Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 (index)
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.


How to handle the thousands of files in Category:ODbL OpenStreetMap without the required attribution attached to the maps?[edit]

There are probably thousands of files in Category:ODbL OpenStreetMap which have not the required attribution attached to the maps. I now made a deletion request for one, but is there a procedure for, is every new OpenStreetMap in Commons checked for this requirement? JopkeB (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Can admin find a bot maker to just delete all that don't meet attribution standards? Rules are rules, no DR needed, just speedy the batch. Zindra Lord (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do not make stupid statement. These files are under a free license. If something is not properly attributed, fix that. Yann (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that the concerning files should all be equipped with {{OpenStreetMap}}, which includes the copyright annotations --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Zindra Lord: I think it is hard to do it with a bot. The attribution should be on the map itself (see for instance File:20160726 OSM-Bonamoussadi.png on the bottom right corner), and I doubt whether a bot can "see" whether that is on it or not.
  • @Yann: It is not easy to fix this. All maps involved should be uploaded again, but now with the contribution on it. A sample showed me that there are far more maps without the contribution than with it.
  • @PantheraLeo1359531: {{OpenStreetMap}} will not do the thrick, it is not the files that lack the contribution, but the maps itself.
JopkeB (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand, the needed information are included in the file description. It is discouraged on Commons to put copyright information in graphic files itself, this is why they are cropped out and put in the file description. They must be credited if reused, but I don't get the point sorry. Is there a point that the maps MUST include this information? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think so, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guidelines#Static_images. JopkeB (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternatively, the attribution may be placed adjacent to the map or on a splash screen or pop-up shown when a user starts the app, device, website, etc. sounds for me that an attribution directly near the map is adequate, like performed on Commons --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think @Mateusz Konieczny: can probably provide an answer and solution to this since he's a member of OpenStreetMap's Licensing Working Group. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not a member of OpenStreetMap's Licensing Working Group though I can try to help (IANAL, comment made in a personal capacity, not an official statement) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guidelines#Static_images does NOT require attribution to be specifically directly on image itself, though it would make things easier for reusers which are obligated to attribute as required by ODBL ("You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License."). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, {{OpenStreetMap}} claims "Map tiles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license (CC-BY-SA 2.0)." which applied only to some map tiles and only for some time (though it applied to default map style and for quite long time, nevertheless is not true in general). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status of European Union Geographical indications and quality scheme logos[edit]

There are some logos on Commons representing European Union Geographical indications and quality schemes:

  • vector

    vector

  • vector

    vector

  • raster

    raster

  • raster

    raster

  • raster

    raster

  • raster

    raster

  • raster

    raster

  • raster

    raster

  • raster

    raster

They have been uploaded with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} license. Are they OK?

  • raster

    raster

  • raster

    raster

  • raster

    raster

These have been uploaded with a wrong license and, in my opinion, they should be deleted (or can we change license?) -- Carnby (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the problem could be the stylized "hills" in the center?--Carnby (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's certainly how I see it. I have no idea whether those are enough to give this copyright, and who would hold that copyright. I'm hoping someone else will weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the page where they can be found. Honestly I'm not able to find anything about their copyright status.--Carnby (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploader = artist... or maybe not[edit]

Hi, we are currently dealing with an article on a German artist that included tons of pictures. Now I am not sure what to make of these pictures:

  • They were uploaded by a user with the name of the artist, so everything may be all right.
  • However, this user has not been verified in any way, neither here nor on the German language WP. It seems likely that this is him, but we have no way of knowing for sure.
  • On his website, the artist claims all rights to his pictures and excludes any use without his explicit written permission. Not sure how that would go together with a CC licensing.

I would have addressed the user on his talk page, but as he has not been active in either project for years, that seems somewhat useless. The easiest way of course would be to simply e-mail the artist and ask him directly if this is his account, and if he is o.k. with a CC licensing. I personally would rather not extend my Wikipedia activities into Real Life, but maybe someone does not mind. Or maybe you have a better idea how to handle this. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F21:E100:EC08:4587:98D0:C555 23:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would probably be best if that email were written by a native German speaker. Any volunteers? - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I can help with that if you like:
Sehr geehrter Herr Pümpel,
Auf Wikimedia Commons wurden von einem Nutzer mit Namen "Norbert Pümpel" zahlreiche Bilder zahlreiche Bilder (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Norbert_P%C3%BCmpel) von Ihren Werken unter der Lizenz Creative Commons 3.0 bzw. Creative Commons 4.0 hochgeladen. Dies steht im Widerspruch zum Impressum Ihrer Website, dass Ihre Bilder "ohne Erlaubnis des Betreibers dieser Website weder reproduziert noch öffentlich weitergegeben oder für gewerbliche Zwecke benutzt werden" dürfen.
Können Sie bestätigen, dass 1. das Nutzerkonto "Norbert Pümpel" von Ihnen selber angelegt wurde und dass Sie 2. mit der Veröffentlichung unter Creative-Commons-Lizenz inklusive der damit verbundenen freien Nutzung einverstanden sind? Falls nicht, müssen Ihre Bilder zum Schutz Ihrer Rechte auf Wikimedia Commons gelöscht werden.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
(Signature)
Does that help? --2003:C0:8F37:2200:B07A:24E6:A7CF:30E2 08:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It helps somewhat, but it doesn't explain to him how to write to the Volunteer Response Team to clarify the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creative Commons status on Internet Archive uploads[edit]

I'm wondering if Internet Archive uploads like this one ("Possible copyright status: Public Domain" from a reputable uploader) have been uploaded with a usable Creative Commons status. I noticed this upload; is this a proper tag, or is there one? Star Garnet (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any CC license there, and I don't think there is one. A 2006 publication by the US state of Illinois is also not in the public domain, so the file you linked is a copyvio IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 13:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mynewsdesk source where uploader is in fact the author[edit]

Hello!

There have been a bunch of discussions regarding mynewsdesk.com as a source, see just these 13 Village Pump discussions. The source is now listed as a bad source and the reason for this is that uploaders that do not own the copyright of a file still uploads it and the automatic CC license is applied - which of course is invalid since the uploader didn't own the copyright hence can't change its license. Anyhow, how should we handle files such as File:Harry Boy.png where the uploader is in fact the copyright holder? On its Mynewsdesk page it says CC license but on the owner's website it says that permission is needed to do pretty much anything with the logo, including displaying it on one's website or anywhere else. Jonteemil (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the uploading process in mynewsdesk.com sufficiently transparent, so that the uploader understands that they release the work under a CC license? Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually don't know. What does Vätte and Axel Pettersson (WMSE) say about this? I see your usernames in the prior discussions regarding this source, and albeit 7 years ago, you perhaps might remember? Jonteemil (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talk about blast from the past! When I was in touch with MyNewsDesk several years ago they changed the default license for uploads there from CC to a more restrictive licens, but was not interested in asking their customers to check and change earlier uploads or add more information about what the CC license actually means.
For a case like the Harry Boy image I would always trust the original source (atg.se in this case) more, and recommend deleting it from Commons. I tried to check the upload process, but our free WMSE account wouldn't allow for image upload.
I'll reach out to MyNewsDesk again to see if they are up for running some info regarding this now. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archives of City of Nice, France[edit]

The official website of archives of city of Nice includes photographs taken by municipal services of Nice, France. Some of which have a description in which it is stated: "Conditions d'utilisation : Libre" ("conditions d'utilisation" = terms of use) : [1] Are those photographs could be uploaded here ? Assalit (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. If the copyright holder is the city of Nice, these will be in the public domain 70 years after the first publication, so 2043 at the earliest. If the copyright holder is a person, it could be much longer. Yann (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Assalit: In addition to what Yann said, you can ask the city authorities to confirm that a free licence, compatible Commons, applies. See COM:VRT for the process they should follow. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright and privacy[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rza_Tal%C4%B1bov

This article is about me and I request its removal. I am ready for any participation to prove myself. Please delete all information in this category. Wikicosu (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment I blocked Wikicosu for socking. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rza Talıbov (şəxsi foto).jpg and Special:Contributions/Elshad_Iman_(Elşad_İman). Yann (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Another user also claims to be the same person: [2] (per Google Translate). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Blocked as well. Yann (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licensing: 1958 painting, US, painter d. 1970[edit]

I imported this file from Wikipedia (where it was tagged, I believe erroneously, with CC0): File:First Station Newman.jpeg. Did I do it correctly, and is the licensing okay? The file was apparently ripped from the National Gallery of Art website which offers download for some images but not all of them, and this is one of the files that is explicitly marked as not available for download. -- Alalch E. (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There certainly seems to be no basis for CC0. You tagged it as {{PD-US-no notice}}, presumably because there is no copyright notice on the painting. But that, by itself, is not sufficient to show that the work was published without copyright notice. Publication means that the public is able to acquire dominion over the work or copies of it. For works of fine art like paintings, that may not happen until long after the work's creation, if ever. In this case, we can check the "Exhibition History" tab on the NGA page to see instances where the work may have been published. The first one listed is a 1966 exhibition at the Guggenheim. I found the catalog for that exhibition, which contains a full-page color reproduction of the painting. There is no copyright notice in the catalog (only an "all rights reserved", which is not a valid copyright notice under U.S. law). So I think you have the correct assertion of public domain status, but the information above should be added to show that the assertion is true. Toohool (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot for that. Would you add the extra information yourself so that I may see how best to do that myself in the future.Alalch E. (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did it myself.Alalch E. (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about copyright[edit]

Moved from Commons:Help desk#Question about copyright. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 10:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can/does a specific vectorization of a logo (e.g. the SVG source code) Sorry if this is a bit of a dumb question: Can/d Sorry if this is a bit of a dumb question: Does a specific vectorization of a logo (e.g. the SVG source code) have a separate license to the logo itself (e.g. the rendering of that SVG)?

If I upload another person's vectorization of a logo (and also crediting them), could that be a copyvio? QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 12:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw sorry if this is a dumb question with an obvious answer. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 12:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The SVG file can be copyrighted. Think of it this way: you are copying a hunk of code, and code can be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Higher-resolution after Flickr licence change[edit]

User:JWilz12345 has just reverted my upload of a higher resolution version of File:Manila by night.jpg, from Flickr, with an edit summary "the irrevocable CC license only applies to the copy of the file as it was imported here. The higher/original resolution copies no longer apply as these are governed by restrictive licensing; basis: Template:Flickr-change-of-license/doc". I can see nothing on the latter page which justifies this claim. Is my upload valid, and if not, why not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: quoting the latter page, which is actually an excerpt from CC FAQ, with emphases added: "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work." The original author (in this case, Filipino Flickr user Vanessa David) can stop their distribution of commercial CC license for current and future uses, but they cannot order users of existing copies or derivative works (in this case we, Wikimedia) to withdraw or take down those copies or derivatives since those copies became possible through the earlier free license that was formerly applied to the file (since CC licenses cannot be revoked of course). This means we can still continue to host imported Flickr files. We can also freely modify the image based on the existing import we have, but we cannot upload overwrite the existing import with original or higher resolutions coming from Flickr image as these are now governed by the unfree license. Unless the Flickr author reinstates the use of free license, we cannot import original or higher resolution version of the image. Note I already asked about this before here, now archived at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/08#Question regarding certain Flickr pictures hosted here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that I already checked the Wayback Machine in August 2020, after getting response from King of Hearts. I don't see webpage captures that show the Flickr file as under free CC license, which means when the Wayback Machine began scanning the Flickr file, it was already under the unfree license then. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The flickr license history records the license change as done on 4 April 2009. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias yep. Unfortunately, Wayback Machine's scanning of the Flickr file only shows that the earliest web capture was in April 2016. This means every instance of higher resolution version of the Flickr photo, including archived copies on Wayback Machine, are now regulated by the unfree license, and we cannot import that higher resolution version here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was looking for others' opinions rather than asking you to restate yours. But what you have quoted does not mean that the higher resolution version was not under a non-revocable free licence at the same time as the lower resolution version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a difficult question. It is possible that higher-resolution photos may have separate copyright protection from lower-resolution versions. At any rate, I think we generally respect an author's desire to do that, and only take the resolutions explicitly licensed that way. This one is... slightly different than that, though. It looks like it was originally uploaded as CC-BY-2.0. Per the Flickr license history, the author changed the license to All Rights Reserved on Flickr in 2009, so they stopped distributing under free licenses at that time. In all likelihood, the higher-resolution one was available at the time, but for whatever reason that was not uploaded. So, our exploitation which dates from that period is the lower-resolution one. I'm not sure we have absolute proof the higher resolution one was available then, though. Copying a version from that source now means you are copying it without an explicit license -- the author is free to stop distributing under the free license, which they did in 2009. Versions already distributed retain the original license, irrevocably, but uploading a new version now is technically a new exploitation, and it would be unlicensed (if there is a copyright on the higher-res version). As a technical matter, if no copies were actually distributed under the free license at the time, then there are no copies which have that license attached anymore. If we find a higher-res copy elsewhere which was taken from the Flickr site at the time, that would be OK. There is nothing cut and dried about this, but the Flickr license history should be used to validate actions taken at the time, not permit uploads of images which once were marked that way but no longer. This is admittedly a much closer call than most, as odds (from a couple different perspectives) are it would be OK, but it's not cut and dried so I can understand the reversion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licenses of miniscule cycling jersy icons[edit]

Back in 2006, I created and uploaded a few SVG icons of cycling jerseys to use in template. Examples include File:Jersey yellow.svg (), File:Jersey red number.svg () and File:Jersey polkadot.svg (). I uploaded them CC-BY-SA 2.5+GFDL at the time. They are used in many cycling templates on many wikis. I mostly forgot about them afterwards.

This year, the price for the most competetive rider in the Tour de France changed from a red to a beige number. I remembered my Icons, then wanted to upload a beige numbered one and was happy that user:GAN had already made File:Jersey_beige_number.svg ().

However, what I am not happy about is that is sourced as "own work" by user:GAN, without any mention to my original icon. When looking at Category:SVG cycling jerseys I see that most (not all: this has a slighly different shape and neck line) icons there seem to be derivatives of my work, having the exact same shape of the t-shirt outline. Some (examples: 1, 2) have made a reference to my original works (sometimes with link to that item, somtimes not) but most are without any mention to my work.

I now have checked 25 images in the Category:SVG cycling jerseys, found

  • 5 which properly attributed my work (though some without link)
  • 4 that were my own work
  • 15 that claimed "own work"
  • 1 that properly attributed some other image as the base. That other image was claimed as own work.

I would like to notify all uploaders and request them to put in a link to my work (and those that chose an incompatible license, to re-license their images). Is that the right course of action? What if they don't respond or do but don't comply?

Note that I would not want all these images deleted at all - they are good quality images, and I am perfectly ok with them being used, just with a proper link to my original image. For the images that did properly attribute my work but without a link, is it ok to change the image description page with the addition of the link? Thx IIVQ (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @IIVQ: You can write what you need to add (I write through a translator) - I will add it. Or, if the rules allow, you can add the necessary information to this image yourself. When I downloaded to "commons" I chose from the available options. — GAN (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright Protection all License are place[edit]

ADMIN Wiki Own many Domain Talk Page Disallowed @Actor at volation to Rule code conduction please follow the rules we like to keep this site up for everyone for yrs to come 2601:603:7F:9D0:58EF:D3A4:EB12:72F7 20:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • That's pretty much incomprehensible. If there is some language you write better than English, please try writing this again in that language. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Page Is"nt Allowed for vistor to Copy reading only[edit]

All license information are connected to Admin page, miss conduction volation will be band not allowed api lock out please use the website comfortably and pleas report any miss conduction. <♤£♡¥♤> 2601:603:7F:9D0:58EF:D3A4:EB12:72F7 20:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • That's pretty much incomprehensible. If there is some language you write better than English, please try writing this again in that language. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"No facebook" in permission block?[edit]

Recently I've stumbled upon https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NN_Old_Fair_Cathedral_08-2016_img2.jpg which in permission block says: 

 Free usage of the photo, no need to ask for approval. Simply attribute the author

and also links to Free Art License. So far so good. However, then there is also a big logo with Facebook crossed over with red line. Now, I am confused.

  • Can one post it to facebook (not that I intend to, not having account there, but were I to use it I'd have to pass the restrictions downstream too) as this is just an author's preference of "Please do not post it on Facebook", or
  • is that intended to legally modify the licenses mentioned before (in which case I would suggest not linking to those licenses at all, but instead create a separate license with such no-facebook restrictions built-in).

Clicking on that https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:No_Facebook.svg unfortunately produces no more info. Its "caption" is empty, and it seems its "description" is "alt text" (e.g. for blind persons), but most importantly it misses the explanation (or link to explanation, if bigger) exactly what it is supposed to mean and what restrictions (if any) it adds. Can anyone clarify/update that file? Mnalis (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another, even more confusing example is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Malus-Holsteiner-Cox.jpg which purports to be licensed under CC-By-SA 2.0 (Germany) license, but then links to same logo with explanation:
> This file has been released under a license which is incompatible with Facebook's licensing terms. It is not permitted to upload this file to Facebook.
Which at least attempt to link to explanation page (but the link is broken); but which also seems to be contrary to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/CC_BY-SA_licenses_and_social_media which seems to say that it "does not violate the CC license to upload third-party material to social media"? Shouldn't ToS (and other law's like panaroma laws, privacy laws etc) interpretation and compliance be responsibility of the user of those services (who might be many times removed from commons.wikimedia.org content page itself), and not related to copyright license owner giving permissions (which I've understand permissions section is about)? Should Wikimedia Commons (much less its users!) even attempt providing such legal interpretation (if that is what it seems to be) of all popular use case combinations for all jurisdictions worldwide?
Perhaps @Steschke: and @Lucas Oriolo Rodrigues: (of referenced pictures) would like to chime in too? Mnalis (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't checked lately, but Facebook used to have some license requirements incompatible with a free license. Yann (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, as Yann says. You can always link the Commons page from Facebook, which will effectively make the image visible on Facebook, but actually uploading an image to Facebook is not possible without violating license terms that require any sort of photo credit. When you upload an image to Facebook, you agree to grant Facebook "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content" without any requirement for Facebook to credit the work.
Note that this is true whether they say "no facebook" or not. You cannot use a license that requires an image credit as a basis to upload to Facebook, even if you give an otherwise appropriate credit when you post. By posting to Facebook you are granting them a license to use the work without crediting it, and you cannot legally do this with someone else's work without their permission. Not that people don't do it all the time, but as you probably know there are a ton of copyvios on the web in general, and Facebook in particular. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Nofacebook, Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates. About a hundred thousend files used this templates before they were deleted. Will you make an undelete request @Jmabel? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO these deletions were an error. I would support undeletion. FYI, all my pictures use User:Yann/License, which explicitely says "It is not allowed to upload this file to Facebook.". Yann (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mnalis, Jmabel, and Yann: well, the legal team of Wikimedia Foundation expressed a different opinion. The talk page forum at meta:Talk:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media seems to be still-open though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly, I'm appalled. What they are basically saying is that when someone uploads to Facebook with correct attribution and then Facebook (inevitably) uses the content without passing along the attribution that their software will never notice, it's up to the copyright-holder to follow up (presumably by serving legal notice to Facebook). That seems utterly unworkable.- Jmabel ! talk 22:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand the part about inevitability and software. Also, although it's probably not a good practice, a contributor can probably make requests about types of reuses they dislike and discourage, if they're not requirements and restrictions. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mnalis: I was to suggest the section "Does it violate the CC license to upload third-party material to social media?" of the page m:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media, but it seems that you already found it. On Commons, restrictions about where to reuse files are not accepted. That has been affirmed several times. You can see for example there and there. In your example File:Malus-Holsteiner-Cox.jpg, the file was uploaded in 2005. The restriction was added in 2015, through this edit. That restriction, as worded, is not compatible with the free license. Technically, the copyright owner ceased to offer this file under the free license (but that doesn't affect any free use that can still be made from any free copy validly made). In your example File:NN Old Fair Cathedral 08-2016 img2.jpg, as you noted, the problem is the use of the logo in the licensing section, which makes it confusing. Perhaps it is an attempt to make the file non-free and actually discourage reuses, while being able to argue that it remains implicit. The image "File:No Facebook.svg" itself has no particular meaning. It is in the category "Anti-Facebook logos", which is in the category "Criticism of Facebook". It can be used in various contexts. What to do with files that display a restriction that is not compatible with free licensing and with the policy of Commons? An option is to ask the copyright owners to voluntarily remove the restriction. If not, the files could be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've nominated the files in Category:Files by User:Steschke for deletion so that this can be resolved: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files by User:Steschke. Please add relevant opinions there. Nosferattus (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with Brazilian senate pictures[edit]

Hi. First question is, can someone tell me if pictures produced and published by the en:Senate of Brazil are free to be used here? I saw that as per Template:PD-Brazil-Gov, the pictures produced by the Brazilian government are. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my reading of that template, only Brazilian government images from before 1983 are free to be used here. This should also apply to images of the Brazilian senate, in my view. Felix QW (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legal basis for PD-KenyaGov[edit]

Hi all. There exists a template {{PD-KenyaGov}}, but per their Copyright Act [3] and COM:Kenya I see no provision allowing free use of government work. Am I missing something, or do we need a DR? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This concern was similarly aired by Alifazal at Template talk:PD-KenyaGov. Note that Nairobi123 created the template in 2013. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure I've ever seen that template. The law seems like they have a 50-year copyright for government works. The previous law looks similar in the government works section (and generally modified from older UK laws), and seemed to give a 50 year from publication term for audiovisual works and photographs, and 25 years from publication for literary, musical and artistic works. If those had expired before the 2001 law came into effect, I think they remained PD. But nothing to give US-style immediate PD status. Was this simply blindly copied from a PD-USGov template? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are these album covers too simple and PD?[edit]

Stumbled upon some very simple looking album covers, that are currently under fair use on Wikipedia. Would these not fall under {{PD-simple}}, {{PD-text}} or {{PD-ineligible}} - as these are just text on plain backgrounds or of simple designs? Find it hard to believe these pass COM:TOO, as works originating from the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Space_Song_cover.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beach_House_-_Depression_Cherry.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foo_Fighters_-_But_Here_We_Are.png

Would love some input from others before making any moves. Thanks. PascalHD (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say yes for all three, at least per COM:TOO US. Even if they're not OK for Commons because their country of first publication turns out to be somewhere with a lower TOO than the US, I would still think they would be good candidates to convert to en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Almost certainly the first two for the US, but unsure about the Foo Fighters one -- it's a bit hard to see, but there seem to be some elements on there, not just a solid color or straight lines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg and PascalHD: My eyesight isn't as good as it once was, but zooming up on the Foo Fighter's covers doesn't make it seem like it would be anything creative enough to be eligible for copyright protection. In the bottom right corner, the title of the album can be found in really light gray text. There is a bit of a faded color splash across the center of the cover that might be a landscape scene of some sort, but it's really hard to make out even after zooming in a lot. I'm wondering whether the cover is actually someone's abstract painting that the band either had done as a work-for-hire or simply got permission to use. It's relevant perhaps to know that the band is selling T-shirts showing the album cover here which might mean there's something more to this cover than meets the eye. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, the fading lines of varying length, suggestive of abstract art, seem sufficient to push the Foo Fighters cover beyond the "clearly below US ToO" boundary. Felix QW (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TOO for figure - Currently CC but should it be in PD instead?[edit]

File:Un3373.jpg I believe that this image do not cross the TOO and should be licensed under PD-textlogo or PD-ineligible instead. Staph aureus (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moldovan FOP revisited[edit]

Revisiting COM:FOP Moldova, I think even 2D works like murals are OK. Even in the newest version of their law (see this), Article 57(h), their FOP legal right, states "use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, intended for permanent location in public places." The term "such as", in my opinion, gives only examples. Your thoughts @everyone? (I hope there is a way to ping all non-bot users who are not blocked or not deceased) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon checking the archives (I could remember I opened this topic before), I took a look at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#FOP Moldova seems to not limit 2D works. But it seems there is no conclusive reply in that thread. I hope a more conclusive reply is given in this new thread. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the FOP clause (Article 57(h)) in both Romanian and Russian languages:

"h) utilizarea operelor, cum ar fi lucrări de arhitectură sau sculptură, destinate amplasării permanente în locuri publice;" _ Romanian text (via Romanian version at the official site)
"h) использование таких произведений, как архитектурные работы или скульптура, предназначенные для постоянного размещения в общественных местах;" _ Russian text (via Russian version at the official site)

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... which perfectly matches the English-language translation given above, and is equally unclear about 2D works. - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a link to this DR because it partly involves an assessment of Vietnam's TOO and there's nothing about this in COM:Vietnam. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Older 3D model[edit]

I took a few photos of a 3-dimensional model of Mount Rainier that is in the old Administration Building at Longmire in Mount Rainier National Park. I'm pretty certain the model is from before 1989 (probably more like 1950s or 1960s) and would be astounded if anyone even gave a thought to copyright at the time: it is certainly not marked for copyright, and was almost certainly never registered. I saw either this or a similar model at the Park when I visited as a child in the 1960s, but of course I can't prove it's the same one. And, of course, lacking even that basic information, I have no idea whether it may have been made by a federal government employee, another possible basis for PD. In short, I could imaginably be wrong about it being in the public domain. I'd like to upload the images here, but I concede that there is a small chance that model is copyrighted. (I tried some quick online research to see if I could find anything definitive about when the model dates from, etc., but I can't.)

Anyone see a way out of this, or should I just skip it? - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=785532665"