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
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.


Logo de UAC Rusia

[edit]

Buenas administradores, se puede publicar el logo de United Aircraft Corporation como esta ,si es un logo simple se puede publicar?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Glrx:any opinion?? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Linked page won't load for me. - Jmabel ! talk 02:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nor for me. Chrome says "This site can’t be reached", "www.uacrussia.ru took too long to respond" and "ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.,@Jmabel:look this? AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia dice que falta una regla clara para el umbral de originalidad en Rusia. Claramente el logo https://1000logos.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/United-Aircraft-Corporation-Logo.jpg sería bastante simple para los EEUU, per ¿para Rusia? No tengo idea. - Jmabel ! talk 07:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Question any opinion? (google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg - Copyrighted?

[edit]

Continued from Wikipedia, File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg was used on a few pages, which I've since reverted since it's unclear what exactly the copyright status is. It's been labeled as an "official" photo of the 119th United States Congress even though it hasn't yet been uploaded on Congress.gov or another official government website, since the 119th Congress has yet to start. It's only been uploaded on Representative-elect Hamadeh's newly-created "official" Twitter account, which leads me to believe that there may be an issue with copyright, and it might not yet be public domain (if it's the official photo in the end), since he's not officially a member of the U.S. government. AG202 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past we have used official images and I have also found this old discussion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anna_Paulina_Luna.jpg for Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna's official image which the consensus was to keep the image in place. (You can also see that I was around during that and I didn't even remember me taking part of it!) Wollers14 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing me to that, but it looks like it wasn't kept until after she was sworn in. Also, honestly, I don't see that strong of a consensus there on keeping the image before she was sworn in. I see a few comments saying to wait, with some other comments solely giving information. I'd hope that there'd be an official policy on this, hence why I brought the discussion here and not nominated the image for deletion. It's also not just the copyright issue for me, but also calling it the "official congressional photo" without it being posted on an official government website or social media from a current government official. It's also has the author of "Office of Congressman Abraham Hamadeh", even though that office does not yet exist. This would be helpful to explicitly clarify for future situations. CC: Participants in the aforementioned discussion: @A1Cafel, @Curbon7, @Connormah, @Mdaniels5757, @Reppop, @Putitonamap98, @Frodar. AG202 (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the offices do exist even in the physical format. I don't know about the House but Senators-elect are given temporary offices to prepare to be sworn in and take over official duties so they are technically some kind of official as they will also share caseloads of constituent work so it can be completed when the incumbent leaves office and the new member can take it over. As for the images if they were created by the House Creative Services I'd say it is public domain even if not posted by them because they give it to the member for them to use however they see fit such as their government websites when they are created. Wollers14 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy is of the utmost importance here so I'd like to see what others think of this specific scenario before making, though educated, guesses. AG202 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file name used and how the file is described aren't really pressing issues for Commons, or at least not as pressing an issue as copyright status. The caption used on Wikipedia can always been worded to say whatever is encyclopedically correct. What matters most to Commons, in my opinion, when it comes to "PD-USGov" licenses is whether a photo was taken by a federal government employee as part of their official duties. The subject of the photo, where the photo was taken, when it was taken, which website it ends up being published, whether the subject has an official government office or an official government media account/website on aren't really that relevant because the subject of the photo isn't considered to be its copyright holder. You might argue the subject has personality rights, or the file should be renamed, but those things are unrelated to the file's copyright status. So, what needs to be determined is who took the photo, whether they're an employee of the US federal government and whether they did so as part of their official duties. If official photos of newly elected members of the US House of Representatives taken by the House Creative Services are considered "PD-USGov", then the photo should be OK s long as the subject of the photo states as much when posting it online; otherwise, the argument just seems to be that the subject of the photo isn't to be believed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so based on that I think some criteria should be established with these kinds of images when they are posted on social media. Feel free to add points I'm just throwing out suggestions out there. 1. The photo must look like one normally taken by the House Creative Services and 2. The photo is confirmed to be their official portrait by the member themselves. Wollers14 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that I participated in that discussion to say that someone didn't tag their image correctly which is why another, related image was deleted. Otherwise, I somewhat agree with Wollers14, in that there must be a confirmation that it was taken by House Creative Services and is an official portrait. As I recall from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene official photo, 117th Congress.jpg, the image may as well be by a private portrait photographer, which isn't under {{PD-USGov}}. reppoptalk 04:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there's a way to tell if its done by the House Creative Services because they take their pictures the same way with details such as an American flag in the background and a blueish background along with it. Also to tell if it is by the House Creative Services it can be posted by the member elect on social media. The MTG example you provide was clearly not one done by the HCS as there is no Flag background or blueish back drop. Wollers14 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those cannot give 100% clarity that the image is public domain. there was a period in a time when the House official photos were simply a blue background like File:Greg Lopez 118th Congress portrait.jpg. I don't think that there's a precise way to tell without A. the member being an official member of the government (so that we can assume that it's public domain) and/or B. it's been officially published on House.gov or a similar government-run website. In fact that second MTG photo deletion (also in a blue background with the American flag per archive) is very similar to the situation that we're in right now, and that's why I want to wait until we have official confirmation from House.gov (or a copyright release from the congressman-elect). Again, there's really no harm in waiting. AG202 (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Greg Lopez doesn't have an American Flag behind him nor the traditional blue backdrop. What I'm essentially saying is that you can use the flag and blue back drop to tell or you can email HouseCreativeServices@mail.house.gov for more information. In fact I'll email them to see if we can get answers here. I doubt that they will respond though. Wollers14 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different photograph thing for Lopez, see File:Gabe Amo 118th Congress Official Portrait.jpg. I see it as a Cleark portait photograph, rather than an official House portrait but it's still under a US Government unit. The best way is for a website to actually host it with metadata, but we would just need to actually get confirmation that it's by a government unit. reppoptalk 08:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best way is to look at familiar details to other images of freshmen in the house such as the previously mentioned above. Also we can call or email the House Creative Services to confirm with them though I imagine it will be hard to talk with them since we are Wikipedia users Wollers14 (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Jameslwoodward's conclusion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg: "Most such images are taken by private portrait photographers because the subjects want the best possible image." If the photograph is hosted on a congressional website, or has metadata that says that it's by a photographer for House Creative Services, then its fine. We just need a way to find out if this is truly a House photograph. reppoptalk 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh thanks to both of y'all, but in that case, yeah if we can't get in contact with them and there's no metadata, then imho it's just best to wait and see. AG202 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can reach out to them too just so you know the email is above and they do have a phone number that you can find online Wollers14 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so I’ve reached out to the HCS and they said that best bet is to contact the member-elect’s office to verify but the lady I talked to who is one of their directors said that images done by the House Creative Services are public domain so the only way to verify is to contact the office of the member-elect and ask them. So I will reach out and ask Hamadeh’s office and see what I get from there.Wollers14 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to do this, I do appreciate it. AG202 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I also got a response to the email I sent from the House Creative Services and they are saying that the post by Hamadeh (They linked the post) is by them. So I think the image is fine to use. We good now here? Wollers14 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be fine. Maybe a statement that an email correspondence confirmed that it was by House Creative Services, maybe forwarding via COM:VRT but I'm not sure if that's really needed. reppoptalk 00:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think VRT accepts forwarded emails but perhaps a VRT member could clarify by asking at COM:VRTN. Anyway, even if one's not needed, it might be better to ask the consider sending one anyway because it would be on record if this thing comes up again with respect to another similar image. The HCS could actually word the email to cover not only this particular image, but other images it takes. This could possibly allow a specific copyright license template to developed for HCS images that could be used for its images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have the names of the people who responded to me. I'm sure they'd be willing to talk if you ask them. You will however probably need to use an email that looks like it came from a real person. I used my real name in my emails to them. Wollers14 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fotografía registrada en derechos de autor

[edit]

Mi pregunta es ¿puedo subir una fotografía de un reconocido fotógrafo, con su autorización y que el envíe el correo al VRT y elegir una de las Creative Commons permitidas por Wikimedia Commons, aunque la foto esté registrada en Derechos de autor? Mibucu 07 (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mibucu 07: Sí.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mibucu 07: Sí, porque registrar una foto es un recurso legal para afirmar los derechos de propiedad intelectual sobra la obra. El poseedor de los derechos de autor puede licenciar sus obrar como se le plazca, por ejemplo con una licencia Creative Commons. Günther Frager (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias por las respuestas. Como estoy empezando en este tema, quisiera preguntarles también si es correcto como entendí el proceso para subir la fotografía: Primero se sube a Wikimedia Commons, posteriormente el autor tendría que enviar un correo a VRT manifestando su autorización para el uso de la imagen de acuerdo con las atribuciones de la licencia elegida (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) y, por último solo esperar a la validación de dicha autorización. ¿se me está pasando algún punto importante? Mibucu 07 (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mibucu 07: Cuando envie el correo, es buen idea indicarlo en la página de la ficha. Vea Template:PP. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, nuevamente pido su ayuda, ya subí el archivo a Wikimedia Commons, pero no se como etiquetarlo correctamente para notificar que estoy en espera de que el fotógrafo envíe el correo con su autorización. El archivo es File:Santiago-Garcia-Galvan.jpg Mibucu 07 (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mibucu 07: ya agregré la plantilla, ver Special:Diff/962189329. Günther Frager (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Comedian copyrightable?

[edit]

Would an image of Comedian by Maurizio Cattelan be permitted on Commons?

An image of the "artwork" is marked as non-free on the English Wikipedia. However, there is absolutely nothing original about taping a piece of fruit to the wall. Another artist did sue Cattelan for copying a piece of art that comprised of a banana and an orange duct-taped to green panels, but the case was summarily be dismissed. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixfd64 I was thinking of the same thought yesterday (Philippine Standard Time/UTC+8) and was considering posting the question here.
Anyway, I found two articles that may be of relevance. In this article, the judge commented regarding threshold of originality: "While using silver duct tape to affix a banana to a wall may not espouse the highest degree of creativity, its absurd and farcical nature meets the ‘minimal degree of creativity’ needed to qualify as original." In this another article, the same judge also commented regarding the concept: "Regardless, the concept shared by the works, 'affixing a banana to a vertical plane using duct tape,' isn't protected under copyright law, according to Judge Scola." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm confused about Somaliland's copyright law. The country is unrecognized and considered part of Somalia. Somali copyright law protects only registered works, but there has been no way to register copyrights there since 1991. So, how are intellectual works from either Somalia or Somaliland treated? Syrus257 (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like The "mainland" (or non-splitted) Somali, there's probably unable to register a copyright, so works from here might already be in public domain unless published outside of this country befor anyone's uploading. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Syrus257: Please see COM:SOMALILAND.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOO Lebanon

[edit]

Buenas administradores, con respecto al Threshold of originality en Líbano, estan usando los mismo pasos que en Francia porque Líbano era considerado un estado de Francia antes de su independencia necesito que algún administrador agrega el TOO en COM:Lebanon. AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22: See COM:TOO Lebanon.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.:Gracias por agregar el TOO pero ponga una nota en el TOO Lebanon que Líbano era un estado de Francia antes de su independencia por favor. AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AbchyZa22: ✓ Done.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader removed the NPD template I added

[edit]

I added an NPD template to a file and the uploader removed it. I did substitute the template, like this: 

{{subst:npd}}

Will someone be notified that they removed it? What's the best next step? The file is File:Murder of Kiaya Campbell.png.

Jeffrey Beall (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Photo is currently the subject of a DR, so this is moot. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hi, I am currently trying to upload an image from https://www.goodbarber.com/press/kit/ to commons so that it can be used in an article named GoodBarber on the English Wikipedia. I don't know the license of this image but it is part of a press kit. Is it safe to upload? The website states "guidelines" are available but they are never actually mentioned. Thanks so much! Here is the link to the article I refer to. Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooldudeseven7: Hi, Most probably no. We need a free license, which gives much more rights than images diffused in press kit. These are only allowed for press purpose.
However these are simple logos, and may not be eligible for copyright in USA. So it depends on the country of origin. Yann (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, the company originated from france... Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cooldudeseven7: Please see COM:TOO France.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is photo CC Attribution 4.0?

[edit]

Hi, I am interested in uploading a photo from https://diggers-photo-gallery.com/. It mentions "these photographs are now offered as a free resource to the Community to honor the spirit in which they were created. Photographer attribution is requested." Would this be good enough evidence to upload a photo as CC Attribution 4.0 or should I try to contact the owner of website and ask them to fill out COM:VRT/CONSENT? (Edit: I should also mention that the website doesn't load the photos very well. I had better luck seeing them, however, when I visited using the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20240724190246/https://diggers-photo-gallery.com/). IsaacWikiEditor (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IsaacWikiEditor: Never indicate a CC license unless it is explicitly granted. In this case, {{Attribution only license}} should be OK. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Buenas que pasó con el logo de Eurovision (File:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2011_logo.svg),según en el DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg) es totalmente simple (below too)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logos country of origin is Switzerland. As a result this is under copyright Bedivere (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old London street recordings

[edit]

This archived site incudes a variety of mp3 audio of old London street sounds, made and broadcast from 1935 to 1958, with some commentary.

There are also a pair of 1928 recordings from a gramophone record. One includes an unidentified busker, playing the violin.

Which of the earlier ones are (or will soon fall) out of copyright, in full or even in part (i.e. without the commentary), and be usable on Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing I'm afraid perhaps none can be accepted here as of the moment, courtesy of complications with U.S. copyright. While URAA aimed at artistic works like old photos, sound recordings – even those outside the U.S. that had never been played by Americans' radios, television sets, or computers on the U.S. soil – were given pre-emptive U.S. copyright protection in 2018 courtesy of CLASSICS Act. See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/11#Curious case: non-US sound recordings. For the CLASSICS Act terms, read this. U.S. copyright status dictates the eligibility of all foreign sound recordings, even those that weren't even played in the U.S. up to now, recorded before February 15, 1972. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1928 recordings should be free and clear as far as the U.S. in 2029. Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lim Nang Seng.jpg

[edit]

Tagged as {{PD-Singapore}}, but would this comply with U.S. PD status as well? According to Clindberg at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Singapore, the term before 2004 was 50 years, non-retroactive. So, 1950+50+1=January 1, 2001, which is perfectly well in PD in Singapore. But as per COM:SINGAPORE, URAA date for Singapore was 1996, and this was caught up by the implementation of U.S. copyright overseas, including Singapore, through URAA. Is this old photo unfree for Commons considering the U.S. copyright? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings by Betsy Graves Reyneau

[edit]

I'm specifically concerned about the following images of her painting of Charles R. Drew, of which we have 4 different copies, although there are numerous others, based on her enwiki page:

I chose not to open a deletion debate because I'm reasonably sure they are PD, just not the rationales listed. There are a variety of rationales for why these are PD, none of which are actually valid. We received them from the National Archives, who said we can use them freely, however, and I assume it's because they know it's PD. probably {{PD-not-renewed}}}. But, since I don't know how to check on that, I am not certain that is the case. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 01:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colossal statues of Milk tea in the Philippines

[edit]

Are the files in the aforementioned category OK for hosting here, or consider those as no different from sculptures? Kindly review and tag the image files accordingly. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any way in which the object in these photos (all three are of the same object) wouldn't be considered a sculpture. I've opened a DR. Omphalographer (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Kay Bergman Grave.JPG

[edit]

I've got two questions about File:Mary Kay Bergman Grave.JPG. The first is whether this is OK for Commons as licensed or whether it needs to be treated as a COM:DW given COM:FOP US. The second question has to do with the additional text just added to the file's description and whether it could be considered eligible for copyright protection separately from the image itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text and the pictures on the plaque are unfree and so is the transcription within the file description. I've opened a DR. En:wiki might be able to justify using a low-res copy as fair use, and at that resolution the text would probably be illegible anyway. We could host a version here with the big slabs of text and the images blurred out, but I'll leave it to others to decide it there's much point. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd call for Commons:Requests for comment/Costumed character files

[edit]

Since nuanced discussion on COM:Costume is sought. Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-positioned recording devices in Syria and Ukraine

[edit]

I know there's no FOP in either of the countries (though one could argue DM and below-TOO for some buildings), but what about pre-positioned recording devices (kamikaze drone footage, permanently situated cameras, etc)? JayCubby (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NickK: for some Ukrainian copyright insights. In the US, if those are operated by a human operator or specifically placed in order to record an event, they would be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. This goes for the fpv drones as well? I feel they'd fall under the same category as bodycam footage, where there is no originality JayCubby (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R. I. Pocock.jpg

[edit]

Is en:File:R. I. Pocock.jpg, published in doi:10.1098/rsbm.1948.0025, "{{PD-US-no notice}}", and can it be imported here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • PD-US-no notice applies to works published in the US. This is a British publication, and its copyright status depends on whether the photographer can be identified "by reasonable enquiry"
    • if you can identify the photographer, this photo is protected by copyright until 70 years after the photographer's death. Somebody who took this photo as a young person in 1947 could possibly be still alive today or only recently deceased.
    • if you cannot identify the photographer "by reasonable enquiry", copyright of a photo published within 70 years of being taken expires 70 years after publication; in this case, 2019.
So it hinges on what research you have done to try to identify the photographer. If I were attempting this, I'd start by seeing if I could find this image in any other publication, which might include an attribution (I'd probably start with newspaper archives). I would also contact the Royal Society and ask them. Eventually, if you decide to upload the photo, you can add information about the research you did and the dead ends you hit to the "Permissions" field.
Note that given Pocock's prominence, it's very likely easier to find another image of him that would be easier to clear. And my guess is that the free-use rationale on en:wiki is invalid, given the likelihood that a free image exists that we could use.
--Rlandmann (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeomap License Conflict

[edit]

Everyone, I apologize; I may have violated the Commons policy and now feel heavily guilted, especially since all the time and effort I spent on Wikimedia for the past month may be undone.

On this site, https://zenodo.org/records/10659112, I uploaded what appeared to be Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) licensed files (published in 2024) from it to the Commons and other Wikimedia Projects (mainly Wikidata and the English Wikipedia), and modified them to transparent PNGs (example file: File:Mollweide_Paleographic_Map_of_Earth,_120_Ma_(Aptian_Age).jpg).

However, there was ANOTHER license (from 2010 by one of the files' authors, Christopher R. Scotese; http://www.scotese.com/license.htm) I never knew about that had restrictions denying its use on the Commons, quoting: 

 These maps may not be copied, resold, used or modified in any manner for commercial purposes, such as consulting reports, trade journals or the popular press, textbooks, videos, educational CD-ROMS, computer animations, museum exhibits, web sites on the Internet or for any other commercial use, without the express written consent of the author.

At this point, there are four things I want to find out:

  1. With the files ON THE WEBSITE shown through the CC BY 4.0 license, do they dominate over Scotese’s license? (their apart by 13–14 years of age)
  2. Can all of Scotese’s PALEOMAP files be used on the Wikimedia Projects, or at the very least the ones on the Zenodo website? (As of this message, I emailed him 2–3 days ago, but I’m becoming restless over it and am considering to call him, as his contact information is on his homepage)
  3. For those same files published ON THE WEBSITE, is it really under the CC BY 4.0 license? It feels misleading at this point, and I want to know the truth.
  4. How do you all feel about this, or how do you think I should respond?

Again, I apologize for this misstep that went over my head. Still, it’s better to express my concerns than keep them to myself, right?

(I originally made this message longer, and sent this message to Wikimedia's Discord page before coming here) — Alex26337 (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • First; don't panic :) None of us are infallible, and we're all capable of innocent mistakes (even if there's a mistake here at all).
The fundamental principle here is that if the author has validly published their work under a free license, we can host that work here; even if another copy of the same work published elsewhere has a more restrictive license.
This document has the CC-BY 4.0 licence embedded in it, and I think there's no question that the authors of the paper have released it under that license. At first glance, it looks to me like the supplementary materials on Zenodo are also uploaded there by the authors of those materials, although I haven't been able to locate the specific document that File:Mollweide_Paleographic_Map_of_Earth,_120_Ma_(Aptian_Age).jpg came from to verify its license details. Can you please point me to where you found it?
Materials from Scotese's personal site that are not included in his other joint publications can't be uploaded here; their license is incompatible with the Commons. Did you take any straight from there, or are they all via Zenodo?
--Rlandmann (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using an artist's images off facebook

[edit]

I'm sorry if this has been explained somewhere, but I get lost in Wikipedia's jungle of editorial advice. I have created the article Thomas Winkler (artist) and have permission from the artist to use all photos and art by him from his facebook account. How do I go about demonstrating that I have this permission? Many thanks in advance! ˜˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=963701700"