Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Community portal
Help desk Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Shortcut: COM:VP/C · COM:VPC
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.

U.N. Security Council resolutions[edit]

Hi! I'd like to ask if the United Nations Security Council resolutions deleted in the past (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013) could be {{PD-UN-doc}}. If so, I'd later ask for a massive undeletion request.
They were deleted because they had an obsolete template ({{PD-UN}}) or a wrong one ({{PD-US-no notice-UN}}). I think those documents fit in {{PD-UN-doc}} (as well as someone stated in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/06#United_Nations_resolutions), and I believe that the files in question were neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope. Some of them are being used in broken books in es.source (e.g. s:es:Index:Resolución 1921 del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas (2010).pdf) and that's why I'm interested.
Some users have argued in the past that UN resolutions post-1987 are copyrighted. E.g. in Wikisource it was asked a massive deletion of UN resolutions post-1987, but it was later canceled because of the UN resolutions in the public domain. In fact, there are a lot in Category:PD-UN-doc and a lot more in Wikisources (e.g. s:Category:UN Security Council Resolutions).
Thanks for reading! -Aleator (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • From a copyright point of view I would reluctantly support an undeletion pending individual review of all involved files. I have checked a few documents each from the 2004, 2011 and 2013 deletion discussions and each of them had a UN document symbol which does make them {{PD-UN-doc}}. However, the question arises: do we need all those on Commons? IMHO such PDF documents should better be stored at Wikisource. De728631 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Usually the source PDFs are here, and the text transcriptions are at Wikisource. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok. Then we should restore the PDFs. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Fits the description of public domain documents. Create an undeletion request and look for the logo in each document. 23:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The arguments above are based on the template {{PD-UN-doc}}, which says

"This text document published by the United Nations without a copyright notice, was left in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".

That would be fine before 1989, but after that, omitting the copyright notice does not put a document in the public domain. Created works are copyrighted immediately upon creation and in order for a work to be PD, the creator must take explicit action. The UN document cited and linked in the template has similar language,

" The following categories of material will, as at present, be left in the public domain,"

but, again, inaction on copyright does not make a work PD -- the creator must explicitly use CC-0 or another similar license.

It is entirely possible that we can find a different way to reach the conclusion that these works are the equivalent of CC-0, but relying on a law which went out in 1989 won't do it.

Also, if we do conclude that these works have a place here, I note that undeletion is a slow process. It would probably be faster if some interested person simply uploaded them again with same file names. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK. I think the best for all will be that I send a mail to the UN and get a very clear view about the exact license of those U.N.S.C. Resolutions. Please, archive the undeletion request. If I get a go-on permission, I willl OTRS it, and re-upload just the needed PDF files. Thanks for feedback! -Aleator (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hello again. I've asked to UN about UNSCR available in UN webs, pre-1989 and post-1989, in English, Spanish or French, as raw text or as PDF; if comercial and/or derivative uses are allowed for each, or Public Domain apply for each of the casuistic. This is the answer (if OTRS validation of the mail is needed, just tell me, please):
Dear All,

Please note that the resolutions are copyright protected.

Depending on the intended use, permission has to be granted prior to reprint.

What do you understand? All of them are copyrighted?! Also {{PD-UN-doc}}? I'm so confused! What do we do next? A massive deletion request, instead of a massive undeletion request? A bit crazy, this... -Aleator (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support the note about the copyright notice is a red herring (that only really applies for pre-1989 works). s:Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 gives the policy going forward for post-1989 documents, which is why we have the separate tag, and is limited to certain types of documents. That has nothing to do with copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. A created work cannot "be left in the public domain" -- the creator must take an affirmative action to place it in the public domain. The cited text does not do that. It is also wishy-washy on the question of revocabliity. The language says, effectively, "we will do nothing about copyright now". Having done nothing, the UN may decide later to assert copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
At the time, yes works could be "left in the public domain". Many many countries were not party to the Berne Convention (the U.S. was joining that year, but many countries were still UCC members only and often required notices, and many countries were neither). To me, that is plainly stating that they intend that category of work to be public domain, and could easily amount to en:abandonment (legal) -- there is an explicit statement of intentions (still in force). We should not reinterpret the explicit wording in light of the fact that most countries later became members of the Berne Convention -- the intent seems fairly clear there. Deletion seems to be copyright paranoia to me, getting into highly theoretical territory which realistically will never be resolved in a courtroom. If they rescind the statement, we can put a date on the tag. United Nations works have a very peculiar nature, different than a normal private copyright, and I don't think it helps anyone to delete works that the author has declared they intend to be public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
If we are going to consider undeleting these, it need to be done carefully and selectively. UN publications are 'not' exempt from copyright protection under US law... 17 USC 104 (b) (5) actually explicitly says they 'are' protected. Only works that have been specifically placed in the public domain by the UN are okay here... this would, generally, mean that we need a specific claim that the individual works fall under s:Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2, and a consensus that the statement there is 'equivalent' to something like CC-0 (which I think we have). Reventtalk 03:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Interpreting COM:TOYS for photographs taken by established Wikimedians[edit]

I would appreciate some views on how we can justify keeping the wording of COM:TOYS as:

When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.

This is not being enforced on Commons for detailed photographs of toys by established Wikimedians, when it is convenient to ignore it. Principally because any deletion request has a large majority of keep votes, rather than because of validating the photograph against copyright requirements or Commons policies. My experience of attempting a deletion request several months ago, was encountering a hostile presumption of bad faith; very discouraging for anyone wanting to raise legitimate questions of how we demonstrate a photograph is of a public domain toy.

We could either remove the requirement from Commons for the burden of proof to be on the uploader to prove a toy is public domain, or we could transfer these files in use by Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia affiliate promotional photographs, to those projects where there can be a weaker interpretation of copyright.

Examples include:

  1. DR, File:Erminig.jpeg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. DR, File:Summit_meeting_between_Wendy_the_Weasel_and_Percy_Plush_in_Brussels_(July_2014).JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. DR, File:Wikimania_2014_Day_1_(14912136731).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thanks -- (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Just as a balance, I have used a quick Google search to track down similar images of stuffed toys currently hosted on Commons, and raised deletion requests for them in the last hour, based solely on the COM:TOYS requirement. I suspect that for images not in use by Wikimedians on other projects, the close decision should be fairly obvious. Whether 'in use' concerns do or should outweigh other concerns, is the main issue with the practical interpretation of COM:TOYS.

  1. File:Bagpuss.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. File:Two plush llamas in front of a laptop computer.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. File:Boyds Bears Mrs Northstar.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  4. File:Amigurumi.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  5. File:Steiff Jocko.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  6. File:Plush monkey in notebook (3932234539).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  7. File:Stuffed duckling at a laptop.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  8. File:Stuffed hedgehog.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  9. File:Stuffed tiger wearing a sombrero.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  10. File:Stuffed ebola.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  11. File:Yellowfinned Tuna Stuffed Animal.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  12. File:Ice age Stuffed animal.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

-- (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

My opinion remains the same as in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-06#File:Petit_tigre_on_the_top_of_Manhattan.jpg. They are quite possibly legal via fair use, but commercial use would likely be a problem, unless copyright in the toys in question has expired. I see in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Capitole du libre 2012 - I IZ ON Wikimedia.jpg it was kept because of this ruling which stated that the toy was utilitarian and not subject to copyright. However, a little further searching would have found this second ruling, which was when that case was appealed to a circuit court, which reversed and vacated the decision, declaring that the toy in question was indeed copyrightable (and gives several references to other cases which did the same for other toys). For photos where the toys happened to be there in the photo, even if fairly prominent, they may be OK -- but photos were the toy is the focus or intentionally included, are likely derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete following Pivot Point International Inc. v. Charlene Products, the American copyright case over mannequin heads. One side argued that the heads were simple and utilitarian, while the other argued that they were copyrightable. The side for copyright won. These animals are much less utilitarian than a minimalistic plastic head for holding wigs. I agree with Fae - the images are being kept because some people think they are cute. The Wikimedia community has a grantmaking process. As a compromise, I would support funding going to the community development of a mascot animal and art if the demand is there. Otherwise, there needs to be stronger and more detailed arguments about why these images of toys are hosted contrary to the rules on Commons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    @Bluerasberry: The Pivot Point vs. Charlene Products case may add more heat than light. Though the mannequin head was copyrighted, the 1992 case declared it to be of utilitarian purpose because of its commercial use for beauty products. If we are to use legal cases, I suggest we use those specifically about toys, like the 1981 Gay Toys, Inc. v. Buddy L Corp. case. The Gay Toys case has been used to argue a generic position that all toys are utilitarian as they have utility as toys, and as bizarrely circular as that seems it has to be countered—noting that the Gay Toys case was vacated on appeal in 1983 as "toys do not even have an intrinsic function other than the portrayal of the real item". I am not experienced with U.S. law, but when using legal cases, there is often great difficulty in arguing the generic position from the specific unless there are higher level rulings that then set a standard interpretation of a legal act. If the community remains at odds in this area, we may benefit from asking for legal advice which may then cause us to change our guidelines. -- (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    @: I've more or less completed User:Elcobbola/Stuffed Animals, which hopefully will have something more along the lines of what you are looking for. Эlcobbola talk 02:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The essay could be usefully quoted if you would like to add your opinion to the exemplar deletion requests listed below. Though others may argue over conclusions or guidance, the summary of prior U.S. legal cases is a nice baseline to argue from. -- (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@, Elcobbola: Thanks both of you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete It's worth noting that these were all closed by the same admin--the one whose inappropriate closures, including related to models, contributed to the frustration and departure of editors and the removal of his tools. I wrote the models essay as a direct result, and subsequent DRs have generally been consistent and inline with copyright law. I'd started a similar essay on stuffed animals (soft sculptures), which contains certain of the cases above, and others. Perhaps I need to finish it. (The relevance of the preceding is that the erroneous closures may be isolated to one (or several) misguided individual(s), not a greater systematic issue requiring alternative hosting as mentioned in the OP.) In the US, where WMF servers are located, soft sculptures are copyrightable objects and not considered useful articles. (Per Gay Toys, for example: "[T]he statutory definition of 'useful article' suggests that toys are copyrightable. To be a 'useful article,' the item must have 'an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article.' And a toy airplane is merely a model which portrays a real airplane. To be sure, a toy airplane is to be played with and enjoyed, but a painting of an airplane, which is copyrightable, is to be looked at and enjoyed. Other than the portrayal of a real airplane, a toy airplane, like a painting, has no intrinsic utilitarian function.") Эlcobbola talk 15:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As test cases I have raised:

  1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Erminig.jpeg
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Summit meeting between Wendy the Weasel and Percy Plush in Brussels (July 2014).JPG
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimania 2014 Day 1 (14912136731).jpg

I welcome your participation in those cases in order to establish new precedent or ensure current policies are applied equitably. Thanks -- (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Addendum It's worth mentioning the exception File:Budsies Unicorn.jpg where a unique stuffed toy was made from a child's design, so there is probably no copyright issue for the shared photograph, and stuffed versions of the Linux penguin might be copyright free, but I think that may be dubious depending on added creativity for specific models, ref Category:Tux toys and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linux-pingvin.jpg. -- (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Old European photos[edit]

For old photos from Europe, such as before 1923, where the photographer isn't known, can they become PD? --Light show (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Only if they are first published in the United States, which would make that the country of origin. Otherwise they are required to be free in both the US and the country of origin, which is often life + 70 years. However, feel free to upload the pictures to the English Wikipedia under PD-1923, as the English Wikipedia does not care about any copyrights other than that of the US. -- King of ♠ 01:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the details. I'm still unable to upload anything there, so I'm forced to do it here when possible.--Light show (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If you can show the photos were published anonymously, i.e. no human author name or initials on the original publication (front or back), and that the author did not become known in the next 70 years, then they may qualify for {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Such photos from before 1926 can be OK (either PD-1923 or PD-1996). However, "anonymous" is not the same thing as "unknown" -- so if the publication history is lost, there is little that can be done. And if there is a name, it's not anonymous, and you have to find the life dates of the author. If those are unknown, then we cannot upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems unfortunate that so many film or stage artists in Europe back then can't have their images used today. Those film studio photographers were not shooting photos as art to sell, but were treated and paid like all the other mostly nameless salaried employees, from wardrobe designers, makeup artists, lighting techs, cameramen, sound engineers, or musicians. All the marketing-related materials such as publicity stills or posters were given away gladly to the media; they would have dropped them from airplanes if they could have. The last thing a studio promoting their film would have wanted was to prevent free use of those photos. --Light show (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright law is copyright law... can't get around it. That's part of why we want to be a free image repository -- a place where people can find images they can legally use in a broad array of circumstances, without counting on fair use. What we don't want is to host files that are not legally OK and have someone else pay the consequences when we are wrong, if we can help it. And copyright terms been getting extended -- photos will on average remain under copyright for probably 100-120 years or so going forward, if the author is known. The company owns the copyright in these situations (work for hire), though the term is based on the life of the human author. If they didn't bother to name the author, then they get a term of 70 years from publication. The problem for us is proving that... if the author was named originally, but then people copying it later omitted it through no fault of the original company... that's not evidence of being anonymous. The U.S. will be 95 years from publication in the same situation. Publicity stills are sort of the hardest situation -- they were implicitly made to be reused in educational or publicity contexts, but they do not qualify as a free license, since once you start using them outside their original intended context, photographers can potentially sue. That can frustrate uses such as Wikipedia pages where the use is within the implied license, but it's not really "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
For some European countries, such as Finland and Sweden, non-creative photos have a much shorter copyright-like protection. If the photo is from such a country it may very well be free. I would also want to point out that procedures do not matter in the way they do in USA; whether the name was lost "through no fault" or by purpose is irrelevant. Once the name has been disclosed, it is not an anonymous work. On the other hand, I think one does not have to worry too much. If the photo was released without naming the photographer, and did not become famous, it is unlikely the name would have been published later. Even if it was, if you did your homework you should not face criminal charges, and damages for publishing a forgotten photo can hardly be huge. --LPfi (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, some countries have "simple photo" terms -- but from what I can remember, posed studio portraits usually are considered works and get the full term. It is more snapshots which get the shorter terms, for countries which have them (and the EU directive has changed that line in some places like Germany). The EU directive does say that in work for hire countries (a minority, but some EU countries are) the author must be named on the initial publication or the term is 70 years from publication regardless if named later. And otherwise the author must be named within the first 70 years -- if not, copyright expires, and naming the author does not bring it back. And yes, if not named on the initial publications, that's usually enough for us. The problem is often finding those original publications -- photos found on the Internet usually don't have that provenance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the author should be disclosed in 70 years, so I agree about the latter part. About studio photos, I think those are about going to the photographer instead of having a painter do the portrait. E.g. passport photos, although made in a studio, would not qualify. The threshold is formally not different from other works, but I suppose it can vary quite a lot between countries (e.g. in Sweden the definition replaced that of "artistically or scientifically valuable" photos and was probably believed to leave the threshold at a similar level). --LPfi (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, passport photos would be simple. But the original topic was more about publicity photos, and I imagine those are closer to portraits most often. And yes, it would vary highly between countries -- even with the EU directive which was supposed to somewhat standardize such things, Germany now deems virtually anything above a photocopy or X-ray to be a "work", while France continues their previous definitions, with the level being quite high for photos (and they don't have a simple term, so if a photo does not qualify, it may not get protection at all). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Comrade X photo, 1940[edit]

Can someone review this photo w/o a notice on either side. Thanks.--Light show (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone else uploaded this to Commons back in February (here), with that tired boilerplate taken from the template on enwiki... the image has a 'made in usa' label, which would be used to establish that the work met the 'manufacturing requirement' for copyright, and written use restrictions on the back. It was probably copyrighted, and should probably go to DR. Reventtalk 09:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Just to make the point, more, that using that boilerplate is not acceptable here, half of the argument it makes is based on 'fair use'. Reventtalk 09:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, thee scene from the movie is here... this is clearly not a film still, the pose is slightly different. Reventtalk 10:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm unclear. Are you saying it's a frame from the movie as opposed to being a separate photo? --Light show (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: It's a separate (probably posed) photo, not a frame from the published film. Reventtalk 16:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Checked copyrights for 1978-1979 and found no renewals for any of the relevant names.--Light show (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Marx Brothers 1946 ✓[edit]

Can I get a review of this 1946 photo, showing front and back? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Getty also has a copy, via ullstein bild. I think copies from both Germany and Argentina, and the marks, are decent indications that this was published. Reventtalk 10:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Does that mean it's probably PD and OK to use? --Light show (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hrm. Pretty clearly published at the time, and Getty likely thinks it's PD, though distribution in Argentina without copyright notice is not necessarily meaningful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Is it OK to use? --Light show (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
IMO, yes. Reventtalk 16:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Curtiz photo ✓[edit]

Can I get an opinion about this photo? It includes a printed signature on the bottom right, which means it was printed in quantity for publicity to the media. It also uses his Anglicized spelling which he changed to after 1926 when he moved to Hollywood. I could try finding someplace the photo was printed, but it seems that since it was mass-produced in the U.S. that it would at least meet the Precautionary Principle guideline. His bio could use a better, and free, lead image. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

There are two parts to this -- publication of the photo overall, which needs to be shown in order to know the copyright clock started then, and distribution of this particular copy, to show that a copy was distributed without a copyright notice. If this was a private, undistributed copy, and other ones were distributed but with notice, it would be published with a copyright notice. In this case, the first one is probable, and the second part is unfortunately unknown unless you know where this copy came from. The odds are more than even it's OK, but there isn't much evidence here. Such evidence could be found in other copies, but based on this and this alone... not enough here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If you could find a year of publication, and who the owner was (probably the studio), you may have better results with a renewal search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The photo was printed in the Wisconsin Chronicle on Sept. 21, 1928. I saved the section with caption info. There's no photographer listed, just the newspaper. I can upload it with the photo. Let me know if that would work. --Light show (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
OK to use? --Light show (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It was apparently used in a 1912 poster for a film, per IMDB. --Light show (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
IMDB shows the photo, it does not show (or say) that is was used in a film poster. IMDB actually shows the same photo for... it looks like six different movies. Reventtalk 03:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
When I mouse over the photo the text says it was on a poster. In any case, does it seem to be PD? --Light show (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Curtiz was 24 years old, living in Hungary, just trying his hand at directing, and was not using the name "Curtiz" yet in 1912 -- so that date has nothing to do with the photo. He's obviously older than 24. Someone at IMDB just used that photo on all Curtiz movie pages. It gives less confidence in your determinations if you go by any date you see. The 1928 one is more interesting though. That would certainly help. That would limit the publication range from 1926 to 1928. That's a lot more feasible to do a search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I found nothing for that weekly paper between 1926-1928 --Light show (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the paper would not be the copyright holder, and lack of renewal of the paper would not be meaningful, so searching for that name doesn't prove anything. You have to know who the copyright owner was. You'd probably have to search for Curtiz and Warner Brothers, though the possibility it could be the individual photographer is there. There is no explicit copyright notice on the original to give you a name to search for, which is part of the problem. Dunno, it's dancing right on the lines of being PD-US-no_notice and PD-US-not_renewed. It was published by 1928 by the sounds of it (and I would include that as upload evidence). Does seem highly likely to be a Warner Bros. publicity photo, so if there is nothing for that name (or Curtiz) for the volumes of 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956, that may be enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright searches and renewals[edit]

To save time in the future, for an image like this one, that shows a copyright date, if I do a search for 28 years later and find there was no renewal of a U.S. photo, are they OK to upload? Or do I still need to get approval first? --Light show (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If copyright was not renewed 28 years later, you can upload the image directly using {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. Please note though that this is only valid for images that were published between 1923 and 1963. Any later publications may have copyright terms up to 95 years from the date of first publication. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks.--Light show (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright could be renewed anytime from the 27th anniversary of the date of publication to the 28th (and often December 31 of the 28th year). So you normally need to search at least two years of renewals -- 27 and 28 years out. It was even possible for renewals filed in December to not be published until the volumes of the next year. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: Research is indeed required, and I have been informed that Light show had been placed under an unblock condition last year which requires that he asks for approval on his talk page before uploading any such images. My reply above was not meant to lift these conditions but after nine months I wouldn't mind if that was done either. While this is being discussed with Revent, I recommend that you either wait with uploading any images or keep announcing your uploads on your user page. De728631 (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Light Show has been requesting people to look at them here, instead of his talk page, as a more visible location, which is actually 'better' IMO. Reventtalk 09:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are links for the U.S. Copyright Catalog for photographs from 1947 to 1978, (1978 to today is in a different website) including the Renewals sections. When I do a search or upload I can either add a link (which requires turning pages in the 3d viewer) or I can add a screenshot of the actual pages searched. There's even an alphabetical index of all names, so I can check by the subject or publisher's name. And there's now a full keyword search function. How best then to add those search results when I ask for approval?

They also include a totals summary for any given year, and the ratio of "renewals" to "current registrations" is 3.6%. The vast majority of the renewals I saw were for fine art, such as done by people like en:Maria Innocentia Hummel, or various other figurines, drawings, and lithographs, all of which were intended for sale. --Light show (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Another thing I discovered is that they have separate sections for "Published photographs" and "Unpublished photographs." So a photographer could copyright their photo even if it's not or never published. And those copyrights can also be searched. --Light show (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There are more links at UPenn. Photographic copyrights can be hard to search for, because if they appeared in a book or other publication (by the same author or company) the same year, they could be renewed by being part of that publication -- so it's a good idea too to see if there are any such other publications which have a decent chance of containing it. I think links are enough, or at least the volumes/sections that you searched, and the names and/or titles you searched for. Doing this kind of thing is tedious and can take some practice. The OCR in some of those volumes is also pretty poor, so you often have to look at the actual pages. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
About other books including a photo, I've seen many books which are compilations of old Hollywood photos and they always credit the photo source to somewhere else, such as Getty, Korbel Collection, private collectors, or the studios. I've come across only a few recent biographies where the author attributed a photo to their own collection, but those books weren't compilations. Examples: Hollywood Glamor Portraits: 145 Photos of Stars, 1926-1949 (1976); Hollywood Portraits: Hot-Light Techniques for Professional Photographers (2012). --Light show (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Those aren't quite the same thing -- an author (or their agent) had to be the one to renew their own works. So it would probably be books etc. by the same copyright owner as the photograph, and in the same year (or at least within the 28-year limit of the photograph). Obviously, the fact a photo was in a book which only got renewed after the photograph's copyright expired would not count. But there have been e.g. annual compilations of AP photos which could muddy the waters for their photos taken in such years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Movie copyrights vs. photo copyrights[edit]

The UPenn link is also nice because it shows more clearly that there are different copyrights used for films and for photos promoting the films. I've had many photos deleted when someone found that the movie was copyrighted. It led to some disputes which I assume contributed to me getting banned from uploads. --Light show (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Only actual stills from the movie would be covered by the movie's copyright. Publicity photos taken separately have their own, unrelated copyright. Full movies can be complicated -- they can be derivative of an earlier novel or even the characters (if they existed in a previous work), so even if the movie was not renewed, it still may not be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There are, quite likely, images deleted that in reality 'are' in the public domain. The problem is a lack of evidence... 'generic' arguments about such images are not sufficient, and it is essentially impossible, from just the CCE, to identify a registration as being for a specific photograph. This is unfortunate, but it does not mean we should just 'keep' them, and make claims about their status without specific evidence about the particular work. Reventtalk 03:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Old Los Angeles Times[edit]

I checked renewals for the 1927 L.A. Times period and found none. Is it OK to upload any images that apparently are taken by the paper? --Light show (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If they were taken by newspaper staff, then yes. I think it was only some New York newspapers which renewed anything prior to 1945. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: Because the USCO had an (annoying) tendency to sometimes publish registrations and renewals 'late', you should really try to identify the original registration before searching for renewals. It's a bit different if you can actually see the 'entire' paper, and not just the image, but it's possible (though unlikely) that such works would have their 'own' copyright, outside of the compilation one that would be in Part 2. Also, you need to search for an original registration to determine the difference between 'no notice' and 'not renewed'. Reventtalk 04:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It certainly appears, however, from looking at the 1927 records that the LA Times was registering neither 'compilation' copyrights for their periodicals, nor registering them as 'contributions to periodicals' (as a note, the New York Times, LA Evening-Herald, and LA Examiner all have registrations under 'contributions', so you would expect the LA Times would as well). It seems indeed unlikely that they would protect their images without protecting the text as well. Reventtalk 04:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Per the UPenn page, the LA Times did renew some contributions starting in July 1927; a 1954 renewal volume has some of those. So it would be good to find that entry, just so you know you are looking everywhere you need to be looking -- if you missed it, then you aren't looking everywhere you should. But overall sounds like they started renewing Sunday issues only with their 1958 papers, and daily editions starting in 1962 (i.e. renewing in 1989). So there won't be much in the way of renewals or registrations before then most likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually not finding any of those renewals... it really makes me wonder if the actual 'registrant' was something odd. Reventtalk 16:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the individual authors registered them. The one they are talking about is under Wetjen, Albert Richard. Page 1572 of the July-Dec 1954 volume. It just mentions the article in question appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded a photo of Michael Curtiz and Ilya Tolstoy from a 1927 edition. --Light show (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Olivia de Havilland photo, 1937[edit]

I did a search for 1965 and 1966 and found nothing renewed for this photo. --Light show (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Need to search for 1964 too... Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Searched and found nothing. OK to use? --Light show (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the actual registrations for 1937-1938, Vitagraph registered a lot of copyrights for photos in that time period, under 'titles' that are completely useless, such a "M. E. pub. A". Reventtalk 17:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Curtiz Original 1952 On Set ✓[edit]

This is a photo of Michael Curtiz from 1952. I searched and found nothing around 1980 for a renewal. --Light show (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Renewal could have been in 1979 or 1980. However, renewals for both those years should be online at, so a single search would cover it. Which names did you search for? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Checked both persons and the studio name for 1978-1982. No renewals were filed. I can't add a link since it times out after a few minutes. --Light show (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not showing hits on Tineye or Google, and doesn't appear to be at the stock photo libraries either. Reventtalk 04:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hrm. Seems rather unlikely that a photo in that form was not published -- but if Warner Bros. made it, then decided not to release it as a publicity shot, then it could still be under copyright. But normally you wouldn't go to the effort of writing out the accompanying tag on the back. I may lean OK, but as always, the more evidence the better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding licensing and rights[edit]

Can I upload some images that I found in a book, but yet the book claims that the images are the property of N.Y Eastern District Attorney? In such a case, who does the picture belong to; the book that the picture is in or the judicial system? An example of a similar picture would be a picture of Jimmy Coonan, which can be found in the link below: The picture that is used in that page is a public picture of Coonan that can be easily found via google search, yet it is listed as the author's "Own work", and I doubt that author was the person who toke the mugshot of Coonan. The picture in fact can be found in the book "The Westies". As such, seeing as that is allowed, I was wondering if I could upload similar photos, which are in nearly identical circumstance to that. Thank you in response TTTAssasinator (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the image w:File:James Coonan.jpg is likely a non-free image, which are not allowed on the commons but sometimes allowed on the enwiki and, thanks to you pointing it out, it has been put up for discussion or deletion. Just because other stuff exists does not mean it is always correct or a justification for you to follow suit. You need to see when and who the book was published by and if there are any attributions for the photos, only then can we really offer you some better advise. Ww2censor (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Response: The photos in the book have also been used in other materials on the web, such as youtube videos and from a pdf file published by the New Jersey judicial government. In the book, the book attributes the pictures as being the "property" of the N.Y Eastern District Attorney office, and since the photos are likely from N.Y newspaper clippings, I don't believe that the photos belong specifically to the author either. In other words, I believe that since the book itself states the photos are the properties of the N.Y Attorney office, and that some of the same photos have been published by different sources such as government files and newspapers, I am not entirely sure as to who owns the photos. Thanks in response TTTAssasinator (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I still await a response. If further information is needed for obtaining some counsel, then I will be willing to provide it. TTTAssasinator (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@TTTAssasinator: Unfortunately, many 'own work' claims on enwiki and Commons are completely spurious.... the uploader thinks 'I scanned it, so it's own work', and that is completely false. It's really hard to know, from the information given, if the DA owns 'the copyrights' or 'the physical images'. Reventtalk 04:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Here is what I know: the image that I intend to use is listed as being from the N.Y Eastern DA. I however found the same photo in a New Jersey Government crime publication. Added to this fact that the pictures were likely taken from some Newspaper organization in N.Y (not a proof), I can not say if the DA, despite the book attributing the photos to them, owns the pictures or even it's copyright, as if that is the case, then what of the book itself, or the use of the picture in a pdf publication of the New Jersey gov? The fact that the photo likely originated from a N.Y newspaper organization? That is all of what I know currently about the photo. TTTAssasinator (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@TTTAssasinator: To be honest, I really don't think you've given us enough information to really know (and that information may simply not 'be there' in the sources you are looking at). Most state governments in the US consider 'their' official works to be copyrighted, and (as you seem to suspect) the photo may have been licensed from some other source. Reventtalk 15:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Audie Murphy, 1951 ✓[edit]

Came across a still of Audie Murphy from a 1951 film. The renewal should have been registered by 1979. I checked 1978-1980 under the studio name, his name, and the film name. Nothing showed up. --Light show (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Is that a still from the film, or a separate photo? If the former, the film's renewal would cover it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It was presumably a separate photo. This was from MGM. --Light show (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the registrations for 'Works of Art/Photos/etc' for 1950-1953, I don't see anything by Loew's that could possibly apply to this (they have entries, but for Tom & Jerry stuff)... I think if this was registered, it had to be under the copyright for the movie itself. Reventtalk 04:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
After watching the part of the movie that I think is relevant, however, I don't think this is a frame from the film...Audie Murphy has lost his bandanna by the time he's carrying the flag. This may just have been 'copyrighted' but never registered. (shrugs) Reventtalk 05:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, sounds reasonable for PD-US-not renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ann Bancroft, 1952 ✓[edit]

This still of Ann Bancroft is from a 1952 film. I checked 1981-1983 for her name, the film's name, and the studio's name. (example). No renewals of anything were found. --Light show (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I assume tacit approval of images like this one if no one comments after a day or so? As the page has 865 watchers and hundreds of page visitors daily, should I always wait for final approval or can I move forward after a specified waiting period? --Light show (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: You should wait at least 3 or 4 days (the vast majority of the people 'watching' this page are almost certainly not active editors) or until their appears to be a 'consensus' that the work is okay. Reventtalk 04:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum license[edit]

What is the current consensus on the non-commercial license under which the Imperial War Museum (in London, UK) releases its images? I have read this previous discussion from 2013, but am unsure whether it is OK to use images from the IWM collections or not (as opposed to the ones they released on Flickr)? Examples would be this and this. From what I can tell, the portraits in the collections are quite often ones that were purchased by the IWM at a later date from portrait photographers (i.e. commercial studios taking portraits of soldiers). I guess the copyright status of those is unclear. But what about something like this (by a Major A. J. Wadman) where the IWM don't give the licensing option and say "All Rights Reserved" - clearly there are restrictions in place there. Or what about this by a Lieutenant Ernest Brooks (presumably en:Ernest Brooks (photographer) and see also Category:Photographs by Ernest Brooks), or this by an Ivan L. Bawtree? Bawtree was born in 1894 and died in 1979, but was employed by the British Army Graves Registration Unit and this is what his photos cover (see description here) - it would be great if we could use these. Carcharoth (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The IWM routinely claims rights over public domain images. Their claims are highly unreliable and are not of themselves a reason to either avoid uploading the images to Commons or a reason to delete images from Commons. It is essential for the uploader to make their own assessment of copyright. I have corresponded with the IWM but there has been no change as a result. -- (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you have any views on the examples I linked above? Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. HU 127013 - taken during or before 1915, the photograph has no named photographer so is public domain. Even if relatives passed this to the IWM, they would need to justify their claim of copyright with some evidence. They could try arguing they have publication rights, but that's not been claimed on their site. I suggest {{PD-UK-Unknown}}.
  2. HU 124417 - as above.
  3. Q 61497 - The IWM claim of ARR is unexplained. The photograph was either taken by Wadman or collected by Wadman and donated to the war archives in 1922.[1] This photograph was part of Major Wadman documenting his service, they are not personal photographs taken while on holiday. Before the end of WW1 these would have been considered sensitive information, and property of the Ministry of Information, and could not have been published without government permission. I cannot determine the date of death for Wadman, presumably after 1922, however the photographs taken during active service of battlefield events can be argued to have been Crown property, so {{PD-UKGov}} may apply, if challenged then there would have to be much more information supplied by the IWM to justify their claims. Publication rights cannot exist for these photographs, they were made available to the public as part of the original donation in 1922; presumably the letters of donation can be examined and with some research Wadman's date of death could be discovered.
Other photographs mentioned that are titled "official visits" or were taken for the War Graves Commission, are part of reports that were Crown property. {{PD-UKGov}} applies for all that are over 50 years since creation. The IWM does not have any special rights over these photographs. -- (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The first two have the names of the commercial studios the portraits were purchased from by the IWM (you have to click through to the images of the back of the prints). Messrs Speaight Ltd and Messrs H. Walter Barnett Ltd respectively. I agree about the Ernest Brooks one and will upload that. No idea why the ARR restriction is on the Wadman collection, nothing out there about him that seems special. The link you provide doesn't definitively say that the collection was acquired by the IWM in 1922. But they should give more information, I agree. Will have a look through the Bawtree collection - the British Army Graves Registration Unit is part of what preceded the IWGC (now CWGC), which was formally created in 1917. Hmm. "Showing 1 - 10 of 600 results". This will take a while! Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If there is only the name of the photography company, then the 70 year rule applies, so {{PD-old-70-1996}} should be sufficient. -- (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If we think the original photograph is PD in the UK (assuming that's the country of origin) and the US, we would accept it. May be best to use to the {{PD-scan}} or {{PD-Art}} tags. The IWM may be claiming copyright on the digitization itself... while that is unlikely for a scan, there have been opinions that the UK may allow copyright on photographic reproductions (i.e. when using a camera to make a copy, like of a painting). That is the PD-Art tag. If that is true, and you are a UK citizen, you could be liable in the UK even if they are accepted by admins here -- the risk is yours to take. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Clindberg, however if you do upload IWM images from the UK and you are worried, then either raise a request on the Village Pump for the uploads to be done by someone outside of the UK, or write to the IWM in the same way as I have previously at User:Fæ/email/IWM. I am uploading from the UK, however as my email to them offered "If you believe I am in any way unlawfully misrepresenting any claim of copyright or other rights the IWM may have on these images, chosen based on my understanding of Crown Copyright, I would be only too happy to either adapt the permission text on any image I have uploaded, or immediately raise any problematic image(s) up for deletion review by the Wikimedia Commons community based on your stated requirements." then I believe if the IWM attempted to take any legal action, I can easily demonstrate that I made every reasonable effort to comply with copyright law, including offering to stop uploading if they just contacted me.
The fact is that the IWM would be foolish to set a precedent for "sweat of the brow", as it could end up being an important case that would undermine their long term misuse of unsupportable copyright claims for public domain images, especially when most of the most important photographs have copies freely available in other archives. -- (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Belgian jurisdiction on threshold of originality[edit]

I want to upload this image, which was released in Belgium. Does anyone know how Belgian law works? --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

According to this essay it is very low requiring only that the work be an "own intellectual creation of the author". But usually this album cover should be {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Created File:Whispers-rock-steady-solar-belgium-indisc-vinyl.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


While SpaceX has released images on their Flickr page as Public Domain, I do not think that Elon Musk's Twitter images are in PD. So I guess File:Raptor-test-9-25-2016.jpg does not belong here until it is released with real licence. -- 06:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

But Musk was specifically asked to release these two images under a free license? Ruslik (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Burning Man 2013 Feet of Truth is Beauty (10227019446).jpg[edit]

Would this still count as de-minimis? The statue was made by Marco Cochrane so it is still copyrighted and there is no FOP in the United States. I'm not so worried about the portion of this larger statue shown here but I'm wondering about the grid pattern on the statue that seems to be an intentional part of the artwork. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's de minimis. I'm not really worried about the framework, but that's a large substantial part of the statue; e.g. w:Statue of Liberty Forever stamp only included the face, but was still a matter of a major lawsuit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Nominated for deletion. De728631 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Curtiz and Dagover, 1932[edit]

I'd like a review of this image from 1932 copyrighted 1932 by First National Pictures. That studio closed in 1936. I did a renewal search for the persons and studio. The film itself is free online and apparently PD, FWIW. --Light show (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

First National was taken over by Warner Brothers, which would administer all of the rights after that. Copyrights rarely just go away; when companies go out of business typically another company buys up any property like that, and would be the copyright owner going forward. While it likely was, there is no information there that that photo was published in 1932 (may have been 1931 as well, if distributed as publicity before the film, etc.). But if you can show it was, then do a renewal search for the appropriate years under Warner Brothers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
No renewals of anything by WB from 1959-1961. Sample 1960 page. --Light show (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: Yes, there are... see [2] the other half of that same volume. The CCE was published in January-June and July-December sections, that are bound together at the IA. You have to check both. Reventtalk 05:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I do that a bit differently, using 1960 for example, I go to this page first, which takes me right to renewals for any 6-month period. The page you linked to was for "current registrations," not renewals. --Light show (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You're right, that was a registration, not a renewal... I don't use the UPenn page, though I'm familiar with it, because it often links to rather crappy Google Books scans. Still, you should really first attempt to locate the original registration... and for photos, that's usually quite hard to do, unfortunately. Reventtalk 05:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any registrations by First National of 'photos' from the appropriate period, though I did find the movie. TBH, I would not trust that 'footnote' at IMDB.. for all we know, it's just referring to the copyright in the movie itself. Reventtalk 06:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The searching is simple, but finding a registration is unlikely. As noted here, "Publicity photos have traditionally not been copyrighted." From Honthaner's credentials, she seems to know. I've never come across a publicity photo that was registered, since registering one would defeat its purpose. I think that most of those boilerplate notices on publicity photos were meant for the film, not the photo. --Light show (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You can stop linking that enwiki boilerplate. We've seen it. We don't care. It's a 'generic' argument, and it's been made clear repeatedly that you need an argument for the status of the 'specific' work.
There are 'many' publicity images out there with visible copyright notices... you have, in fact, asked 'here' for people to review images that had visible copyright notices. Such works may have been 'copyrighted' without registration, or they could have been registered anytime within the initial 28 year term, and the copyright may have changed ownership before it was registered or renewed. When you do not find a registration or renewal, that does not mean it does not exist, it merely means 'you did not find it'... it's evidence, not proof. You should, really, always look for a registration first, since it's more likely to exist, and more likely to be listed under a name that you would know to look for... if you find a registration, it's pretty easy to 'prove' if it was ever renewed.
It is far preferable to 'not' upload images that are 'in actuality' okay, due to a lack of evidence, than to upload images that end up being copyvios, and putting re-users at risk by telling them that you 'know' the specific work is okay under some generic argument. Reventtalk 07:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
If you have to rely on the "well most photos were not renewed" argument, you don't have enough evidence, so don't upload it. We need specific evidence for this specific photo. For the U.S., that means we need to find when a work was first published. That website is not the first publication. It was obviously taken long ago... so find a form which was actually published back then. If it was an unpublished photo only released years later, the dates and names you'd need to search for might be different. A source such as that does not provide enough information to do a renewal search -- if it was first published in a book or magazine, you'd have to search for that renewal, etc. Anything with an unknown provenance becomes too suspect. For non-U.S. countries, we need to know the human authors and how long they lived. Anything else gets more dangerous, and also requires knowing the original publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Curtiz photo by Hurrell, 1943[edit]

Did a search for surrounding renewal years of this photo by Hurrell, from 1943. I also searched for MPTV, a stock house which, like Getty, claims copyright over everything, regardless. --Light show (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

For the above photo, it's reprinted in Michael Barson's Who's Who of Hollywood Directors (1995), with credit given to the L.A. Public Library archive photos collection. This Michael Curtiz portrait also came from there. From their description, their photos are free to use w/o restrictions. I can call or write them to verify if necessary. Their order form for prints says nothing about copyright, restrictions, or licensing. --Light show (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW, is there any online PD photo archive in Europe similar to the above and the LOC? --Light show (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: What the hell? The page at does not say that their photos are free to use without restrictions, it in fact specifically states that one of their collections (Shades of LA) is 'restricted to personal, research, and non-commercial use', and says nothing at all about the status of the other collections. I'm, to be honest, starting to feel like everything you say needs to be double checked. Reventtalk 05:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC) states that many of the photos in the Herald Examiner collection are wire service photos that cannot be posted online because they are the property of the wire service. You cannot just assume images from there are PD. Period. Reventtalk 05:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Those "wire service" photos are not posted on their web site so it's not an issue. That message could be for those going to their collections in person to borrow a copy. As for the others, you're right, they're not all PD. The ones I was looking at seemed to be free. Note that the source for Curtiz shows no restrictions, while that "Shades of Gray" collection of old families, does have restrictions given in a typical source page. They make the difference pretty clear on those source pages, so it's easy to verify. --Light show (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It's an issue that you claimed a specific webpage makes a statement of permission that it clearly does not.
The first image, the one from IMDB/MPTV. Both claim it's copyrighted, and state the photographer. The book attributes it to the LAPL photo collection, but it is not 'visible' at LAPL... they do not say it is PD, and in fact say that there are images in their collection that are not.
Also, see the LAPL page at and read the red text at the top. Don't upload these. Reventtalk 07:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
What's the problem with the 2nd image? It's source page has no restrictions stated. The link above doesn't seem to work well, so you may have to do a search to get it. --Light show (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: The "Photo Order Information" page says the the LAPL will provide a release form with 'permissions to images and copyright restrictions' after an image is ordered. They don't say anything, anywhere, about stating the copyright status of works on their website. They also, specifically, say that the images on their website are for personal use only. Reventtalk 17:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Their page says: The contents of this collection are restricted to personal, research, and non-commercial use. The Library cannot share the personal and/or contact information of the donors, their descendants, or associates who contributed photographs and oral histories to the collection. Translation -- they don't have the first idea about copyright status, so only use under fair use conditions. They probably do not own copyright in the first place and can't give permission for anything. For photographs, you need to know when they were first published, not first taken. You need very solid evidence. Looking for renewals is very very hard -- you need to show they were not part of a book which got renewed in the correct year, etc. A photo from 1943 may not have been published for some time later. Yes, this means that many photos which may be PD we will leave alone just because we don't know enough. Stick to photos where you can see the original publication conditions -- either no notice, or the original copyright notice giving the year and copyright owner to search for, and you see the photo in its published form. Publicity photos are much more likely to have needed an individual renewal; other photos get much much harder. For example a photo which was only published in a cropped version, may mean the rest of the photo (published many years later) is still unpublished and remains copyrighted, so we can't use the whole thing. You need to show that the photo was not in a book (are you searching book renewal sections?), periodicals (separate renewal sections), possibly prints, etc. You can't just search artworks. Publicity photographs, where you can see the originally published form, at least have a grounding in that that was the original form of publication so you have some solid information to start with. Picking random photos which have a date will get you into trouble sooner rather than later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you then recheck the earlier Michael Curtiz photo section from last week? OK or not? --Light show (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
About your first sentence, that "The contents of this collection are restricted ...", that was from the "Shades of L.A." collection text. The Overview description states that "The Photo Collection includes these main groupings: Security Pacific National Bank Collection, the Shades of LA Compilations, and the Herald Examiner newspaper morgue. Those are three different collections with their own re-use guidelines. I was only going by an image from the first of those. I'd be happy to call or write them to clarify PD status for that particular collection, and if they say they're PD, then OTRS can take it from there. --Light show (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I wrote them to clarify all that and will update when they reply. In the meantime, can someone recheck that other photo? --Light show (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
OK fine, but don't see anywhere anything which remotely sounds like a free license for the rest. If you order photos from them, looks like they make you sign a contract to limit further distribution -- and that is all collections. They may not own all of the copyrights in question anyways -- that depends on the terms of the donors. In short, anything there you'd have to prove PD status by another means. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
They replied stating they have 3,000 boxes of photos, but the one in question can't be located do to filing errors. I also asked about other press photos in their collection, to see if they would add the reverse side to the source web page or even send me copy if asked, and they implied that they could, since it would show publication date and a description. --Light show (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Überseemuseum Bremen 2009 063a.jpg[edit]

I cropped this file from File:Überseemuseum Bremen 2009 063.JPG, but apparently the description/licensing in my uploading was not ok, so I got the no licence tag. I tried to correct it, but could somebody please check whether the file is ok now? Thanks --AHert (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the {{extracted from}} template, which makes it a bit more obvious. But yes, the original mistake was not using a licensing template, but rather just typing in the name of the license -- that means the file ends up in a "no license tag" bin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I hope I get it right next time. --AHert (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Base-legal statement from de Dominican Republic[edit]

What does Base legal statement from de Dominican Republic. Can I use data from that organizations on Commons and which license would it be? For convenience, the original text below.

Toda persona tiene derecho a solicitar y a recibir información completa, veraz, adecuada y oportuna, de cualquier órgano del Estado Dominicano, y de todas las sociedades anónimas, compañías anónimas o compañías por acciones con participación estatal, incluyendo:

a) Organismos y entidades de la administración pública centralizada;
b) Organismos y entidades autónomas y/o descentralizadas del Estado, incluyendo el Distrito Nacional y los organismos municipales;
c) Organismos y entidades autárquicas y/o descentralizadas del Estado;
d) Empresas y sociedades comerciales propiedad del Estado;
e) Sociedades anónimas, compañías anónimas y compañías por acciones con participación estatal;
f) Organismos e instituciones de derecho privado que reciban recursos provenientes del Presupuesto Nacional para la consecución de sus fines;
g) El Poder Legislativo, en cuanto a sus actividades administrativas;
h) El Poder Judicial, en cuanto a sus actividades administrativas.

Este derecho de información comprende el derecho de acceder a las informaciones contenidas en actas y expedientes de la administración pública, así como a estar informada periódicamente, cuando lo requiera, de las actividades que desarrollan entidades y personas que cumplen funciones públicas, siempre y cuando este acceso no afecte la seguridad nacional, el orden público, la salud o la moral públicas o el derecho ala privacidad e intimidad de un tercero o el derecho a la reputación de los demás.

--Jos1950 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't speak Spanish but I've run this through Google Translator and got a decent result. This is merely a disclaimer stating that anyone has the right to obtain information from the government of the DomRep and from companies where the government is a shareholder. The text grants everyone free "access to information" from the government but it does not explicitly permit the re-use of such data on other media, let alone commercial use, as is required for Commons. So from this brief look I would say that you cannot upload any images or other files from the website you linked. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought so to, but was not sure. I was looking for something because I had found the file[0]=c49cf369269515ae8b0c27c9588d844d PEDERNALES.pdf of that institution. (There is something strange about the link by [0]). The data are useful when searching for information, but I will keep the files for backup and use the data independently. Tanks --Jos1950 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Demokratikuskoalicio logo.svg[edit]

File was uploaded as "own work", but this seems unlikely because of this. Although the logo seems quite simple. I'm not sure if it would be above the TOO for Hungary. There's not much information given in COM:TOO#Hungary to work with and the link to a supposedly protected logo is dead. I did find what might be an archive of that webpage here, but that logo looks quite simple too. Is the DK logo simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}} or does it need to be treated as fair use?

Finally, it seems that the current version is quite different from the previous version. Should the "current" version have been uploaded as a completely different file? Is it possible that the previous version was below the TOO, but the latest version is not?

Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be OK in the U.S. Not sure about Hungary. I think an archived link to the TOO logo is here. This might be a *little* simpler but it's not that far off. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Clindberg. Does the file need to be clearly PD with respect to Hungary to be licensed as {{PD-textlogo}} on Commons? It does not seem to be "own work", so I'm not sure how to fix that if the file cannot be licensed as PD-textlogo. English Wikipedia does allow PD-USOnly to be used when logos are below the US TOO, but those files typically are not allowed to be moved to Commons. Is there a way to move images from Commons to English Wikipedia? That would make the logo OK to use on English Wikipedia, but will not necessarily mean the same for the other language Wikipedias where it is currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not own work, so it's PD-ineligible or bust for Commons. It could be moved to en-wiki. As for when there is lack of certainty... I'm sure we have many which go both ways, just using PD-textlogo and keeping, and some which we delete. Some countries have basically no court case guidance on such matters. I do note that the license appears to come from the previous, completely different upload, which might be on the other side of the U.S. TOO line. Might be worth a DR. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanity Fair magazine, pre-1940[edit]

I haven't been able to find any copyrights, original or renewals, for Vanity Fair before 1940. The parent company, Conde Nast, publishes other magazines, such as Vogue, and that magazine was copyrighted. A sample page from the Copyright Catalog page 120 for example, which shows Vogue with copyright by Conde Nast but nothing for Vanity Fair which would have been on page 119. The same for 1970.

As for Conde Nast, in 1940 they didn't have copyrights under their name, as this 1940 page shows, see p. 28. It seems that the magazine name was listed with Conde Nast after it, as in the Vogue example.

The question then is just about the older VF, before 1940, for example, to see if they are PD. --Light show (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the UPenn periodical renewal page, Vanity Fair was filing renewals in 1950, so that was pre-1923 material. They may have forgotten at times, but usually once that's part of the process, a company will continue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I just read that during those years it was absorbed into Vogue, which explains it all now. Thanks for checking. --Light show (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Arnold Palmer photos[edit]

1. I found a nice press photo of Arnold Palmer, which would help his article. Shows all needed info. on the reverse. He died a few days ago. --Light show (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Here's another, from 1963 which would look good in the body. --Light show (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

3. Another press photo from 1961.

4. Or this one from 1963, showing both sides.--Light show (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

All are wire photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
On the photos that include proof of publication, such as with a news clipping, dates, publication names, etc., and based on the Library of Congress's review of such press photos and their published conclusion that they were rarely, if ever registered or renewed for copyright, would a search serve to be strong enough supporting evidence of no copyright? This question may come up in the future for similar wire photos. --Light show (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
If they were not renewed, that is a possibility. Those do show they were published at the time, just not published without notice. It would help to know the photographers -- sometimes they could be contractors who keep copyright and could renew under their own name. But it's also possible an AP search is enough. Be sure to look in the book sections though... if the AP produced a book of the year's photos, and renewed that, that clouds the waters until we see what photos were inside, as the book renewal would cover any photos they owned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
My understanding about such books, which are basically compilations, is that the book's copyright does not extend to any preexisting material. See this circular. --Light show (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Photography: commercial information displayed[edit]

I found a picture [3] ("Carnada (4558707703).jpg", en : -> "Bait") which is now categorized, but I need to ask if the image conforms, because the object of the photograph is an advertisement, which shows a website and phone number (and an identifiable individual?). It is my opinion that the intention by the photographer was not necessarily the actual commercial promotional aspect casing the subject matter, but more of an expression. Your review is appreciated. Tortillovsky (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been deleted. Thanks. Tortillovsky (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Marvel of Ants.jpg[edit]

Can someone check the OTRS ticket on the original huwiki source image at hu:Fájl:Bence_Mate_Wildlife_Photographer_of_the_Year.jpg which says it is a copyright image. Is it free enough for us to keep here? Ww2censor (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The licence template at hu.wikipedia has a small disclaimer in English: "This image is copyrighted and used here with permission. For the purposes of Wikipedia this is a non-free licence." If it is non-free on Wikipedia it's inappropriate for Commons. De728631 (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

File:2009 Golden Guitar Winners.jpg[edit]

Photo is described as commissioned work, but I'm not sure if that always automatically implies a transfer of copyright or whether the photographer still holds the copyright in some cases. Is OTRS needed for this image to verify the uploader is also the copyright holder? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the Australian Attorney General (see page 7) the photographer is the copyright owner unless there was a specific agreement to the contrary. Reventtalk 16:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Revent. SHould this be tagged with {{npd}} then? -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

File:St-Jeure d'Ay singes heureux 1.jpg[edit]

Is this photo a copyvio or not? An IP claims that it is and that the author is Eric Frezal. The photo is used here, but I am not sure if the uploader copied it from this page. --jdx Re: 09:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Russian Maps[edit]


Is this applicable to maps made in Russia which are based on Russian laws? (E.g. Maps of Russian Administrative Districts.) Thanks. Wetitpig0 (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The administrative boundaries themselves are not copyrightable but specific maps can be depending on what these maps contain in addition to the boundaries. Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The map also contains the name of the administrative subjects. That's all. Wetitpig0 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, are deriatives considered as own works? Wetitpig0 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


Is it legal for me to upload a mugshot of a criminal here on wikimedia? The mugshot is most likely the property of the law enforcement agency that toke the image. I believe that the picture is specifically needed to illustrate the subject in question, that there is no free equivalent form of media that is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information, and I believe that it qualifies as fair usage under U.S copyright laws. I would like to ask for advice on this subject, as to whether or not doing this qualifies as fair use. Thanks in response. TTTAssasinator (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia may host them as fair use, but you'd have to check with the rules on that particular Wikipedia. Commons only holds Free media, which doesn't include mugshots unless they were taken by the FBI or another organization that puts its work in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Australian National Maritime Museum[edit]

I just noticed that even though the images from the Australian National Maritime Museum are marked on Flickr as "No known copyright restrictions", the rights statement on their website also says "Users may download or print off these images for research, artistic or other personal use. If images are reproduced or distributed it is on the condition that they [...] will not be used for any commercial or for-profit purposes without the permission of the Australian National Maritime Museum." As far as I can understand, that effectively means a CC-BY-NC license, which is not acceptable here. I don't know anything about copyright rules in Australia - for all I know, maybe many of the photos are in the public domain anyway - but I suppose it's a good idea to look into it. Blue Elf (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm puzzled about why they would say they are not aware of any copyright restrictions for the files on Flickr and then try to impose various restrictions. It seems like they accept that they don't hold any rights but want to get usage fees regardless. --ghouston (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Writing as the uploader, and having uploaded lots of other Flickr Commons collections, what you are seeing that the ANMM has selected parts of its collection it believes are completely free of restrictions to share on Flickr, while their Website terms just default to being cautious and they don't bother to assess subsets of their collection to test whether some are public domain.
For many Museums, they don't have the resources to assess every image, and they often have a duty to avoid risk as much as possible.
Lastly, from a Commons perspective, it does not matter to us that a verifiable license from a GLAM is different in different places. This just means we can (and should) choose the weakest and even then, if we can demonstrate that a restricted image is public domain, we can ignore whatever other licenses say and add the most legally correct one.
If you remain unhappy, I suggest you write to the ANMM via their Flickrstream and ask them about the license inconsistencies. It does not hurt to confirm what their viewpoint is. -- (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
There's a section of that page linked by Blue Elf [4] on "Copyright and Flickr", so it's not just default website terms. However their pages on Flickr don't seem to make any such claim. --ghouston (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
We have many uploads from GLAM with the "no known copyright restrictions" tag but you will also notice the tag specifically states; "Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined", so is we are diligent reviewers we can make an attempt to verify any images that might be incorrectly assessed as freely usable by the institution. However, as an example, I discovered that some images from the National Library of Ireland are in fact not free of restrictions and I'm sure there are some more lingering around. As Fae says, institutions do often tend to have blanket copyright statements on their websites which are clearly no correct for every image, even some of the US military's Flickr accounts have copyright restrictions when we know that US government work is in the public domain. We get two sides of the coin and need to be aware of these issues, so we ascertain the actual copyright status where there are any doubt. Ww2censor (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
If they explicitly license a work with "No known copyright restrictions", they really shouldn't be able to then go claim a copyright restriction elsewhere. That is counter to Flickr Commons' aims. And their license page even explicitly says: This means that the museum is not aware of any copyright restriction on these photographs. So... even they say there is no copyright restriction, so I don't know how they can restrict commercial use, unless it is a trademark thing about using their name in connection with the use. For our purposes, that would be a Commons:Non-copyright restriction. Or, maybe it was standard fair-use boilerplate that someone copy/pasted to that section. But the Flickr license really is hard to ignore. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Theatre photos by User:Christian Michelides[edit]

Do we have proper permission from the creators of this opera production to use this image?

Hi, I think that many or all of User:Christian Michelides's wonderful theatre photo uploads are copyright violations. The pictures were taken during press performances, which means that there is probably a permission to use these photos for press purposes, but I don't think that this also applies to using them on Wikimedia Commons. Therefore, we could only keep the images that have nothing copyrightable in them, e.g. closeup shots of actors. I have already contacted the user on his talk page but received no response. --Gnom (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Another example of a photo showing an elaborate stage setting.
One of the images File:Antigone 5370-michelides.jpg has an OTRS ticket, though as I am not an OTRS volunteer I can;t say why this has a ticket and other don't, bit is is possible this could also covers this editor's other image. However, the author is also the editor and the camera metadata is, for those images I checked, all are from the same camera model and most were uploaded by him, so I doubt there us actually a problem. HIs own uploads are 280 images over a 2-year period. Permission to photograph does not usually affect the copyright which remains with the photographer unless they have contracted to limit their own copyright by receiving permission to attend and photograph the performance. I doubt you can accurately infer what was agreed or not. Which specific image do you think contain copyrightable elements? If there are specific ones you can always tag them with {{LicenseReview}}. If you still have concerns,and ss you have not received a response on his talk page maybe you should contact him on his website which is clearly linked by his user page. Ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ww2censor, I was referring to the copyrighted stage sets and costumes which can be seen in many of the photos. --Gnom (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
What is hidden behind this picture's OTRS ticket?
As I suggested, you can always tag such images for review or even deletion when you suspect they contain copyrightable elements so long as they are not de minimis. I agree that File:Tosca 8074-michelides.jpg probably should be considered for review if not deletion. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, before I tag a few dozen photos used on numerous wikis for deletion, I thought I'd at least ask here first. I was wondering why nobody had seen this before. --Gnom (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It needs a German speaker to review the OTRS ticket but it does relate to a number of images not just the one mentioned above. Nthep (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
File:Die letzten Zeugen Ffm 6516 Michelides.jpg is a featured picture and has a different OTRS ticket number than File:Antigone 5370-michelides.jpg I mentioned above, so certainly an OTRS volunteer should have a look before you do anything. Ww2censor (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
This photo is perfectly fine as it shows no protected work of art.
Okay, I'll wait for this to happen then. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
If the uploader is a licensed photographer, the ability to upload would be based on whatever contract he or she signed with the theater or production company. If they gave the photographers the right to take photos, but did not restrict the further licensing of those photos, then they are probably OK (at least as far as the works are seen in the photo -- I don't think they are licensing the pictured works directly). Only the photographer and theater company would know the terms of that contract, so I think it really should be the theater company to ask for deletion, as otherwise we really don't know and probably shouldn't assume that it's wrong. But, that is assuming these were taken during press performances. If they were taken by an audience member without any explicit permission from the theater or production company, that would be different, and I think a reasonable concern. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I can't imagine a theatre allowing the use of photos taken during a press performance for any purpose. --Gnom (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Why not? Such photos often end up on Getty etc., so they could well be sold commercially. It depends on the contract -- photographers or press agencies may not agree to such restrictions. I would hope the photographer would know the restrictions they are under before uploading, to be honest. Such underlying works would only be licensed in the context of the uploaded photographs themselves -- it would not give a direct license of any underlying works, so you could not make a derivative work of the set design directly, for example. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Both tickets are in German, so I would suggest getting a native German speaker's opinion (@Wdwd, Steinsplitter:?), but taken together it ticket:2015040110015983 and ticket:2016020310014071 seem to me to be reasonable evidence that the theater has (at least) OK'd the license. Storkk (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


File was uploaded as "own work", but it can be seen online here and here and given the uploader's Vietnam Football League history it seems likely they simply found the photo online file somewhere online and mistakenly assumed they could upload it as their own. The soccerway and spox websites attribute the file to the Flickr account of vinhtantran and it looks like this is the actual source of the photo. I guess it is possible that the uploader and the Flickr account holder are the same person, but there is a Commons' account Vinhtantran which is still active, so not sure who is really the Flickr account holder. FWIW, the Flickr licensing seems compatible with Commons' requirements, but I'm not sure what needs to be done here. Should the file be tagged with {{No permission since}} or does the licensing just need to be edited to reflect that it likely comes from Flickr? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Marking it copyvio, as uploader states another license than on Flickr and did not attribute the author properly is OK. Fixing the source and license info basing on Flickr is also OK. Ankry (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Swedish photo from 1963[edit]

I would appreciate some expertise on Swedish copyright law in this DR. The photo is the subject of a complaint (though not directly from the putative copyright holder). Storkk (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)