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.


Old orphan works[edit]

Hi, FYI, I closed this as "accepted". No real opposition, and stalled for nearly 2 months. Can anyone help create a template for these? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were the proposer of that proposal, should you have closed it? Nonetheless, you may understand the intricacies of your proposal better than I do, but I don't think your addition of Commons:Licensing#Old_orphan_works accurately reflects the consensus of that discussion. As I understood it the consensus was that, absent evidence to the contrary, that for old orphan works it is reasonable to assume publication contemporaneous with creation despite lack of evidence of publication. So for example, the consensus of that discussion seems to be that it is reasonable for an orphan work created in France in 1900 to be tagged {{PD-old-assumed}}{{PD-US-expired}} (or, more compactly, {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}) by assuming publication contemporaneous with creation. Similarly, a work created in France in 1920 which is determined to be anonymous after a diligent search could be tagged {{PD-France}}{{PD-US-expired}}. However, as an orphan work is not the same as an anonymous or pseudonymous work, an orphaned work created in 1925 in France, where the author is known or otherwise since disclosed, but the date of death is unknown, could not be uploaded until 2046 as assuming publication contemporaneous with creation doesn't help meet the criteria for {{PD-France}} with a known author. —RP88 (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I requested input several times here and on admin board, but got very little answer. I also requested someone else to close, without any answer. There is not much opposition. Now we need a template, and I am open about the wording. Yann (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it possible that no one closed your proposal when you requested a close was because no one felt the discussion was ripe for closure other than you? Why is a new templated needed? If we adopt a policy that, absent evidence to the contrary, for old orphan works it is reasonable to assume publication contemporaneous with creation despite lack of evidence of publication, we can use the existing templates, no need to introduce a new one. —RP88 (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RP88: He actually did the close after I asked him about it on his talk page. So at least I thought it should have been closed. I don't see anything wrong with him doing it either considering how long it was there for and the fact that he's requests for closer were essentially ignored. There was zero reason to keep it open regardless though. It's not like the outcome was going to change or anything if it sat there for a few more months. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Orphan work is a legal term in several jurisdictions (at least in the European Union) and comes with a set of legal obligations Wikimedia Commons cannot satisfy. I asked twice for a definition of the term orphan work as far as that proposal is concerned, but did not get a pertinent answer, at least not by the proposer Yann (LPfi answered with a legal definition which should be that of the EU directive, haven't checked closely). So closing such a poorly defined proposal as accepted when (if I counted correctly) only two users besides the proposer agreed and others voiced different opinions ("handle on a case to case basis") is not ok IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 17:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reference: en:Orphan Works Directive of the European Union (or de:Richtlinie 2012/28/EU (Verwaiste-Werke-Richtlinie) in German). --Rosenzweig τ 17:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was stalled for about 2 months, and it seems quite bad faith to come now and oppose it. Yann (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't even given a proper definition what "orphan works" were supposed to be in the context of the proposal, despite asking twice. Not giving any answer, as the proposer, to that fundamental question, then saying the discussion was "stalled" and accusing others of bad faith is a quite odd modus operandi to say the least. --Rosenzweig τ 19:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still think we should have a workable definition of "orphan works" because what I said is still true "we should clearly define what would qualify as an orphan work because as it is we have uploads that tell us that they're anonymous or unknown when sometimes the bare amount of research or actually looking at the photograph sometimes gives us a named author." Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Orphan work is very well defined in Wikipedia. I added a link. Yann (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia says “An orphan work is a copyright-protected work for which rightsholders are positively indeterminate or uncontactable.” So orphan works, by that definition (which is apparently the one you want to go with), are not free in the sense of Commons:Licensing (“not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose”). Accepting them therefore is contrary to one of the basic principles of Wikimedia Commons. I don't see any consensus for that, let alone consent by the WMF which would probably be needed for such a move. --Rosenzweig τ 19:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems you didn't read my proposal. Most of the works are not free at the time of creation, but they come in the public domain some time later depending on the applied jurisdiction. I don't propose that all orphan works are accepted. Only that some old ones are accepted under a very precise restriction. Yann (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read it, but it's confusingly worded and not precisely defined. But even if you exclude many of these orphan works in your proposal, all of them, including whatever sub-set you apparently want to accept, are still protected by copyright per the en.wp definition you gave. So accepting them is still contrary to one of the basic principles of Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 19:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is precisely defined. Only 2 short sentences. Again, it seems you don't understand my proposal. The orphan works I propose to accept are most likely in the public domain, but we don't have proof of that. That's mostly the difference with current rules: loosening a bit the proof requirements. Yann (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, we sometimes already accept these works, but under convoluted arguments and after much debates. So I propose to formalize and simplify the rules. Some orphan works are accepted if an admin uploads them, while a newbie's upload of the same will be contested. So I propose to have precise and formal rules, so that contestation is not on a whim but on facts. Yann (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "only 2 short sentences" are probably the reason why it is not precisely defined. I'm getting the impression that what you mean by "orphan works" is not the kind of works as mentioned in that definition you linked. Is there some kind of a language problem here? So what do you actually mean by that term? Just linking some Wikipedia definition obviously won't do it, you'll have to describe them in your own words, give some examples. And also explain how the kind of works you mean with that proposal differ from those we already accept with {{PD-old-assumed}}. Is your proposal just another version of PD-old-assumed, except it's anything either older than 95 years (unless we know an author and the year they died) or meeting the requirements of {{PD-1996}}? Is this only for works for which we don't know the author, or is it also for works where we do know an author, but not when (s)he/they died? Is it only for photographs or also for drawings/paintings/sculptures, books? Will there be some research required to establish this "orphan work" (or whatever it actually is) status, or do you propose that we just accept anything without further questions? There are so many undefined variables and open questions here. This is anything but precise. --Rosenzweig τ 21:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your clear questions. "Orphan works" mean works "whose authors or other right holders are not known or cannot be located." For example, most graffiti are orphan works. I don't propose we accept recent orphan works, only those sufficiently old than they are most probably in the public domain. I mean to include all kinds of works. I gave as an example a picture of my grands-parents' wedding (1920). Currently we sometimes accept this kind of pictures as anonymous work, but 1. there is always a debate about the photographer's anonymity; 2. we currently require a proof of publication. So I propose that, since it is an orphan work (the last person who might have known the photographer's name died about 40 years ago), 1. we don't require a research about the photographer; 2. we don't require a proof of publication. I am quite open about other criteria. Is that clearer? I am quite open about other criteria. Yann (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see many problems here. They might not be very obvious in your example (1920 family photos), but the proposal is not restricted to family photos, indeed you say that you mean to include all kinds of works. In order:

  • whose authors or other right holders are not known: Not known to whom, and not known according to whom? For the family photos in your example the person who has the prints and perhaps his immediate family are the obvious people who don't know this and say that they don't know. But what about, say, random photos or illustrations grabbed from somewhere on the Internet and dated to 1927? Do you want to accept that the authors of these are "unknown" if not mentioned by the web site the files were taken from, and don't require any research about the author (as you wrote above)? Even when, as Abzeronow writes above, "sometimes the bare amount of research or actually looking at the photograph sometimes gives us a named author"?
  • whose authors or other right holders cannot be located: What do you mean by "cannot be located"? That the heirs ("other rights holders") of some authors are not immediately known? Or that somebody (who?) was not able to find their contact address? Etc. Again, probably not a big problem with your example of 1920 family photos, but much more tricky with, say, random files from the Internet.
  • they are most probably in the public domain: We're talking about 95 year old works here. If they are truly anonymous in a legal sense, those would indeed be in the PD in a 70 years pma country. But can we really make that determination in the case of my example files taken from somewhere on the Internet? (For German paintings, drawings, illustrations etc. before mid-1995 we definitely cannot because the old law still valid for those cases excluded them from the "anonymous works" category.) Considering the 70 years post mortem auctoris for 95 year old works, any author would have needed to die within 25 years after creation for the work to be in the public domain (vs. death within 50 years after creation for {{PD-old-assumed}}). I think it is somewhat reasonable to assume that a large majority of authors will have died within 50 years of creating a specific work. I do not think it is reasonable to assume that a large majority of authors will have died within 25 years of creating a specific work. So I do not share your assessment that the works we are talking about are most probably in the public domain.
  • What about audio recordings (of music)? The 95 year US terms and {{PD-1996}} on which the proposal are apparently modeled do not apply to them, indeed they have very different and often longer US terms. You say that you mean to include all kinds of works, and this is one of the other kinds of works.

These are only some of the questions that need to be addressed and answered before the proposal can perhaps be included in Commons:Licensing. As of now, it is much too vague and undefined. --Rosenzweig τ 16:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I think it is somewhat reasonable to assume that a large majority of authors will have died within 50 years of creating a specific work." Then I guess it's reasonable to presume I'm dead. - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel This came up in the discussion about {{PD-old-assumed}}, we decided to count an average of 50 years for the dead of an author without more information about it after the publication date + 70 pma. It's an average. We're happy than you're here with us, but I guess that some of the people born the same year as you have checked out already. That's the idea behind "average" =) Ruthven (msg) 08:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And we use a duration of 120 years, as it is mentioned in US law. See COM:Hirtle: "Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire" and "Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known" are in the public domain 120 years after creation. Yann (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the absence of being able to determine author, you have to draw the line somewhere, and I think 120 years is a reasonable place to draw it. I don't think that reducing that to 95 is reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 16:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not in all cases, but it is reasonable for orphan works. Deleting them because of COM:PRP goes much beyond reasonable, that's my point. There is a reason for copyright: protecting copyright holders. When these copyright holders can't be determined, joined or traced, there is no rational reason not to host these works on Commons. I see oppositions here as a matter of principle, but they are not based on practical justifications. Yann (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but why exactly should this be different for orphan works? A photo taken in most European locations in 1920 is quite likely still in copyright unless we specifically know the death date of the photographer, and that is before 1953. Why is there a big difference between "we don't know who took the photo" and "we know who took the photo but don't know when they died"? - Jmabel ! talk 22:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, most of these are not under a copyright. In the example I gave, my grands-parents' wedding picture taken in 1920 is certainly in the public domain in France, but I can't upload it here because 1. I don't have any proof that it was published; 2. therefore I don't have a proof that the photographer is unknown. BTW, does a wedding announcement count as publication? Yann (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: A wedding announcement is almost certainly "publication" (though IANAL). But why are you sure it is PD in France? Wouldn't that require that the photographer died no later than 1952? If you don't know who took it, that seems like an unreasonable presumption. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a picture taken in 1920 in France, the copyright duration was 58 years (50 + 8 years for war extension). So if the photographer died before 1965, it is in the public domain in France and in USA. My grand-father, born in 1890 and was 30 at his wedding, died in 1959. Yann (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it's certainly possible that the photographer was a few years younger or lived to be a few years longer. Going by the above, I'm only a year younger than your grandfather was when he died, and I hope to be around for a while (no disrespect meant to the memory of your grandfather; my mother died at 47). - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, everything is possible, but it is unlikely. You have to take into account the life expectancy. Yann (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose. Leaning to oppose allowing hosting of such works on Commons, at least Philippine orphan works. In the case of the Philippines, our copyright law (GDrive copy by IPOPHL, consolidated version as of 2015) does not provide a provision for orphan works. And even if taking pending House and Senate bills into account, there is still uncertainty on the legality of allowing Philippine orphan works on Commons without undergoing formal permission or authorization clearance. Section 44 of the House Bill 2672 will add Section 179A to our copyright law, allowing use of orphan works as long as the use is subject to the implementing rules and regulations to be released sometime after the amendments are passed. Meanwhile, Section 78 of the Senate Bill 2326 will alter Section 179 of the copyright law by adding subsection 179.2 for use of orphan works. In this Senate bill the provision is more detailed: the user (after he/she exhausted all efforts to trace the copyright holder of the work divulged in public) can exploit the orphan work after getting the approval of the Director of the IPOPHL's Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights and also after depositing a sum of compensation money to the bureau. The amendment provision for orphan works also states that the copyright holder can no longer file his opposition, if he becomes aware that the orphan work is being exploited a year after the authorization granted by the bureau to the user. But here, if the copyright holder became aware less than a year after the authorization, he is still eligible for filing of opposition to call for user to cease from exploiting the formerly-orphan work. Should this provision becomes part of our copyright law, then orphan works from the Philippines are still not legally permissible to be hosted here because permitted uses are not compatible with COM:Licensing requirements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: Any answer to my 4 points above? --Rosenzweig τ 17:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can always take extreme cases, but these go much beyond COM:PRP. That's my point. As I said, we sometimes already accept such works. I propose to formalize the present situation with simpler rules. Yann (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see random photos or illustrations taken from the Internet or audio files as "extreme cases". These types of files are uploaded here constantly. I fail to see why they "go much beyond COM:PRP" or why the fact that we may accept such files in some cases (depending on circumstances, on a case by case basis) should lead to us accepting anything without further questions as long as it is 95 years old. We already have such a category for works which are at least 120 years old, with good arguments for that threshold. I could maybe agree on some kind of policy for photographs which are clearly family photos / private photos, but as you explicitly stated, the proposal is not restricted to that. --Rosenzweig τ 07:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems others do not agree with such a restrictive view, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hohenzollern Typ Hamborn historische Aufnahme.png. Yann (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, Rosenzweig brought that nomination and others up to me, and persuaded me that I closed them in error. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Licensing and the "old orphan works"[edit]

I think we need to address a problem that did not yet get the attention it deserves. When closing the proposal Allow old orphan works, Yann added the following to Commons:Licensing:

Old orphan works are accepted, provided that

  • the works were created before 1928
  • or, the works were created before the pma duration in the country of origin, which would satisfy {{PD-1996}} if published at the time of creation (e.g. works created before 1946 for 50 years pma countries, if the URAA date is 1996).

As noted by RP88 above, this does not reflect the discussion about the proposal, indeed it does not even represent the actual proposal.

What this addition to Commons:Licensing essentially says is that every work that is a) an "orphan work" and b) meets the requirements of {{PD-US-expired}} or {{PD-1996}} will be accepted. In effect, it works like {{PD-old-assumed}} (with its 120 years threshold), except that there would now be a new 95 year threshold, or even lower (with the PD-1996 cases).

The original proposal however essentially said to assume publication of works upon creation for "orphan works" (as long as they would then meet the requirements of either PD-US-expired or PD-1996).

Yann's initial addition to Commons:Licensing did not only completely omit the point about assumption of publication, but also included no definition whatsoever what an "orphan work" actually is, as promptly noted on Commons talk:Licensing#Old orphan works by Jmabel. Because of this, I removed the orphan work clause as inserted by Yann, but Yann simply reverted my change and added a link to en:Orphan work, apparently thinking that is all the definition that is needed. He also created a new {{Orphan work}} template and has since added that to a few files.

The discussion in the original proposal mainly focused on the "assuming publication with creation" issue, with Abzeronow agreeing, but also noting that "we should clearly define what would qualify as an orphan work". I myself asked (twice) the question what is an "orphan work" as far as this proposal is concerned, but did not get any answer from the proposer Yann. Carl Lindberg spoke out in favor of assuming publication unless there is some specific indication the work may not have been published right away, but also said that shouldn't trump anonymous considerations, or PD-old-assumed. Gestumblindi preferred to judge such matters on a case-to-case basis. Adamant1, Ankry, LPfi, and User:Ooligan also participated, and finally, there was some off-topic discussion about "bystander selfies".

So whatever the outcome of the proposal discussion was, it definitely does not support Yann's addition to Commons:Licensing, let alone having the consensus that is (IMO) needed to add such a new policy to a fundamental page like Commons:Licensing. Therefore we should remove this newly added section. --Rosenzweig τ 18:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove the recently added section about "orphan works" from Commons:Licensing[edit]

As I wrote above, Yann's addition to Commons:Licensing does not even reflect his original proposal, let alone the outcome of the discussion. There is further discussion here at COM:VPC (above) showing further problems with Yann's addition.

So my suggestion would be to remove this addition because it has many problems and there is no consensus behind it. Pending further discussion, I will also add a vote about this here if necessary. If we want to have any addition somewhat similar to the proposal, it should only be added after a clear definition is found, consensus is achieved and a vote about it was held. --Rosenzweig τ 18:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Question No further responses here? --Rosenzweig τ 10:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wasn't there already a consensus to make the changes in the original proposal? Sure, it didn't necessarily revolve around the specific wording but so what? Proposals aren't meant to be lay out the specific, 1/1 exact wording of how the guideline will be written to reflect the consensus anyway. Not to say I think the wording in Commons:Licensing is perfect. That's a different issue then if there was originally a consensus to add a new policy to the guideline or not. And whatever the issues being raised here are it's pretty clear from the original proposal that there was a consensus to allow for old orphaned works. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. That there was no consensus like this is the whole point of what I have written above. --Rosenzweig τ 15:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License history[edit]

When I look at a file, I can see what previous versions of that file looked like. But how can I tell what license these versions where published under? Concretely, I have a file that is available under CC-BY-SA, which I can't use, but if an earlier version was published under CC-BY, I would like to use that instead. Common zook (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S.: Specifically, this file File:DEU Kreis Lippe COA.svg is in the public domain and contains the penultimate version of File:Lippische Rose.svg. So that version must be in the public domain as well but the final version is CC-BY-SA?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Common zook (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Common zook: I'm not sure I follow that, but what information do you need that cannot be worked out from following up diffs based on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DEU_Kreis_Lippe_COA.svg&action=history ? That should have the full history of all edits to the file page. I don't see anything suppressed from public view there. - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you! Just to make sure: I can see that page without being logged in, but I don't see a direct link to it unless I'm logged in, correct?
    Also, reading the full log seems a bit tedious. I was thinking, the license might be something end users (as opposed to active community members) might be interested in, so appropriate for the "file history" at the bottom of the main page. Is that table manually maintained, then?! Common zook (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Common zook: yes, you have to be logged in to see the "History" link.
    • Not sure what you are asking about "manually maintained" but basically nothing is. The file history (I think that is what you are referring to) is strictly when the file itself is changed, not the wikitext or SDC.
    • It would be hard to mechanize something special for licensing changes, because it is just templates in the wikitext.
    • WikiBlame will work for Commons, and will determine which edit was responsible for a particular piece of wikitext. We don't have the nice interface to invoke it that Wikipedia has, but it still works the same way.
    • In this case, it looks like {{PD-Coa-Germany}} has been on that page throughout. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      There is another actual copyright issue here though: All revisions of DEU Kreis Lippe COA.svg have been tagged as in the public domain, but the file Lippische Rose.svg, whose first revision was identical with the 2008 revision of the former file apart from a shield shape clearly below the threshold of originality was marked with the GFDL and ultimately CC-BY-SA 3.0. Both were drawn by the same author.
      It seems to me that the PD tag is factually incorrect, since the drawing has a copyright of its own. Felix QW (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thanks to both of you for the technical explanations!
      Now for the concrete case, @Felix QW, you say that the PD tag is factually incorrect?! But what about the explanation, that it is a coat of arms of a Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts? On a technical level, I assume it was not so much drawn as traced from the official pixel graphic [1] (it even says so though the link has changed). So are you suggesting that, to be on the safe side, I should retrace the picture myself rather than use the one on here? Honestly, if I not only have to verify the license of a document but also to double check it for legal legitimacy, it becomes easier to just contact every artist individually to ask for permission. I definitely see a clash between the two tags, but to me it's rather the CC-BY-SA that seems questionable. Common zook (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      In general, SVG drawings (and even tracings) have independent copyright, in addition perhaps to being derivative works of the official graphic. So in order to be in the public domain, both the drawing and the source model have to be in the public domain. This is also exactly what the description at the official page of Lippe explains, when it says that
      Die Nutzung der reinen Lippischen Rose unterliegt nicht dem Urheberrecht - eine entsprechende Grafikdatei allerdings schon.
      If you are just looking for a vectorised heraldic rose, this file seems to be the closest we have that does not require freely licensing your derivative work. Felix QW (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Ok, but then it seems the files on commons don't respect the Urheberrecht of the file that they are clearly traces of (I doubt that file is under CC-BY-SA). I increasingly get the impression that using commons rather complicates than simplifies my work. Common zook (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I am not quite sure what you mean; this particular file seems to be based on this proposed flag of Lancashire, which was apparently placed in the public domain by its designers and proposers. Felix QW (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Sorry for the confusion. No, I'm still taking about the Lippe one. I was not looking just for any heraldic rose. But it seems like I could redo what the creators of the commons file did. Except that it all being based on a protected pixel graphic I don't why they were free to choose the CC-BY-SA license without consulting the creator of the pixel graphic. In other words: is redrawing a pixel graphic in SVG a creative act? I realize I'm ignorant, but it seems to me that either the CC-BY-SA license is incorrect (because it ignores the Urheberrecht of the pixel graphic creator) or otherwise I file redraw the pixel graphic myself and put it in the public domain. I just don't know which of the two. Common zook (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Jmabel: This link for WikiBlame automates the settings "lang=commons" and "project=wikimedia" necessary for operation on this project. It turns out that the "user_lang=en" setting is not actually necessary for me browsing from the US, but it may be necessary for those in other countries who don't read the dominant languages of those countries. I called it "RevHistSearch" in my Top Links because "Blame" was too confrontational.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COM:TOO UK[edit]

I nominated File:Logo Everton FC 1972.svg to be deleted since I thought it was above COM:TOO UK which is very low. It was however to my surprise kept since calligraphy can't be copyrighted, according to the closing admin. Is this true and where does the line go between calligraphy and normal text logos, which generally are deleted if British because of the very low TOO. For example w:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg is above TOO and I think the Everton logo is more complex. Jonteemil (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The each logo has two components: the letters "EFC"/ "Edge" and the fonts. The letters are not copyrightable; the font in the Everton logo is presumably OOC; the other presumably not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OOC = out of copyright? Jonteemil (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we just presume it is OOC per COM:PCP? How can it be verified? Jonteemil (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonteemil: Those letters in the Everton logo are standard English round hand. Even in the UK, that logo would not meet the threshold of originality, as there is nothing original in it. Nosferattus (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos of Costco food court menus with copyrighted images[edit]

Is File:Food Court Menu.png a case of de minimis copying of the photos on the menu (which I assume are nonfree)? The name of the file as well as the caption on wikipedia:en:Costco hot dog ("The Costco food court menu...") suggests that this photo is of the menu itself, which I think would go against a de minimis argument.

Same question applies to some other images in Category:Costco in the United States such as File:Costcohotdogstand.jpg and File:Costco-foodcourt.jpg. In my view these seem more likely to be considered de minimis. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 00:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Costcohotdogstand.jpg is almost certainly de minimis. File:Food Court Menu.png is a really well-composed photo, and probably if it weren't for our precautionary principle I'd say "keep it" because it's probably transformational enough in what it does with the copyrighted material, but given the precautionary principle we should probably delete it. And let en-wiki have a copy for non-free use. - Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think a photo of the menu is going to even come close to meeting English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; so, uploading the file as such to English Wikipedia most likely will lead to it being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created a deletion request for this image. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 21:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cropped out some of copyrighted content on File:Costcohotdogstand.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also pixelated the problematic photos in the menu. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What tag to use for File:Cuthbert Christy 1902.png[edit]

This looks like an anonymous work that wasn't published until later (as late as 2002), but it is over 120 years old. I'm also not sure what country it was created in. But I can't find a copyright tag that fits. A little help? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Quirky Kitty: This image may still be copyrighted in the US. (Regardless of the country of origin, material must be in the public domain or freely licensed in the US as well in order to be accepted on Commons.) Copyright terms in the US are complicated, but I think this bit would apply:

Works created before 1978 and first published after or in 1978 are protected for the earlier of 95 years from publication or registration for copyright or 120 years from creation (for anonymous or corporate works) or 70 years after death of the creator for known authors; if it was published in 1978–2001, that copyright is extended to December 31, 2047 if it's shorter. (Thus no works first published with permission of the copyright holder between 1978 and 2001 in the US are out of copyright.)

The book cited as a source has a copyright date of 1992, so assuming this is the first publication of the photo I believe this photo is still copyrighted. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 09:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, wow. I should have looked at the Hirtle Chart more thoroughly instead of assuming it was public domain. Looks like the law was very counterintuitive until 2003. On the other hand, this was recently decided: Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Allow_old_orphan_works. The consensus was to assume publication soon after creation for old works. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it had actually been published for the first time between 1989 and 2002, that would indeed be an issue. However, publication is both quite lax in that for early publication, it would be sufficient if the photographers had handed a copy to their client, and quite strict in that even printing it in a book does not count as publication unless the copyright owner gives their consent.
I actually have access to the book source via my university library and, surprisingly for an academic work, I cannot find any indication of the provenance or at least the immediate source of the image in the book. So it seems at least dubious to me that the book's author would have ascertained the copyright holder, asked them for permission to publish the image and then not even mention or acknowledge it anywhere in the final book. On balance, I would think {{PD-US-unpublished}} to be reasonable, given that any early publication date would strengthen rather than weaken the claim to PD status. Of course, one could always try and somehow the author, Maryinez Lyons, to find out more. Felix QW (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Quirky Kitty. I did a little poking around online and I think I can cast some additional light on this:

  • The author of the book from which your original photo was taken may have found it in some intermediary publication, but I suspect the ultimate source is a photo in the Cuthbert Christy papers in the archives of the Royal Commonwealth Society in Cambridge. Although there's no scan of the photo online, the archive record describes it as "a view showing Cuthbert Christy seated at a table with a microscope in front of him. In the foreground a dog sits near Dr Christy's skinning table. The 'laboratory' is on the open verandah of a house." That's a pretty accurate description of the full, uncropped version of this photo.
  • The archive record led me to Christy's book Big Game and Pygmies, published by Macmillan in both London and New York in 1924, where a very similar photograph is reproduced opposite p. 8. It was clearly taken at the same time (same camera position, same clothing, same dog), and the photographer is credited as a Mr. Doggett. The archive record provides no information about Doggett, not even a first name, but there is no doubt that it was Walter Doggett, a naturalist who accompanied the Anglo-German boundary expedition to Uganda in 1902, and who died there in 1904 in an accident during a river crossing. This gives us the photographer's name and death date, which are important for copyright outside the US.
  • Both photos can be considered published. That's obviously the case for the one printed in Big Game and Pygmies, but it's also true for the one you originally asked about, since as Felix QW points out, the fact that the photographer gave copies to other people (to Christy himself at the very least) counts as publication for copyright purposes. Since the photographer died in 19021904, and the photos were published before 1928 in the US, they can be tagged with {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1904}}, which declares them as public domain everywhere in the world (= published before 1928 in the US, and almost 100 years after the death of the photographer elsewhere). I've updated the information on the Commons page of your original photo accordingly.
  • I have also uploaded the second photo, the one reproduced in Big Game and Pygmies, as File:Cuthbert Christy in Uganda in 1902.jpg. If your main goal is to illustrate the Wikipedia article on Christy, this one is a better choice, I think, because Christy is turned toward the camera and you can see more of his face. In addition to the full photo I've also uploaded this crop suitable for use in that article if you want to replace the existing image.
— Cheers,Choliamb (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Edited to correct the year of Doggett's death from 1902 to 1904. Choliamb (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Nicely done. I did find an obit on Mr. Doggett here, which mentions he was an "admirable photographer" along with his other naturist stuff. So yes, it would have to be him. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for doing all this sleuthing and even coming up with a better picture. My goal wasn't to illustrate the article but simply move this image to Commons. It was originally on Wikipedia as fair use. But I will change the image on his page because it's indeed a better portrait. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created Category:Walter Grimwood Doggett, the WD item, and Creator:Walter Grimwood Doggett. Yann (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

StB works[edit]

Are works by the former secret service of Czechoslovakia in the public domain? There are interesting photographs created by the organization, and apparently held by the governmental agency Security Services Archive (Q47979470). HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presumably these are 1) anonymous and 2) not previously published (do say if you have evidence to the contrary). Com:Czechoslovakia says "{{PD-Czechoslovakia-anon}} works first published without a claim of authorship in Czechoslovakia come into the public domain fifty years after publication". There is no mention there of different rules for government works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing Thanks for the answer. Two points here: 1. The anonymous photographer was hired and was on a mission for StB, wouldn't it make the creator a known legal entity? (like the terms of Template:PD-USGov) 2. The photographs seem to be made publicly available for the first time by the current government of the Czech Republic (one of the two immediate successors to the Czechoslovakia), would it make them subject to Template:PD-CzechGov rather than Czechoslovakia law? Thanks, HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current Czech law will certainly apply to such works and they may be in public domain as "other such works where there is public interest in their exclusion from copyright protection". Ruslik (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:PD-Yugoslavia[edit]

Hello! Above PD license has a criteria that reads c) a photograph or a work of applied art published before January 1, 1966. I'm looking forward to possibly uploading a quality portrait photograph of en:Edvard Kardelj and found this image on this Amazon listing. Through image source Googling I found the same item being listed on eBay, which has a date of creation of the photograph listed as 1950–1959. It's said to be a press photograph on the Amazon page. Was it published before 1966, I'm not certain. What is needed to have it pass? Evidence of being taken in Yugoslavia? Evidence of being published before 1966, for example in a newspaper? Or is the vague estimate of being taken in the 1950s listed on eBay enough? Thank you in advance! –Vipz (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The EBay listing, on the back, looks to have a stamp with a date of 1959 with it -- so that copy existed then, and pretty much shows copies were distributed to interested outlets. So I think that counts as published, then. It could be interesting to upload the image of the back from the Ebay listing first, then overwrite with the front, as part of that evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just realized I only needed to scroll down to see the archive of the listing, I was doing extra work (blocking Javascript) for no reason and wasn't able to access other photos from the listing as part of that. ^-^' Thank you very much for the suggestion and investigation! The stamp comes from a Belgrade-based information service (Yugoslav-based copyright holder) and was sent to a newspaper en:Svenska Dagbladet from what I can tell, so I agree with your assessment. –Vipz (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excommunication of communists[edit]

There are a lot of flyers, printed by local dioceses of the Italian Catholic Church around 1948-1949, about the excommunication of communists:

May they be uploaded on Commons? There is no clear author.-- Carnby (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless they were in the public domain in Italy on January 1, 1996 (which I doubt very much), they cannot be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons until 2045 or so. Lugamo94 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any copyright here would have to be based on the text being copyrightable. Too simple graphically to be copyrighted on basis of graphics. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I upload the German version of a logo that’s already on Commons?[edit]

Hello, I’m new to Wikimedia Commons. Let’s get right to it:

The English and Spanish logos of The Super Mario Bros. Movie are already on Commons and considered to be “too simplistic for copyright”.

For me, this raises the question: Am I allowed to upload the German logo (which I sourced/downloaded from the Super Mario Wiki) to Commons – or will this clash with the more restrictive copyright law in Germany even though the movie originates from the U.S. and Japan?

Thanks in advance!

— Keepright! ler (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origin of movie is USA, so you're good. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upload complete: Keepright! ler (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are some countries with a (very) high TOO?[edit]

Give some examples. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The United States? Nosferattus (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus high TOO for logos and other allied items in the U.S., but in terms of sculptures very low TOO. The w:en:Cloud Gate which may be ordinary for most passersby is protected, both by creation (post-1989 public art) and by registration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brazil has a higher TOO than the US. Jonteemil (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's always the question of: for what subject and copyright protection status? You'll occasionally find documentation describing the US TOO as low, and that's not at all contradictory to the above. Compare the US and Spain. If you take a picture of 2D old art, it becomes public domain upon creation in the US but is considered a "mere photograph" in Spain and enjoys 25 years of protection (note that we choose to ignore this here per PD-Art). If you take a casual snapshot of some people, it is copyrighted for the full term in the US but is still considered a "mere photograph" in Spain with only 25 years of protection. Finally, if you take an amazing landscape photo worthy of an art gallery, it is copyrighted for the full term in both the US and Spain. So TOO in the US can be variously higher or lower than Spain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Argentina and Building Interiors (covered under de facto FOP or not)[edit]

I am somewhat skeptical about Argentina's de facto FOP for architecture, but setting that aside, would interiors of buildings such as in File:Salon4.jpg be covered under the de facto FOP for architecture or would that only cover the exterior of buildings. No guidance on COM:Argentina if it covers indoors. @JWilz12345: @Cambalachero: @Asclepias: @Clindberg: Abzeronow (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No comment on this for a while. For some recent discussion involving it, see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/12#Argentine_architecture_now_object_of_copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is de facto FoP, there won't be anything written to say either way. It probably could only be proved/disproved via a court case. I think normally, we assume FoP applies to interiors unless the law explicitly says otherwise (a couple do). The interior is still part of the building and part of the same architectural copyright. If the FoP is architecture only, it would not apply to any other works of art which happen to be inside, I wouldn't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questionable file licensing[edit]

File:Andy Warhol in 1950.jpg has been challenged at w:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2 as lacking evidence of pre-1977 publication. Can someone address this?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, rev del the original upload[edit]

Here: File:Foreign Secretary James Cleverly attends UNGA - 53197273892.jpg. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. Next time, please mention the rationale. --Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: I noted the rationale for the cropping in the description for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Túrelio & @Jeff G.- Thank you both for your prompt help here. I will mention the rationale in the future (which I have done previously). Best regards, --
Ooligan (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: You're welcome. I indented your signature more.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funeral video copyright?[edit]

User:Nosebagbear's funeral was today, and was streamed on Youtube at [2]. Is that something that could be uploaded here? Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Surveillance_camera_footage isn't too clear. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In UK specifically surveillance camera images may be in fact copyrighted. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the US, surveillance camera footage has been proposed to be uncopyrighted in court, but I think that case settled. It's not legally clear, and it's unlikely to generalize much. In this case, flipping through I saw the camera move, and even in the US, a person controlling the camera is likely to be an author generating a copyrightable work. (I'm not fluent in UK law, but Ruslik is right in pointing out that's the relevant jurisdiction.)
Why not ask them? It's likely to be sensitive, but they may be okay with a short piece going on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:File:Valentino Biddle Keyes.jpg NOT ((PD-USGov))[edit]

File:Valentino Biddle Keyes.jpg NOT {{PD-USGov}}

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might well be PD, but not on that basis. I'd make a pretty strong guess for {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Pinging @Racconish. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's from 1921; it should be {{PD-US-expired}}. Keyes did not die until 1974, so it will be protected in some countries in Europe for some time yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mario Kleff - Without Fear.png[edit]

I am the creator and sole copyright holder of an image that has been tagged for deletion. Can anyone provide guidance on the steps to resolve this licensing issue? I've already sent an email, but I received a response stating, 'If valid permission is not provided within 30 days from the initial VRT agent response, the file will be deleted.' How can I address this? Designer Mario Kleff (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: File:Mario Kleff - Without Fear.png. - Jmabel ! talk 03:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Designer Mario Kleff: just to make sure I understand: (1) The book is by Robert Collins, and is about you, but you designed the book cover. (2) You are offering a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for it. (3) At some point, you wrote to VRT and got what appears to be a bot response indicating that there would be a window of 30 days to sort out whether there is valid permission. (4) At 03:00, 19 September 2023, Krdbot marked it as having permission received. (5) As of roughly 24 hours after that, when you posted this, there is some issue you still want addressed.
Can you indicate what issue you still want addressed? - Jmabel ! talk 03:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the book is by Robert Collins, and it's about me. I indeed designed the book cover and own the copyright to that specific design. 1. I am offering a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for the book cover image. 2. I wrote to VRT and received a response indicating a 30-day window to validate permission. 3. I understand that as of 03:00, 19 September 2023, Krdbot has marked the file as having permission received. My main concern arises from the initial response I received, mentioning a 30-day window. Since I value this file's presence, I wanted to ensure that no miscommunication would result in its deletion. Given the recent update that Krdbot has marked the file's permission as received, do I need to take any additional steps, or is everything in order for the file to remain? Designer Mario Kleff (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Designer Mario Kleff: The ticket for your email message is in a queue, waiting for your permission to be approved. The backlog for that queue is currently 14 days. Thank you for your patience.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Designer Mario Kleff (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Designer Mario Kleff: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open Scottish Parliament Licence[edit]

My reading of the Open Scottish Parliament Licence {{OSPL}}[3] is that it only applies when explicitly stated, and does not automatically apply to all works of the parliament. Is this accurate? I want to check this before diving in and nominating multiple files for deletion.

If so, we should only keep files where this license is specified in a file's source or in the metadata. There are several files where this license is unsupported, for example:

Several other files that claim this license do not give a full URL for the source, or give a URL which is now dead. For example:

Should I nominate these and numerous similar files for deletion? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Aimp_V4.51.png[edit]

The fact is that in the first version of the image, the views are a very small part that has no special relationship to the image. But the fact is that he has a VRT permit, probably that small part has nothing to do with what the permit was written for. I wrote through a translator, there may be inaccuracies Артём 13327 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is probably below the threshold of originality in any case. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First time creating a draft, I don't really understand copyright stuff[edit]

I'm currently working on this draft of an old movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Glass_Harmonica_(film) This is my first time writing a draft, and I uploaded a couple photos that are from the movie. I recently got messages saying "This media file is a derivative work incorporating another work or works. While the source of this file has been identified, essential source and copyright information for all work incorporated in this file is missing. The author and source of all incorporated works must be given so that the copyright status can be verified. Edit the file description page to add source information." What specific information do I need to include and where? Thanks! Welcome back bro (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This movie is still under copyright protection and screenshots taken from the film can therefore not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without permission from the creators or whoever currently holds the rights to the film. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia for further details on this topic. TommyG (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general: if you "don't really understand copyright stuff," probably don't upload anything that isn't either a photo you took or something at least 120 years old. Even those can occasionally have issues, but it's rare. - Jmabel ! talk 17:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Android update.jpg[edit]

Is the license for this file correct? This file was transferred from Flickr and Anroid license was not indicated there Артём 13327 (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=803488351"