Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

foto di opere di un artista, come caricarle?

Ciao! Ho creato una voce su un pittore e vorrei caricare delle foto di sue opere in accordo con gli eredi. Come devo fare? Grazie mille! Alice Zampa (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: @Blackcat: who can help answer this question in Italian. Abzeronow (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alice Zampa Ciao, gli eredi devono dare l'autorizzazione scritta alla pubblicazione con licenza libera. Se le foto rappresentano unicamente i quadri (senza cornice, oslo la tela), allora puoi dire agli eredi di scrivere al servizio COM:VRT, in particolare a permissions-it

wikimedia.org, elencando le opere e la licenza con la quale le vogliono pubblicare (fatti mettere in copia delle mail - una per erede e devono scrivere tutti). Sarà risposto, dopo verifica, con le istruzioni per il caricamento. Infine, una volta caricati i file, dovrai rispondere alla mail di VRT indicando il nome dei file caricati. Tutto chiaro? Ruthven (msg) 20:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao @Alice Zampa: , confermo. Aggiungo che le liberatorie sono nominative, non numeriche, quindi permettono solo l'uso dei dipinti espressamente indicati, non genericamente "tutta l'opera", quindi ti consiglio, già che ci sei, di prendere bene nota dei dipinti da liberare per evitare di dovere fare la richiesta due volte. (mi dispiace, non sono regole che abbiamo fatto noi :) ) -- Blackcat 16:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

grazie @Ruthvene @Blackcat
quindi ogni erede deve scrivere separatamente una mail o può esserne fatta una unica con tutti in copia? C'è un testo prestabilito da utilizzare per non sbagliare?

Per pubblicare una foto dell'artista la procedura è la stessa?
Nel frattempo, visto che la voce è pronta e ha superato i criteri di pubblicazione, si può procedere con l'approvazione per la messa online? Come si fa? grazie mille!!! Alice Zampa (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alice Zampa: Allora, per gli eredi credo che una copia unica possa bastare. Per la voce, qui siamo su Wikimedia Commons, non su it.wiki, quindi questo non è il posto idoneo per discuterne, però personalmente aspetterei comunque, c'è qualcosina da limare dalla voce, c'è ancora un po' di roba che in un'enciclopedia non ci va. -- Blackcat 18:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alice Zampa Una copia, ma che inoltri un file con tutte le firme, per esempio.

Per pubblicare una foto dell'artista, è il fotografo che deve scrivere, a meno che la foto non sia stata fatta su commissione. Nel secondo caso, la procedura è la stessa, perché i diritti sono passati agli eredi che devono inoltrare una prova della trasmissione dei diritti d'autore (per esempio, la ricevuta del pagamento al fotografo). Ruthven (msg) 12:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

se la foto è stata fatta dagli stessi famigliari che la vogliono pubblicare come si procede? grazie mille!

@Ruthven Alice Zampa (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alice Zampa In questo caso, può anche essere il diretto interesato che scrive: "La foto l'ha scattata [mia moglia, mio figlio, mio zio,...] e mi ha ceduto i diritti. Confermo la pubblicazione con la licenza X." Poi, se scrive direttamente il familiare, è meglio. Ruthven (msg) 09:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok grazie mille! Alice Zampa (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teresa Teng's first performance.png

Previously nominated but then kept twice because URAA-based arguments were inadequate. Nonetheless, the Instagram posting of this very old (1960) photo was 2020, five years ago. I'm concerned about existence of the photo's prior publications. I've not yet re-nominated the photo. I'm bringing this up here instead. George Ho (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Could you please spell out your theory of how this is problematic, rather than just "I'm concerned about existence of the photo's prior publications"? - Jmabel ! talk 06:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll rephrase: Has this photo been published previously other than just the Instagram posting? If so, how about the 1960s? George Ho (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: So your concern, if I understand it correctly, is the case where this was not immediately published, but was later published at a date that would mean it is still in copyright? - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: My main concern is the photo's first or earliest publication, actually. George Ho (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: …because…? - Jmabel ! talk 06:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if the anonymous photo's been unpublished since creation until its supposed first publication in 2009? Per COM:CHINA, the photo has typically fifty years of copyright after initial creation or first publication. Would the Chinese law still go by year of creation or of first publication in this case? George Ho (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Chinese copyright law well enough to comment further. Can someone else weigh in? - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the photo is in PD in China/Taiwan because it’s unpublished for 50 years after its creation, I don’t see how it is in PD in the US, since it entered PD in China/Taiwan after the URAA date. But I understand this is not sufficient reason for deletion, as the closing admin stated. I guess if there is no evidence that it was first published between 1975 and 2010, then it will be fine to keep the photo here. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if there is no evidence that it was first published between 1975 and 2010, then it will be fine to keep the photo here. Even if there's no evidence of prior publications before 1975? I found this 2019 (Chinese) page using the cropped version of the photo, but I guess a publication from 1975 to 2010 should suffice? George Ho (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it was unpublished on in 1996, then its status in China is irrelevant for US law; its copyright duration in the US is for the life of the author + 70, and if it was published before 2002, for at least until 2048.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law Maldives

It was in the year 2010, a copyright law was passed in the Maldives. It was in October 2010 that the law was put into effect. According to Article 36 of the copyright law of Maldives any products such as photos published in websites before the copyright law was put into effect are not protected under the copyright law. This applies to photos copied from original sources and published in other websites too according to the law. This photo [1] was uploaded to Divehi Wikipedia on 2008 and I was wondering if I can upload this image on Common, as it was published before the law was passed in the country. You can refer to the law from here [2]. Alternatively, I would like to know if we can upload a photo from a local publication to Common, if uploaded prior to October 2010. ShappeAli (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ShappeAli notwithstanding your question, it seems Maldives amended their law before 2024 ended. The amendments are going to be effective within this month, 3 months after the publication of the amended law on their Government Gazette. They extended the term to 70 years from 50 years. I also assume that there's nothing that's advantegeous for us like a Freedom of Panorama provision. Can you read Dhivehi? WIPO only provides the Dhivehi text, which became gibberish when I translated the Section 20 text using Google Translate app. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @JWilz12345 for your reply. Yes, I can read Dhivehi, but I am not very familiar with legal terms. I checked, and there is nothing like a Freedom of Panorama provision. As for Section 36, it remains unchanged in the amendment. ShappeAli (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ShappeAli feel free to update COM:Maldives, based on changes, most especially the terms. You can also add "access-date" parameter to the citation for the WIPO Lex copy of the 2024 law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 Noted. But what is your recommendation/suggestion for uploading photos that were captured or created before 2010? Can we upload such photos to Wikimedia Commons? If so, which license should we use? ShappeAli (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ShappeAli there is a red flag in the law. Another section regulates works that were protected before the 2010 law came into force:

35. (a) Works that were produced before this Act came into force will be protected under the following circumstances.
(1) The duration for which the work was protected under any regulation, prior to this Act came into force, has not expired.
(2) The duration of such works protected by legislation of a signatory to which Maldives is party to has not expired.
(b) When calculating the duration of copyright and related rights for this Section, the registration date, if registered, shall be the date the work was registered and if not registered, shall be the date on which the work was first made available to the public.

Section 36, in the exact words of WIPO translation, reads: "Protection of literary and artistic works, performers, producers of sound recordings and broadcasting organizations, books, pamphlets, articles, library and archive materials, teaching aids and other writings produced before this Act came into force ceases to have effect."

I'm not sure if pre-2010 Maldivian works are automatically unprotected, due to the Section 35 clause. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Process question re: wrongly licensed files

Quick question. If I happen across a file where the license info is clearly wrong, but there's an obvious compatible one that will work, is it ok to just change the license tagging, or is a better process to follow?

Example in question is this one, which was tagged as CC0 but is a derivative work that includes several images under various CC-BY/CC-BY-SA licenses. I changed the license tag to CC-BY-SA 4.0 since that's compatible with all of them...but is there a better way to go about this kind of thing?

File:Wiki_List_Tool_-_2024-05-28_snapshot_03.png

Thanks for any guidance; I appreciate it! RickScott (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RickScott: Convenience link: File:Wiki List Tool - 2024-05-28 snapshot 03.png. Please use internal links.

What a mess. The image is probably OK, but there is no single license we can attach to it. Instead (much as in a book that contains CC images of various sorts) we need to spell out what portions of it are under what licenses, with whatever elements of it that Fuzheado added himself being CC-0. - Jmabel ! talk 06:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg for an example of a pattern on how license mixes can be cleared. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel and Grand-Duc: Got it; thanks both of you for your help! =) RickScott (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to speedy delete file:Blueseal-energy-group-nigeria.png

please I need help with the media file File:Blueseal-energy-group-nigeria.png, I mistakenly created the file as my own work and I want to speedy delete the file so I can license it under the accurate license and source. Stephen Ini (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a deletion to occur, Stephen Ini. Simply write in the correct information! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I do that please Stephen Ini (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good now (don't worry about the statement in the version log of the file). However, we would ideally need confirmation from the copyright holder by email. Is this something you could procure? Gnom (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please I can procure a letter sent via mail from the organization, I will write a request for that, can you help me with a guide for them to compose the email. Thank you so much. Stephen Ini (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See example at COM:VRT (and a link there to a page to generate the text of such an email). - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lyke wake.png

Hello, the image contains transcription of an excerpt of music from this album. I'd like to know what are the copyright rules for such transcriptions? Can we transcribe any music, no matter when it was composed and published? Or perhaps excerpts are allowed, rather than the whole song? Thanks. TazGPL (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TazGPL: Commons never accepts files on a fair use basis. With very rare exceptions, an excerpt from a copyrighted work is still copyrighted.

That said, I doubt anything in this particular file is copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, thanks. Does it mean I can transcribe music by Michael Jackson and publish it in Commons? TazGPL (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. There may be an issue with this file, if it is an original composition. Yann (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of several images in category:Fania Bergstein

Specifically, File:PikiWiki Israel 84177 fania bergshtein trail in gvat.jpg is a photo of a poster, which is in fact a rather faithful reproduction of a picture by Ilse Kantor (1911-2000) from children's book w:Come to Me, Nice Butterfly first published in 1945. I would love to illustrate my article with this image, but I am not sure whether this is a really free one. I am not a "lawyer" to judge its copyright status. If it were taken in the United States, this would definitely be a copyright violation, that's why I am asking. The image info page releases the copyright for a photo, but it is a photo of a picture with its own copyright status. Please advice. Altenmann (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It all comes down to COM:FOP Israel issue (with 2D work and public space definitions clarified by one of the respected Israeli lawyers). Three important questions that need to be satisfied for this file to be kept here:

Is the depicted work located in a public place? Dr. Presenti included certain indoors like church indoors and museum indoors as among the public places, regardless of fee payment requirements, as long as the premise could be accessed by the public.
Is the work meant for permanent location? If not, it's a red flag.
The depicted work is a 2D work. Is the 2D work a 2D work meant to convey useful/utilitarian information (just like maps and information boards) as opposed to "symbolic/artistic" information, like paintings?

Also, same, IANAL, but these are the things that I understood from Dr. Presenti's correspondence to a user way back in 2010. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes
It is a poster, but it is a poster for the "Fania Bergstein trail" tourist route, so I cannot tell for sure whether it is yes or no, but leaning to "yes", because I guess it is nailed down, i.e., not intended to be arbitrarily moved to and fro.
The posters are artistic.

Altenmann (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo challenge - Newspapers

I just discoverd Commons:Photo challenge/2025 - March- Newspapers, is it a real good idea to make a challenge with a topic that could potentially lead to many derivative work issues? I posted a message to Commons talk:Photo challenge too. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is understandable, but the eight users who voted unanimously for it thought it was a good idea. Let's hope that the user who proposed it will actively monitor the submissions and quickly nominate the possible copyvios for deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for open communication: I do not really have the resources this month to actively monitor the submission. I've proposed this photo challenge 2-3 years ago and up until now I didn't even now that it was chosen this month.

If actively monitoring by the proposer is expected, then some communication should be made with the proposer before chosing it, making sure they have time.

But I'm sorry, if my proposal now causes additional work and think that copyright violations should be deleted right away. FlocciNivis (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked about this at COM:AN#Photo challenge - Newspapers because I think it's an issue that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted several copyvios already. Bedivere (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain in Israel - which US public domain tag?

RE: File:Flickr - Government Press Office (GPO) - Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann walking in yard of his cell in Ramle prison.jpg

This photo from the National Photo Collection of Israel is public domain in Israel and has been confirmed by the Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team as such (see page).

For a good article nomination on English Wikipedia, I want to determine if it is also public domain in the USA, and if so which tag it warrants.

Can anyone help with this please? I assume it's possible to tell from the information already on the page, but after browsing Category:PD US license tags I haven't been able to figure it out. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be still copyrighted in USA. It depends on the circumstances of its first publication and on who owns the copyright. Ruslik (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honolulu Star Bulletin

Hello there. Reading an AFD on the English Wikipedia, I came across this news article from the Honolulu Star Bulletin, dated 1971. I've got a feeling that doesn't have a copyright notice, but I have no access to newspapers.com, so I can't check it myself. Could anybody have a look and, if eventually copyright-expired (per {{PD-US-no notice}}, upload the photograph? Thanks! Bedivere (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to have been registered in 1971 [3] Bedivere (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I contacted user @Thriley: who first used the photo-article as a reference on the English Wikipedia but received no response, despite they've continued to edit afterwards. Anyway, I've had a Newspapers.com account approved on the Wikipedia Library but I'm still waiting to have it enabled so I can check it myself. Bedivere (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do these maps meet the TOO?

Hi, I was reading the guidance laid out at COM:MAPS, and I think I'm pretty sure I understood, but I'm hoping to get an answer that is more definite. This map and this map were originally published in books. They're both pretty basic with just locations plotted on a map of a U.S. state. Do these meet the threshold of originality, or would I be able to upload them here under {{PD-map}}? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this work by W.D. Caroe in the public domain?

Hello, I found an architectural drawing attributed to W.D. Caroe (1857–1938) on Historic England’s website (https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/photos/item/CAR01/02/00004). It is dated 1933-1934, and Caroe passed away in 1938. Since the UK copyright term is author's life + 70 years, wouldn’t this work be in the public domain since 2009?

However, Historic England has applied a CC-BY-NC-ND license to this work. From my understanding, this license should not restrict public domain works. Can I upload this to Commons as a public domain file?

Here is the image: https://ibb.co/LD36hfZ5 Karakalem (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should, yes, as it is in the public domain in the UK. Bedivere (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But if it was published before 2002, it's in copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political poster of a satirical nature under German law

The (rather nice) image indicated is now marked for deletion. Under COM:POSTER. I understand that provision. But fair use can also be claimed in relation to satire/parody/irony. Can I argue for retention in this context therefore? Or can I appeal to the political nature of the content as protected speech?

As an aside, I have been asking climate campaign groups in Germany and the United Kingdom to add Creative Commons CC‑BY‑4.0 licenses to their promotional material so photographs and scans of that material can be used on Wikipedia. Best, `RobbieIanMorrison (talk) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use is not acceptable on Wiki Commons (that's where we currently are). However, local Wikipedias might allow Fair Use to some degree, e.g. the English Wikipedia does. You'll have to ask at the local Wikipedia where you want to use this file whether it would be permissible to have it locally uploaded under a Fair Use rationale. Nakonana (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that at least for Germany, a group cannot grant a Creative Commons license, only the author/photographer of the particular work can grant such a license because copyright is not transferable per German law, so we'll always need the permission of the copyright holder. Nakonana (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison: All discussion about this file probably should be limited to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spoof election placard claiming Friedrich Merz is without heart.jpg because that is where,not here at VPC, it's going to be determined whether the file is OK to keep. For reference, though, Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type as explained in COM:FAIR; so, Commons would require both the photograph itself and the photographed poster be licensed in accordance with COM:L to keep this file. In some cases a copyrighted poster that's part of larger scene (for example, the Dark Knight movie poster given as an example in COM:DM#An example) might be OK when it's considered an incidental element (i.e. non-essential part of the photo), but I don't think that argument would work here since the intent of the photo seems to be to show the poster. Would you've, for example, uploaded the same photo with the poster cropped or otherwise blurred out? If your answer is "yes", then cropping or blurring out the poster now should allow the rest of the photo to be kept. If your asnswer is "no", then trying to argue de minimis or incidental is unlikley going to work.

As for the other part of your post, your suggestion would work if the promotional material is 100% the original work of its creator, but it wouldn't necessarily work if the promotional material was a COM:DW (derivative work) incorporating copyrighted content created by someone else; in the latter case, Commons would require all the individual elements of the derivative work be licensed in accordance with COM:L in order to host the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakonana and Marchjuly: Many thanks both. In particular, the matter of re‑assignment of copyright under German law. Best, R, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. The fair use exemption for parody or satire in US law allows an author to use a copyrighted work while creating a parody or satirical work. It does not make the resulting work freely licensed. Additionally, this exemption is not present in all countries' copyright law; I'm not familiar enough with German law to say whether it exists there. Omphalographer (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer: Thanks, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To note that the discussion on the image deletion page is worth reviewing. And to note that the concept of implied consent/license could be applied to this circumstance? Moreover, Wikimedia/Wikipedia may wish to review its rejection policy guidelines in respect of advocacy placards displayed at organized demonstrations. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sitio web sin noticia del copyright

Buenas ,que pasaría si el sitio web como este (https://en.air1air.com/) no aparece como "All rights reserved" o el símbolo del copyright como este "©️" es posible agregar {{PD-ineligible}}? AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Qué No tenga el símbolo no significa nada Bedivere (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

Possible case of Copyleft Trolling

Hi all,

I've stumbled across a case of possible Copyleft trolling and I'd like the community's input. Pinging Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk · contributions · Statistics) requesting any response they'd see fit.

Before I begin, let me make it abundantly clear that I'm assuming good faith and I'm not claiming this is necessarily a copyleft trolling case; I have no knowledge of the user actually pursuing compensation. I'm basing myself off the user's own words regarding his work's copyright, which I feel is enough to warrant some form of corrective action.

These are the points to the story:

the user tags most of his contributions as CC-BY-SA 3.0 and adds his own Template:Crédit d'auteur Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick 0. The template uses Creative Commons' "CC" logo but his own wording, and in particular: "The reuse of this Wikimedian's photographs outside Wikimedia Foundation projects (...) usually generates copyright; the latter are to be paid by the third-party reuser directly to the Wikimedian, who does not waive his economic rights." In spite of the use of the CC logo, this stipulation isn't related to CC and, in fact, conflicts with it. While the use of the word "usually" might add some doubt, the distinction of use between Wikimedia's projects and elsewhere and the implication that the image is "usually" subject to copyright fees in the second case is misleading. Once the image is released under that CC license, it is never subject to copyright fees as long as the terms of the license are respected. Note that this isn't a case of multi-licensing, just a specific and mostly inaccurate stipulation. I am of the opinion that this template should be completely rewritten or suppressed altogether.
the user's user page (which people aren't required to consult in order to use his work shared under CC, and most people don't) sheds some light on what he means by usually: "I allow the broadest reuse of my photographic work within Wikimedia Foundation projects, of course, but also outside of those projects. For a given file, it suffices simply to copy-paste the author credit mentioned in the file description cartridge included with the URI, and to read and understand the legal code of the license." This is mostly fine, although he determines a specific way of attributing license that's beyond the CC stipulations (which states, for instance, that a URI should be included "to the extent reasonably practicable" (4(c)), while the user implies that it must be added). He then proceeds to state that "I invoice all the reuses which are carried out under different conditions". Well, by this wording, present in his user page but not in any of his uploads, any change or omission in the attribution line (including, for instance, omitting the URI, which is permitted by the license, or omitting the work's title, which is acceptable under CC 4.0 but arguably isn't acceptable under CC 3.0). The fact that these stipulations are in his user page rather than the template he uses is also cause for concern.
Perhaps most concerning of all, the user uploads his work using the Upload Wizard and picking CC-BY-SA 4.0, but then manually changes that to CC-BY-SA 3.0. We know that some of the main differences between 3.0 and 4.0 are related to attribution flexibility and, particularly, the stipulation that any violation has a 30-day period to fix a faulty attribution after being notified about it (Section 6(b)1). Maybe there's a valid reason for one to insist on using CC 3.0 rather than 4.0, but I can't think of any.

While each of these points might not amount to much individually, the presence of a dubious template on each file about "economic rights" applied to uses outside of Wikimedia; the specific stipulation tucked away on their user page regarding attribution and the possibility of immediately charging for any deviations; and the insistence in using CC 3.0; together, paint a concerning picture.

I'd love to hear anyone's comments on this, including Mr. Jänick's.

Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would

support the indefinite block of the user from this project and the deletion of all their photographs (as per the precautionary principle), especially if the trolling is more clearly established, unless—in this case—they change the license of their images to CC BY-SA 4.0 and refrain from using malicious templates. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7: I don’t believe we’re even close to needing to discuss a block, let alone the forced change of licenses, and certainly not the deletion of images (which is far more likely to escalate the situation rather than resolve it). I suggest you put your pitchfork away (for good, probably). Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the need for photographers to protect their copyright, and I fully support users taking steps to ensure their work is respected, especially when dealing with corporate re-users who disregard free licensing. However, the wording in the template here could potentially confuse re-users about the actual terms of the license. It’s important that, while copyright protection is upheld, the terms under which the image can be reused must be crystal clear. As it stands, the template creates ambiguity that could lead to misunderstandings. I think it would be helpful to rewrite the template to better align with the actual terms of the CC licenses, making it clear that, once released under a CC license, the work can be reused freely as long as attribution requirements are met and the other conditions of the license are respected. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I'm still looking for a working program to replace the wonderful work of Commonist. From experience, when I find my photos reused outside of Wikimedia projects, in 95% of cases there is absolutely no attribution. And in the other 5% there is either just my name or "Wikipedia" when a simple copy-paste of the attribution is enough. There has been no significant change for thirteen years. As I have had now a busy professional life for several years, I am short of time and faced with counterfeits I am content to exercise my right of withdrawal which is provided for in French law. In 2012, I had a plan to finance my photography by charging for reuses which are made with simple mention of the name, as the license allows. It was a resounding failure. At the time, I was unemployed and had tried to make a living from my work. Now my standard of living has radically changed, and I no longer lack anything. @Rkieferbaum: I will make some changes now. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: 2 issues here. 1)Yes people elsewhere misusing images from Wikimedia without proper attribution is a problem. There are some tactics and notices that can help somewhat - such as alerting well-intentioned reusers of how to do things correctly - but some is just the wider problem of some people being (insert insult here) on the internet, a problem that cannot be completely eliminated. 2)The problem with your wording is that it seems to suggest that the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license is ONLY for Wikimedia. A true CC-BY-SA 3.0 may be reused by anyone who gives proper attribution in accordance with the license. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seem some users put more detailed explanations on file pages, with large statements that the photo is NOT public domain, etc. On some of my popular images I've added text saying that it may be reused for free with proper attribution, but reuse without such attribution is a violation of copyright. In both cases, such text is technically redundant, as that is part of the relevant CC licenses. But repeating such information to make it more obvious to someone uniformed only taking a quick look at a file page can sometimes help. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

French law differs from American law. A counterfeit is a counterfeit; there is no notion of good faith. Also, the free license complements French copyright law, but does not replace it. But to put it simply, for several years now, I've made it a habit and time-saving practice to send a message to assert my right of withdrawal when I encounter a counterfeit image. This way there is no more recurrence : one minute, one message, no recurrence. So I have time to devote to taking pictures. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, using CC 4.0 might actually be useful. You could have a canned message that warns them about the correct way to give attribution and they'll either correct it, remove your image, or ignore it, in which case you'll be free to pursue fees after 30 days. If they do correct it, then more people have the chance to see what adequate attribution looks like and hopefully less people will get it wrong in the long run. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: salut, et merci de votre réponse! You're absolutely right that people don't pay anywhere near the attention they should with attribution. That's bad and not only because it's unfair to the author, but it really damages the odds of the work being later reused fairly as intended (i.e. the "SA" part becomes unverifiable). I think the main distinction between copyleft trolling and fair treatment to authors is that with trolling, people will often set up "traps" on which outside users will fall and then lose money. Your reply makes it clear that that's not what you're seeking, and I'm glad. I saw your edits to the template and user page and they look fine to me. I wouldn't even oppose using a more stern warning in your template, something along the lines of, just off the top of my head, to illustrate (so don't copy and paste this): "This license allows for use anywhere strictly under the condition that attribution be adequately given. Please note that failing to give appropriate credit when reusing in images might invalidate this license and expose the user to copyright fees." In any case, thanks for your quick reply and keep up the good work. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, I was more pragmatic a year ago: instead of trying to finance my work as a Wikimedian by charging for reuses with simple mention of the name (therefore without the SA clause), which did not work (reusers don't give a damn about free licenses, they just want the photos), I found myself a second job, the proceeds of which are used to finance my activity as a Wikimedian. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong in:

Facilitating reuse by offering a clear credit line that can be copy-pasted.
Using a perfectly valid CC license 3.0. Users cannot force other users to use their preferred licenses. Advantages, inconvenients and ambiguities of 4.0 versus 3.0 have been discussed. I, and many other users, use 3.0. I would take issue with the suggestion that it might be something inherently nefarious.

However, other elements not mentioned above might be concerning:

The part of the user page that stipulates the obligation that "(...) when my work is used in a paper publication, a copy must reach me by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt." Whoa. What?
The attempts to unrelease files from the public domain by adding a license contradicting it, e.g. [4]
Some of the nine personalized credit templates [5] that transclude the other template Droits patrimoniaux, the wording of which does not really make sense ("the reuse... generates copyright"?, "copyright... are to be paid..."?).

-- Asclepias (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many users ask to receive a copy when their work is used in a book. It's indeed the least they can do. I could word it differently, but it wouldn't change anything. Multi-licensing has always been allowed, knowing that about fifteen years ago I was unaware of the consequences of DP, hence a cessation of its use. Regarding "Droits patrimoniaux," I actually assume that reuse is done under different conditions and that it falls under the general copyright regime. As a reminder, the plan a dozen years ago was to cover the costs of taking photographs with revenue from the external reuse of files. It never worked, and everything continued with a deficit of several thousand euros. This deficit has still not been repaid (I use Google Translate). Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Must" is not asking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would artwork made by an unknown artist be allowed to be uploaded?

I was going to upload scenes from the concert version of Bad Apple!!, but it wasn't made by me. However, no one knows who made it so whence doth thee attribute it to? Visaa11 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the author of the artwork is unknown, the key question is whether the work is in the public domain. Commons requires files to be freely licensed or in the public domain, so you would need to determine if the artwork qualifies under the copyright laws of its country of origin.

If it’s an old work (e.g., published over 70 years ago in many jurisdictions), it may be public domain. However, if it's a more recent work and the creator is simply unknown, that does not automatically mean it can be uploaded. Without clear evidence of a free license or public domain status, the file would likely not be allowed on Commons. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Note also that copyright laws for such cases are different for different countries. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Visaa11: Mention of "Bad Apple!!" makes me think that it is no older than the 1990s, which means it's probably still under default copyright, so not appropriate for Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian postcard

This image of a Russian composer was probably taken from a postcard in the Russian Empire as according to this eBay listing. In the listing it says it's a 1913 Tsarist postcard. Here it says {{PD-RusEmpire}} applies for works published before 1917 and wasn't re-published in Soviet Russia. It's also probably registered before 1929 in America, so is this image suitable for public domain and therefore able to be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons? RandomGuy3114 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't speak Russian but you might look for postcards on here from the same publisher or see if you can find any information about them somewhere else online. It seems like the image would be fine to host on Commons though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian text written on the postcard uses pre-1918 spelling, so it should be safe to assume that it was published in the time of the Russian Empire. The text on the postcard also appears to be bilingual: first Russian and then the same text in German in the line below. Nakonana (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image from eBay looks like a better scan, so I would upload that rather than the one from imslp.org.

Yes, this should be OK. It is almost certainly OK in Russia (unlikely to have been republished in the Soviet Union), and absolutely certainly OK in the U.S. (published anywhere in the world before 1930). - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will the image from eBay be copyrighted? I can probably crop that one and upload it as a new version of File:Ivan Fyodorovich Laskovsky.jpg, which I have uploaded from IMSLP. RandomGuy3114 (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image wouldn't be copyrighted just because someone is trying to sell their copy of it on eBay? If it's essentially the same image as the first one you found, then it going to have the same copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this one is {{PD-RusEmpire}} indeed. It was published in 1913. Alex Spade (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carving of Jayavarman II

This is an image of a stone (bas-relief) carving with Jayavarman II at a temple in Cambodia. The carving is several centuries old. However, it doesn't say who made the photo. Can we use it on commons? There is currently no image of Jayavarman II yet so it would be very useful. Artanisen (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artanisen: sadly, we can't use it. No reason at all to think the photo would not be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked (here) about a deleted image from a Youtube video; but in the description it is mentioned: © All Rights Reserved. MBC Group". In this case is it free or copyrighted? Thanks! (Pinging @أحمد 04) — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 13:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what the particular image in the file shows. CC BY 3.0 if they are the rights holders of what is shown in the image. They license the video with CC BY 3.0 and they otherwise reserve their rights. But an image from the video might include a non-free element whose copyright is held by someone else and not covered by the free license. For example, in the video, a photo is shown on the side. If the Commons file shows that photo, one would have to know the source and the copyright holder of that photo. If the photo is not free and its copyright is held by someone else, the free license of the video does not apply to the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asclepias Thanks for the explanation. So we need a confirmation of that image is free! — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 09:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:妙參老和尚.jpg

Can anyone verify this files license as it was previously deleted in lack of a license entirely, and also add a US license which the template requires. Jonteemil (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed author “釋妙參” is unlikely to be the author, since she is actually the person depicted in the image. The image, which was from the temple website, appears to be an AI-upscaled version of a sketch drawing from the temple, seen here [6]. However, I can’t find any information about the sketch drawing’s author or creation date. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged the file for speedy deletion: recreation of a previously-deleted content without proper COM:UNDEL forum. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the AI-upscaled version, but the original is most probably in the public domain, as a 19th-century work of unknown authorship. Yann (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos uploaded by Riga-to-Rangoon

File:“La bella Martana, De mastro de Lindo, Che danza ne piatti, Et susta et rispetto”. A 1930s wall plaque from the studio of Austrian artist Egon Huber, now in the ‘Street of Knights’, Old Town, Rhodes.jpg and File:‘Our Lady of Philerimos’ from the studio of Austrian artist Egon Huber (1905 -1960), Old Town, Rhodes.jpg were uploaded as "own work" by Riga-to-Rangoon about a month ago, apparently to use in en:Draft:Egon Huber.

The descriptions for these files seems to imply they are photographs of artwork found on the Greek island of en:Rhodes, but there doesn't seem to be any freedom of panorama for publicly displayed artwork under Greek copyright law per COM:FOP Greece. Moreover, according to the draft article about Huber, he died in 1960, and Greek copyright law specifies copyright on a work continues to be in effect for 70 years after the creator's death so the photographed artwork would seem to be still eligible for protection until January 1, 2031.

While the claim of own work and copyright ownership of the two photos themselves isn't being disputed, the fact that they're photographs of another person's creative work makes them a derivative work, and Commons probably can't keep them unless the photographed works themselves are either PD or can be shown to have been released under an acceptable free license. Is there anything about these photos that I might be missing? Can they be kept as licensed or should they be nominated for deletion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your explanation, which seems very fair. If the image has to go, then so be it. All best. Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created Category:Egon Huber and d:Q133328078. Yann (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the two files to the list in Category:Undelete in 2031, and will delete them. - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara poster by Jim Fitzpatrick

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 [7] which became viral/memetic. Fitzpatrick did not copyright his version of the image at the time.

Per this article,[8] 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 [9], [10], [11], 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]

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 [12] took the view that Fitzpatrick's work was not transformative, but a mechanical reproduction.

This discussion [13] 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 [14] 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]

Gambian copyright laws regarding local flags?

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]

Arresto de San Pablo Miki

Buenas se puede publicar la fotografía del arresto de San Pablo Miki como esta (https://www.themerrybeggars.com/blog/paul-miki) Pablo Miki murió en 1597 en Japón? AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22 Are you referring to this image in the blog, File:Märtyrer von Nagasaki 1628.jpg? Tvpuppy (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvpuppy:No,up of the title as this (https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63c03e257f43688614b2e63f/660476d317a8ed2324295fa4_Paul%20Miki%201080.jpg) AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22: ¿Como puede faltar derechos del autor? - Jmabel ! talk 18:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel:Pablo Miki murió en 1597 en Japón pero según el sitio web en el título aparece otra foto del arresto de Pablo Miki necesito saber si esta en el Dominio Público (PD image) AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63c03e257f43688614b2e63f/660476d317a8ed2324295fa4_Paul%20Miki%201080.jpg no pudiera ser creado antes do los años 1980. Y no existe ninguna foto de evenimientos del siglo XVI. - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this video Public Domain?

Is this video of the Trump inauguration public domain? Could be some sort of Washington Capitlo organization. Thanks! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's by the en:United States Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, {{PD-USGov-Congress}} should apply. --Rosenzweig τ 12:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would upload the video later :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this book may be uploaded to Commons

I found some books uploaded by Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek(such as this book) that I think is public domain since the author is dead more than 70 years ago, but turns out upload with peculiar rights: No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only. But then I found the exact book is available in Google Books. So my question: can I upload this book? Thanks. Hadithfajri (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A book from 1856 can of course be uploaded. Ruslik (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which lisense to use?

Hello. I found this page, and I don't know what Commons license I could use to upload the images from there. Althair Talk 22:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Althair debes usar la licencia {{WTFPL}} Bedivere (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]