Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


Is body camera = public domain?[edit]

File:David Ben Avraham raising his hands moments before his killing.jpg Could anyone help double check if this photo qualifies for public domain? I believe it is a screenshot from one of the copies of this video. Thank you. Would body camera video (if it is that) qualify for pre-positioned video? Starship.paint (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: Not sure but
To me body camera does not seem prepositioned and seems not eligible for copyright but Wikimedia Commons thinking has no relationship to what copyright law does or interprets with new technology. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lester Pearson 1957.jpg[edit]

This photo is claimed as Public Domain, in Sweden and the US. I don't see how its a Swedish photograph, as it was taken in Montreal, Canada by Gaby (Gabriel Desmarais), 1956.[1] It's probably PD in the USA, but don't photos need to be PD in both source country and the USA? According to the Banq fonds for Gabriel Desmarais, all works are Copyrighted (Life+70). The GabyEstate is also selling prints on ebay at https://www.ebay.ca/itm/276064146320 which had some info.
Based on this info, should it be deleted as Copyrighted in home country? PascalHD (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The country of origin is the country of first publication, not necessarily where it was taken or the nationality of the author. I think the presumption was this was a portrait taken specifically for the Nobel Prize and published as part of that, in Sweden. At that point, the hope was that it fell under Sweden's 25-year term for "simple photos" which would have expired before the URAA date. However...
I'm not sure that qualified for the "simple photo" in the first place. Studio portraits, where just about everything is under control of the photographer, are usually "works". It's usually snapshots or news photos where the photographer has no control over the scene that are simple. If not simple, that would make it copyrighted in both countries. Given the link you gave, which shows that copies existed in 1956, then it seems likely that the country of origin was Canada, and it was published in 1956. That would make the Swedish question moot (for Commons anyways). Until 1999, the copyright term in Canada was 50 years from creation for photos, simple or not. That changed in 1999 to become 50pma, and just recently to 70pma. That would mean that while it got somewhat close to expiring, it never did, and thus the U.S. copyright was restored as well. It would expire in Canada in 2062, and the U.S. in 2052. If the photo was published within 30 days in other countries (particularly the U.S.) that could change things again, but we may need some evidence of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to open a DR to furthur discuss it there instead. Any further points by anyone can be made here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Lester Pearson 1957 PascalHD (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung GT-S3600 found in Google[edit]

Hi, I am OperationSakura6144. I was finding an image to use as an icon for my new upcoming userboxes.

When I searched in Google for that, I found this, a black stylish Samsung GT-S3600 on a hand. The photo of S3600 reminds me the old times of Samsung before the Galaxy phones in the late 2000's, and it is a ideal images for my userbox describing my love to retro and old 2000's technology.

Despite getting an ideal image, I find something wrong. The website having that image belongs to Carousell, a marketplace website. Now, I am confused. Shall I use that or not? If it is, can it be uploaded to WikiComms without any copyright issues? I am in the middle of the sea, because WikiComms doesn't allow non-free and copyrighted material, and I got a kinda non-free image in Google for my userboxes.

I would like you to help me in this situation. I don't intend or like to violate a copyright, just for personal reasons. That's why I am counting on you. I hope you get me a solution for this.

To end this post, I would be happy to hear I can use the WikiComms image of Samsung GT-S3600, especially on a hand operating it.

Thank you. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OperationSakura6144: Have you reviewed COM:NETC?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've read COM:NETC. It says public domain images are allowed in WikiComms. The image of Samsung GT-S3600 I wanna use is kinda public domain, as it's available through Google, but I am not sure about the copyright laws permittting the usage of images from commercial websites. They would allow commercial images to be used as free in some cases, right? Even if it's so, I need to find what copyright licenses the image of S3600 has to prevent copyvios. In simple words, I can use the image of S3600 from a commercial website in WikiComms after uploading it, but it has to comply with the copyright laws here. Otherwise, that would end up in a copyvio. I hope you understand it. Thank you. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OperationSakura6144. Your The image of Samsung GT-S3600 I wanna use is kinda public domain statment seems to be a common mistake that many make in that looks like you're confusing "publicly available" with "public domain". You can find out more about public domain here, but the fact that something is available online (even something that can be freely downloaded) doesn't mean it also free from copyright protection. "Public domain" bascially refers to content that once was but no longer is protected by copyright for some reason (e.g its age) or content that is considered too simple or too common (i.e. not creative enough to warrant copyright protection) to be protected by copyright. In principle, the copyright of a photo is considered to be owned by the person taking the photo; so, if you didn't take a photo you want to upload, you probably should assume that the copyright is "owned" by the person who did per COM:NETCOPY and that you're going to need their COM:CONSENT if you want to upload the file to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, part of the confusion stems from "public domain" having more than one meaning. While we on Commons use it in the sense of "free from copyright," there is another usage that means, "available to the public." The term is explained differently between dictionaries, which also sows some confusion, especially with non-native speakers of English (who won't know which dictionary to rely on). Other than being understanding about the source of confusion, there is not much more we can do. From our perspective, we are talking about the definition related to copyright only. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for mixing up the words "public domain" and "publicly available". Anyways, that was not the topic I was talking about. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OperationSakura6144: Right, you can't without Samsung and the photographer sending permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but I need to tell something. Samsung has nothing to do with it, because it is about an unused product that's for sale in Karousell, and I don't think I need to contact the photographer you refer for my trivial userboxes, because I now realised the S3600 in www.carousell.ph was sold out! Even though, to avoid copyvios, I am giving credit to the so-called photographer for his/her image after uploading it and adding to Category: Samsung mobile phones (I am not being dishonest by the way). Thank you for helping me, and I hope you can help me in times of worry. I appreciate your help. See you all. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OperationSakura6144: Giving credit to the photographer doesn't remove copyright. Please do not upload images from the Internet without the formal written permission from the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer. Yann (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could've, but there's no time for that because I cannot waste time to have the permission granted to upload images from internet just for my userboxes. Now, I've uploaded the image of S3600 and gave credit to the photographer. I am not egoistic, but I had to do it. I'm sorry. It's too early to do that. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OperationSakura6144: I deleted your file as it is a copyright violation. You say "I cannot waste time to have the permission granted to upload images from Internet", but it is essential to respect copyright. Do not upload it again, or you will be blocked. Yann (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you did what you should. Now, I am not angry with you because I have many ways other than uploading images from internet, but, can you and other users help me by uploading a photo of Samsung GT-S3600 on a hand, so that it doesn't serve benefits just for me but also for the community? I don't think it can be done in a moment, but I am sure every user in WikiComms is capable for that. Sorry for committing a copyvio, in your gut felling atleast, but it's okay. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OperationSakura6144 usually, it is the obligation of the uploader to contact the photographer of the internet image to obtain commercial Creative Commons license clearance. COM:VRTS correspondence is encouraged: VRT page provides the steps for the copyright holder to send licensing authorization to Wikimedia Foundation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not egoistic, but I had to do it. I'm sorry". You were explained several times in this thread it was not okay to upload the image, yet you did. If you are unsure about the copyright status of certain file, please do not upload, and when seeking advice, please don't disregard it. It wastes our time, and yours, too. Bedivere (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please confirm...[edit]

Hi there! Can someone please confirm that this image is CCBYSA4, and is therefore allowed on Commons? Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source page says it is available under {{OGL3}}, which is accepted on Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your time on this, and your confirmation. There are hundreds of similar aerial photographs, and I wanted to be 100% certain. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywelyn2000: I notice the file is called File:Black Point Rath, Pembrokeshire, Wales - Bryngaer y Penrhyn Du o Wefan Coflein ar CCBYSA4 via OGL.png, which includes references to specific licences. It is not a good idea to include licence details in the file name (especially in this case, as both licences are wrong - it is OGL 3.0 rather than the original OGL). Would a file title of "Black Point Rath, Pembrokeshire, Wales - Bryngaer y Penrhyn Du o Wefan Coflein ar" make sense or is the Welsh a bit nonsensical now that the licences are removed? If you can confirm the correct file name, we can request a page move. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: many thanks! I didn't spot the OGL3 detail! I've never added licence details in the past, but needed to bring the openness of this image to the fore, before it was deleted by someone! This is because RCAHMW have never in the past placed their images on an open licence! After 10 years of discussions, we have a break through! I've now requested a page move, and thanks for your input in this. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

Hi. I wanted to ask for more information about the copyright status of maps. I have a scanned map from a textbook and I have read through Commons:Threshold of originality#Maps, wondering if it can be uploaded. I think the design is too simple, but it marks the location of several ports and boats. Is there a way I could tell if it is suitable for upload? Maybe I could ask a Workshop for a derivative work? Many thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: It is very difficult to know without looking at the individual maps, but in general maps are exactly as copyrightable as any other image. - Jmabel ! talk 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I'll think about creating a new map from scratch, in that case. Many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus: typically no reason to start from scratch. Start from a PD or free-licensed map of the relevant area. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organs in countries with no-FoP indoors: copyrightable or not?[edit]

From the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Heilig Geist (Zürich-Höngg) (still-open Swiss FoP deletion request) comes a claim that organs are mere utilitarian objects whose designers cannot protect. Is it true for all organs in all countries with no applicable indoor FoP, like Switzerland and Germany? Some discussion may be needed as I think there are images of organs that have been deleted in the past. Ping two people involved in that DR: @Paradise Chronicle and IronGargoyle: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I've been wondering about myself and at least IMO they should be copyrightable in cases where it's not a "simple" organ. For instance if it contains an inornate or ornate design. Although who knows where the line is, but that's at least where I'd draw it at. Since I think you lose the whole argument that it is purely utilitarian at that point. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these pictures show more than the organ. So these could be a problem. Also something must be subject to a copyright in the first place. I doubt it is the case for File:Heilig Geist Höngg Werktagskapelle.JPG. This only shows chairs, a table, and plain walls. Yann (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add COM:UA which refers on utilitarian works, mostly on US law and makes a difference between law in the US and law in other countries. In in Switzerland (and other countries) originality seems to be important (chapter copyright at p.3) and in my opinion an organ in a church is in the vast majorities (I have not yet come across a duplicate or a series of church organs) an original. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The shape and arrangement of the pipes and organ housing may be aesthetically pleasing, but it is inseparable from its function (the type of sound produced). This inseparability of form and function is the key element of COM:UA. I should also mention that COM:UA notes the threshold of originality for the applied arts (which this would be) is higher in Switzerland. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian Institution Copyright[edit]

I was wondering whether this article and in particular the drawings therein could be in the public domain under {{PD-USGov-SI}}, given that they were made by an employee of the Smithsonian Institutions / the US National Museum. The notes on that template suggest that some additional research may have to be done to ascertain the funds from which the author had been paid, but maybe this is known for staff scientists at the museum in the 1960s? Felix QW (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure.
A government employee wrote an article with illustrations. All works of that employee are public domain. The first publication of that article is in a journal which claims copyright. I am not sure what happens when a unpublished work which is public domain from creation is first published in a journal which seeks to acquire the copyright of everyone who contributes to it. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball card uploads[edit]

I'm looking through JonP125's uploads. I'm seeing hundreds of baseball cards with extremely shaky public domain claims.

None of the uploads explain why they are marked as unregistered or without a notice.

What does the board feel should be done? I'm loathe to do a mass nomination without community input first. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No-notice claims should be fairly straightforward -- if there is a notice on the card, it's not fine. We should see the whole front and the whole back, of course. If cards came in packs and there was a notice on the outer container, that could be an issue. No-renewal claims can be rebutted by finding the renewal number. Looking through several of the uploads, the source usually has the front and back, and I don't see notices. So, not sure what the problem is. The uploader seems to have been somewhat careful about only using pre-1989 cards. There may be some mistakes but any DRs should probably be on a case-by-case basis if there is reason to doubt that we are seeing the entire front or back. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the company and year but most of the time with modern baseball cards the copyright notices are on the back of the cards and are on all the cards for the same season. If there are ones that don't have images the back they are easy enough to find on eBay. Although if there's like a 1978 card from Tops that doesn't have a notice then its pretty likely none of Tops cards for that season will have one. I don't think I've ever seen a notice on the pack, but then you could argue the packaging is what is copyrighted, not the cards themselves. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only one I've looked into definitely had a copyright notice on its original publication. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even a baseball card. Raw photographs of players are probably going to be copyrighted by default. Largely because they aren't technically "published" at that point yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same photo which was later? used on the card under DR, though the card had a much tighter crop so not all of it became PD. As I mentioned there though, all copies had to have a notice. Per 17 USC 405, notices omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public would not lose copyright. That was also the case law from before that. I gave a couple links in the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#1969_and_1971_US_newspaper_clippings that most rulings were between one and two percent which allowed copyright to be kept. If notice was omitted on the baseball card, I would say it's OK. Now if that photographer registered the copyright, that would also keep copyright per the 1978 law. Those records would be online at copyright.gov and should be easy to search and find. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted component image in a photomosaic[edit]

On the image File:Franz Marc Blue Horse 1911 Photomosaic.jpg, the description states that photo 69, File:AIRPOWER16_-_Air_to_Air_JAS_39C_Gripen_(29096049140).jpg, is in the image, even though it was deleted in May 2023 as it discovered that it was was mistakenly put under a CC licence by the organisation the image was licensed for. Because the image is no longer freely licensed or on Commons, does it require being replaced with another image (likely one of a similar overall colour) to remain on Commons?

The original uploader is inactive, so this could warrant a re-upload with that one difference if necessary. Xeroctic (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should. If a photo is scaled down enough, the result could be de minimis (just providing smudges of color), but that mosaic is huge and when zoomed in you see the original photograph of the jet just fine. You might still argue de minimis in relation to the whole, so not sure of deletion of the whole thing on those grounds, but replacement would be best. Unfortunately, that is not a lossless change unless starting from scratch. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

license tag for unk. photo taker[edit]

https://web.archive.org/web/20220122162410/https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51835959831_9b5a50b086_h.jpg

Hello. This photo is from a tennis tournament sanctioned by the US Tennis Assoc. in 1924. It's a random gathering of players and officials. The photographer's name is unknown. It could have just been someone who works for the tennis club. Maybe the photo appeared in one of the club's newsletters. It would be practically impossible to verify, as that detail is just lost with time. What is known is that everyone pictured received a copy of the photo for a keepsake. This included the woman pictured second from the far lower left. She kept her copy and passed it down the family line to the present.

Hence, would it be acceptable to use as a license the following in curly brackets: Cc-by-3.0-heirs. Or, assuming it was printed somewhere, could the license tag be the following in curly brackets: PD-US-expired. Thks., JimPercy (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If those copies were distributed in the US before 1929 then it is {{PD-US-expired}}.
For future reference, "heirs" licences are only acceptable from the heirs of the copyright owner (normally the photographer). The descendants of someone who only received a copy of a photo can't grant a licence. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the heirs' tag is out, but not the expired tag. The photo was taken in the middle of a week long event. Everyone pictured who wanted a copy was either given one during the event or it was mailed to them shortly thereafter. The year is verifiable as two tennis magazines from 1924 give the name of the woman mentioned, as having played several rounds in this New York tournament. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-chart question[edit]

hi, I uploaded this file because it seems to be below the threshold of originality for charts. On English Wikipedia, another user FeRDNYC is arguing the opposite. Appreciate any input. Buidhe paid (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this argument taking place? Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Zero-day (computing) Buidhe paid (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misinterpreting FeRDNYC. They don't appear to have problems with the copyright status since they say "I have no trouble accepting that commons:Threshold of originality#Charts says that those images are freely available for our use". They go on to suggest that the article could be improved by presenting the data in the charts via other means. FeRDNYC isn't saying the charts are copyright violations, they are suggesting alternatives to the charts that they feel improve on usability and accessibility. These appear to be issues of article quality on Wikipedia and not a concern for Commons (other than their preference for charts in vector format over raster format that Commons also shares, but that isn't a threshold of originality issue). —RP88 (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buidhe paid (talk • contribs) 22:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

US Library of Congress YT channel[edit]

Would this video posted by the en:United States Library of Congress to its official YouTube channel be {{PD-USGov-LOC-created}}? If it is, then en:File:JoyWilliamsLOC2021.jpeg uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content probably can be converted to a PD license and moved to Commons. FWIW, the YouTube video doesn't have any licensing information (at least none I could fine), so it appears to have been released under the standard YouTube license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is https://www.loc.gov/item/webcast-9956 , which mentions that the video was created by the Library of Congress, but may contain third-party material, which is not licensed to distribute. Not sure there is much in that video, with a quick scan, other than the book cover of the book under discussion which is shown a couple of times (and some other book covers, but those may be de minimis). Any other content would be PD-USGov-LOC-created (the YouTube license can't be enforced via copyright other than those derivative rights, and is moot because you can get it from loc.gov directly). The screenshot should be fine, though it would be best to get the original uploaded size (or bigger) moved here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The description of that YouTube video links to its source the LoC where the video can be watched directly from the LoC instead of YouTube. Unfortunately, if you expand the "Rights & Access" section for this video at the LoC it says "While the Library of Congress created most of the videos in this collection, they include copyrighted materials that the Library has permission from rightsholders to present. Rights assessment is your responsibility. The written permission of the copyright owners in materials not in the public domain is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions." So while the frame of video captured in en:File:JoyWilliamsLOC2021.jpeg may have been created by the LoC (and hence PD as a work by a US government employee), the LoC rights statement is not as helpful as we'd wish since it doesn't identify the portions of this video that might be protected by copyright. That being said, after watching the video, it seems likely that the portion of video that the image is from was created by the Library of Congress. —RP88 (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing series of copyright issues[edit]

Hi, I had come here via this image which seems doubtful to me, and then I noticed that the user has uploaded a whole series of images just within the last few days. Some of them seem o.k., but there seem to be several issues with some of them, so I need some help with that.

For one thing, there are aerial pictures that don't make sense. This one says it's "a work by Kiel Luftaufnahme.JPG from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kiel_Luftaufnahme.JPG". Now what's that all about, did this user upload the image of another user? Here's another one, and here.

And what is this supposed to mean: "Es wird Belgani als Autor angenommen" (It is assumed that Belgani is the author). Who is Belgani, and why are we entitled to publish his images under a CC license?

This one makes me wonder about threshold of originality.

Then, there is a whole series of images "Geschäfte im Kieler Hauptbahnhof". Not sure about freedom of panorama since it's inside a building (train station shopping mall).

Some of the images also seem somewhat out of scope, but I personally don't care much if there are few useless pictures lying around here.

Thanks, --2003:C0:8F14:5900:F5ED:C0A3:A318:2432 21:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one you mention, File:Kiel Luftaufnahme 02.jpg, is a version of the previously-uploaded File:Kiel Luftaufnahme.JPG, straightened a bit and with some glass reflections removed. No problem there, and helpful. Another, File:CAPOAT9F 02.jpg, is a straightened and cropped version of File:CAPOAT9F.jpg, which was uploaded in 2007 and the permission is given there. Those are both fine, and with proper sources, though it's possible the result did not add any copyrightable expression and the licenses possibly should be the same as the originals. The third and fourth are also cleaned up and brightened versions of the originals. No issues, and that is encouraged.
For File:Komponenten des iPhone 4.jpg, I guess that is a photo of someone else's display of a phone. Is there a copyright on the arrangement of parts? Maybe. Kind of edgy to nominate that one but someone with a better sense of Germany's threshold may answer better. Whether those train stations ones are FoP problems, also not sure -- a shopping mall in a train station. Sort of outside though under a roof, and external type storefronts, but it is in a train station (so unsure if it counts as a public place). Weird edge cases there; really not sure. By and large the uploads seem OK, though it's always easy to run afoul of derivative rights stuff. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Fotothek[edit]

Hi. So at Commons:Deutsche Fotothek, it is explained that Deutsche Fotothek released around 250,000 images to Commons. However, at Commons talk:Deutsche Fotothek#What happened?, Rosenzweig noted many years ago that the project ran into some problems and only a portion were ever uploaded (Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek only lists 62,000). Among the photographers whose works were being released was Abraham Pisarek (Category:Photographs by Abraham Pisarek). I was wondering if Pisarek's photographs of the 3rd Federal Congress of the Democratic Women's Association of Germany ([2]) was among those that were released under CC license but never uploaded. Thanks. Curbon7 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clockread.jpg[edit]

File:Clockread.jpg seems like it would be OK to upload to Commons per COM:FOP Canada, assuming that permantly situated per en:McMaster Faculty of Engineering#Iron Ring Clock. Does it also need a license for the clock itself (e.g. {{FoP-Canada}} in addition to the license provided for the photograph? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that {{FoP-Canada}} is necessary here. Ruslik (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads of art from from Daniel VILLAFRUELA.[edit]

@Daniel VILLAFRUELA has uploaded a number of pictures (e.g., File:Herrenchiemsee-Château- Salle de bal-20000809.jpg, File:Herrenchiemsee-Château- L'automne-20000809.jpg, which depict two-dimensional artwork, and has licensed them as {{Self|Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, with no mention of the original artist, use of {{PD-Art}}, or the copyright status of the original artwork. I'm not sure how to approach cleaning this up, because the needed information simply isn't present. grendel|khan 22:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by User:ChantalFT[edit]

Hello, The french article on the artist fr:Chantal Fontvieille brought me here. All the illustrations are uploads by User:ChantalFT. Although the user may be Chantal Fontvieille herself, there is, yet, no proof that it really is the case. For some pictures, this user does not have the copyright (books). But, for others, works of art, the question of the copyright is important, if the user is not the artist herself, and I don't know the rules is the user is the artist herself. O Kolymbitès (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@O Kolymbitès: She may prove her identity via VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to inform users on fr: but I'm not sure how to do it here... Sorry, O Kolymbitès (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review of Copyrighted Images on Solar Eclipse Article[edit]

We're currently addressing vandalism on the Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 article, with several images posted from suspicious accounts. It appears that some images contain copyrighted material from MHT Aviation Photography, with one being a Photoshop file (File:April 2024 Solar Eclipse Phases New Hampshire.jpg) and the other having been edited with Adobe software (File:Totality - April 2024 Eclipse New Hampshire.jpg). As per Wikipedia's policy, copyrighted or partially copyrighted images are not permitted. Could someone review these images or flag them for further examination? Thank you. AceSeeker (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their username, KMHT Spotter, suggests that they are probably the same person as "MHT Aviation Photography". If these images have been previously published on an external website without a free license, then they will need to email COM:VRT to confirm their identity, but if not, we can simply assume good faith that they are telling the truth about their authorship.
"As per Wikipedia's policy, copyrighted or partially copyrighted images are not permitted" - not true. Being copyrighted does not preclude an image from being freely licensed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt response. I was under the impression that by sharing my work on Wikimedia Commons, I was granting permission for anyone to use, copy, modify, and sell it without notification. Does it mean that I can post my own images and request proper attribution, linking to the license, and acknowledgment of any modifications? Could you please explain what 'freely licensed' means in the context of Wikimedia Commons? I'm a bit confused about the distinction between freely licensed images and copyrighted ones. AceSeeker (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By granting permission for anyone to use, copy, modify, and sell your image, you do not give up your copyright to the image; instead, you are simply offering very permissive licensing terms (known as a free license) on the image, and you only have the right to grant that permission by virtue of being the copyright holder. Commons accepts two types of images: 1) copyrighted but freely licensed; 2) public domain aka not copyrighted. See COM:L for more information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any image that is licensed must be copyrighted, since a copyright license is a permission grant from a copyright holder. Certain licenses are free (as in, they meet the requirements to be considered a free license on Commons). For the policy, see Commons:Licensing.
Of course, only some copyrighted works are freely licensed. Most are not freely licensed.
Then, some works are in the public domain, and no license is required to use them.
If you submit your own work, you do so either by granting a license or dedicating it to the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if I post my own images, can I specify the terms under which others may use my images? For example, could I request proper attribution, linking to the license, and acknowledgment of any modifications made to the image? AceSeeker (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as long as the restrictions are along those lines (and don't prevent it from being "free"). The Creative Commons licenses pretty much all specify the above as being required. The ShareAlike license additionally requires that any derivative work also be licensed with the same (or later version of) CC-BY-SA license. If someone violates that, the only way to enforce it is via the copyright you own (and it would be up to you to notify, or sue, as you are the copyright owner). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What puzzled me was the statement in the second box of this image "Remember: By sharing your work on Wikimedia Commons, you grant anyone permission to use, copy, modify, and sell it without notifying you." However, there are also different types of licensing available for me to choose from, such as Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike, which grant different permissions. So, it's somewhat different from what the second box suggests. AceSeeker (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, for the sake of brevity, that particular box probably just uses some boilerplate language to try and cover as many situations as possible with respect to a typical CC license and also keep things as simple as possible for those using the Upload Wizard. What matters are the terms and conditions and conditions of the actual license you end up chosing because those are what reusers are going to be expected to satisfy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=867145256"