Butun axtardiqlarinizi tapmaq ucun buraya: DAXIL OLUN
  Video Mp3 Axtar Yukle
  Mp3 Yukle Mp3 Axtar
  Shekil Axtar Yukle
  Informasiya Melumat Axtar
  Hazir Inshalar Toplusu
  AZERI CHAT + Tanishliq
  1-11 Sinif Derslikler Yukle
  Saglamliq Tibbi Melumat
  Whatsapp Plus Yukle(Yeni)

Jump to content

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


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

[edit]

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

Las categorías en cuestión fueron estas:

Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@QM Keen Favor dar respuesta a Ganímedes. Bedivere (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, lo solicitaré a la autora de las fotos lo más pronto posible. 2803:A3E0:1812:4840:D7D:574E:9346:5F0 16:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @Ganímedes el del mensaje anterior era yo solo que no me loguié en mi cuenta, en fin, aquí te paso el ticket de confirmación: 2025031010010953 QM Keen (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
La poseedora de los derechos de autor debe contestar la pregunta que le ha hecho el agente en el ticket. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Atte @Mussklprozz. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, ayer la autora me dijo que ya respondió la pregunta, acabo de ver que las fotos fueron borradas :c, podrían restaurarlas porfa @Ganímedes @Bedivere QM Keen (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @QM Keen, recibimos la respuesta de María Herrera el 25 de marzo (a través de Ticket:2025031010010953), y he solicitado que se restauren sus imágenes. A continuación, añadiré una nota de autorización a los archivos. Pero, ¿qué pasa con las otras imágenes, en particular las de Jorge Quispe Mamani? Para ellas también necesitamos la autorización del fotógrafo. Un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias por restaurarlas @Mussklprozz. Por otro lado, sobre las fotografìas de Jorge Quispe Mamani tenía pensado que ya estaba todo bien con ellas, el autor envió el correo de confirmación hace meses, en enero. También hice la donación de las siguientes fotos: Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria - Maira Teran Ulloa, el correo ya fue enviado, agradecerìa que me confirmaras si esta todo bien con ellas. QM Keen (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @QM Keen, sobre las fotografìas de Jorge Quispe ¿podrías decirme los números de los dos ticketes de autorización en enero? Entonces puedo ver el procedimiento. Mussklprozz (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @Mussklprozz lamento la demora, el autor es profesor y es una persona ocupada y recién hoy me pudo enviar el ticket, aquí te lo remito 2025013010000206.
Agradecería me comentaras a la brevedad la situación de las fotografías.
Ten un lindo día :3. QM Keen (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @QM Keen, No se pudo seguir procesando el Ticket:2025013010000206 porque el cliente no respondió a una pregunta. Un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @Mussklprozz se podría volver a enviar esta pregunta y demás? No sabía que no se llegó a efectuar completamente la donación, las fotografías en cuestión son de alto valor, el donante, es un profesor de campo y conseguirlas fue un trabajo arduo, agradecería que tuvieran más consideración, debido al trabajo se le hace algo difícil lo de revisar el correo, en unos días yo estaré con él personalmente para ver este asunto, gracias. QM Keen (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @QM Keen, ahora también recibimos la autorización de Maira Teran Ulloa para sus imágenes y etiquetamos los archivos en consecuencia. Mussklprozz (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hola @QM Keen, volví a enviar la consulta sobre las imágenes de Jorge Quispe. Un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias @Mussklprozz. Cuántos días es el tiempo para responder la pregunta de confirmación del correo? Para tenerlo en cuenta.
Además, acabo de terminar una nueva donación, con la que sumarían dos nuevas:
Category:Donación Familia Flores Ortega
Category:Donación Familia Ortega Ramos
En ambas aún falta el correo, en la primera de ella se trata de una persona mayor por lo que tomará algo más de tiempo, espero su paciencia y comprensión, gracias. QM Keen (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QM Keen, para las nuevas donaciones supongo que continuamos aquí en tu página de discusión. No es de desear que las discusiones 1:1 se lleven a cabo interminablemente en la fuente del pueblo. ;-) Mussklprozz (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara poster by Jim Fitzpatrick

[edit]
Guerrillero Heroico by Alberto Korda

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

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

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

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

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

Viva Che ! by Jim FitzPatrick
Not answering the question, but just mentioning that:
  • A search returns several discussions about it on Commons in the last 19 years. Maybe you can try to see if a general conclusion can be drawn.
  • Commons has several variations of the poster in Category:Derivative works of Guerrillero Heroico.
  • On his website Fitzpatrick claims a 2010 copyright on the 1968 poster, while also saying that he had released it from copyright in 1968. The poster was first published in London, UK? I suppose that he would have a copyright if it weren't for that release. So, is he claiming that he unreleased it from the public domain in 2010? Not sure how that works.
-- Asclepias (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it is quite easy to recreate this poster independently of Fitzpatrick's work, and we can't see the difference, so I don't see how there could be a copyright as the original work is in the public domain (at least in USA). Yann (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Asclepias for taking the time to reply.
Looking through the past discussions on this topic, most of them seems to have taken place in the 2000s.
Fitzpatrick trying to retroactively assert copyright in the 2010s doesn't seem like something that can be done, but someone could correct me there. By his own account though, he did not copyright the work at the time of creation. In fact, he declared it copyright free.
This discussion on the Commons in 2011 [6] took the view that Fitzpatrick's work was not transformative, but a mechanical reproduction.
This discussion [7] regarding File:Che por Jim Fitzpatrick.svg seemed to come to the conclusion that it be kept. Despite the file name though, it is a replication of Fitzpatrick's work rather than a duplicate.
These discussions would seem to align with what Yann has just stated.
A recent related discussion in 2024 occurred here [8] and involved @ALE!, Fred J, Kjetil r, Infrogmation, Cinabrium, and Oudeís: That discussion seemed to be about a photograph derived from Guerrillero Heroico (I don't have the ability to see the deleted file). I wonder if those users who commented on that case could comment on this one, but tell us their specific view on Fitzpatrick's work. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, en.wikipedia tags its copy of the poster, there, as a non-free image. According to the upload comment by Holly Cheng, that copy was sent to Wikipedia by the artist in 2008 and it is accompanied by OTRS ticket 2008120910022806. It would be interesting to know what the ticket says exactly. I guess it may be a non-commercial permission. On the 2008 Wikipedia copy, we can note the difference in the writing at the bottom, compared to the later copy. The artist also has a few edits on en.wikipedia, as Jim fitzpatrick artist in 2008 and 2011. We know at least that the artist claims to have a copyright. As the initial question says, there were news articles circa 2010 about the artist applying for copyright, which may mean requesting a registration of copyright in a country or in several countries, although a follow-up has not ben found to tell the result. From the discussions on Commons, two types of arguments are mentioned against the copyright. One is that the poster artwork would not be creative and therefore would be uncopyrightable. The other is that the artist released the artwork to the public domain and that cannot be undone. Considering the whole situation, Commons should try to reach a solid consensus on a rationale if it wants to keep the artwork as public domain against the wish of the artist. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still looking for further input from other users, as I don't know that we've come to a conclusion here yet CeltBrowne (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike trademarks, a copyright does not need to be enforced to be valid, and the concept of releasing something to the public domain is typically just a vague promise to not enforce your copyrights rather than a legally binding action. This is why the CC0 deed was created. So I think it's probably possible that Fitzpatrick could enforce a copyright on his Che poster IF the poster was original enough to be copyrighted. That "if" is a big question. Personally, I don't think the poster would pass the threshold of originality in the United States. It's basically just a posterized version of Guerrillero Heroico produced in a style similar to that popularized by Andy Warhol earlier in the '60s. There were very few creative choices that went into making this poster and virtually none of them could be considered artistically "original". That said, it is not a cut and dry case and it would probably be best to do an official deletion discussion to settle the matter. Nosferattus (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about an official account

[edit]

Hello,

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

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

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

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

So, by law, the authorship claim of NBC Malta seems indeed to be not valid. Furthermore, in part three about moral rights (page 31 in the linked PDF), an actual author has the right to get named as producer of his work. This corroborates my thinking about a separation of moral vs. "commercial" rights. Given that NBC Malta is officiating in an official manner, the person(s) responsible for the operation of the account should be able to provide evidence of their agreements with the actual media producers to COM:VRT. I still think that, in the light of foundation:PAID, Commons rules about copyrights (COM:L, COM:CARES) and the actual Maltese law, we as Commons community should strongly request that the National Book Council offers us statements about the concise usage rights and how these got transferred to him. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is far too stringent. NBC Malta is likely the copyright owner, and the one who can license it, so "own work" makes sense. We should list the individual authors though if they are known -- both entities are important to the copyright (the owner to get a license, and the author to know how long the copyright will last). But it's the copyright owner which is of immediate importance when it comes to self-licensed works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NBC Malta is likely the copyright owner — NBC Malta legally cannot be the copyright owner because copyright is not transferable in Malta, just like in Germany, and a case of "work for hire" does not change the situation. Only the author of the work can be the copyright owner. NBC Malta may have received usage rights from the copyright holders which come with a permission to re-license the photos, but since NBC Malta is not the copyright holder we likely would need to see said permission. Nakonana (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has come up so many times: in countries that separate what the French call droit de auteur from patrimonial/economic rights, we are concerned mainly with the latter. The former only affects who should be credited as author, and certainly does not affect whether we can host the file. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, the copyright owner is the person who can license a work. If NBC Malta is not the copyright owner then they cannot license the photo with a CC license because they merely have usage rights (French: droit d'usage) and that would be an issue for hosting the images on Commons. Even in a situation of work for hire, in Germany the copyright remains with the photographer (see de:w:Nutzungsrecht#Urheberrecht). Owning a copy of the photo does not mean that one owns the copyright, because copyright is not transferable. If the situation in Malta is like the one in Germany, as the OP suggested, then we'd need permission from the photographers to host the images on Commons, or we'd need some proof that NBC Malta has permission from the copyright holders to license their work. It's not a matter of author attribution (droit d' autor) but a matter of who's holding the licensing rights. Licensing rights can be the subject of a usage rights contract but don't have to be. A copyright holder could permit NBC Malta to use their work without granting NBC Malta licensing rights. And that would be problematic for Commons. Or am I misunderstanding? Nakonana (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Should" is likely not a strong enough wording, it has to be "must" IMHO. I think that there were already successful court cases in Germany (which is A: and country which has a separation between moral author and commercial usage rights and B: has a Urheberrecht which feels to me really comparable in its contents to the Maltese law) for injunction relief against natural and judicial persons who botched the author attributions - in both ways, by the way: ignoring it where an author wants to be acknowledged, forcing the infringer to repair the attribution and correlation an author who did not want to be associated with it, forcing the removal of it. Monetary damages may have been paid, too. While that attribution requirement is apparently a non-copyright restriction, it's still founded in copyright / "author's right" laws, so it has to be respected here, ain't it so? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point I guess, the "own" template is a source tag, indicating that it does not come from another website, but comes direct from the copyright owner. It is not an author tag. I don't think we have other tags to distinguish work for hire owners, or something like that, so "own work" is still the most appropriate tag. If not, suggest the correct one. There is nothing wrong with the uploads -- while we should respect moral rights, they are not legally binding in the U.S., and moreover they are Commons:non-copyright restrictions, so they do not affect the licensing here and are not a deletion reason. Just fix the information with what you found. If NBC Malta is not the copyright owner, or the owner of the economic right, then there may be an issue. I am assuming they are employees or something like that, using a variety of cameras. If not, then yes there is a problem, but at the moment this still seems correct enough under "assume good faith". Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg is correct. The relevant copyright question is just whether or not the uploader has the right to license the file. If there is no significant doubt of that, then there is no issue. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, "suggest the correct one" is indeed doable. For that, I looked up the documentation of {{Information}} and found this: {{Creator|Personal name}}, it's in the explanation of the Author field. This seems much more appropriate than thess misleading {{Own}} statements. I do not take objection about the licensing, AGF says that the operators of this "official account" should have the manpower and the brains available to clear the rights situation beforehand. But, in this field of tension between common law copyright and the European civil law creator's rights, I advocate for (enforcing) a better documentation of the creation history. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean about "enforce". The concept of "free" is linked to the economic right only. There can be no deletion over moral rights errors. Just fix/enhance the author field with any relevant information, once known. If you think the "own" template is misleading, OK, but it's a source template which is just an indication that the uploader owns the copyright, and the work came directly from them -- that is not the uploader's mistake. It is not necessarily an authorship claim. We use corporate names in the Author field all the time when we don't know the human author name. Despite moral rights, many companies don't bother. Those are technically anonymous, but the copyright owner is important information too. If these files were commissioned, copyright ownership can be bit murkier. It can depend on country, what is required for the economic right to be transferred. Or if just an agreement to release under a free license, doing the VRT technicalities more correctly. But, we normally don't delete over that unless files appeared elsewhere on the internet prior to upload here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Copyleft trolling - proceeding to watermark images

[edit]
Example watermark
The same image, cropped with CSS image crop so the watermark is not visible.
The same image, cropped with CSS image crop so the watermark is not visible.

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

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

Oh, this is interesting especially for the known copyright trolls from Germany. Happy to provide a list. For reference, we have a designated page in the German-language Wikipedia for this phenomenon: de:Wikipedia:Abmahnung. Gnom (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)f=[reply]

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

  •  Support. Consensus has already been established that we should watermark images that are being used for copyleft trolling unless the uploader agrees to migrate to a CC 4.0 license. Diliff rejected that suggestion as he believed that the 30-day grace period offered by the CC 4.0 license had "not been considered from the content creator's perspective with respect to the potential income it takes from them".[10] He also refused to discontinue sending legal threats via Pixsy.[11] The fact that Diliff is demanding compensation for accidental attribution errors even when the reusers have offered to correct the attribution or remove the images entirely[12][13][14], means that Diliff has gone beyond seeking fair compensation for use of his images and is copyleft trolling, IMO. The only way we can protect unwitting re-users from accidentally getting ensnared in this trap is to add a watermark to the images (or delete them). Adding a watermark seems the least destructive path. Nosferattus (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think the watermark isn't aggressive enough, it reads more like a threat by the uploader than the warning about the author it is supposed to be. JayCubby (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not elegant, but I support it, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just delete them all so that he learns the lesson. On the down side, we'd be missing on some great photos. Bedivere (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It gives us another tool besides deletion. Will we be able to detect people reverting or overwriting the change? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Add a category for those images, then have a process that detects whenever a user other than an admin (or bot) changes an image with that category? Ravensfire (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that Diliff would revert the change; he is largely inactive and has not uploaded new files for five years now.
    We should mark the edits clearly as an administrative action with referral to the Copyleft Trolling policy, to discourage other users from reverting. And yes, a hidden category to collect all watermarked files sounds prudent. Not sure how to patrol it by bot, but even if that isn't feasible, humans could also patrol the category for a while to find out if other parties crop the images. (And on that note, determined editors could probably also remove the category as well?) --Enyavar (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a way to crop thumbnails without creating a new file if I recall correctly, so the watermark isn't a nuisance on mainspace articles. Perhaps make a note of that on the affected files, to discourage unwatermarking. JayCubby (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This seems like a no brainer given the circumstances around copyleft trolling on here. Although it sucks for re-users and other projects but whatever. There doesn't seem to be a better way to deal with it at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Nobody seems to be engaging with the whole "there hasn't actually been consensus that the person whose images we're about to watermark is engaging in copyleft trolling" thing. That seems like the sort of thing we need to do officially, like a topic ban or somesuch. The closest thing we have is a DR where multiple options were proposed and was closed as keep. We also have a discussion closure (fraught -- still waiting for the closing admin to clarify their intentions) that once someone is found to be copyleft trolling, follow steps xyz. Presumably the subtext is not "if you see someone doing what looks like copyleft trolling, go ahead and watermark their images". This thread may suffice to find consensus specific to Diliff, but if that's what's happening they should really be notified and the heading clarified. A little awkward to be the one who has to keep drawing attention to this, since I found Diliff's responses in the last thread totally inadequate, but oh well. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just notified Diliff on his talk page. Nosferattus (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "there hasn't actually been consensus ...that Diliff is a copyleft troll"? Really? We have seen about ten examples of people coming to his talk pages asking him if the extortion letters were written on his behalf (I found three just since the DR was closed); and Diliff himself has not been willing or able to provide examples of him waiving the fees he imposed on these individuals. It doesn't matter that he claims to only charge commercial re-uses, because a) we can hardly control him on that and b) that will still affect mostly small companies and also nonprofits. c) It also goes counter to our Copyleft-trolling policy page.
      People have voted to keep his images while still acknowledging that he is a CL troll because we believed that there was another way to deal with this problem. And I say "we" because I also voted "keep and watermark". I do think that the voting could have been narrowly swung the other way if we had known that watermarking were not an option.
      If we're letting this slide we can just agree to delete the Copyleft Trolling policy altogether. --Enyavar (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iwo Jima War Memorial - a revisit

[edit]

Some prior discussions:

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

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

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

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

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

Macedonian ballot image

[edit]

Looking through my edit history, I have found File:The ballot referendum to declare territorial autonomy of the Albanians in Ilirida (Fyrom,Macedonia) year 1992.jpeg. This is a scan of a ballot of an unofficial referendum for autonomy of Albanians in Macedonia (now North Macedonia). Source: [15]. The image is marked as own work and CC-BY-SA, which is obviously incorrect. And it seems that {{PD-GOV-RM}} doesn't apply, because this apparently wasn't an official referendum held in the country; see [16]. However, I would suggest that it's {{PD-ineligible}} - not enough original content to be eligible for copyright. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, {{PD-ineligible}} seems fitting. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistani category prone to list LOTS of copyvios

[edit]

Hello,

I happened across Category:Monuments and memorials in Uzbekistan. As there's no FOP in Uzbekistan (COM:FOP Uzbekistan), a huge lot of the images there and in the subcategories would most likely be copyvios. At least, info about the sculptors would be mandatory. What's the best approach? Putting every monument image in a single DR, opening mass DR on monument files or trying to sort through the things here? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might depend on how many photos there are in a particular category. I'd advise against mass deletion requests because some of the monuments might be in the public domain while others might turn out to be de minimis in some photos. Such things cannot be evaluated in a mass DR. I've come across several DR examples (e.g. for Russia where there's no FOP for monuments either) where the photos were kept for reasons that you might not even expect if you are not familiar with the subject or where you are unable to find relevant information because you are not a native speaker of the language[17][18][19][20][21][22], so discussion is necessary but not really feasible in a mass DR. Nakonana (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo MTUB 2014.jpg

[edit]

Can someone confirm if user Th11 was involved in the design of the MTUB logo at File:Logo MTUB 2014.jpg? If not, I am minded to consult on relicensing the logo as {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}}. This question came into my mind while considering uploading an SVG version of the logo. --Minoa (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Minoa: You can add those regardless. - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done: in addition, the SVG version is now uploaded to Brussels Tram Museum Logo.svg. --Minoa (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain Status of Transcribed 19th-Century UK Law

[edit]

Hello all,

I wrote a Wikisource text, and I’d like to add the source text for proofreading. I found a PDF from the National Archives of Ireland, which contains a transcription of the original UK bill from the 1800s (when it was known as the Public Record Office of Ireland). The transcription was posted on their old website before they redesigned it this month. I cannot seem to find the PDF anymore on their website, though, I downloaded a copy before then.

Would this be considered public domain since it is the original, unmodified legal text, or could it be under copyright due to the transcription being done by the National Archives of Ireland?

Many thanks! Duck Dur (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the case where {{PD-UKGov}} applies. Ruslik (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you very much.
Regards Duck Dur (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New account uploads folklore, but NETCOPYVIOs are suspected

[edit]

Hello,

the Special:Contributions/Beamendo1 showed up in the recent files. I came to suspect COM:NETCOPYVIOs on circumstantial evidence:

The account name is not clearly associable with the Instagram account. I cannot check (I'm not registered there) the Insta imagery to see whether there are identical motifs between there and the Commons uploads. But the circumstances made me post and ask here. Any opinions about the case? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collage and de minimis

[edit]

Anyone with expertise in copyright issues related to collages and de minimis is welcome to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:NASA Has Pride Across the Universe (SVS14627 - NASA Pride Flag high res).png. Thank you. Nosferattus (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aviation Week July 4, 1994.webp

[edit]

Kindly check if this is really PD/freely licensed or not. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: File:0armerhansi (1).webp. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also: File:I ribelli della Saccisica 2024.webp. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done All tagged. Obviously not own works, so we need either evidence of a free license or public domain (unlikely), or VRT permission. Yann (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helmet camera footage

[edit]

Hello, I’m not sure if this video qualify for {{PD-automated}}. There are DRs for bodycam footages that have been kept before [1] [2], but what is the ruling for helmet cameras? I would say using a helmet cam, the person will have more freedom to express than normal bodycams because they can choose the filming angle, what objects to film and such, but do the argument of “no human input” still apply? Tvpuppy (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Well, I'm based in safe Germany, so it's easier to think about such matters than in Ukraine. You have a valid point in that a helmet camera offers more freedom for recording scenes in the way the cameraman or -woman wants it, helmet mounts aren't this far away from the freedom of movements offered by hand-held devices (a DSLR you hold on front of your face to look through the seeker is in nearly the same physical position as a helmet camera). So, if e.g. a mountainbiker or diver or parachutist or other sportspeople use a GoPro device to record their activity, then I'd say that they own the copyright by virtue of controlling the recorded setting. But here, we have a first person view of a soldier in action. For this, I tend to follow King of Hearts' opinion in the US Capitol footage DR. There were neither the intent nor the ability to record scenes with human creative input, so there shouldn't be copyrights involved. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, I understand it better now. I will keep that in mind. Thank you for your reply. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe it qualifies. First, PD-automated states, "... because it consists entirely of information produced by an automated system, such as a fixed CCTV or traffic enforcement camera, without human input". The helmet camera is not fixed but rather moves with the helmet; it does not correspond to the given examples. Second, the soldier is providing input: he may hear something that directs his attention toward something. I'm not going to require artistic framing in that situation. Third, I do not see a utilitarian aspect. This is not a security camera looking to identify people at the door. The soldier is trying to capture the drama of the moment. A director could have simulated the scene for a movie. Fourth, the basis behind the PD-automated claim does not have a strong case history. I would much rather see a strong basis such as the camera is worn by a public employee of a jurisdiction that puts the employee's work into the public domain. Glrx (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tvpuppy, a ping would have been nice here, but I happened upon this, so it works out I suppose.
My own disme is as follows:
  • Bodycam footage is apparently PD, at least in that case, as there is no intention to capture a particular scene.
  • A helmet-mounted GoPro is not exactly a bodycam, as a bodycam captures the wearer's movement, while a helmet-mounted GoPro captures what the wearer chooses to look at.
    • Here though (and this is where I disagree slightly with Glrx), the soldier in question probably isn't trying to capture a particular scene, the GoPro is instead capturing the movements of the soldier, much like a bodycam. There is no artistic intent or creative input that I can see, though I'm open to a DR.
  • I wonder how {{PD-UA-exempt}} plays in?
JayCubby (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean-Pierre Dorleac.jpg

[edit]

This image: 

/wiki/File:Jean-Pierre_Dorleac.jpg

appears to me to be exactly the same as this image: 

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/french-costume-designer-jean-pierre-dorleac-wearing-an-open-news-photo/2115108935

I was trying to find out when the photograph was taken so I could add it in a caption in the English Wikipedia article on Jean-Pierre Dorleac. There was no such information on the Wikimedia file page, where the image is credited as the uploader's own work. That seemed questionable, because the image was uploaded in 2016 but the photograph must be at least 40 years old based on Dorleac's age in it. A Google image search led me to the Getty Images page, which gives the totally believable date of 1980.

I have no personal involvement with either image, but I thought I should bring the striking similarity to someone's attention in case it involves a copyright violation.

Thanks. 38.49.72.163 13:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Indeed. Deleted. Thanks for reporting it. Yann (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:JikjiType.gif

[edit]
thimb
thimb

I came across this because the English Wikipedia claimed it was the actual type used to create Jikji (Jikji Simche) - the earliest known book printed with moveable metal type.

I thought it unlikely that the type would have survived along with the book. The original reference[23] is available at the Internet Archive, and does not refer to the picture at all, merely using it as an illustration (at least on the archive date I was using).

I modified the caption, but I was still uneasy so I dug a little further, this page, which includes an image of a very similar plate. (Note: this image is a reflection of the other, and some of the characters are definitely different. This is probably do to an incorrect reflection to make it readable, but may be due to trying different printing techniques.)

Google translate says: "This work was restored by Mr. Oh Guk-jin in 2001. As the first volume of the metal type edition of “Baekun Hwasang Chorok Buljo Jikji Simche Yojeol” no longer remains, this work is a restored typeface and type plate based on the content of the first volume of the woodblock edition and the font of the second volume of the metal type edition."

I think maybe "recreated" is a better word than "restored". It's also worth noting that volume one might have been woodblock, as "there is an inscription at the last page that the second volume of Jikji [was] printed with movable metal type."[24]

If this plate was (also) created in 2001, then it may well be in copyright.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:52 1 April 2025 (GMT). 16:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems quite farfetched to say this is a 2D work, so we may need a permission for the picture. Yann (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hand traces of photographs, take for instance File:Raspoutine et ses enfants.jpg

[edit]

There are wider crops of this image available (example), and also this one pencil-drawn trace of the image (the URL in which it was found being here), at a much higher resolution. I feel the trace might be useful, were it not for the potential copyright issue. Is there enough creativity in the hand-trace to push it out of the public domain? JayCubby (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't what could have a copyright here. Yann (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsApp screenshot

[edit]

Hello all,

Does WhatsApp background page is copyrightable. For example:

-- Geagea (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would fear so. That would need to be erased. Gnom (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnom: I'd have said the opposite. Is there some element of that you believe is copyrightable, or are you saying the arrangement is copyrightable, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could be argued that the background design as a whole is copyrightable. Gnom (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it de minimis? The background is not the main subject of the screenshot, is not a purpose of taking it and on the first look I didn't even noticed it. ~Cybularny Speak? 23:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the background design takes up about half the image, so we can hardly say it's de minimis, I would say. Gnom (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see what you are referring to. I literally had not noticed the background design, I thought this was about the icons! Let me see what I can do to suppress that background. - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look at my new version of File:התכתבות חן בוכריס רפאל חיון 2.jpg and see if that is acceptable? - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image of book cover

[edit]

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

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

Category:PD-Art (PD-old default)

[edit]

Hi, BMacZero and I have been able to get this category from around 110,000 to 94,500 in a few days. I think that a concerted effort could get this further down to a more reasonable level. Also more knowledge of language and local laws are needed (see the first 14 files and subcategories). Great way to improve your edit count... ;o) Yann (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile we need to find ways to stop adding files here. Particularly concerning are mass uploads with an incomplete license, e.g. by BotMultichill (File:1873 Beers Map of Part of Flushing, Queens, New York City - Geographicus - Flushing7476-beers-1873.jpg). Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

License laundering and PD-self

[edit]

What a mess.

My watchlist alerted to changes on File:Galilee to Judea.gif. The changes showed conflicting license claims that the file was both copyrighted and public domain. The file was the subject of an earlier VP/Copyright topic that determined the source file was File:First century Iudaea province.gif uploaded to the en.Wiki by Andrew c under GFDL.

Where did the PD claim from? Looking in the history shows

Why did Buglover100000 add that claim? That claim apparently has its origin in a PD-self claim on the source file File:First century Iudaea province.gif:

I do not see why that claim should have been added.

Looking at Jenhawk777's contributions, turns up some edits to File:Antioch Saint Pierre Church Front.JPG, a photograph made in 2003.

Perhaps we should have an edit filter that prevents newbie editors from adding PD templates to files uploaded by others when there is a non-PD license already on the page.

Glrx (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I warned Buglover100000 and Jenhawk777. Yann (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was notified of this and I am a bit alarmed, since I don't remember doing this. I have never uploaded a single image and would have no reason to use PD-self for anything. If I did this, I did so without meaning to! I'm sorry! I don't edit here much. The only time I have ever added a license was when there wasn't one for the US, and what was there seemed to support its addition. I'm glad you caught this, but I am definitely confused! Can you help me understand better what not to do in the future? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For File:Antioch Saint Pierre Church Front.JPG this is so obviously a modern photo that I can only guess you were trying to indicate the building itself is in the public domain?  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenhawk777: Please do not add bogus license(s), and please use the Sandbox for testing. Yann (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to!! I have no idea what happened! I don't understand any of this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hello, that is completely in accurate. what I did was remove the original PD-self tag, since the uploader of that gif was not the creator of the image. the edit history shows this. unless i'm missing or misunderstanding something here? I am, admittedly, new and don't really edit on Commons. I only made this edit after an archived discussion about the source of that file where others found that it had originally been uploaded by someone else. Buglover100000 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wait, ok, i looked again, i am still confused, but you're right, I guess I did add the pd self? from what I remember, I just brought in the license from the original file this file was a reupload of. Buglover100000 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to be clear, before I made the changes I made, that page falsely claimed that User:JWooldridge was the author and that JWoolridge had released it with a CC 3.0 license, which was totally false - User:Andrew c was the author and was the one who released it with that license. My edit was made in complete good faith, even if I made a mistake. Buglover100000 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that my other comments here essentially restate what you said in your original comment. To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why you didn't make this change yourself when you helped me find this information in that discussion a month ago, especially since you don't seem to trust "newbies" with editing license information. I saw an inaccurate licensing claim that had been unchallenged for 15 years and my goal was to fix it to make Wikipedia better, and now I'm receiving a vandalism warning for it. You guys are also not being particularly helpful to Jenhawk777 who seems just as lost as I was when I got this notification originally. Forgive me if I find all this a little frustrating. I am definitely going to stick to Wikipedia and avoid Commons going forward. Not going to risk being WP:BOLD here. Buglover100000 (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice the license issue until today, and it took some effort to unwind. You were misled, so your edits were not vandalism. I also doubt that Jenhawk777's edits were vandalism even though they were faulty. My interest is elsewhere. Glrx (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to step on anyone. I can see how Buglover100000 was mislead. Instead, I'm wondering about avoiding mistakes such as these in the future. It does not seem right that anyone can add a PD tag to a file that already has a non-PD tag. (I can see sophisticated editors replacing a non-PD tag with something such as {{PD-textlogo}}.) It also seems that only the uploader should add {{PD-self}} because that is nominally the choice of the author/uploader. That may also be true for any CC license. I'm looking for more reliable license tags: if a page has a personal license grant such as {{PD-self}}, then it would be nice to know that the uploader (or a trusted editor) put it there. Glrx (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's real, and makes sense. It would be nice for there to be a filter to avoid whatever happened to me and Jenhawk777 happening again in the future, I completely agree. Buglover100000 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Glrx Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping to the worst conclusion first. I appreciate that. I will make sure this doesn't happen again by never editing any media again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello there. I was just revamping a little the Chilean public domain copyright tag in order to make it more clear that authorship must always be acknowledged, despite the work being in the public domain. However, one part of the law seems a little troublesome. Article 11 states that "Las obras del patrimonio cultural común podrán ser utilizadas por cualquiera, siempre que se respete la paternidad y la integridad de la obra" (Public domain works may be used by anyone, as long as the paternity [authorship] and integrity of the work are respected). Previously, in the article 1, it states that copyright comprises patrimonial and moral rights, protecting (among other rights) the integrity of the work.

The concept of "integrity" refers to the moral right of the author to ensure that their work is not modified, distorted, mutilated, or altered in a way that could harm their honor or reputation. This right protects the work’s original essence and the author's vision, even when the work becomes part of the common cultural heritage (public domain). Therefore, even if a work belongs to the common cultural heritage (public domain) (e.g., after the expiration of copyright or the author’s renunciation), it must still respect the authorship and integrity of the original creator. Unlike in some other countries where public domain works can be freely modified (like under U.S. law or CC0 licenses), in Chile, moral rights — especially integrity — remain in force.

The moral rights title, which includes article 14, states that the author (and per articles 15 and 16, its inheritors, as it is perpetual) could eventually oppose any modification, deformation or mutilation of the work "without express and previous consent", meaning these works are never actually in the public domain as it is known and understood in the United States.

As a result, modifying Chilean public domain works could be troublesome, at least within the country. I could not find jurisprudence but it's not like there is much controversy regarding copyright in courts. Bedivere (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: @Racconish: From what I remember, France also has moral rights that never expire. Abzeronow (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
France is not an exception. See Moral rights. — Racconish 💬 08:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1017269136"
Informasiya Melumat Axtar