-no notice}} is fine as a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright of government owned media organisations in North Korea

Hi

I know there are different copyright rules for state owned media organisations in North Korea, but I can't find any clear guidance. I wanted to use the images from this page which are taken by KCNA and Rodong Sinmun in 2012, is it possible?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Their copyright law states that for works owned by an institution (which would presumably include the government), the term is 50 years from publication. They do omit "documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins" from copyright protection, but that sounds like textual works only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds of graffiti pictures of France where there is no FOP

Hello, Following this discussion in QI: in Category:Graffiti in France there are hunderts of pictures, but as everybody knows there is no FOP in that country. Can we host them here? Poco² 09:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

For non-trivial art, I doubt it is allowed. A lot of deletions should be done in this category in my opinion. Ssx`z (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I fact, it is not a matter of triviality, it´s much more also the intention of the artist, to demonstrate his very personal work, most of them with a signatur. Almost none of these works are trash, it is much more high quality! In my opinion, almost every of these pictures violates the lack of FOP in France. --Hubertl 11:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

In "non-trivial art", I was thinking about these examples:

• File:Jardin_des_Prébendes_-_Graffiti.jpg
• File:Des_fleurs_pour_les_rebelles.JPG
• File:Rochechouart-lavoir_01.JPG
• File:Интернационал_(5739153171).jpg

Indeed, most of the works in this category can be considered as art otherwise Ssx`z (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am also wondering about the legality of these graffiti and about what French law thinks of copyrights on illegally created objects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

From what it appears, images of illegal graffiti have, at least in some cases, been allowed on Commons on the basis that the artist cannot realistically expect to claim copyright on a work that was done illegally. See COM:IC#Graffiti and {{Non-free graffiti}} for details. Nevertheless, the copyright aspects of illegally created works may well be unclear. --Gazebo (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

So, should we proceed with a big DR for all these categories? Poco² 09:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Policy has been to allow them. The legal theory is probably less likely to be true in civil law countries like France, as opposed to common-law countries like the UK and US, but I'm not sure it has been tested much. I would not bother with the basic lettering-only graffiti like the four linked above at the least -- though the pictorial ones are more problematic. Given the uncertainty, I definitely wouldn't mark them quality images, but DRs are another matter -- that would be a change in policy. It had been one area where we were somewhat ignoring the copyright in the country of origin (if no FoP). Use the {{Non-free graffiti}} tag if not already applied, for non-FoP countries, so we can track them. It is a gray area... previous discussions are at Commons talk:Copyright rules by subject matter#Graffiti, Commons talk:Copyright rules by subject matter#Graffiti policy .282.29, Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 14#Graffiti, and I'm sure others. I'm not sure any of them were conclusive. For walls which have been drawn on by many different people, it may be more of a folk art situation and those may be OK. I would worry mostly about pictorial ones done by one artist in civil law countries (like France), though up to now we have just been tagging those with the above template rather than delete them. If there is any indication the murals are there legally, delete those of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Tractor Sazi F.C. Logo.svg

Would the tractor imagery in this logo be considered to complex for {{PD-textlogo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say yes. It's a fairly unique shape as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bromley Manhattan Plate 001 publ. 1955–56.jpg

Have I used the correct license? Thanks. Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was not really renewed, then the tag is correct. Ruslik (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That is one way to do it :-) As long as it's a U.S. work, we should trust their determinations of no copyright restrictions. Given that there is a copyright notice, and that I couldn't find a renewal notice on www.copyright.gov (which should be there for any work copyrighted 1951 or later), I added the {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag as well as that is the virtually-certain reason it's PD. It's good to keep the note that the NYPL also marked it copyright-free, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I was curious, so I double checked. It's in the catalog for 1956, shown as published 9 December 1955, as registration A218812. No renewal filed. Revent^talk 12:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

(we should have a template for giving this info, btw) Revent^talk 12:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Is this copyright information available online? Vzeebjtf (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vzeebjtf: Yes, but it can take some practice with knowing exactly where to look... the pre-1978 material is not in the form of a database. The page at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ is a good reference, but links to the scans at Google Books... I find the ones at the Internet Archive harder to 'browse', but easier to use once you have the right volume. Often, you'll need to check a window of a few years around when the paperwork 'should' have been filed (such as in this case, when the registration was in the volume for the next year). Also, it's important to note that the database at the USCO pads file numbers out to twelve characters, so for A218812 the search term was A00000218812. Revent^talk 14:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Katch 22 publicity photograph.

I am currently writing a page about the London band Katch 22. I have a publicity photograph from 1968 which has been used extensively in newspapers, magazines etc. for many years. The photographer knew what it was going to be used for and gave his permission on payment of his bill for services. Can I put this photo on my page ? Mike-eastman (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No. See COM:NETCOPYRIGHT#Press photos. While it may be legal, Commons only accepts photograph where the copyright has expired, or the copyright has been explicitly licensed. The typical implied license for press photos is not enough. While it would probably fall under "fair use", Commons cannot accept fair use images -- only public domain and licensed ones. A 1968 UK photo, if anonymous, would only expire 70 years after publication -- and more likely, the author is known, and copyright would last their entire lifetime plus 70 more years. The photographer could well still be alive. So, it's not public domain, and the copyright owner (which may be the band, if copyright was transferred per the payment) presumably has not given an explicit copyright notice which grants the use we would require. Yes, it's frustrating to have these types of restrictions, but that is what the term "free" means. While a publicity image is designed to be copied, using it for commercial purposes or creating derivative works are often going beyond the intended use. You may be able to claim fair use on English Wikipedia -- see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. They are also more limited than being strictly legal though -- if there is a possibility of getting a free equivalent, they may decide it's not within their policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Lenore Ulric publicity photo from 1929

Can I get an opinion about this original photo of her, from 1929? It shows the front and back. The front includes the studio name (long defunct), her name, and the name of the film (considered lost) per her bio. Like nearly all posed publicity head shots, it was not likely taken during the filming, so any film copyright would not be a factor anyway. --Light show (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That seems fine for PD-US-no_notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. --Light show (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS versus All right reserved

Hi,

After several reading, I do not understand what OTRS permits exactly.

If someone upload its own work on Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0 and prove through OTRS his rights but still has an officiel website saying "All right reserved" for this work, isn't there a contradiction? Mustn't his website be the first to show the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence?

Thank you for your explanations,
Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lacrymocéphale: Submitting evidence through OTRS lets a person 'prove' they have the right to license an image, usually needed because it's been previously published as non-free. An author can offer a work under as many different licenses as they want, even if they are incompatible, and is perfectly free to offer the image under different terms on and off Commons. We just need OTRS if the off-Commons license isn't free so that we know it wasn't simply stolen and falsely licensed. It's also worth noting that the text "All Rights Reserved" is not needed... that's a phrase that is required by the Buenos Aires Convention, but all countries that are members of that are now members of the Berne Convention, which does not require any specific statement to claim a copyright exists. We simply use ARR as shorthand for 'copyrighted and not freely licensed', most of the time. Revent^talk 15:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Revent:

"An author can offer a work under as many different licenses as they want, even if they are incompatible": I had difficulties to process it. Let say "thank to OTRS, the contradiction between licences remains a concern only for the author".

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lacrymocéphale: Basically, yes. An example would be a photographer that offers their works on Commons under a SA license, but also 'sells' licenses to commercial users that don't like the SA restriction. Revent^talk

@Revent: Like using a photo for a magasine cover with a bought licence instead of SA to not have to put the cover under SA too?

For example, File:Phil Rock-Upsize Magazine-Philip Rock-Phillip Rock-Photo by J Barbosa.jpg: The magazine probably got this photo under a contract or licence in a way that doesn't put there photo under CC BY-SA 4.0 even if the photograph put it under CC BY-SA 4.0. With another timeline, the photo could have already been under CC BY-SA but the magazine could have buy it or having a contract with the photographer that would neither have put their cover under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Another example: File:"Dialog" project, Iceland, Installation in 2008, photo by Fiann Paul.jpg is already published at http://www.fiannpaul.com/gallery/projects.html?id=560-fiann-paul-photography.jpg with (and only with) "All rights reserved Fiann Paul 2016."; If the OTRS is validated, this will not be Commons' problem if the author was in fact wishing to reserve all the rights. As the CC BY-SA 4.0 rules are respected, anyone can use it, unmolested by what could be another licence.

--Lacrymocéphale (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. In short, copyright owners can do what they like -- say "all rights reserved" in one place, and offer it under a free license in another, if they so choose. Nothing illegal about that, although as long as anyone discovers the free license, they can make use of it. (Well, perhaps a lower-resolution version was given a free license, and full-scale is still reserved.) Copyright is quite often licensed for individual cases or at least individual users. Even CC-BY files could be licensed separately just to avoid the need of mentioning it was CC-BY (or even crediting the author). All Commons needs is at least one verified free license -- at that point, yes, anyone can use the uploaded image in accordance with the free license regardless of which other licenses are out there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Revent, Clindberg: Thank you both for your explanation. I haven't thought to apply photo stock licencing scheme (different licences at different prices) to everything including Commons. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

NASA mission proposal

I'm wondering if a NASA pdf for the proposed HAVOC missions to Venus is going to have a copyright that would prevent its use/upload. I'm not exactly sure about how to go about finding this out. NASA's site states that images may be re-used for non commercial purposes, but I'm not sure whether images may be taken from presentations, and if they may, under what circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsigned (talk • contribs) 22:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Most NASA works are public domain; see {{PD-NASA}}. However, there are a few exceptions. If you can provide the link then it would be easier to tell. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0az7DEwG68A about 10 seconds in. Looks like PD-text to me. Revent^talk 04:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Squires vs Burns 1907.ogv

IMO {{PD-old}} doesn't seem to be the proper licence for this film. The proper licence for the U.S. is {{PD-1923}} (according to the Hirtle chart), but what about the rest of the world? IMO we cannot safely assume that Miles brothers (or at least Herbert J. Miles, the cameraman) died more than 70 years ago, so {{PD-old-70}} is not applicable. --jdx ^Re: 09:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: It was filmed in California, so {{PD-1923}} is sufficient... pretty much everyone else uses the rule of the shorter term. Revent^talk 15:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: IMO pretty much everyone else uses "author's live + 70" rule (not "publication year + 70"!) and, as I wrote earlier, IMO we cannot safely assume that the author(s) died more than 70 years ago. --jdx ^Re: 15:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: You are correct, for works where they are the 'source nation'. Most countries don't protect works that have expired in their home country, though, even if their local laws would give a longer period of protection (the shorter term). There are a few countries that would still (possibly) protect this, but not many, and it's not something people really worry about much... the US tag is sufficient for COM:L. Revent^talk 16:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: OK, I've changed the licence tag to {{PD-1923}}. --jdx ^Re: 16:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A quick eyeball of w:List of countries' copyright lengths says that life+50 is still most common, and half the people in the world live in China (life+50), India (life+60), US (publication + 95), Japan, Philippines, or Vietnam (all life+50). So no, life+70 is not everyone else.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi)

Moved from Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi). --Achim (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Are They really in public domain gita press started in 1923. No painter name no author life time no published date Baddu676 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Mahabharata appears to be an ancient text. Is that volume a translation, an adaptation, or just a printed edition of public domain text? If there was new authorship in that volume, but no author listed, then it is anonymous -- those types of works can have shorter terms. Which country is Gita Press from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir from India. The world largest publisher of Hinduism Books with very low cost --Baddu676 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, India has a term of 60 years from publication for anonymous works, which if there is no author named, means this one is. The linked work has a library stamp date of 1955, which means that volume was published before that (and possibly well before that). So, the work is virtually certain to be PD in India even if there was new copyrightable content in this edition. The US situation would be a bit fuzzier, and would depend on the exact publication date (before 1941 would mean it's OK), and if there was any new copyrightable content in this edition (if not then there was nothing copyrightable to begin with). If this is a translation rather than the original text, then there would be new content. If it is the age-old text, then there is nothing new, unless there was a foreword or annotations or other added text. So, is this a translation, or is there any added text? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read this book page about gita press.Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India --Baddu676 (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Google Books is blocking some of the linked pages for me... can't quite tell what helpful information would be there for the questions I had above. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Photos from a 1958 booklet, no copyright asserted

I would like to add some photos from a 1958 church anniversary booklet. The work was printed with no copyright notice, and the images are already on-line at this university's collection of historical pamphlets. To the best of my knowledge, this appears to be public domain material. Is this acceptable for Wikimedia Commons, and how should I notate its status when uploading? --Bistropha (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Those rules (copyright notice) only really apply to works first published in the U.S. -- but this looks like one of those. The tag would be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Upload of a picture specifically free of use

Hi, i found a web page in which it is specified that the photos in there can be used provided that you reference the page and write the name and URL of the source. I add here the source of the page in order to allow you to check if im right or not= http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop6/16novp.html . Thank you for your time --Pedro1996wiki (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pedro1996wiki: Looks good to me, but you'll need to either use the 'advanced upload form', or edit the file page after uploading to do it right. Use

{{attribution|nolink=International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) |text=Required by the license: Photo courtesy of [http://iisd.ca IISD]/ENB-Leila Mead}}

for the license, and link the gallery page in the permission field. Revent^talk 10:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright question about file format

Hi

I left a message on the File types page here that is related to the copyright of a file format, if anyone knows anything about this it would be greatly appreciated. There are people working on supporting 3D models on Wikimedia projects and we have some questions about the .stl file format.

Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that you can't actually copyright a file format, you can only patent it. You can copyright the 'specification' of a file format, but that's not an issue here. I don't know how much you want to trust a book called "Idiot's Guide: 3d Printing", but it's claimed here that the inventor never patented it, and a list of his patents (here) doesn't show any with names that would be likely to cover it. More significantly, other patent applications ([1], [2], for example) that discuss the file format don't cite any prior patents.

I'm pretty sure it's free, but you might want to ask (or poke the WMF to ask) 3D Systems just to be sure. Revent^talk 11:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

phab:T143201 Revent^talk 12:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much Revent, really helpful. John Cummings (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

NHL Officials Association special logo

I found a logo online tonight (the logo for the 40th anniversary of the NHL Officials Association). It was not created by myself, but by someone who's currently employed by the NHLOA. I'd like to know if I have to get permission from the person who made the logo, or if I can get permission from anyone involved in the party. Thanks. Mandoli (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mandoli, copyrights are generally owned by the people who create the works, with some important exceptions. If a work is created by an employee in the course of his or her employment, the employer owns the copyright. In this case, NHLOA should send permission to COM:OTRS. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So I wouldn't need to directly ask the person who made it. Just the organization in general. Mandoli (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

NHLOA is the copyright holder. Thus, ask the organization. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

That's what I assumed. Thanks. Mandoli (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Global Geoparks logo threshold of originality

Hi

Is the Global Geoparks logo suitable to be hosted on Commons? I don't think it reaches the threshold for originality to be copyrighted.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Dia03.PNG (and its other version, File:Fegyverbe!.jpg)

What is the proper licence tag for this poster? Is {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1953}} OK? Next, is it a work of art, i.e. {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1953}} should be used? --jdx ^Re: 14:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: Unfortunately, the correct tag for those images is a DR template, with Category:Undelete in 2024. Hungary's copyright term is 70 years after the date of death for published works with known creators, and the chance that this poster (that was created for the 1919 revolution) was ever published outside of Hungary is very minimal.

However, to directly answer your question, I think the 'best' tagging here would be {{PD-Art-two|PD-old-auto|PD-1923|deathyear=1953}}, and would suggest adding that to both before taking the work to DR. You might want to read COM:When to use the PD-Art tag, but TLDR, PD-Art should be used when the depicted work is in the public domain, but we do not have a license from the actual photographer (because the uploader obtained the image from an outside source). Revent^talk 10:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Propaganda of Hungary. I've changed the license tags. Revent^talk 10:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: OK, however there seems to be a problem with {{PD-Art-two}} – see User:Jdx/licence test. It should be "life plus 60" instead of "life plus 50". --jdx ^Re: 10:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: I think that's with PD-old-auto, actually... you're right tho. I'll look at it. Revent^talk 11:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision of Template:PD-old-auto - as this is a widely used template (62k uses), it's going to take a while for the change to be processed by the job queue. Unpurged pages will continue to show 50 instead of 60 until it's done. Revent^talk 11:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Raquel Welch promo

Can someone review this front and back photo of Raquel Welch from 1966? It will only be posted online for a few more hours. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If that actual copy was distributed to the newspaper, as opposed to being a wire photo, it would be OK. If it was printed at the newspaper, and kept as part of its archive, the lack of a notice there would not mean anything. Are there other copies on the net which shows the origin was something other than a wire service? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't all the crop sizes and description of where it was to be located on the page ("TP TV Tab," referring to a tabular column,) be enough? At least enough to remove "significant doubt" that it was published? --Light show (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Montgomery promo

Can someone review this front and back photo of Elizabeth Montgomery from 1961. It will also be online for only a few more hours. --Light show (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure that has evidence of distribution. If we know it was found in a newspaper archive and its origin was not a newspaper, that would help. But no indication on the photo itself of its origin or other provenance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It has a stamped date which is a month before the show aired. Decent evidence? --Light show (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Who stamped the date? If NBC, then no, it doesn't matter. We are looking to see that this copy changed hands from the copyright owner (presumably NBC) to someone else. It's not really a matter if it was published or not -- it probably was somewhere -- but rather if this copy was actually distributed, which is the only way the lack of notice is actually evidence to a lost copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That's the first time I recall separating "publication" from "distribution." The copyright law definintions (link below) states that "Publication is the distribution...." That "The offering to distribute...constitutes publication." Implying they are not separate events. --Light show (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger news photo from 1974

Can someone review this front and back photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger from 1974? --Light show (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Taken by Madison Square Garden... decent chance of being OK, but there is no evidence that copy was distributed on the back of it. So... what was the source? If from MSG archives, then it was never distributed and there is no way of determining copyright status. If from someone else's archive, then cool. Are there other copies on the net which better show distribution? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There were numerous muscle-builder magazines published back then, all of them defunct now. But few of their photos are on the web. And the few that are, don't say where the photo came from. But I'm also still unclear why the photo itself isn't evidence enough of publication, per Copyright definitions, ie. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. --Light show (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it was published. You are however claiming that copyright was lost by virtue of lack of notice on this copy. For that to be true, this copy must have been distributed itself. If a company marks copies with a copyright notice and distributes them, copyright was not lost, even if they also had private copies which had no notice, as long as those other private copies were never themselves distributed. If this was a private copy owned by MSG and never distributed, then it's not evidence of a lost copyright, which may then still exist. When there is a stamp of a separate organization on there, then that is an indication it changed hands. If we knew where this photo came from -- if it was basically anyone other than MSG, and they obtained the copy before 1989 -- then that would also be enough. Odds are pretty high this did not come from MSG directly to the online seller, meaning it probably was distributed without notice at the time and lost copyright, so I probably wouldn't argue to delete it myself -- but others might. Using images from 1964 and later is inherently much more dangerous copyright-wise, since there is no possibility of not being renewed, so it's best if the evidence is clear-cut. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy promo photo from 1975

Can someone review this front and back photo of Leonard Nimoy from 1975? --Light show (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure seems like that photo was used multiple times. Does not seem like a wire photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Francis Ford Coppola photo from 1976

Can someone review this front and back photo of Francis Ford Coppola from 1976? --Light show (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Was this from an NBC archive, or somewhere else? It's not slam-dunk, but I'd lean OK, if we can be reasonably sure that the markings on the back were a newspaper or at least not NBC. If this was a private copy owned by NBC, then it was never distributed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The back shows the cropping size and the day it was to be published. It also says "rush," which implies they needed to get it published soon. --Light show (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The Beatles, 1965

Can someone review this front and back photo of The Beatles from 1965? --Light show (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

And another of them here, from 1964. --Light show (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The first one was taken by CBS, but that copy has no indication it was distributed. If the only copies actually distributed had a copyright notice, then copyright was never lost. If that copy was kept in the CBS archives until 1989 or later, then there is no evidence for PD status.

The second one is a wire photo. No back. No evidence at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Albert Einstein photos

1. Can someone review this front and back photo of Einstein from 1933? --Light show (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

2. And another from 1932. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

3. Or this one from from 1933 as a deadly outlaw on the run. $5,000 bounty. --Light show (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

4. Until he found a temporary hideout in the UK with armed protection from some English friends. --Light show (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

First one looks fine. Second one... probably fine; would prefer evidence of actual distribution for that copy, but seems probable to be OK. Third one... taken in Belgium, though it says "exclusive photo" for a U.S. company, which may indicate it was first published there, and so may also be OK. The fourth one... comes from a UK source, so presumably the UK is the country of origin. If it was published in the U.S. within 30 days, it would avoid the URAA restoration. The N.E.A. date (which was part of Acme) seems to be less than two weeks after the photo was taken, which does seem to indicate it was likely published within 30 days. So, the question is if it qualifies for {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Is there any information on who the photographer was? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It was a news photo, similar to this one. Einstein was there for a few weeks at Locker-Lampson's invitation. It was likely published as part of a news story about his visit, although the location was kept out of print. --Light show (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. But is the photographer known? You can't claim lack of copyright notice on this one since it's not a U.S. work; you have to show that it is PD in the UK today, and either that the URAA does not apply or that it was PD in the UK in 1996 -- and it was definitely under copyright in the UK in 1996, so you need to show why the URAA did not apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart photo

Can someone review this front and back photo of Amelia Earhart from 1932? --Light show (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright and deleted files

I have been attempting to upload photos from my files to an article in my sandbox. Three have been deleted, but others have been accepted using the same criteria. I did receive a message from Magog the Orge stating these three lacked the correct copyright tag

I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse

and I thought I had added it. How can I recall these files to check them for what happened?

Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

In File:Hidalgo carved by Frank 96dpi.jpg, it looks like you used [[PD-self]] instead of {{PD-self}} (i.e. square brackets used for links instead of curly braces used for templates). However, that is a claim that you yourself took the photograph, which seems plainly false for that photo. So, those would be deleted for an invalid tag as well. With your other text, you would be claiming {{PD-US-not renewed}} it would seem. For a photo of a statue, it gets worse there would be the copyright of the photo (which would be PD if not renewed), plus the copyright of the statue itself, which would be unclear. Seems unlikely that the second copyright was renewed, either, but that is harder to search for if not known when the statue was first published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

YouTube CC license and TOS

Please see this thread and let us know if there's an easy answer or if the conversation should be moved here. --NeilN (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If a video is validly marked as CC-BY, that is a separate license than that granted by the terms of service. The terms of the latter would not matter here (since that is non-free), but if also licensed CC-BY, then it is OK, including captures. Captures could picture other copyrighted works, which would be de minimis in terms of the video as a whole but possibly not for an individual capture. In general though, that should be fine. As always, be very careful that the YouTube uploader is actually the copyright owner, and it was not simply reposted from elsewhere (Commons:License laundering). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

copyright in an image part of legislation in the Netherlands

I am considering re-uploading (or requesting undulation) of an image of a visa present in Dutch secondary legislation on the Dutch legislation website. The deletion discussion didn't give me a very clear view on why it was deleted, and the deleting admin (user:INeverCry) referred to the proposer of the deletion ((user:Stefan2/User:Stefan4) as he is very experienced in the matter. As he seems inactive for the past month, on suggestion of INeverCry, I am placing the matter here to have some input on the matter. For practical reasons I am repeating the request to Stefan below. His argument for deletion was "Bogus copyright tag" (possibly because passports images etc don't normally fall under it; as they are not printed as part of legislation? or because the tag was somehow bogus?); the result of the deletion discussion was "Deleted". L.tak (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Caribbean visa image

He Stefan,

I am sorry to bother you so long after, but over year ago, you nominated File:VisumKonderNedCaribischGebied.png for deletion stating that the copyright tag used was not ok. There was no further discussion and the image was deleted by user:INeverCry. I have asked him to look into the deleted file in order to re-assess whether the deletion was required.

• The image was found at the Dutch legislation website wetten.nl as part of the "Regeling Toelating", a piece of secondary legislation.
• Deletion discussion was at Commons:Deletion requests/File:VisumKonderNedCaribischGebied.png
• The tag was template:PD-NL-Gov/nl, to be used for all works made by or on behalf of the Government (Article 15 Copyright Act).
• In case of legislation, both Article 11 (all laws and directives are copyright free) and Article 15b of the Dutch Copyright Act are legal basis to consider it copyright free

Based on this info I'd say this image is free of copyright because it is part of legislation. Would you based on this reconsider your view on the matter; or indicate where in your view this evaluation is incorrect? L.tak (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Libreaim

Hi,

Special:Contributions/Libreaim: this user has uploaded a lot of slides. In his late uploads, after 2016-06-09, the image often include a CC BY-NC-SA tag and "Created by : Ganesh" followed by an email address. For those images, the file entry on Commons is placed under CC BY-SA 4.0 as an own work. What I think about it:

• The NC of CC BY-NC-SA seems incompatible with the commercial commercial usage authorized by CC BY-SA 4.0;
• Libreaim must prove that he is Ganesh if he wants to change the licence or to claim being the source.

I thought starting with prepending all the CC BY-NC-SA ones with {{wrong licence|1=The image says "CC BY-NC-SA" in which NC (non commercial) is incompatible with the commercial usage authorized by CC BY-SA 4.0.}} through a batch task but

1. there is so many files that I don't want to make a mistake;
2. there is so many remaining images without the CC BY-NC-SA but with the same layout and style that I feel missing something.

Please, what should be done?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)