Commons talk:Licensing

CT:L

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Licensing.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the page's subject.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Licensing may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|Commons talk:Licensing}}.

For old discussions, see the Archives. Recent sections with no replies for 60 days may be archived.

Other archives

Seven 2006/2007 discussions organized as subpages, ~~ignoring~~incl. comments added in 2014:

What is the proper licence for File:Dr Wacław Kraszewski, Zakopane 1925.jpg ?

Isn't the proper licence in this case CC0 ? - All photographs (from 1920-1930) of the described collection do not have individual licence restrictions and the author is unknown. The source page is sponsored by the Polish Ministry of Culture. Regards Henry39 (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry39, these type of questions can be better answered at COM:VPC. This page is not for such issues. Ratekreel (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you. Henry39 (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But a side remark that is more for this page. They cannot possibly be CC-0. The only way for a file to be CC-0 is that someone hold/held full copyright and overtly licensed it as CC-0, allowing it to be treated as if it were in the public domain. Nothing ever becomes CC-0 without that overt dedication. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henry39: Per COM:Poland, Poland joined the Berne Convention 28 January 1920, so all photos created there since that day were copyrighted the moment they were fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Many of those photos acquired US copyright 1 January 1996 due to the URAA. This photo published in 1925 would have the copyright expire that same day at 12:01am local time in Poland (hours before URAA took effect in the US) if it was anonymous, but later if the date of death of the photographer became known, acquiring US copyright in the process. So, it is important to find the date of death of the photographer. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.@Jmabel I moved my question to COM:VPC as advised. The answer/advice on COM:VPC from Yann was to use {{PD-Poland}} - what I expected. Jmabel participated on COM:VPC. The full discussion on COM:VPC has now been archived but can be read here. Thank you. Regards Henry39 (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification about additional licencing terms

I encountered a couple of situations this year where images had had additional, and apparently ignorable, licencing terms applied to them in the description field or nearby templates:

This DR, where a spammer said in the description of their images that a clickable hyperlink to their shopping website was "required" when reusing the pictures
This discussion, where a user's uploads had official-looking templates saying that reusers must contact the author via email for approval for print publication, and that users are also NOT ALLOWED TO UPLOAD THIS FILE TO ALL SOCIAL NETWORKS

In both cases there was some consensus that these requests were unenforceable (because the base CC licence says that is "constitutes the entire agreement") and could safely be ignored. The uploaders are unwittingly Commons:Multi-licensing their files under the base CC licence and their arbitrary restrictive version, so Commons can host them under the former and end users are free to choose which licence to use.

But it's not at all clear to the end user that this is the case. The average Commons visitor seeing a box that says they "must contact the author via email for approval" will assume that this is part of the licence.

Should Commons be marking these files with a clear {{Multi-license}} template that explains the situation and gives the user a choice between "CC-BY with no restrictions" and "CC-BY but contact the author and don't upload to social media"? Or can we step in and rephrase these strict imperatives to clarify that they are actually completely optional?

I'm still seeing "no Facebook" templates on uploads to this day, so it would be useful if this or another page had some agreed guidance on how to handle these cases. Belbury (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another related issue I've seen in some personal licenses is added terms which attempt to interfere with management of the files on Commons, such as The file name is part of the mandatory information of the license and should therefore not be changed or Do not upload new revisions without expressing written permission. I can't imagine that any of these have any weight; an explicit statement that "no, you cannot make your own rules about what we can do to your files" might be needed, though. Omphalographer (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s keep this discussion going. Just a couple of quick comments to start with:

Just within the last few days, I warned two uploaders who had ‘no social media’-type notices on their uploads. One did not respond and the other simply acknowledged my advice. I intend to follow up on them. Agree with Belbury that we should have some advice on handling this ― do we just keep opening DRs for such templates?
The file name is part of the mandatory information of the license and should therefore not be changed might be a reference to the Creative Commons requirement to attribute the work in any reasonable manner specified by the licensor, assuming the files are under such a licence.

Brianjd (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CC 4.0 no longer requires the work’s title to be included; my second comment above applies (potentially) only to CC 3.0 and below. But the problematic text is included in User:F. Riedelio/Templates/Notes and at least some files using that template are CC (BY-SA) 4.0. So it looks like this really is an unenforceable additional term. Brianjd (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, even {{Multi-license}} has a problem! It says (emphasis changed):

Please make sure you respect the license terms of the license you choose, including any requirements and restrictions (such as attribution requirements and restrictions on commercial use).

We don’t allow restrictions on commercial use, right? Brianjd (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continue discussion at Template talk:Multi-license#Template text. Brianjd (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't allow offering only a license that prohibits commercial use, but we do allow offering such a license in addition to one that allows commercial use. For example, by offering both CC-BY-SA and CC-NC-BY-SA, it would be permissible to create non-commercial derivative works by using the second license. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have realized that. In my defense, I swear that I have never seen a file actually licensed that way, while I have seen countless comments about restrictions on commercial use (where those restrictions are part of the only license offered) being unacceptable. Regarding your example, CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC would make more sense. I still think the template text should be changed, and will comment at the other discussion about that. Brianjd (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My summary of this discussion so far:

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "with an active link required" and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/08#CC licensing "with an active link required": Restrictive additional terms are unenforceable and we should ignore them. (But, as of now, the unenforceable terms are still included in the file descriptions.)
Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/08#Cleanup of "CC but also" files (subsection of the one cited in the previous item): There seemed to be a consensus forming that these unenforceable terms should be removed, with or without the cooperation of the relevant uploaders, but no action was taken.
Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 115#User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer: The additional terms make the files non-free, so the files should be deleted and the uploader should be blocked. (But, as of now, it seems that no action has been taken.)
This discussion: The items above, along with similar issues which still occur with even recent uploads, must be dealt with somehow. There are also additional terms that interfere with the management of files on Commons, such as restrictions on changing file names or overwriting files, which also seem unenforceable (according to the one user who mentioned this so far). We should have some standard guidance on all of this. Regarding file names, CC 3.0 and below require the title to be preserved but CC 4.0 (which is the relevant version in at least some cases) does not.

Brianjd (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be contradictory outcomes here about whether the additional terms are enforceable. We should resolve that contradiction first. Brianjd (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One odd argument I've seen crop up in the "no Facebook" discussions is claims that, because posting an image on Facebook removes EXIF metadata, and some users include attribution information in that metadata, posting those images on Facebook is therefore a violation of the license because the copy of the image hosted on Facebook will no longer contain that attribution information. On the other hand, EXIF metadata is also stripped by MediaWiki when generating thumbnails of images for use in wiki pages - so, if one subscribes to this logic, posting those files on Commons is just as much a violation of the license. Obviously, this is ridiculous. Omphalographer (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s also ridiculous for a second reason: in either case, it’s the online service (the social media service or the Wikimedia project), not the uploader, that is responsible (for the removal of EXIF data). Isn’t that exactly the issue that was discussed to death with regard to terms of use?

And a third reason: I can’t think of any valid license used in practice that requires EXIF data to be preserved (and I’m not even sure that any such license can be valid on Commons). Generally, the license in question would be a Creative Commons license, which allows attribution to be included in any reasonable manner. Brianjd (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the EXIF thing is bogus, and FWIW I don't tend to worry about any reuse of my photos as long as I'm credited, but could anyone explain to me why the following is not a problem?

When someone posts to Facebook (call this Scenario 1), even if they conform to the terms of the a license requiring attribution (which, of course, overwhelmingly they don't), the act of posting necessarily grants Meta a "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license" that does not require attribution. Of course, they are in no legal position to grant Meta that license, and if Meta exercises it without meeting the original license criteria then technically the copyright-holder could sue them (lots of luck with that), but…
…wouldn't the following (which to me seems very analagous) be seen as a clear violation? Scenario 2: imagine that instead of posting to Facebook, the same user posted my CC-BY-SA photo to their own website (with attribution, linking the license appropriately, but also said "I hereby grant Meta a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license" to use this photo without attribution.
Or (Scenario 3) instead of granting it just to Meta, they granted it to everyone?

What exactly is the difference between Scenario 1 and Scenarios 2 and 3? Or are we somehow saying Scenarios 2 & 3 are OK, and the copyright-holder's only recourse even in Scenario 3 would be against the person who is foolish enough to believe the bogus license has value, not the person who grants it? - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this issue occurred to me too, but I didn’t really have an answer to it. I can only speculate that the ‘bogus’ license here would represent relicensing in violation of the SA provision, assuming that the original license was an SA license. It is incredible that the WMF legal team has apparently not considered issues like this, especially given their dramatic and confusing change of opinion on social media terms of use. Brianjd (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant jurisdictions

This policy’s explanation of which jurisdictions are relevant is a mess.

It starts with:

Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work.

That doesn’t seem so bad. Most importantly, it is actually consistent with common practice on this project. (But why does it say normally? Isn’t this rule strictly applied to all uploads?)

But then it says:

When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply.

This introduces a third jurisdiction, the country from which the file is uploaded. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people also claims that that jurisdiction is relevant. As I wrote at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#Text added during 2013 rewrite and not changed since then:

Also, the page claims that photos must be legal in the jurisdiction from which they are uploaded, but I think no one knows or cares about that, and it is completely unenforceable. So why is that rule there?

That question also applies here.

This policy continues:

If material that has been saved from a third-party website is uploaded to Commons, the copyright laws of the U.S., the country of residence of the uploader, and the country of location of the web servers of the website apply.

The country of residence of the uploader may be different to the country where the uploader is at the time of upload. That gives us a fourth jurisdiction, and the country of location of the web servers of the website would be a fifth jurisdiction. My earlier question also applies here.

Also, nothing in this explanation makes it clear that there are five jurisdictions that could apply.

Finally, we have this bizarre example:

For example, if a person in the UK uploads a picture that has been saved off a French website to the Commons server, the uploader must be covered by UK, French and US copyright law.

The example does not mention the person’s country of residence and, astoundingly, it does not mention country of origin of the picture.

Let’s test my understanding here. If the picture is non-free in France, then uploading it to Commons is forbidden. But if the person finds the same picture on a UK website, then uploading it to Commons is suddenly OK. It may happen that the UK website actually just copied it from the French website, but we don’t worry about that. Did I understand all this correctly? Am I the only one who finds these conclusions absurd? Brianjd (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(What about third-party sources other than websites?) Brianjd (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]