Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: 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) Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests #wikimedia-commons webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Please note One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing. Have you read the FAQ? Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.   Start a new discussion

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

фото ОДІС

[[Category:Я не розумію що у вас відбувається. ОДИС єдина національна порода собак. Кілька років тому на російській сторінці ви гнабілі інформацію про породу. тепер прийшов час і на українській, на рідній сторінці. вся інформація з офіційного сайту КСУ. Фотографії власність національного клубу породи ОДІС. Вихідні тексти фотографій у мене, я маю повне право їх публікувати. У мене немає сил і бажання з вами боротися. якщо вам щось не підходить видаліть цю статтю на... . Виконавчий секретар національного клуб породи ОДІС Ірина Дорошина.]]

File:Hofer Geschichtswege 83 20200221.jpg

Is File:Hofer Geschichtswege 83 20200221.jpg a copyvio?

Another user noticed noticed that this could be the case. I'm not sure about the topic, because the information board(s) (and the images and text that on the board) persist in a public place. So for me, it seems like freedom of panorama in Germany. What do you think? If it is a copyvio, I will delete it of course.

Thank you in advance, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though I am not German. But it seems to satisfy the "public" and "permanent" conditions. pandakekok9 04:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

License Review and archived versions

Hi, I have been asked on my talk page if I could review some files whose licenses have been changed. File:Ariana Grande Grammys Red Carpet 2020.png is an exemple, the only link where I'm able to see a compatible license is this text archive. My question is: is a passed {{LicenseReview}} appropriate for this kind of case? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• The uploader sent me (which I forwarded to Christian Ferrer) this message. "Here's Google's cache of the page, if that helps." DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 20:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• The link seems different but the license is CC BY 3.0...and the video time is also 3:16 minutes and the same January 28, 2020 upload date. Hmm! --Leoboudv (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• So we appear to have evidence that the source file had a compatible licence for a single moment on the day of upload. In less than 1 and a half months the licence has been revoked (possibly on the day of upload). I'm fairly new here, so am not an expert, but that seems fairly flimsy evidence to sustain retention of a derivative work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Creative Commons licenses are meant to be irrevocable, see Commons:License revocation. It doesn't matter whether the license has "changed", if it was uploaded at any point with a CC-BY license we can use it. Also for that matter, any file uploaded with a caveat that the license can be revoked is not a freely licensed file. If files are being uploaded under a "free" license but the author has a caveat that the license is revocable then the files should be deleted even if the license hasn't been revoked yet. Chess (User talk:Chess) Please ping when replying. 23:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that we have evidence that a version of the video file (not necessarily the source video file itself) was available at that url under the correct licence for a single second on the day of upload to YouTube. There is no evidence that the licence wasn't revoked a second later, before the creation of the derivative work, or that the original file wasn't replaced with a different version that was published at the same url but with a different licence. The presence of the correct licence on the url for a single second may be sufficient for Commons policy but it is a fairly flimsy argument to rely on in the real world. As a pure logic exercise, it is interesting to consider the potential arguments that could come up in a court case. However, I will bow to the judgement of more experienced editors. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• My main question is not if the file can be kept and reusable (IMO a file can be kept without review), but more to know/clarify if {{LicenseReview}} is adapted when the only link where I'm able to see the free license is this link: [1]. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• If we can confirm via web.archive or in some other way that the file had a free license then I think we should add {{Licensereview}} and copy the web.archive link in the review template. --MGA73 (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• In general, archive links can prove the license, sure. Google cache in particular is usually only good for a short time though, and if the uploader corrected their license shortly after uploading, not as sure we should use that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I tend to agree with that, you put words on what was bothering me. I am not comfortable to use LR here. That is different than when a website change their licensing terms after to have used a free license during several years, and that several hundred of files are affected. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding audiovisual works uploaded to YouTube by Philippine government

{{PD-PhilippinesGov}} states that all works by the Philippine government are in the public domain, unless otherwise stated. Since most videos by the government are uploaded on YouTube, should we assume that all their YouTube videos are not in the public domain but under the Standard YouTube License? I was planning to upload all PTV videos here, but it seems my country's copyright law won't allow it. pandakekok9 04:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"otherwise noted" means noted in a law, not by a low level employee uploading videos to YouTube. Ruslik (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Additionally, with videos, you have to consider whether the work in its entirety is the original creation of an author. It's not uncommon for people to upload "freely licensed videos" which themselves use visual and audio works under fair use. GMG^talk 13:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Admiral Charles Little.png

Hi. File:Admiral Charles Little.png is currently listed with unknown author, but it appears to be very similar to a photo at the National Portrait Gallery, London, by Walter Stoneman.[2] He is in almost the same pose, with only small differences in his expression. I suspect they were both taken in the same session. The version we have was published in 1937, while the version at National Portrait Gallery was created in 1935. Is this sufficient to identify the creator as Walter Stoneman or should I record it as "possibly Walter Stoneman"? If the identity is confirmed, we will need to delete it for the time being. Stoneman died in 1958, so his creations don't become PD until 1 January 2029. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: I would go with "possibly". Both possibilities seem plausible to me, there's not enough information to know for sure. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The "Reasonable enquiry" required for {{PD-UK-unknown}} is often not demonstrated, but waved away with "I don't know right now so it must be unknowable". It's always a good idea to double check the source material for claims or clues to authorship, which appears to be available (with registration) at the British Newspaper Archive. If the photograph is indeed unattributed in the Illustrated London News, it is possible, even likely, that the image appeared in other newspapers or magazines published around the same time (or even considerably later), and some of these may credit the photographer. It is certainly plausible that formal/official portraits are widely reused for years after their creation. --Animalparty (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore, BMacZero, Animalparty: I've checked and it is unattributed (link) - I don;t know the ILN well enough to know if that's always the rule, but none of the others on that page are either. My suspicion would also be that it's probably from the same Stoneman session as well, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Help to determine copyvio

These two images (File:Franklim Oliveira .jpg & File:A Patrulha. Órgão do Corpo de Escoteiros da CMP.jpg) were uploaded today as "own work". They are obviously not "own work" since the images were produced 100 years ago. However, in COM:PORTUGAL is told that: "All photographs taken until 30 June 1970 are in the public domain in Portugal...", so I believe that these images can be in public domain and therefore fit to be pubished here. Can someone help me to determine if they are in public domain? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The latter is not a photograph, but a 1921 newspaper. Could be {{PD-anon-expired}}. Abzeronow (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Miltary insignia

Miltary insignias. I'm trying to figure it out. If I build SVG version (my own SVG version). Can I upload it to Commons with my own license? And also, what additional advice you can give me. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 175.212.2.111 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't my area of expertise but it may be useful to say which country's military it is and whether it is a current insignia. If it is an old insignia, what time period did it belong to? From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

But what difference does it make "which army". Does it needed another license rather then my own. Let's say https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tail_markings_of_the_Japan_Air_Self-Defense_Force or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SVG_military_rank_insignia_of_Sweden (renk insignia). —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.126.251.202 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The country that created the insignia may have a law that states it is protected by copyright and that it is illegal to reuse it without permission. Under Commons rules, any image has to be free of copyright in both the origin country and the USA. While you may recreate an insignia, this may be considered a derivative work. You own the copyright of your derivative creation but the isignia you copied may still have a copyright. In the cases of derivative works, all parties that hold a copyright need to licence it on suitable terms, not just the last person in the chain.

As I said though, military insignias are not my area of expertise, so someone may correct me and say that there is something like an international law that prohibits the claiming of copyright on military symbols.

I'll have to leave it to another editor to advise you on the Japanese and Swedish examples. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Copyright of an image created in 1898

Is this image (and also found here) in public domain? Note this image is currently uploaded as fair use in Chinese Wikipedia as the author can not find a free image of the subject (who died in 1917).--GZWDer (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It depends on whom is the photographer and on the date of publication but taking into account its age, it is most likely in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The engraver is not named, and I don't see a signature on it. There is another version of it here. There is no engraver named there either, but it says it's made from a photo by Ferdinand Urbahns (died 1944). Getty and Granger have a version of the photo, but not sure where to find a non-watermarked one. So the engraving aspect would appear to be {{PD-anon-70}} (or at worst {{PD-old-assumed}}) and the underlying work is {{PD-old-70}}. It's PD-US-expired, of course, as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image to File:Carl Rosendahl.jpg.--GZWDer (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer: There is a higher resolution version at this URL (same site, just different URL). Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

en:Light soaking

I believe all the files in this article have been uploaded to commons inappropriately, but I never can figure out what the hell to do with images. If someone could take a look at these, or nominate them for deletion/review, that would be great. Headbomb (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "inappropriately"? Ruslik (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Jo-Jo Eumerus has nominated them all for deletion:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:IV light soaking.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Si-Si hole trapping.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:CIGS Se-Cu divacancies.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:CdTe copper diffusion.png

--bjh21 (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Aye, there was some discussion at en:Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion#Light soaking about these images, hence the deletion requests. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Headbomb (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Greta Thunberg- World Economic Forum (Davos).webm

Today a number of images of Greta Thunberg at the WEF 2020 were deleted because the WEF publishes images with a cc-nc license. If this is the case, isn't this then not also true for File:Greta Thunberg- World Economic Forum (Davos).webm a video published by WEF on YouTube with a cc license from the 2019 WEF? --C.Suthorn (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think YouTube’s standard licensing may be OK for Commons per COM:L, but not sure. If it is and YT is the first or the only place the WEF posted the video, then the file may be OK. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Irrevocable, keep it. A video can be released under different license on different locations, it doesn't even matter if it was cc-NC licensed elsewhere unless WEF is not the copyright holder. // Eatcha (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems that WEF publishes fotos at flickr and videos at youtube. flickr shows a cc-nc license (and obviously WEF uses cc-nc since 2014 and cc before that). I cannot see any license information at the youtube video. So maybe WEF themselves intends to post videos on youtube since 2014 as cc-nc. Does it count that youtube uses cc, or does it count that WEF intended and assumed they were posting cc-nc on youtube (if this is the case)? --C.Suthorn (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Only the WEF can say what it intended to do and Commons shouldn't try and guess. YT seems to allow uploader's the option to use its standard license or COM:CC license and if the CC license is one that Commons accepts (and that seems to be the case per COM:YT), then such content can be kept. You can find the license for this video by clicking on the "Show more", where you'll find a link to this page which in turn contains a link to this. I'm not sure whether copyright holders can add other restrictions to the a YouTube license, but I don't think they can be applied if they're not explicitly stated despite what the copyright holder's intentions might be. So, if the WEF unintentionally released their videos under the wrong license, then they probably need to be the one, not Commons, to rectify that. For what it's worth, this file does look to be licensed as {{Cc-by-3.0}} which seems to be one that Commons accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Generally, if somebody doesn't want to release a video under the CC license that YouTube provides, they won't select that option. If they want to offer a license like CC-NC, they can pick the YouTube standard license and provide the additional license as text within the video itself and/or in the video description. --ghouston (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Flickr review bot

The bot FlickreviewR 2 doesn't seem to be doing its job as I have a photo waiting two days to be reviewed. (File:Princess, Emperor.jpg) There seem to be hundreds others waiting for review.Ron Clausen (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ron Clausen: Special:Contribs/FlickreviewR 2 appears to be working fine. The bot is just being inundated with requests and it has a limit on the number of edits per minute it can perform. Please be patient. --Majora (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

HouseLive videos

HouseLive records the House of Representatives, and HR 2726 (warning, huge video!) is about a four minute segment of a house proceeding. HouseLive's terms say Proceedings of the House of Representatives, including any recording of such proceedings, may not be used for any political purpose or in any commercial advertisement, and may not be broadcast with commercial sponsorship except as part of a bona fide news program or public affairs documentary program. I think because this restriction is placed by the House (from Committee on Ethics: Coverage of House Floor and Committee Proceedings. Broadcast coverage and recordings of House floor proceedings may not be used for any political purpose under House Rule 5, clause 2(c)(1). In addition, under House Rule 11, clause 4(b), radio and television tapes and film of any coverage of House committee proceedings may not be used, or made available for use, as partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any person for public office., it falls under House Rules and would therefore be PD.

It also looks like videos have been uploaded to Category:United States House of Representatives and Category:Videos by the United States House of Representatives.

Nikkimaria pointed out (on enwiki) that my 'house rules' argument probably is not valid, since those are when the facility restricts the creation of the media, however in this case the House is the creator.

My general thought is that this is similar to when NASA HQ posts images to its Flickr account. We uploaded to File:'A Beautiful Planet' World Premiere (NHQ201604160014).jpg with the template {{flickr-unfree-but|1={{tl|PD-NASA}}}}{{PD-USGov-NASA}} and filed it as PD as a government work.

The HouseLive videos seem to be the same situation, and I was looking for agreement or disagreement on this. I also wondered, if it is PD, if previous uploads should have some sort of note on them about why they are PD, similar to the NASA image.

To summarize:

• Are the HouseLive videos PD?
• Should any notice be posted to them to clarify their 'House Rule' (not to be confused with our house rules)

Thanks for any time, or for pointing me towards previous discussions. Kees08 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like they should be {{PD-USGov-Congress}}. Congressional ethics rules just apply to their membership (and candidates) -- it would need to be a law to apply to the public at large. (The Constitution allows the House and Senate to punish and/or expel one of their members.) Obviously, individuals retain their personality/publicity rights as well, so you can't make it seem as though they are sponsoring anything in your usages. That is not a copyright restriction, though. C-SPAN recording of committee hearings are not OK, since that is a private company, but video put out by congressional employees should be fine, copyright-wise. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, the video has been uploaded and tagged as such. Not the proper venue anymore, but mildly related, should Category:Videos from the House Floor and Category:Videos by the United States House of Representatives be merged? It is unclear to me what the difference is. Kees08 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What license is appropriate for lets say Box Art/DVD art of a product?

Hello, I'm a bit confused about copyright options. For example, to upload Box Art/DVD art or a logo of a product which license is appropriate for that? To grant Wikimedia rights to display the image in all relevant situations, but not grant let's say right to use to promote other products etc.? I hope it makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sothasil1 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sothasil1: Most likely the box art or DVD art are not released under a free license (see COM:L), therefore they are prohibited on Wikimedia Commons. If they are in a free license, we would use the corresponding template for that (for example, if they released the art under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, we would use {{Cc-by-4.0}}). For logos, sometimes they could be in the public domain because they are below the threshold of originality for both the country of origin and the United States. We would use {{PD-ineligible}} for that. Otherwise, they should be under a free license, else they would be deleted for copyright violation. And please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Thanks, pandakekok9 07:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

And regarding To grant Wikimedia rights to display the image in all relevant situations, if you mean fair use, then Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept fair use. You should upload it in another Wikimedia project which accepts fair use (like English Wikipedia). pandakekok9 07:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9:Thank you, still getting hang of it all. So to upload under fair use it needs to be on English Wikipedia by autoconfirmed user.Sothasil1 (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sothasil1: You can request at en:Wikipedia:Files for upload while you're not autoconfirmed. pandakekok9 11:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Nofu}}:

Commons does not allow fair use content. To upload fair use content on English Wikipedia, please use English Wikipedia's local upload. For other projects, please check the lists of exemption doctrine policies on Wikimedia projects or ask your local help desk. Not all projects allow the uploading of fair use material, if your project has no exemption doctrine policy, you can't use such material. Do not upload it to Commons. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hello If an English wiki page displays the image of an artist, can't one use the same image for the same page translated to another language ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetomer (talk • contribs) 14:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The English Wikipedia uses U.S. law alone to determine copyright expiration, and also allows fair-use images in certain circumstances. Other Wikipedias may use other laws to determine copyright expiration, and some do not allow fair use at all (or allow it with different limits and situations, possibly per the law of the countries they are most targeted to). Thus, en-wiki and some others allow images to be uploaded locally to that project, and those are only directly usable on those projects. To be directly usable in another project, an image must be on Commons. Commons does not accept fair use images at all, and uses *both* U.S. law and the law of the Berne "country of origin" to determine copyright expiration. "Fair use" is a particular fact of U.S. law and is wider in scope than similar provisions in most other laws, so what is legal for the U.S. may not be in other countries.

So if an image of the artist is being used under a "fair use" situation, it can only be used in another languages project if 1) it conforms to that projects version of fair use, and 2) is also uploaded locally to that project. If an image is public domain in the U.S. but not the country of origin, then it's similar, provided it has expired per the law that the language's project uses to determine public domain status (presuming it's not the country of origin). If an image is public domain in both the U.S. and the country of origin (perhaps the copyright has expired in the country of origin since upload to en-wiki), it can be transferred to Commons and directly used in other projects (though in some rare cases, it's possible that an image on Commons may not yet be expired per the law a project uses; it is up to that project what to do on those cases.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

PD US Gov not free globally?

According to en:Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States:

"...under section 105 of the Copyright Act, [federal government] works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law and are therefore in the public domain.

This act only applies to U.S. domestic copyright as that is the extent of U.S. federal law. The U.S. government asserts that it can still hold the copyright to those works in other countries."

If this is so, how come we describe such images as "identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Because a user wrongly added a PD-mark footer to a lot of templates (e.g. [3]), which, as has already been pointed out many times, is a big mistake and should never have been done. But it requires a sysop to revert it and nobody has bothered to revert it yet. This affects also in particular some of the PD-old templates. I suppose that some users do not fully realise how wrong, absurd and damaging it is to have a default PD-mark in templates. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Asclepias: That's troubling; can you link to the earlier discussion please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Many discussions over past years can be found with a search using some keywords. Here are just a few from a very quick search: 1, 2, 3, etc. Some discussions address only small parts of the problem, but more basically it's just wrong to have it as a default in any license template. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Any U.S. protection for their federal government works in other countries is highly theoretical. The claim, in the House notes of the 1978 Copyright Act but not the actual law text, was based on an opinion from the U.S. Copyright Office, and relied on particular wording in the Universal Copyright Convention. Other UCC countries disputed that, with a survey of several countries eventually having a wide range of opinions (some agreeing, some not, many in between). Since then the U.S. has joined the Berne Convention, which may have changed the situation again -- not sure they can require protection anywhere, though a country may still choose to give it. The U.S. has explicitly added some exceptions to PD-USGov for works where they definitely want some foreign protection (certain Commerce Department data, if memory serves, for a period of five years). In the end, I don't think the U.S. has pressed any copyright case in a foreign country, so it's impossible to know for sure. There doesn't seem to be much of a realistic issue elsewhere though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

William Henry Hunt

Could somebody please review the authorship statements, dates, descriptions, and licences on File:William Henry Hunt, A Hermit, Exhibited 1847.jpg and File:William Henry Hunt, Boy at a Vegetable Stall-Candlelight, c. 1827.jpg, and others by the same uploader, and adjust and advise the uploader as necessary? I've had previous and unpleasant interaction with them, that would make it unwise for me to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed them to use Licensed-PD-Art, and added the creator tag. If there are any countries which do give a copyright on digitalizations of paintings, he has licensed the photo itself, so may as well preserve that. Seems like the same changes could be made on many of his uploads. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Rhodesia's Declaration of Independence

Does a photograph of en:Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence satisfy the conditions of {{PD-Zimbabwe}}? 50 years have passed since 11 November 1965. Gikü (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gikü: As the template says, in addition to time, you also need to consider who created the photograph and where it was published. Do you have that information? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

copyrightability

If I commission a performance, and then record that performance, am I the copyright holder of that recording, even if the performed work itself is the copyright of the performer (or someone else)? For example, could I stop Elvis Costello on the street, request to and then record an impromptu performance of "Watching the Detectives", and then upload that recording under a CC license? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Fourthords. The short answer is no. There would normally be a copyright for the work, a copyright for the performance, and possibly also copyrights for recordings and broadcasts. In order for the material to be suitable for Commons, all of these would have to be public domain or freely licensed, otherwise it would still be derivative of a non-free work. GMG^talk 16:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Okay, so what if—in my example—I swapped out "Watching the Detectives" with something from the public domain like "Cotton-Eyed Joe"? Assuming I'm commissioning (however informally) the performance, would I hold the copyright to the resulting video/audio? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Fourthords. As it happens, the payment for the performance makes no difference. The thing that matters is that the performers enter into a contractual relationship with you transferring the intellectual property rights over the copyright of the performance. It just so happens that most people aren't willing to do that unless you pay them.

But yes, if the musical work was public domain work, and the performance itself was freely licensed, such as under CCBYSA, then it would be suitable for upload to Commons. GMG^talk 20:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of money changing hands, I thought that commissioning another's performance gave the commissioner the copyright to the performance (barring the copyrightability of the 'work' (e.g. song, lines, arcobatics) itself). For example, I asked Robert Picardo to perform for me in 2012; I recorded it, and uploaded it here under the assumption that I held the copyright to the recording. Did I make the wrong assumptions in creating and uploading that recording? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no copyright on the performance before it is recorded. So if it is original and that the work itself (including the melody and the lyrics) is free, then the recording may be OK for Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

So my hypothetical iPhone recording of Costello singing "Cotton-Eyed Joe" at my request would be copacetic for Commons? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Flaticon.com

The 555 icons from this website are not quite free enough to be here. Special:Search/insource:flaticon

• They seem to restrict usage to only "secondary" usage[4][5]
• Icons them selves cannot be sold as an app [6]
• Cannot be used as filters or stickers[7]
• Cannot be resold onto print on demand products[8]
• Cannot be used as part of any commercial logo[9]

We can keep simple ones by replacing the license with Template:PD-shape.--BevinKacon (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting license (?)

This website page here notated at the bottom of the page that the content is released on creative commons license cc-by 4.0, but at the top of the page, it says "do not edit or remove logo". So is it allowed to be posted on common? Lulusword (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Lulusword: Per previous precedent, tistory webpages that have conflicting license statements are considered to be ineligible for hosting here. It is believed that they did not understand what they were doing when they marked the images under a permitable CC license so we go for the more restrictive one (in this case non-derivative). Many DRs have been filed regarding this discrepancy, all of which have resulted in the deletion of the images. For more information see User:-revi/Tistory. --Majora (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Lulusword (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

PD mark - can we fix?

There are a lot of files from this account https://www.flickr.com/photos/guatemalagob/ and many (if not all) are licensed with "Public Domain Mark 1.0". Can we fix that? (@Stalin990: as info). --MGA73 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: What license should they be under? Right now they are eligible for deletion if a different, valid, license is not provided. The PDM is not a valid license here. --Majora (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Majora: yes that is my question ;-) It looks like an official account. --MGA73 (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: I doubt it. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Guatemala#General rules. The State and its public entities, municipalities, universities and other educational establishments in the country, shall enjoy the protection established by law. So even if it is an official account of the State it wouldn't matter. This is a prime example of Flickr not explaining what the PDM actually means. I'm guessing they meant to put these under CC0 but, unfortunately, we can't be sure. --Majora (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)