Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Vogue Taiwan and possible copyright washing

Vogue Taiwan publishes videos on YouTube under a CC-BY license and English Wikipedia editors have been posting screenshots of those videos under those auspices. The problem is that many (if not all) of these videos have first been published on the Vogue YouTube page as all rights reserved. Commons has been lax in the past regarding these, although I think the discussions haven't gone through enough scrutiny (yes, I was involved in a later delete). I think we need to make an official decision. Are the editors at the Vogue Taiwan YouTube site copyright-washing, since Condé Nast is clearly not releasing them. or is the release legitimate since they are a subsidiary of Condé Nast?

Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging people involved in the previous discussions: @Verbcatcher, @Bettydaisies, @P99, @The Squirrel Conspiracy, @Krd, @Brainulator9, @King of Hearts, @RevengerTime, @Günther Frager, @1989, @Rangel's Version, @TheLoyalOrder, @Aafi, @Adry9509, @Tanbiruzzaman, @Bjh21, @Nakonana. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I got a 3 day block over a CSD tag on this topic, so clarification would be nice. Definitely my fault, but clarity would be nice. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to ping @GRuban: as well who helped develop the consensus for the images over at enwiki. PHShanghai (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for the list: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kourtney Kardashian 2019.jpg - Deleted. --bjh21 (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another deletion to add to the list: Commons:Deletion requests/File:瑪格·羅比(Margot Robbie)LA辦公室就像家一樣｜打開名人豪宅 -31｜Vogue Taiwan 0-4 screenshot (1) (cropped).png and all its derivatives Diddykong1130 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Delete them all, per my rationale in the first nomination. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

just adding there's a whole category of potential images to delete Category:Screenshot images from VOGUE Taiwan YouTube account TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be very cautious not to delete any image which originated on the Vogue Taiwan YouTube page. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 04:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be underestimating the amount of work deleting 100+ images is going to take, especially spread across multiple A-list BLPs. If a deletion happens, there has to be a process for replacing all of the lead articles affected so they don't just end up red links. PHShanghai (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost certainly some kind of mistake on Vogue Taiwan's part, there's no way Condé wants their content licensed like that (as evidenced by the numerous other listings of the same content with broad restrictions). OR, it's a very smart marketing move by a savvy digital editor at Vogue Taiwan who realized releasing images of celebrities under CC licenses would inevitably mean stills from their content would be the default images for those celebrities on the internet once celebrity-oriented Wikipedia editors spotted the videos as ostensibly eligible for use on Commons. But either way, it doesn't seem like a legit license for the content. 19h00s (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Bedivere as he was involved. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 02:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I had to look up what exactly happened back in June [1]. So yeah, I might have been wrong on that one, or maybe not, who knows, after all Vogue Taiwan is owned by Condé Nast. Maybe asking them would clear up many things. Bedivere (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion also happened at enwiki, over here PHShanghai (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just think about this for a moment- is Conde Nast as a company so incompetent that it cannot see one of their official subsidiaries has been publishing celeb content under CC for 6-7+ years now? To the point where even content of one of their biggest executives is also released as CC-BY? To have a CC license on *one* official video might be a mistake. To have a CC license on hundreds of videos spanning more than six to seven years is clearly not a mistake on Conde Nast's part. This is precautionary principle for the sake of precautionary principle.

Are we also implying that not a single person from Conde Nast corporate has ever visited a Wikipedia article as research for a video, let alone Wikipedia articles of some of the most famous people in the world, like Billie Eilish, Adele, Kendall Jenner, and Ariana Grande? I agree with Bedivere on asking Vogue Taiwan themselves as an explanation. But Wikipedians speculating that the biggest conglomerates in fashion have zero control over the release of their own content is speculatory at best. PHShanghai (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CN and their subsidiaries have indeed made mistakes of this magnitude in the past. I would strongly caution against discounting human error as the source of this licensing choice until it can be proven that the licensing is correct. Just because a company is large & long-lasting does not mean they don't make huge mistakes that can be overlooked for quite a while. And sure, if someone wants to reach out to Condé, more power to them, but I can imagine that probably won't produce a satisfying reply. 19h00s (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@19h00s: The issue is not whether it is a mistake, but whether the license is valid. Speculating over the marketing strategy of some company is IMO complete nonsense. It is not for us to decide if the free license is intended or not. There is still a free license on YT, so how can you say it is not valid? Saying that a free license posted by a big company is not valid is undermining the very concept of a free license. So a free license by a small company is OK, but by a big company, it would not be? Yann (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can say it is invalid because Vogue Taiwan does not have the legal authority to release that content under those licenses; they do not own the content, Condé Nast does, and if Condé is not allowing other subsidiaries to release the same content under CC licenses, then why in the world would they want Vogue Taiwan to do it? I think editors on Commons put way too much stock into the choices digital editors at publications/organizations make when they upload content to third-party sites; there's literally no way to know if the license choice was made by a staffer who didn't know better or due to the company's actual policy of CC licensing. Regardless of how y'all feel about my conjecture re: the possible aims of whomever chose that license, I don't think it's responsible to trust the CC licenses when there are multiple examples of the same content being uploaded by other Condé entities without free licenses. 19h00s (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Vogue Taiwan does not have the legal authority to release that content under those licenses" "Condé is not allowing other subsidiaries to release the same content under CC licenses" What evidence is there for these statements? How do we know they don't give the right to all subsidiaries to release as CC and only Vogue Taiwan chooses to do it, or the contract for Vogue Taiwan is different for some reason, especially if these videos have had the license for years?

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 13:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm done here tbh. Sent an email to Condé's licensing team, will update if I hear anything. But I don't really feel like getting into a deep argument about the nature of corporate subsidiaries and media conglomerates. 19h00s (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging that it appears at least two of the videos referenced in the first deletion requests listed above have now been changed to NOT include a CC license. No response yet from Condé but I included a link to this thread in my message, so those would have been the first examples they saw if they checked out this conversation. But I have not been following this for very long, so I don't know whether the disappearance of those CC licenses happened before today or if the licenses are just being hidden from view (tried in several browsers to make sure I wasn't missing them somewhere).

Live link for Kendall Jenner video (no license listed, default to standard YouTube license), vs Archived link for Kendall Jenner video (CC license)
Live link for Cindy Crawford/Kaia Gerber video (no license listed, default to standard YouTube license). Wayback Machine didn't archive but clearly it used to have a CC license visible if it was uploaded here.

19h00s (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to here an example of a mistake of this magnitude on Conde Nast's part, purely out of curiousity. Human error is a problem yes but "human error" across hundreds of videos for 6-7 years is a clear systemic issue on CN's part if this is a mistake by the uploaders on the VT youtube channel. PHShanghai (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not interested in delving into a debate over the technicalities here, and tbh there's more than enough info on Condé's various mistakes in a basic Google search. I emailed CN's licensing team and added an update based on what seems to be a change to the licensing in the two videos I linked above. If I see another update to a license or hear from Condé, I'll circle back. Otherwise, I leave it to other editors and advice from WMF. Enjoy your weekend! 19h00s (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agree with PHShanghai, Yann, and everyone else. When an agent of Condé Nast puts a license on a video owned by Condé Nast, we should take their word for it. That's called Apparent authority: "a situation where a reasonable third party would understand that an agent had authority to act". https://www.youtube.com/@voguetvtaiwan has 1.14M subscribers, and 10K videos, this is not a small channel that no one has noticed. They've been licensing videos this way for years, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KH9gcoV8u4 is one from 5 years ago, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I2ZmpJ8DO0 is one from 3 days ago. This is not just a mistake that might have slipped through. They're not all indiscriminately licensed Creative Commons either, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIICchcwZdg, 1 day ago, isn't. Every sign points to this being both intentional and authorized.

We are at a busy intersection. The official crossing signal above the crosswalk says "WALK". We should walk. "But the signal could be broken." "The signal could have been put up in error." "The signal could have been forged and put up by a troll." "The signal was put up by the town Public Works Department, and intersections are under the jurisdiction of the town Traffic department." "Another intersection on this same street doesn't have a signal, or it isn't saying WALK, so this one must be wrong." Yes, all these things are possible. (The sun might not rise in the morning; there could be an eclipse. The most powerful country in the world dedicated to the rule of law might elect a recently convicted felon to lead it. Naah, that last one is just ridiculous!). But they aren't reasonable. We can't live by assuming that everyone is either evil or an idiot, only that some people are. We need to take reasonable care, but this is beyond that. Sure, feel to write for clarification. But they put up the sign, it's a very clear sign, it's not drawn on a piece of cardboard with a crayon, and they have the authority to put it up; so until we actually have clear evidence that the crossing signal is broken, we should walk. --GRuban (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have asked Joe Sutherland from WMF. Yann (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly put. And very funny poignant commentary. PHShanghai (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except two of the videos in question have already had their CC license removed. Which tells me (as is the case often when one organization or branch allows some content from another) that Vogue Taiwan intended to release its own videos as CC-BY but someone did not pay attention to the default when providing other videos.

This happens all the time.

Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 07:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at Commons, we abide by the Commons:Precautionary principle, that where there is sufficient doubt about the freedom of a file...we delete it. There is sufficient doubt here as expressed by not an insignificant number of active Commons editors. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 07:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this goes way beyond any precautionary principle. OK, the license of one video was changed. But what about all the others?

GRuban's message above says it all. We should abide by the law, not by some imaginary reasoning. I doubt a judge will accept a reasoning with "Sorry, but the license which was published by our subsidiary company there for years is wrong." Yann (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others are being changed too. Most probably a result of this discussion and backroom contact with the organization, making the scenario even more likely that Vogue Taiwan was making a mistake and are currently fixing it. It takes a lot of time and effort for the average user to change licenses on multiple videos on YouTube. I looked into it when this first came up and it wasn't entirely obvious how to do it--and there's no way to do it with multiple videos.

The argument "we can get away with it becuase Vogue Taiwan didn't catch their mistake for years" or "oops, your bad--we got it while it was out there and now it's ours forever" should not fly.

It is entirely likely that:

1) Vogue Taiwan was making a mistake for years and that

2) Conde Nast didn't catch on because the videos weren't being reused as a whole by anybody and that 3) nobody from CN or VT recognized the screenshots on Wikipedia as they came from a single frame of those videos and that

4) nobody from CN or VT searched for links back to the YouTube channel (because why would they?) so they didn't know that Wikimedia was reusing their content.

The surprising thing is the doubt that this is quite possible coming from active Commons admins who have dealt with this sort of thing before many times in the past. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 19:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It takes a lot of time and effort for the average user to change licenses on multiple videos on YouTube." well, these are not average users, but trained payed staff. And yes, there have been similar cases, and they usually were closed as kept. There are more and more people and corporations using free licenses, and the people most reluctantly recognizing that are people on Commons. Now I won't argue for keeping the files when the license was changed, even if I doubt they could do anything if it comes to court. Yann (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is an over-charitable interpretation of how media companies work and who works there. I know I said I didn't want to get into the details, but I very much agree with Bastique, I don't understand the doubt here. Nor do I get why it's such a big leap in logic to assume a media company doesn't want their intellectual property freely licensed; if this were any other type of company, I would be way more open to the idea that they really made this choice on purpose.

There is quite possibly a single person - or, at the most, up to two people - who work at Vogue Taiwan whose specific role is interpreting and applying their rights and responsibilities as a subsidiary of Condé using licensed Condé content. Or, even more likely, there is actually no one whose job is dedicated to that, and the function has been rolled into the purview of their in-house counsel or a hired counsel. How often does that person or people interact with the staffer arguably at the lowest end hierarchy-wise of a media company's social media team (i.e., the person who loads and structures social media content via a platform like Sprout or other professional tool in order to post it to YouTube)? I would guess they don't interact that often, and the social media staffer has probably had very limited training on the more complicated aspects of licensing like Creative Commons licenses because Condé and Vogue Taiwan are not in the business of releasing their content for free reuse; they are media companies, their single greatest financial asset is the intellectual property they own. And the person in charge of licensing for Vogue Taiwan - again, very easily just their in-house counsel - probably has a million other things to worry about, including ensuring that the print publication and website have correct licensing and copyright terms, a pretty big task given that Vogue Taiwan both licenses content from Condé and creates/commissions original content as well. So I actually find it incredibly likely that this was a) a true mistake, b) made by someone without much knowledge of licensing, c) overlooked for quite a long time by the people who are actually in charge of handling licensing content for Vogue Taiwan, and d) a very difficult thing to undo in a short period of time, even for social media professionals - even pro tools don't have the ability to change licenses en masse, I just checked in the business Sprout account I have access to.

I apologize if this or my other replies came off as snippy. I'm just very confused by the doubt. 19h00s (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia editing community is so small and the Commons community is even smaller than the enwiki community. It is extremely unlikely that a CN or VT staffer reads the village pump and that reading about it would it have any impact on their content uploading.. The only actual realistic way their CC policies may be revoked is through, as you said, personally messaging and emailing the corporation and asking if VT is copyright-washing. If they already know that their content is being uploaded as CC and therefore makes the motion to have their CC licenses revoked, they're being very confusing and inconsistent about it as they are still uploading content under CC as recent as yesterday. PHShanghai (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to nitpick here, and I am using a machine translation for this purpose so there could easily just be a mistranslation, but: The caption for that linked short, and the rest of Vogue Taiwan's shorts, includes language about VT's use of Condé content. The machine translation is telling me it says this: "Taiwan VOGUE is affiliated to Condé Nast Interculture Group. All foreign films are authorized by foreign countries for use in Taiwan. Taiwan VOGUE adheres to serving netizens and allows more Chinese-speaking audiences to see international films and Chinese subtitles, so we share them with everyone on this channel. If you like our channel, please subscribe to us. We will continue to work hard to bring more high-quality content." Presuming that "films" should be "videos". But that language is different from the CC license and is quite vague - "for use in Taiwan" could mean a range of things - implying that there is some sort of other agreement/license underpinning VT's ability to republish content. Again, machine mistranslation could be source of my interpretation here, but it's notable that they do include language about their rights in the captions. 19h00s (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we have an apparent authority defense to agency right now. To have that defense, we must believe CN-Taiwan has the authority to publish the material with a free license. If CN-Taiwan were the only entity publishing the material, then that belief is reasonable, and we would have an apparent authority defense. However, if we know that other CN divisions are publishing the same material with all rights reserved, then the defense evaporates. We have or should have doubts about CN-Taiwan's authority. All is not lost. Presumably, the principal CN has now been notified and must act. If the principal fails to act within a reasonable time (say 30 days), then the principal will ratify the acts of CN-Taiwan. If the principal acts and the free licenses are removed, then we should remove the affected material. If I were CN, I would issue takedown notices. Glrx (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should wait for a response from CN in 30 days or so, and if they do not respond nor change their continuous and consistent use of uploading CC content under VT, then the acts of VT will be ratified and free for Wikimedia Commons to use. PHShanghai (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just found another video where the license appears to have changed: Live link for Margot Robbie video (no license, default to standard YouTube license), vs Archived link for Margot Robbie video (CC license, takes a super long time to load the caption/YouTube interface). A screenshot is currently the subject of a deletion discussion.

Also noting that Vogue Taiwan either has not released a video on YouTube under a CC license in a while or they have gone back and retroactively changed the licenses on all of their most recent videos. I've been scrolling for a bit and can't find a recent video with a CC license.

And finally, I noticed in one of the Chinese-language captions on YouTube that Vogue Taiwan staff had noted that the video was a re-upload with subtitles and closed captions (they used the abbreviation "CC" in the video caption) after suggestions from commenters asking for either better quality captioning or a different style/technical form of subtitles or captions. I do not want to impugn the English language ability of any Vogue Taiwan staffer, as they obviously have a great command of the language if they're working for Condé, a primarily English-language company. But is it possible that when uploading videos with closed captions ("CC"), someone at Vogue Taiwan mistook the "CC" of the Creative Commons license as the marker for closed captions, which seem to be broadly referred to in Chinese-language sources by the English-derived acronym "CC"? Could be wrong on any number of these conjectures, but the situation simply doesn't add up from where I sit - Condé has no reason to want their subsidiaries to release Condé-owned content for free use, this is not a company that has ever demonstrated any sort of commitment to open access or free reuse, especially when the content at issue is worth quite a lot of money in terms of licensing fees, which they can and do charge - so I'm trying to think through the most obvious possibilities for what happened here. 19h00s (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All recent shorts appear to me as CC-licensed. The normal, widescreen videos seemingly aren't CC licensed at all Bedivere (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that a language issue is to blame because the YouTube interface is available in different languages, so I'd expect that the staff has set the interface to their local language, especially if they doubt their English proficiency. Nakonana (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the English interface of YouTube Studio it does not say "CC" anywhere, it just says "Creative Commons - Attribution". I tried changing my language to Chinese simplified and traditional, Simplified does not have "CC" in English but Traditional does. But this is only in the license dropdown menu, it is not visible till you click the dropdown and the default option is Standard YouTube license, so the only way I can see someone thinking this is closed captions is if they were pressing random buttons looking for closed captions without reading properly and/or not did not understand Chinese.

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 22:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both sides of this argument. However, speaking from a purely legal standpoint, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that one entity can republish content under a more permissive license when that content was originally published by another entity with all rights reserved, simply because the republishing entity doesn't own the content and therefore does not have the authority to republish it under different terms. This is true even if the two entities share the same parent company (and even if the republishing entity has a license to re-upload the material). Even if for some reason the shared parent company did intend to re-release the material under a CC license, I don't think that is something for us to assume. Aoi (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think all videos/images are republished. Some are exclusive to the Vogue Taiwan channel, while others are republished from places like Vanity Fair. So, why not keep the ones original to Vogue Taiwan and delete the republished ones? I don’t think there are many published ones, but maybe I’m wrong, I’m not sure. Lililolol (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I guess I can write them an email asking about this? Should I? Lililolol (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, please write. They may well not answer, most people I write like that don't answer. But some do! It won't hurt. --GRuban (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to add on along with Vanity Fair, the other channels it's copying from include: Architectural Digest, American Vogue, Teen Vogue, British Vogue, Allure, Wired, and Glamour. It's a lot of leeway to give one channel to repost other channels' content. Diddykong1130 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At what point to we ask the foundation to try contacting them? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 05:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY vs CC-BY-SA

Hi, despite my research, I've not found understandable information about licensing as CC-BY-SA. So please report (an give a link) if the indicated title has already been covered/answered.

I wonder know if, for a derived work from an original licensed CC-BY one:

I must attribute a CC-BY license
I must attribute a CC-BY-SA license
I shall attribute either a CC-BY or a CC-BY-SA license (upon my choice)

And, in the latter case (a CC-BY-SA licence), what are implications:

for a derived work of my work

i.e. restrictions for the licensee, between my licence (CC-BY-SA), and the original licence (CC-BY)

Thanks a lot, yours, En rouge (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may publish your creatively derived work under any license, provided that you attribute the author of the previous work and that you indicate that the previous work is under CC BY. If someone publishes a work that derives from something created by you in your CC BY-SA work, they must publish their work under CC BY-SA. If their work derives from the previous CC BY work by the other author only, without including anything created by you, they may publish their work under any license with attribution to the other author and mention that the previous work is under CC BY. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@En rouge: I think Asclepias slightly misunderstood your question here (not entirely their fault, I didn't read it correctly at first either.) You seem to be asking what are your obligations if you create a work that derives from a work under either a CC-BY license or a CC-BY-SA license.

For both licenses, you must give attribution; in particular, you must attribute whose work you are using.
For both licenses, you must make it clear what came from the original work and what does not.
If the original work was offered under the CC-BY-SA license, you have the additional obligation that you must offer your own (derivative work) under the same license.
- As a result, your work is necessarily CC-BY-SA, so a reuser has exactly the same obligation, both to the original author and to you.
If the original work was under CC-BY and you are offering CC-BY-SA, you certainly couldn't go wrong by saying that, but I'm not sure it's an obligation. Since you are publishing under a narrower license, I don't think you are obligated to indicate that some portions of your work could be used under a broader one. That is the one point on which I'm uncertain; I've always avoided that. Someone else may have more clarity on this point.

So, in particular, if you derive from a CC-BY image, and you license yours as CC-BY-SA (because the other way around is impossible) a further reuser of your work:

Must link the [relevant version of] the CC-BY-SA license. The original CC-BY license is irrelevant, because it cannot be used for this derivative work.
Must attribute both you and the author of the original work.
Must be clear what changes (if any) are theirs
Must license their work with the same version of the CC-BY-SA license as you offered.

Does that fully answer your question? Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think my answer addressed the specific questions asked.

On the need to mention the CC BY license of the original work, please refer to section 3-a.1.C. of the CC BY 4.0 license:

"If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: [...] indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.

(In versions 1.0 through 3.0, it can be good practice under section 8.b.)

-- Asclepias (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asclepias and Jmabel: thanks for your replies, despite my confusing request!

Asclepias (talk · contribs), I'm approximately aware that attribution mentions are mandatory in my work to specify the required attribution by the original author. But Jmabel (talk · contribs), thanks to his examples, give me additional information about my request.

If I summarize:

from a work with CC-BY, I have no obligation to license my derivative work under CC-BY-SA (unless I incorporate a CC-BY-SA work: I then deliver my work with the same CC-BY-SA license)
It's better to avoid a CC-BY-SA license, except as required in the example above
I must detail the attributions as much as requested by the successive authors

Thanks, En rouge (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chucky portrait Child's Play.jpg

I asked about File:Chucky portrait Child's Play.jpg back in August 2024, but it got archived without ever receiving a response. Is this file OK as licensed or is it a case of Flickrwashing involving a derivative work? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I took a look at the EN articles about the franchise and into the Chucky category. Based upon these infos, I would consider that the individual image named here may only be an expression of an idea (per Commons:Fan art#Ideas aren't copyrighted) and not a copyvio of some concise expression (but I'm not watching such media, so I cannot say for sure - I only heard about the name of "Chucky", but I did not know about its appearances before). Certainly borderline, so I hope for other opinions, too. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it is not a drawing but rather a photograph of a Chucky toy or collectible figure. We would need the creator of the depicted toy to agree to licensing this under a free license. Relevant policy pages: COM:DW, COM:TOY. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quien corresponda

solicitud,para incorporar a wikipedia,toda la información sin excepción de los archivos de wiki leaks! Potrostar (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Potrostar: (1) ¿Wikipedia en cual idioma? Cada wikipedia es independiente. (2) Claramente, no aquí, esto es Wikimedia Commons, no wikipedia, y esta página es un lugar solamente para preguntas acerca de derechos del autor. También, (3) la mayoría del contenido de wikileaks no está en el alcance de wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 05:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY license, without attribution text/information

Some (or many) CC-BY licensed files are missing "attribution" attribute in {{Information}} (Summary) section.

I suppose this "attribution" tag shall be the proper location to give the required text for attribution, but:
- note1: this tag is created by {{Credit line}}, in entry "other_fields", in {{Information}} template (nothing seeming related to "attribution")!!!
- note2: {{Credit line}} only require a "license" value!
without mandatory "attribution" text
for a CC-BY... license, no "attribution" information seem to be checked.
- as Category:CC-BY, and its sub-categories, are automatically populated with file license of these kinds, why not populate a category such as Category:CC-BY without formal attribution?

Thanks for reading. Despite my searches, please indicate if this subject was already answered.

Note: as a sample, please see Systeme olfactif.png for my additions, I assume they are required for CC-BY files.

PS: this section is a copy of suppressed one at ~~Commons:Village_pump/Technical#CC-BY_license,_without_attribution_text/information~~

En rouge (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution requirement says: "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." So, if there's no apparent wish by the licensor, then the part "in any reasonable manner" will come into effect. For Commons stuff, it'll be at least the uploader's or source user name. Such a category as suggested would only be a quite marginal quality-of-life improvement, if at all, als a lot of people won't care about how they may get attributed. So, what would be the point in having it? Enticing licensors in making a formal attribution statement? If I'm not mistaken, most files (at least more than half) aren't sourced from Commons contributors themselves, but from external parties (US Gov, Flickr, etc.), so the opportunity to make a formal attribution statement is only open to a smaller crowd of people who contribute their own work. I do not see the use case of such a category at the moment. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK,

but if you look at my sample above, the document from which the picture is extracted, the original publisher request:

a copyright: "© 2020 Rice University"
an attribution: "Access for free at https://openstax.org"

In this case, the information is given... but not followed.

As you can see, there are many images, extracted from this same source (or similar documents from the same website), for which no copyright, or attribution is given.

Yours, En rouge (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@En rouge: A more normal way to do that would be something like {{cc-by-4.0|Access for free at https//openstax.org}}. I'm not sure what you are trying to do with that {{F}}, but it doesn't seem to be working so I'm leaving it out of my example. My point is, any specific attribution is inserted like this as part of the license. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

「主腳」商標的原創性？ Zhujiao massage trademark: TOO Taiwan?

我在讀臺灣的「113年度民商訴字第13號」判決（判決書），裡面有用到COM:TOO Taiwan的概念。判決認為判決中的價目表並沒有原創性。但中間講商標的我就看不懂了：

左側之系爭商標……及英文……僅為表彰提供該等按摩服務者為原告，難認有何美術技巧之存在，亦無從表現出著作人之個人獨特思想、情感或精神上作用。是系爭價目表整體構圖、文字排列方式綜合觀之，不足以表現著作人之思想或感情，而未顯現出著作人精神作用獨特個性之美感，即不符合一定之創作高度……

問題來了：請問這裡判決認為「「主腳」商標」沒有原創性嗎？還是我讀錯了？

(English translation. Replying in English is fine, but judicial terms may incorrect) I am reading a Taiwanese verdict using COM:TOO Taiwan, "113年度民商訴字第13號" (verdict). The verdict believed that the price table does not meet the threshold of originality, but the following quotation about the logo confused me:

(My translation) The logo... and the English text on the left... only attribute that the massage shop is the plaintiff, it is hard to tell if there are any artistic skills, nor any personal idea on it. The price list, therefore, does not express the author's idea, felling, and didn't show unique aesthetic perception, thus does not have a certain level of creativity...

The question is, is the verdict implied that the "主腳" logo is under COM:TOO Taiwan? Or did I get the wrong message? Saimmx (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The verdict is saying the logo was included in the price table only to indicate who was providing the service, so there was not enough artistic skills or personal idea for the inclusion of the logo. So I think it is not implying the logo is under TOO, instead it is implying the price table is under TOO, even if it includes a logo that is above TOO. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

License for old photo

Hi, it's about this passport photo from 1919. I assume that due to its age, it's not problematic in terms of copyright (even though the image subject died in 1978, thus has not been dead for 70 years - which could easily be true for the photographer too).
However, the uploader entered his own name as author and "own work", which is certainly not correct. How do we handle these cases? And is the license he chose the correct one for this situation? Thanks, --91.34.39.223 22:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Would this be considered a lichtbild (simple photograph)? Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: Most likely not. Courts consider almost every photograph to be a photographic work now, with few exceptions like automated photos from photo booths or similar, x-rays, surveillance camera photos. This looks like a posed photo taken by a photographer, so it's a photographic work. de.wp would accept the photo if it actually is from 1919 as claimed (per their pragmatic rule for works which are at least 100 years old), but de:Adam Orth says the photo is from the 1920s. So it might be not old enough for de.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 06:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TOO question

Would File:HOLO cards.jpg be above the TOO? Sdkb ^talk 23:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To err on the side of caution, and by comparison with info in COM:TOO US, I'd say "yes". And the state of Hawaii seems to grant copyrights on official works, unlike PD-USGov, see https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/hawaii/ . Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Real Sociedad Deportiva Alcalá (1980) escudo.png

Any Spanish speakers that would be able to verify if this file is in the public domain and if so relicense the file and close the DR? Jonteemil (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have good foreigner's Spanish, and I've asked a question there; it isn't like looking at some one page will tell us the status of the image. - Jmabel ! talk 06:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible to use on Wikipedia?

Does anybody know if these are able to be used on Wikipedia? [2] [3] [4] Noorullah21 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any information on those images being in the Public Domain or being licensed under a Creative Commons, so they are not suitable for wiki Commons. As for Wikipedia (which is not the same as Commons), it would depend on which Wikipedia you want them to be. The English Wikipedia, for example, allows images to be uploaded under a Fair Use rationale if certain criteria are met. But there are also Wikipedias in other languages which do not allow Fair Use or which have other criteria when allowing Fair Use, so you'll have to ask at the Wikipedia where you want to host those images what their rules are for Fair Use. Nakonana (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intending to use them on English Wikipedia, do you know where I can ask? Noorullah21 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21: English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and generally images of artwork are OK to upload only when they're used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the work itself. In some cases, a non-free image of an artist's work might be possible to justify as a representative example of the artist's particular technique or style in a sub-section of a stand-alone article about the artist themselves, but this generally requires the work itself be the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources and usually only a minimal numbers of examples is considered appropriate. In other words, simply adding non-free images of an artist's work to an article just to show the work is generally not allowed because doing so is almost always considered to be en:WP:DECORATIVE non-free use. Given that the images seemed to be sourced to Alamy, there are also going to be issues related to item 7 of en:WP:NFC#UUI and item #8 of en:WP:NFCI because relevant English Wikipedia policy places even further restrictions on non-free content sourced to commercial image sources. Anyway, if you'd like to feed more specific feedback as to whether it would be OK to upload these as non-free use, you can ask at en:WT:NFCC or en:WP:MCQ. It will help others assess the potential for non-free use if you're a specific as possible about where you want to use the content and how you want to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:GenSagat.jpg

File:GenSagat.jpg seems very unlikely to be the uploader's own work, but perhaps there's a way for it to be relicensed per COM:India so that it can be kept. Can anyone find out any information about this file's provenance? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gladys May Casely Hayford.jpg

File:Gladys May Casely Hayford.jpg is sourced to some Pintrest account which seems likely to be the original source of the image. The subject of the photo en:Gladys May Casely Hayford is from Sierra Leone, and perhaps there's a way per COM:Sierra Leone for this relicensed so that it can be kept. The subject died in 1950 but there's no indication as to when this photo was taken or where it was taken. The photo is used on lots of pages, but its current CC license seems totally wrong, and most like was just chosen at random by the uploader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the photographer is not known, it may be in the public domain in Sierra Leone as more than 50 years have passed for sure. Bedivere (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:AgnesSavage.jpg

File:AgnesSavage.jpg seems to be incorrectly licensed. The subject of the photo is en:Agnes Savage, who died in 1964, is described as Nigerian-Scottish. The file's description states author is Savage's family and the source is Henry Mitchell/Centre of African studies, but there's no way to verify either. The file is being used in lots of articles, but I don't think Commons can keep it as licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source would be centreofafricanstudies.wordpress, where Henry Mitchell writes that photos of Agnes Savage were provided by Mike Savage, the nephew of the subject. However, that does not tell the author and the copyright status. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Kuber by Tillmann Sänger.png

Vermutlich inoffiziell und daher unter Copyright - probably non-official coat of arms of a village, probably copyvio. GerritR (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated video

President Donald Trump recently shared an AI-generated music video, and since I'm not familiar with Commons policies on AI-generated media, I would like to know if it's permissible to upload it here. [5] – Anwon (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just from a US copyright perspective, if that video was wholly generated by AI then yes the work is copyright free. But per the recent guidance from the US Copyright Office, there are a range of possibilities that could impact the video's eligibility for copyright. I'd think we'd need confirmation on how exactly the video was created, beyond just "AI-generated", which is clear but not specific enough. Other thoughts? 19h00s (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a music video, we'll have sound, background images and actors. That are three different sets of material to be generated by AI (or directly sourced from existing material). Currently, there's evidence that AI training amounts to copyright infringement, see these articles: https://www.heise.de/en/news/Really-bad-for-the-AI-industry-AI-company-loses-in-first-US-legal-dispute-10279136.html and https://torrentfreak.com/meta-torrented-over-81-tb-of-data-through-annas-archive-despite-few-seeders-250206/ Especially music and depictions of persons would be a liability for us, as there is not enough free (read: freely licensed) training material available. So, I'd say: not permissible for uploading by COM:PRP + COM:DW. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the video has been shared by Trump on his official account and as part of his duties as President. It is in the public domain regardless of the AI status. Bedivere (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does "sharing" constitute "work by a member of US government". Can an "AI" be considered to be a worker of the US government? Would an otherwise protected work become public domain, if it was uploaded to commons by the official wiki account of Donald Trump as part of this duties? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated works are generally in the public domain because there’s no human author to claim copyright. However, if there’s significant creative input from a human, that could change, and the work could become copyrighted. In this case, since the video was posted directly by President Trump, it’s undoubtedly an official communication tied to his duties as President. Given that context, any creative input would be considered part of his official role, which places the work in the public domain. At least that's how I understand US copyright. @Abzeronow could you please enlighten us? :-) Bedivere (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If all the creative work came from U.S. government employees, then it is in the public domain. Not true, though, if they were contractors or campaign staff. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some media outlets claim that the video long existed before Donald Trump shared it, so it would be wrong to assume it came from him or another US government employee. – Anwon (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times calls it "generated by AI" [6] with an unknown origin. "No quedó claro de inmediato el origen del video ni su autor, y Trump no añadió ningún comentario a la publicación en las redes sociales que lo compartió. En las últimas semanas, habían aparecido versiones del video en redes sociales como LinkedIn, X e Instagram. El video compartido en la cuenta de Trump parecía haber sido descargado de Rumble, una plataforma de video con sede en Florida y popular entre la derecha" ("the origin or author of the video was not immediately clear, and Trump did not add any comment to the social networks posts that shared it. In the last weeks, there were versions of the video on social networks like LinkedIn, X and Instagram. The video shared on Trump's account seemed to have been downloaded from Rumble, a Florida based video platform that is popular among the right-wingers"). Bedivere (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trump - Long Live the King.jpg is an image of similar provenance. Whatever the consensus of this discussion, it will likely also apply to that image. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just looping back around to say there is still definitively not enough clarity for this video to be uploaded here. NBC has the details on who created the video, but their reporting is not clear on how much of the video/which elements of the work were completely AI-generated and how much was created by human authors. The co-creators of the video are also the founders of a start-up that uses AI as a video tool for commercials, but the company also uses non-AI generated content within those commercials; it's not clear to what extent this particular video used AI vs a human's work. And again, per the recent report from the US Copyright Office (whose jurisdiction this would fall under as it was created and published in the United States), the copyrightability of an AI-generated or AI-assisted work hinges on how much of the work was generated by a model and how much was created by a human. I don't philosophically agree with their guidelines per se, but that's what would govern this situation until a court weighs in. 19h00s (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tolbertfamily1913.jpg

Since there's no information on the provenance of File:Tolbertfamily1913.jpg found on the file's page, there's no really way to verify the uploader's claim of "own owrk" or their choice of licensing. It seems near impossible that the uploader took this photo themselves if it was taken in 1913 as the file name seems to claim, but it could've been a family photo passed down from generation to generation. The "cc-by-4.0" also seem wrong if the file is that old, but there's a good chance that the photo might already have entered into the public domain if the photo was taken shortly after en:William Tolbert was born in 1913 and he is the baby in the photo given that COM:Liberia (likely where the photo was taken) says Liberian copyright law allows anonymous photos copyright protection for 50 years after creation/first publication. There's no way to be sure the if the photo was published prior to being uploaded to Commons, and I didn't find any examples of such after a cursory Google Images' search. Is there enough here to somehow treat the photo as {{PD-Liberia}} and {{PD-US-expired}} to relicense it as such because I don't think Commons should be keeping it as currently licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to be sure the if the photo was published prior to being uploaded to Commons — keep in mind that different countries have different definitions of what is meant by the word "published". The definition of this word can simply mean that the photographer gave the photo to the depicted persons. In some countries such an act would mean that the photo was "published". So, if the photo is in anyone's possession other than the photographer's then it was "published" and Commons would not be the first place of publication. Nakonana (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's a valid point to make; however, I'm not sure how to verify such a thing other than to assume that the photo was given to the depicted persons after it was developed. If that's fine for Commons, then perhaps 1913 should be assumed to be the date of first publication and the file should be re-licensed as {{PD-Liberia}}. There's still no real other information about the source of the photo even if it's assumed to be anonymous. Once again, if that's OK for Commons, then great, and this can be resolved fairly easily. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tubman&Tolbert commemorative wrap 1968.jpg

File:Tubman&Tolbert commemorative wrap 1968.jpg seems to be nothing more than a case of COM:2D copying in which someone uploaded a photo they took of someone else's creative work to Flickr and then licensed it as if it was their own work. Unintentional perhaps, but it still seems like a case of COM:LL, in which there's no copyright for the photo per se (so the Flickr licensing is not really relevant), but perhaps the photographed work itself is still eligible for copyright protection because it's a derivative work in its own right (copyrights for each photo and for the work as a whole). The subject of the photograph appears to be related to the en:1967 Liberian general election and the inaugural events associated with it; so, perhaps there's a way to relicense this per COM:Liberia. I don't, however, think Commons should keep the file as it's currently licensed because the {{cc-by-2.0}} seems incorrect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Frederick Hope .jpg

Given that en:Thomas Frederick Hope died in 1996, the date given in the description for File:Thomas Frederick Hope .jpg can't be the date the photo was taken. There's also no EXIF data or anything else in the file's description that aids in verifying the en:provenance of the file or that the photo is indeed the COM:Own work of the uploader. I'm unable to find any indication that the file was published prior to being uploaded to Commons; so, I'm not sure how to determine when it was actually taken or whether it was published per COM:Sierra Leone. The photo has kind of an official look to it, perhaps a press photo of some kind, and seems unlikely to be private photo. Can Commons keep this as licensed or is there a way to relicense it in a way that works for Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images from a book on the San Francisco Earthquake 1906

I have a book of Arnold Genthe's photographs of the San Francisco Earthquake. Some of the images from this book are in the National Archives. Some are not. Does Wikimedia commons want old photographs, that are public domain U.S. from books like these? I am happy to upload good images from the book that are not in the National Archive. My question is: Is it ok to upload public domain images from books? thx MauraWen (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MauraWen: Hi, and welcome. You may certainly such images. You may even upload the entire book. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(if the book itself is in the public domain) — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When was this book published? Is there a copyright notice in the book? If yes and published before 1964, was the copyright renewed? Yann (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons should want them if it is certain that they are in the public domain from the circumstances of their publication, for example if they are from the non-renewed 1936 book As I remember that's good, and if Commons does not have them. FWIW, in its collection the Library of Congres tags 5 photos as "No known restrictions" and 28 photos as "Rights not evaluated". -- Asclepias (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G., Yann, and Asclepias: Published in 2021. Copyright 2021, Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. I find this all pretty confusing. I have read that museums can put copyrights on their images, but that the images may still be in the public domain if published in the U.S. before 1926. Looks like these images are not ok to upload given this copyright by Fine Arts of SF and your comments. Thx y'all for your advice. MauraWen (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are difficult cases. These images are in the public domain if published before 1930, or if published before 1964 without a copyright notice, or if never published before 2003, as per {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Yann (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MauraWen: They might be in the public domain or not. A research might find when and how the photographs were published, other than in that book. Does that book tell anything about the publication history of the photographs or about their copyright status and ownership as different from the book? - Asclepias (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann and Asclepias: It appears that after Genthe's death in 1943, many of his negatives and photographs were sold to the Library of Congress. The SF Legion of Honor bought over 40 negatives and prints from Genthe's estate, which they had printed for the Photographs of the San Francisco Fire exhibition in 1943. Subsequently, prints were published from the original negatives over the years for different people, publications and possibly exhibitions. It appears that in 2014, the disintegrating negatives were restored and high-resolution digital images were made. I believe many of the photographs in the book are from the restored negatives. MauraWen (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MauraWen: Negatives and photographs might be sold to the Library of Congress, but it is unlikely that the copyright was. There is quite a chance that they are in the public domain, but a little bit more information is needed IMO. Yann (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quickest way to find out is likely to do a reverse image search on Google and see if they pop up somewhere, to show that they were published before 1929 now I guess. Likely also in older newspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dopravní podnik města Pardubic.png

I'm not sure whether this image is free or not. COM:NOP Czechia seems to suggest that because this is the logo of a municipal government-owned company, that this might be protected, but it's not quite clear to me whether this applies in this case. The page itself says that the logo is too simple to warrant protection. Are any of these correct? DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how stringent Threshhold of Originality is in Czechia but in most jurisdictions that would be above it. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq and the Marrakesh VIP Treaty

The latest Circular 38A shows that Iraq has signed the Marrakesh VIP treaty as of 2024 [7], does that affect the copyright tag here on Commons? Or does the USA not having copyright relations with Iraq negate the effects of the VIP treaty? Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To sign that treaty and no other copyright treaty is almost bizarre. But reading the treaty at https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/textdetails/13169, it doesn't apply any new restrictions for works, and hence doesn't matter for us. There's nothing to negate; the treaty says mainly that Iraq should be providing certain freedoms to produce works for the blind without permission of the rights holder. It might facilitate the Library of Congress and similar organizations that produce such works for the blind to provide them to people in Iraq.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Questions regarding works created by the Michigan Department of Transportation.

Hello! I am a little new to this but I have uploaded several images created by the Michigan Department of Transportation. I think they are public domain but I am not sure. They were produced by the agency and it is covered under a FOIA request if one is made (but these poster boards were shared at a public meeting). I was wondering if there was any precedent for this. It is not a US Federal Agency. Any advice would be really great. I want to include some of these on the Wikipedia article for it.

Files in question:

File:I-696 Public Meeting Boards.pdf

File:I-696 Public Meeting Boards Page 1.tif

File:I-696 Public Meeting Boards Page 2.tif

File:I-696 Public Meeting Boards Page 3.tif

File:I-696 Public Meeting Boards Page 4.tif

File:I-696 Public Meeting Boards Page 5.tif

File:I-696 Public Meeting Boards Page 6.tif

Jake01756 (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake01756: I'm completely missing why you think these are in the public domain. Could you spell that out? - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are in the public domain because it is produced by the state government. Can state government works be copyrighted? Jake01756 (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/michigan/ per link "By Michigan statute, "[t]he state administrative board may copyright literary, educational, artistic, or intellectual works in the name of this state and license the production or sale of those works." Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 17.401." Abzeronow (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay let me see if I can get someone from MDOT to see if they have released them in the public domain. Jake01756 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having someone from MDOT who is authorized to deal with copyrights contact COM:VRT might also be helpful. Abzeronow (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also two more questions. These images were also used by several local news outlets and credited them to MDOT. Is this not sufficient because the license they have is not explicitly specified?

question 2: how would I prove to wikimedia commons that I got approval for uploading them? Jake01756 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake01756: : On your first question: news outlets could have used them either on a fair-use basis or with explicit permission. By far the least likely scenario is that the government gave a general free license.

On your second question: there are basically two ways to do this. (1) They could post the license to their website or one clearly under their control (e.g. if the DOT has a Flickr page). (2) The VRT process, where their authorized representative (not you) would send the appropriate permission by email to the VRT.

I hope that's clear; please feel free to ask a further question if it isn't. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this file File:Interstate_696_pedestrian_plazas_Oak_Park.jpg was taken by MDOT and has some communication about being released into the public domain. Does that cover this file?

ticket #2012101110013816 Jake01756 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also did shoot someone at MDOT an email. Jake01756 (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake01756: (1) the only place you are likely get any useful response about a VRT ticket is at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard. (2) When you send them an email, I hope you first understood the issue well and asked the right questions. See Commons:Uploading works by a third party#What not to do. - Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-GallicaScan and Template:PD-BNF

First of all, I'd like to mention that en:Template:If_in_category would be very useful here. Using that to check for common PD categories would allow suppression of any alarmist text on any page also containing a second PD template. There is ABSOLUTELY no need for any page that's in, say, Category:PD-old-100-expired to have any notice beyond "Template:PD-GallicaScan/BNF is depreciated. If this is being used to link to the source of the image, use Template:Gallica. Otherwise, it can be removed."

File:Félix_Nadar_1820-1910_portraits_Eugène_Labiche.jpg is a good example as to why simple removal is problematic: The link under "Source" is to Gallica's main page; the link it {{PD-BNF}} is to the exact page on Gallica.

Secondly, the number of usages is smaller than before, but still extant - there are about 25,000 transclusions.

If we're not going to deal with them, then something like "Template PD-XXX is depriciated. Please replace this with a more specific public domain rationale [link to Copyright rules by territory]. [If the source parameter is set, add: "Use {{Gallica|SOURCEPARAMETER}}</nowiki> to indicate where this file came from.]"

MUCH SMALLER TEXT: "If no valid public domain rationale exists, this may need to be nominated for deletion, but that should only apply to a small number of files."

Because the vast majority of these files are clearly, obviously, patently in the public domain. Alarmist text, especially with other public domain tags that use it as basically a replacement for {{PD-Scan}}, really isn't helping anything unless it's going to be fully dealt with quickly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Thanks Adam. Yann (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good time, really, to develop a standard procedure for depreciating a PD template. Because we shouldn't have utter chaos just because something needs recategorised. There's a difference between Template:PD-because-God-revealed-to-me-it-was-in-a-vision-ignore-the-lawsuit and cases we actually deal with. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"depreciating" => "deprecating", I presume. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not words I use a lot, admittedly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Font of Chinese, Japanese, Korean (CJK) scripts / character

Take a look at this: File:Logo of Esuwiki.svg.

I'm not sure if en:WP:PDFONT also applies to languages that don't have an alphabet. English language, along with many other European ones, reuses the same alphabet very often in speaking and writing, but for CJK, most of the characters are seldom used, And sometimes, the writing of them itself can be seen as an artwork, see en:Calligraphy.

The font I used is '经典繁方篆', downloaded from a random font site; the TTF file doesn't have any author information, but the version field has something like 'Version V1.00, August 1995'. Akishima Yuka (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the old/traditional fonts, such as 宋體 or 明體, were already in PD. So if the font you used was based on old calligraphy, as it appears to be, this means it would also be in PD.
For computer fonts in general, I’m not sure about the copyright law for this in mainland China/Japan/Korea, but in Taiwan, copyright of computer fonts only covers the use of entire characters set, but not use of individual characters (see article from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office: [8]). So it may be a good idea to check if the copyright laws in mainland China/Japan/Korea covers this too.

Tvpuppy (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my observation, it’s still controversial and in discussion, for the individual character uses of fonts in China. Different courts[9] and law firms holds varying opinions.

For your link about video captions, it goes into the use of meaning of characters (literary work), but for this logo, the specific writing, that is graphic design is used.

I’ve also checked the four popular authors, FounderType[10], Hanyi, Arphic and DynaComware, and confirmed that it’s not their font. Akishima Yuka (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diamed-LISS-Coombs-ID-Card.jpg

A while after uploading, I noticed that there was a small Bio-Rad logo on the image. Is this a copyright infringement? Bondarev.gal (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your image should be fine, the logo should be simple enough to be below COM:TOO, and even if not, it is small enough to be de minimis. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! Bondarev.gal (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beverly J. White portrait.jpg

User:Pinkturkeys uploaded some photos and claims to be White's granddaughter. I find this very believable since none of these images show up in any image search and they have a collection of White's documents and images. How can this situation be fixed so that the images remain up? Wouldn't she hold some right to the copyright as a descendant of White? Jon698 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the portrait looks professionally made. So, the copyright belongs to the photographer, not to White or her descendants. 14:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that this is U.S. circa 1970, what the previous user (who did not sign) says would not be true if the photo had been published at that time without copyright notice: that would have placed it in the public domain. Given that this was a political officeholder, it is likely that she did not just have this for her personal use, and under the common practice of the time, it is unlikely any copyright notices were involved when it was distributed.

We should at least ask the uploader if they know anything about whether this was a personal or public-facing photo. - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Thank you for bringing that up. I asked that question on Wikipedia and she answered it here. Jon698 (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698: One other thing is that since this is a photo of a photo, it might be a good idea to use the wrapper {{Licensed PD-Art}} once you get the copyright licensing of the original photo sorted out. Even though a copyright license for only the original photo itself is probably more than sufficient for the US, some other countries (I think one is the UK) might also consider the photo of the photo to be eligible for copyright protection; so, the {{cc-zero}} license the uploader chose for their photo would take care of that. The wrapper just basically "wraps" everything together to make things a bit clearer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Eve Drewelowe

Hi, We have some works by American painter Eve Drewelowe (1899–1988) without a proper license:

File:Reincarnation Drewelowe.jpg (1939) might in the public domain for lack of copyright notice or renewal.
File:Maverick Drewelowe.jpg (1984) seems more unlikely to be in the public domain.

Any idea? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchinson's Story of the Nations

Hi, We have many illustrations from this book, especially about India. Some of these illustrations are credited to Category:Harry Marriott Burton (1882-1979), but he seems to be only the publisher. The chapter about India seems to be written by James Meston (1865-1943). Also there is no publication date at the source. Duplicate category says 1915, which looks plausible. Are these illustrations OK for Commons? If yes, with which license? Yann (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Ajax figurehead

File:Figurehead of HMS Ajax (1809) NMM L4473.jpg, as a sculpture, clearly has the wrong licence: PD-Art, and lacks a UK template. The object itself, made in 1809, is clearly out of copyright, but what about the photo, sourced from the National Maritime Museum/NMG website?

There is no authorship or copyright info on that webpage, but as it doesn't mention a third party, I suppose that it was most likely taken by NMM staff. The website's default copyright seems to be CC BY-NC-ND. The exif data seem limited to photoshopping in 2010/11, apparently by Tina Warner - as she is photographic studio manager at NMM she likely took the photo herself. - Davidships (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships: as you probably know, we can't accept an NC or ND license. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised that, but not confidant that I have analysed this correctly. I didn't want to propose deletion and then find I had missed something obvious! - Davidships (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review of COM:FOP Malawi

I suggest we review again our interpretation of Malawian FoP as per COM:FOP Malawi (latest version of the law as per WIPO Lex is from 2016). Based on my understanding, there is partial FoP only for buildings, and the non-commercial restriction only applies to "works of art":

Reproduction and making available to the public by photography, cinematography, drawing or similar means of depiction of an artistic work is permitted when the work is
(a) included in the picture or recording by way of background or as incidental, to the essential matters represented;
(b) a work of architecture in the form of a building; or
(c) a work of art permanently located in a place outdoors where it can be viewed by the public:
Provided that pictures or recordings in which the work of art clearly is the principal motif, shall not be commercially exploited without the consent of the author.

My reading of the clause: it is allowed to create images (like photos and videos) of artistic works in the three cases mentioned above, as long as images of works of art cannot be used commercially if those are the main subjects. Note that the non-commercial restriction applies to "works of art" that is applicable to the third case (for "works of art" permanently located in public places). The second case is specifically for the buildings, and I don't think the NC restriction applies to the buildings. If the buildings were to be included in this restriction, the term that should have been used is the same term as used in the first part of the clause: "artistic works".

This is based on my reading/interpretation. However, I won't make any changes for COM:FOP Malawi unless there's a consensus to do so. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I was the one who decided the entire Malawian FoP as NOT OK, but if more users agree that the non-commercial restriction only applies to "works of art" as opposed to "artistic works" (and therefore we can host modern Malawian buildings), we can change FoP-Malawi as partially OK in the similar manner as Denmark, Taiwan, Russia, and Japan (partial FoP countries). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, while the "P" in "provided" in the NC restriction is capitalized, it is preceded by a colon (:) that is found at the end of the third case (c). This means the third case is connected to the NC restriction, and the restriction is for the third case (works of art) only, not including buildings. Perhaps, Malawi is yes-FoP only for buildings, but no commercial FoP for works of art, similar to Denmark, Japan, Russia, Finland, and Norway.

Ping @Clindberg and Aymatth2: for comments/perspectives. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree. Clause (b) is about a "work of architecture", and clause (c) distinguishes those from a "work of art", and the non-commercial clause references "the work of art" specifically, so I think that clause refers to part (c) alone. It can't apply to all three since applying it to part (a) is nonsensical. So yes, I think this is building-only FoP (well, building-only commercial FoP). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]