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.


Is a NASA image of an astronaut PD-USGov if it includes an "identifiable person"[edit]

The template PD-USGov-NASA states that images from NASA are public domain unless noted, and links to the NASA Usage Guidelines, which have restrictions for commercial use and identifiable persons, of which both are applicable.

The specific image I want to use is images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-01pp1278, for the enwiki page James F. Reilly. Is it acceptable to upload the image to Commons? BhamBoi (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BhamBoi: Yes, that image is fine to upload. What those usage guidelines are referring to are Commons:Personality rights. You can add the {{Personality rights}} template below the Information template on the image's description page. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In laymen terms: You can't use US government employees or logos to imply or even create the perception that the US government endorses your commercial messaging, regardless of copyright status. Multiple laws apply at once and the one doesn't necessarily trump the other one. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Carpet of Baroda[edit]

I am comfortable that this image File:Pearl Carpet of Baroda.jpg of a jewel-embroidered and beaded carpet commissioned in 1865 should qualify as 2 dimensional for purposes of Template:PD-Art, the same way tapestries do. But I'd like to know if anyone feels like a jeweled object isn't really 2D for our purposes. PKM (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might get more replies to your question at another venue such as the help desk. Here people come to answer questions on copyright. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a question on copyright; the question is whether the carpet in question qualifies for PD-Art. I'm not sure; it's certainly pushing the bounds.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Menotomy Hunter Cyrus Dallin.jpg[edit]

I was Googling myself, as one does, when I came across this image on Wikimedia Commons. It's credited to @AndrewTJay as "own work" but, as you can see from the metadata at the bottom of the page, I took this picture. I originally uploaded it to a project website of mine, Icons of Arlington, at a page called Menotomy Indian Hunter (Andrew seems to have cropped it). I am fine with the image remaining on Wikipedia, but I would strongly prefer that it be listed with the correct credit. How does that work -- do I just edit the page to change the credit? Rmhbernoff (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rmhbernoff: A mention that you license your license your photograph under Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike on Icons of Arlington would be helpful here as this was previously published and there's nothing on your website that supports the license given. And your photograph can be changed so it is properly credited. @Jmabel: Abzeronow (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewTJay: assuming Rmhbernoff is telling the truth (and I would think he is: the metadata on the photo you uploaded supports his claim) this looks like straight-out plagiarism on your part. Do you have any explanation for this? This sort of thing calls into question every single one of your uploads that is not simply a faithful reproduction of 2-dimensional public domain work. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmhbernoff: I'm sorry this happened, and thank you for offering to let us keep the photo. I have changed the credit, but we do still need to clarify the licensing because you previously published without offering the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. You can either (1, recommended) edit https://iconsofarlington.com/2019/08/12/menotomy-indian-hunter/ to clarify that you are licensing the photo under CC-BY-SA 4.0, or (2, also possible) go through the process described at COM:VRT to indicate that you are the rights-holder and are granting this license. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jmabel! Not a big deal -- I'm only really bothered when for-profits use my photos without permissions/license. I will take a look at those two options soon and do one of them. Rmhbernoff (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of Separately Derived Identical Drawings[edit]

A common way of depicting aircraft for identification is a three-view drawing showing it from the top, front and side and many manufacturers include these in their manuals. (e.g. a Cessna 172 drawing from a 1956 owners manual) Any of these published in the United States after 1989 are automatically copyrighted and therefore obviously ineligible to uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without permission. (There's more nuance to copyright notice, but it is simplified here for the sake of argument.)

My question is: What is the status of a self-created, separately-derived, but functionally-identical-to-an-in-copyright drawing? For example, if I were to go up to an actual aircraft, measure all of the dimensions, and then draw an accurate depiction myself, this would seem to be my own work. However, it could still result in a functionally identical illustration as if it was simply copy-pasted from a manual. There was no "creativity" in the creation of the work, so it could be considered a "mere" reproduction. However, unlike Bridgeman v. Corel, the image is not produced from the same source and, to borrow from the second of the four fair use factors, the nature of the work is factual rather than fictional. In addition, it would seem the general dimensions could be considered public or commonly known information that could not be copyrighted. (Note, this would only apply to general depictions of the entire airframe and presumably not most production drawings, as they would 1) be significantly more detailed and 2) depict parts of the aircraft not normally visible (e.g. inside of a wing) or commonly considered by the general public.)

Alternatively, assume that, instead of measuring the dimensions myself, I would have access to a complete, textual list of all of the necessary dimensions from the owners manual and I used that to make the drawing. Would that change the copyright determination in any way? –Noha307 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this purely hypothetical or do you have a specific case in mind? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I don't have a specific case in mind. However, there are various situations where I have come across illustrations (not necessarily of aircraft) that were essentially made this way and would like to know if they could be uploaded. –Noha307 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it may not be a perfect example, but here's one I've been considering. If I were to take the dimensions of a 20 x 72 mmRB cartridge from a page and use them to create my own black and white illustration, would that be a copyright violation? –Noha307 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classic clean room engineering says that you can't copy what you haven't seen. That's the best case scenario; don't look at these documents, and any similarity must be due to uncopyrightable facts. Looking at a diagram like that cartridge one and then making your own illustration is always problematic, in part since you end up using the exact same measurements, not selecting your own things to measure or illustrate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the hypothetical situation that two authors independently arrive at the same work, they are independent copyrights. In the U.S., copyright infringement is often the combination of "substantial similarity", along with access to the original. If something was previously published you had access to it, even if you haven't actually seen it, so that part can be hard to prove even if true. If you can prove you had no access to the original, then it was impossible to copy the expression in the first place. That said, there are often elements which are scènes à faire, i.e. elements which are common to a genre and do not themselves have copyright. For something like plane diagrams, the fact that someone has outlines drawn with those angles does not mean they are the only ones who can make a diagram like that -- those are expected. Since a plane or ship outline is duplicating an existing design (of a utilitarian object), there really isn't a copyright in the basic outline, probably. In cases like that, the copyright is in all of the small details, of which there are usually many. Or like a map -- the basic country outlines are not copyrightable, so they will often look generally similar, but all the other details in the map are what creates the copyright, so copying those small details is where infringement would come.
In your other example, the photograph has a copyright -- but the photographer does not have a copyright over the photographed object (bullet); they are just showing a utilitarian object. The copyright in a photograph is more the angle, lighting, framing, and elements under control of the photographer. If you make your own outline using that photo, then no it is not derivative since you are not copying those aspects. If a photo has a particular angle or cropping of a scene, and a drawing duplicates that aspect, it becomes more possible to be derivative. But not for something like that. If someone else makes a tracing of the same photo, their result would be similar, but a copyright (if any) would be in the details you add after that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyranny of the majority example.png & File:עריצות הרוב מתורגם.png[edit]

Could someone here please verify that the PD license is valid? I always feel a bit vary when the source is making somewhat vague statements Trade (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page says "you may repost it without restriction", but I think that falls short of an actual copyright statement or license. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no restrictions on usage at all then that would by definition by public domain, right?--Trade (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But "repost without restriction" doesn't include "make derivatives." All the text says is that we can make identical copies.
A discussion appears to have started at Commons:Deletion requests/RedPanels comics. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False licensing?[edit]

File:Interior of Crocus Theater.jpg is listed as public domain in the United States. I'm a bit suspicious of this, as it usually applies to works published before the 1930s. Can an admin take a look at it and possibly delete it? It's protected, so I cannot nominate it for deletion. Bremps... 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone marked it as missing permission. The US license is definitely wrong; there would need to be a license or PD statement given at the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Video source: https://t.me/vorobiev_live/6175 Timecode: 00:50
Not sure if the Telegram channel of Russia's official (governor of Moscow Oblast Andrey Vorobyov (Q502185)) equals Russia's official source. Nyuhn (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Official source or not, we would need a license stated. Russian government works are not automatically public domain (same as most countries; the U.S. is relatively unusual in making their works public domain). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can i use these pictures in de-wikipedia?[edit]

I'm not sure if i can upload two pictures for an article in the german wikipedia. Both pics are from 1931 or 1932. Pic #1 was sold as postcard (showing a woman, Maria Einsfeld who lived and worked 12 yrs as a man with her "family, her girlfriend Helene and her two children) from Maria herseld after her unmasking. She started with that after unmasking August 1931 so this picture is from 1931 or 1932. A lot of websites use this picture with copyright information Bildquelle Stadtarchiv Mainz where this postcard is in stock. Pic #2 shows Maria in the courtroom with defense lawyer and psychologist and audience in the background. So, imho it's a official press photo in public from ? (no copyright information) and i found it in some press articles from 1932 without the name of a photograph.

Both pics can be seen here: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/rhein-main/region-und-hessen/wie-maria-zu-joseph-einsmann-wurde-17531662/truegerische-familienidylle-17531657.html (picture #1 and #3)

I'm not very experienced, i normally use my own pictures or very old pics from older books so i appreciate any help. Martin Bahmann (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a particular photographer named on either, it would depend on how long they lived. If not (i.e. the author is anonymous), then the German term would be 70 years from making available to the public, which has expired. However the U.S. copyright would have been restored by the URAA and be 95 years from publication, which would still technically exist, and not allow upload to Commons until 2027 or 2028. If de-wiki only uses German/Austrian/Swiss law, they should be fine to upload there if they are anonymous, though it would be best to wait to move to Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: The German wikipedia does not accept anonymous files after 70 years. They do accept files which are at least 100 years old if, after a thorough search, no author can be found or no date of death for a known author can be found. See de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist. --Rosenzweig τ 21:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, was not aware of that (or had forgotten). If the human author had named themselves within 70 years somewhere, the term would revert to their lifetime plus 70 years. I guess that would preclude using them on the German Wikipedia until 2032 or 2033, though they could be uploaded to Commons a bit earlier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK understood. Thanks for your help. Martin Bahmann (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text logos below ToO[edit]

I'm pretty sure these logos (both American) fall below the threshold of originality, but I'd like to confirm here before uploading:

BhamBoi (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They look like PD text logos to me. Glrx (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, {{PD-textlogo}}. --Rosenzweig τ 11:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infomation after history splitting of an image[edit]

I don't quite understand this. I requested a split of File:Parrot mlt.png , here. After the split, when verifying copyright information, on both the initial and on the splitted image the copyright says "public domain by its author, Ricnun; 2006-07-31 18:53 Ricnun ". However, the uploaders are User:4throck and User:Liftarn. That does not look right to me.

Technically, it is not a big deal, because the image of the parrot is in the public domain, and I guess (but I'm uncertain) that all other modifications do not satisfy the threshold of originality. However, I would still prefer if more meaningful copyright information was displayed. Can someone please elucidate this issue to me? Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upload process missing attribution step[edit]

Hello. I have been uploading my own files based on the work of others. I noticed that in the upload process, I am asked if my work is based on that of others and I answer yes. The problem is that the process doesn't include for providing attribution to the author of the original work nor of their license they shared the work with. I have to make an edit to add that information after the upload process is finished.

For example take a look at the File:Zacapa and its neighbors.svg. I built upon an original map by Tubs, who had shared their work with a CCA3 unported. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{EC-Audiovisual Center}}[edit]

Good evening! A few days ago, member Roman Kubanskiy made changes to the template for European Commission materials, adding a CC BY 4.0 license along with attribution. Is this a correct edit or a blunder? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/copyright
The audiovisual material (still images, moving images and sound sequences) owned by the EU and made available on the website of the Audiovisual Service of the European Commission is subject to the Commission’s reuse policy, set out by the Commission Decision of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents.
Unless otherwise indicated (e.g. in individual copyright notices), content owned by the EU on this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. This means that reuse is allowed, provided appropriate credit is given and changes are indicated.
Credit:
Users are requested to refer to the credit which accompanies each individual file.
Where nothing else is indicated, please quote the following copyright: © European Union, 2024, CC BY 4.0
Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roman Kubanskiy Спасибо. Таким образом, для материалов Европейской комиссии только атрибуция и CC BY 4.0? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright status of japanese pre-WW2 propaganda movies[edit]

Hi. Does anyone know the copyright status of pre-WW2 (1930 - 1936) japanese governmental and military information and propaganda films? I think they should be public domain as they are published before 1956 and more than 38 years ago (following the 1971 copyright law) but I´m not completely sure as there is no author given besides the governmental organisation publishing it. Yours Mastertom211 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are OK. {{PD-Japan-film}} applies. Yann (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of scans of 1815 German book[edit]

Hi. I have just uploaded this image File:ArminiusHermannEinDialog1.jpg because I thought it was public domain, but wanted to check here incase. The file is sourced from this website https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb11712393?page=,1, (German website) where it says that files can only be used for non-commercial purposes. However, because the original text was published in 1815 and the file is a simple scan of the text, I concluded that the files cannot be copyrighted. Is this correct? Or did I misunderstand the German copyright laws? Thanks in advance! Medarduss (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anything that old is in the public domain worldwide. I changed the license to {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}}. Yann (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot from Wikipedia copyright[edit]

I am asking another editor for help (my edits are getting wrongly marked as vandalism) and I am trying to upload a screenshot of some of the edits. I do not know about the copyright license on Wikipedia screenshots. 3OpenEyes (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the license to your screenshot (and categorized it). Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are these two images still protected by copyright?[edit]

This is Walt Disney's work. Is the copyright term calculated based on the year of Disney's death + 71 years or the year of release of Disney's corporate artwork + 95 years? These two images are certainly in the public domain according to the first calculation method, but according to the second calculation method, there is no doubt that they are still protected by copyright until 2036.

Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither; as US works, they needed copyright notices, and apparently the original trailer didn't have them. (In the US, only works first published after 1977 are life plus 70.) --Prosfilaes (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that an image is accepted as Public domain[edit]

Hi there, I recently uploaded File:Drawing of the Shrine of Little St Hugh, Lincoln Cathedral, William Dugdale, 1641.png. The image is discussed at this Wikipedia FAC Image Review, where I was asked when it was first published: the answer being 1986. This means it may be in copyright as a relatively newly published work. Information is unclear. However, I contacted the British Library as the repository and owner of the original domcument and they have confirmed by email that they regard the original as public domain, thus scans or photographs would count as copyright free; they have no objection to the image being published here. I understand that WP may have a process to record this, such as keeping email records etc - can someone point me to what I should do to ensure WMF has a copy of this confirmation? JimKillock (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to be that while the British library is presumably only concerned with UK copyright, the Hirtle Chart seems to suggest that US copyright in this 1641 (!) work that was apparently first published in 1984 would not expire until 2047 at the earliest...
Is there perhaps known to have been any contemporary manuscript circulation which could render in "published" under US standards closer to its creation date? Felix QW (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was it actually published in 1984 with the consent of the heirs of the original copyright holder (whoever that was)? If not, then it falls under {{PD-US-unpublished}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good catch! But how does that work if an unpublished piece is in the public domain as an old unpublished work until it gets published, from which time it apparently reverts to being in copyright per the Hirtle Chart? Wouldn't that mean that there was no copyright holder to consent at that point? Or would that mean that "publication" in the US sense is no longer possible when 120 years have passed since creation? Felix QW (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was no publication with permission, it remains technically unpublished. The infinite protection expired (in the U.S.) as of 2003, so it would have been PD since then. The infinite UK protection could last until 2040. In the U.S., unpublished works got somewhat nebulous "common law" protection but not the protections in the federal law until published. In 1978 common law copyright was abolished, but gave 25 years automatic federal protection from there, and an additional 45 years if such works got first published (legally) between 1978 and before 2003. The UK abolished their unpublished treatment as of 1989, giving 50 years of protection from there, which will expire in 2040. (UK photographs before 1957 had a term based on creation, not publication, so those were not included in that.). But determining truly "unpublished", or if it's PD simply by virtue of existing before copyright itself existed, are all difficult or hypothetical questions really. If nobody is claiming a copyright, let it sit I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the main question, I think you can forward emails to the COM:VRT team so they have them on record. The email address is on that linked page. Normally they want communications directly from the copyright owner, not forwarded, but in a case like this (where there is no copyright owner) not sure it matters. Those would certainly be helpful to archive, in case there are future questions. I'm not sure how someone arrives at a 1986 publication date, though. Odds are it was published long, long before that. If actually true, there could still be a U.S. copyright on it, though it would take a pretty extraordinary set of circumstances (and it's so old that the UK and US could actually share some copyright history and status on the work, since it predates copyright itself). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case that helps, it seems to me that the original author gave the sole manuscript to his patron Sir Christopher Hatton, where it remained in the family archive for many generations until recently. Felix QW (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The drawing was used to create several derivative works for example File:Shrine of Little St Hugh of Lincoln.png published in 1773, and somewhere in Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum but AIUI the original drawing just sat in an archive.
The BL's email state that it is "public domain". If WM wanted to follow up for confirmation I would hope they would supply it. That might remove any doubt re international "copyright" in this 1641 work that was created when copyright did not exist … etc
Meantime I've emailed the team with the emails as attachments and recommended they email the BL directly if they want more secure confirmation. I'll cc the team another time! JimKillock (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just giving it to the patron may have qualified for (pre-1978) U.S. definition of publication. It's not worth spending time on, really -- something that old would be a miracle to still have protection in either country. The UK did have the same infinite unpublished status until 1989 (existing unpublished works, other than photos, got a 50-year term starting then) so there are some theoretical possibilities. But you get into questions if copyright even attaches to something that old, etc. (it predates the Statue of Anne even). There are hypotheticals on hypotheticals, different definitions of "unpublished" and so on. I would only spend time on it if they were claiming a copyright, and just assume PD-old on it at this point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactivity of Belgian law[edit]

Hi, Any idea if the 1994 Belgian law is retroactive ([1], p. 673 and following)? Before that date, Belgian law was 50 years pma ([2]). This would change application of URAA. If the law is not retroactive, Belgian works could be uploaded to Commons if the author died before 1944, or published anonymously before 1944, as per {{PD-1996}}. Yann (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article 88 (2) of the Belgian law (page 734 in the PDF linked) has the same rule as the German and British copyright laws: Anything protected on July 1, 1995 in at least one EU member state is also protected in Belgium. So retroactivity through the backdoor, just like in Germany and the UK and probably every other EU country. --Rosenzweig τ 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The EU directive was basically worded to make everything retroactive. Romania may have gotten away without restoring old works, but they only joined the EU later. The 1994 Belgian law said (Article 88): This Law shall apply to works and performances carried out prior to its entry into force and that are not in the public domain at that time. (2) It shall also apply to works and performances which are protected by copyright on July 1, 1995, in at least one Member State of the European Union. (emphasis mine). That wording came straight from the EU directive. Since some other EU countries were fully 70pma (and Spain had been 80pma) long before then, I don't think we have identified any type of work which was out of copyright in all EU countries at the time. So, it we basically assume it means everything got retroactively restored. Something like simple photos or applied art might have a chance, but you'd have to look at all the differing thresholds of originality and laws pre-directive in a lot of countries. It only takes one to have protected them to get them restored in the rest of the EU. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading photo[edit]

I would like to upload this photo from ZooKeys >https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/106278/zoom/fig/11/, but i can't find the license. There are similar photos, e.g. this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aphonopelma_anax_female_ZooKeys_560.jpg (from ZooKeys) and it is uploaded on Creative Commons 3.0. Can i upload previously mentioned photo? Mirus255 (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original source is this ZooKeys article, which is released under CC-BY 4.0. So you can absolutely upload it and mark it with the CC-BY 4.0 attribution license. Felix QW (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answer! Mirus255 (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rev del, please.[edit]

Cropped out art. [3] Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done but next time @Ooligan: , request these at COM:AN. Bedivere (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will @Bedivere. Sorry, I thought this was the correct place for this request. Thank you for telling me. -- Ooligan (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images tagged with unclear FOP template[edit]

I have noticed a couple of similarly-named images categorized at Category:FOP, with "Mark Formarek" in the file names. The inclusion is due to the tagging of these files with {{FOP}} template. However, in many of the images I do not see any public artwork or copyrighted architecture that would require addition of such templates. The artwork information templates claim that the images show a performance, but these are still images and not videos.

IMO, this is an inappropriate use of the template as there are no copyrighted public sculptures or artworks seen in any of the images. I assume the uploader may be claiming "privacy rights" but, copyright ≠ privacy of individuals and Commons generally does not matter with privacy rights as these are COM:Non-copyright restrictions.

We do have {{FoP-Germany}}, but again, I do not see any public artwork or monument that would warrant FoP-tagging of the involved images.

Pinging the uploader @Rainer Halama: as well as the editor who made fixes on the description pages @Wuselig: to respond to this matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the files? We will sometimes delete files on moral or courtesy grounds due to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and Commons:Country specific consent requirements. Consensus in deletion reviews often swings toward deletion where there is a justified argument that it was illegal to have taken or published the image in the source country. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=864072811"