Jump to content

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Village pump
Latest comment: 2 hours ago by Quick1984 in topic Template:Mazhilis

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.

Improving an image

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 hours ago45 comments7 people in discussion

Currently the image options for EN:Boating Party are a low resolution image, a defective high resolution one and a cropped high resolution one. For a 147 year old painting like that are we allowed to copy images from museum websites?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@TonyTheTiger: As long as it's just the image of the 2D work, yes; not if it includes the frame, though (which you can crop out). - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:Jmabel I went to see the Caillebotte exhibition last Saturday here in Chicago and noticing that the work had no article I created it. I am realizing that musuems don't put such high quality files on line. I am not going to be able to get anything better than the current low resolution one. I intend to revisit the exhibit once or twice more between now and the end of its run in October. Am I also able to take a picture of this and post it? I am going to have to bring my own camera and take a picture to get something high resolution. I am not sure if I am allowed to bring a tripod or monopod, but I will try to get something high quality. -TonyTheTiger (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@TonyTheTiger You can definitely take and post a picture of that work, yes! If you're referring to the Caillebotte show at the Art Institute, just be aware of their visitor policies (they don't allow tripods if I'm reading that correctly). Jealous that you get to see that exhibition, I can't make it to Chicago before it closes. 19h00s (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:19h00s, if you are ever interesting in dropping in on Chicago and need a place to crash let me know. My mother has been with me since the pandemic, but spends several months a year with my sister. My Costco sleeper sofa is free well over 100 nights a year.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@TonyTheTiger: The most important things technically in taking a picture like that (I'm presuming a DSLR here, but most of this is true regardless):
  • Obviously, use the best lens you've got. I use a 24mm prime lens for this.
  • Hold the camera as steady as you can.
  • You want the highest resolution and highest quality that you can reasonably get.
  • Among other things, this means you probably want the shortest exposure practicable, and only as much depth of field as necessary, but …
  • … don't hesitate to take multiple pictures with different settings as insurance.
  • Take at least onev photo as straight on as possible so that you have proportions right for reference [in this case, you already have that from other sources] but …
  • … for the picture you are actually going to work with, a tool like GIMP or Photoshop is perfectly able to adjust perspective (and even lens distortion, assuming the distortion is "regular"), but cannot properly fix reflections, so if you have to aim other than straight on to get an image with no reflections, do that and fix it in post-processing.
  • File:St. Nicholas icon - Banat - 18th-century.jpg is a good illustration of how much you can get away with in terms of underexposure and a weird angle and still get a pretty good image via post-processing (the file history shows the original for reference). There's a bit of reflection there even as it is, but it's tremendously better than what I could have gotten out of a more obvious way of taking the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • User:Jmabel, thanks for the advice. I will be returning to attend an August 7 Caillebotte lecture at the AIC. I do not have any prime lenses. I have a few lenses I would be considering for the task. The approximate ranking order is RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM, RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM, RF28-70mm F2 L USM, and RF10-20mm F4 L IS STM. Do you think a monopod would be under the same restrictions as a selfie stick?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I am going to check in with Canon Professional Services. I am suppose to be able to borrow stuff for up to 10 days. I am going to see if they have a prime available for loans.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • User:Jmabel I just got off the phone with Canon Professional Services. The following lenses are on the list I am eligible to borrow, but I won't know what is in stock until I send in an email request: 50mm/1.2, 50mm/1.4, 35mm/1.8, 24mm/1.4 and 20mm/1.4. What order would you rank these in for this shoot. What order would you rank my lenses in for this shoot if I am too late/too low a priority for an August 7 request (they like 2 weeks notice).-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I am home with my camera and using the 28-70 it seems that a 50mm prime should be able to capture a 4ft wide field at a reasonable distance. I will request 50mm/1.2 with 50mm/1.4 as my contingency request. I'll keep you posted.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 24mm/1.4 would be comparable to what I use for this (mine's 24mm/1.8). I never shoot with a 50mm, but I can tell you that 85mm is quite inconveniently long for working in a museum. Most likely it is not a big deal to get down below f/4 anyway: unless the light is awful (or you are photographing something really small so it doesn't matter), it's usually good to have quite that little depth of field: it starts to matter that the corners of the painting are farther away than the center. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • I have little idea what the museum's rules on a monopod might be, other than that I would think they would not look kindly on someone walking around the galleries with a long, moderately sharp stick. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      For what it's worth, I recall the rule of thumbs that 50mm focal length on full-frame is said to approximately equal the normal human viewing angle, that's why 50mm sets the limit between "wide-angle" and "telephoto", as far as I'm aware. For museum photography, something shorter than 50mm may be sensible, this way, you'll gain room on your still for perspective corrections and crops. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2601:240:C481:5B0:D471:7C29:A3A:2445, I fixed in place the broken link to the example image and example article, hope you don't mind. – b_jonas 12:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:b_jonas, Thx-TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I got tracking info from Canon. AM delivery expected today. I am just realizing that although I want to take images for 4 or 5 (potential) articles, most of them are still under copyright so having 45 megapixel images with a really fast lens is not going to make that big of a difference. Maybe I should have gotten the 50mm rather than the 24mm, because the 4ft wide w:en:Boating Party might have been better with it while for the images from the 12 stop Art Institute of Chicago app Essentials Tour that needed images and articles w:en:America Window and w:en:User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/City Landscape, the fancy gear is not going to be as meaningful. I shouldn't have factored the larger works into the decision making.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • User:Jmabel, I have about 2 dozen photos to work from. Do you have any suggestions on judging which one is best to work from. E.g., is it better to start with a brighter one or one that is closer to perfectly rectangular?-2601:240:C481:5B0:6DF5:95B2:FB81:703C 10:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Hard to tell without seeing. "Brighter" is likely to be good, as long as the highlights aren't washed out. If it's from more than 30° off of straight on, it gets a lot tougher. I'd start by correcting lens distortion (Filters|Distorts|Lens Distortion...) and aspect ratio (Perspective Tool, probably in Corrective mode) and see what further work is needed. If it is too far off of straight-on, then fixing any separate distortion of the frame is much harder, very advanced GIMPing, but you can always take just the work itself and leave out the frame. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @TonyTheTiger: did you shoot in raw format? If yes and if you don't mind sharing some files with me (I suggest using WeTransfer and Wikimail), I'm willing to give it a shot using Adobe Camera Raw, it's built-in automated perspective correction is quite proficient in my experience.
      Technically, you usually exposed analogue film more towards the bright side (slightly long), because the sensitive chemicals were still able to record minute details in bright zones, even when overexposed: they were hard to saturate. It's the opposite for electronic sensors. If those are saturated, and that's much more easily achieved and a hard threshold, they won't record any more lighting changes. That's why you should aim for a slight underexposure when needed, because sensors react to a much lower threshold/number of photons than chemicals like silver halogenides. You'll record meaningful lighting intensity values even if you're not having a perfect exposure, for the price of some noise, you can amplify those signals. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      User:Grand-Duc, I shoot CRAW + JPG. I'd be happy to share files. With 26 images, most of which are probably in the range that they could be edited to better than what we have. I am mostly slightly underexposed. I could send some or all in JPEG and then you could help me select and then I'd be happy to also send the CRAW because I don't get into editing so much.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm totally fine with that. As said, I suggest using the en:WeTransfer service to get a link to be mailed, we both have Wikimail (Special:Email) enabled. Make a folder with the 26 candidates, put it on WeTransfer and send the link. I'll tell you then on which stills I'd like to try a raw development. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I sent a link. TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @TonyTheTiger: thanks, received and replied to. (Lately, some Wikimails I exchanged with colleagues here were caught into the provider's spamfilter. We're using the same service, so you may have to check there.) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I got your email. I am having trouble with WeTransfer.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I emailed a Google Drive link. TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      TonyTheTiger, I have the files, thanks, and I'm working on them. What do you like the best in return as format? JPEG, TIFF, DNG? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I usually post as JPG. If you tell me which one you are editing, I will post the original and you can post the edit by updating over the original for proper credit. TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Are you having better luck with the R5M2 shots or the R6? TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Uh, "proper credit"? I would say that it would actually only go to you, as you went ant took the stills, I'm only something like a technician. I was planning on mailing you my results back, so that you can upload the finished image(s) that you like the best.
      None of them were troublesome, I think; I tried several crops and changed the white balance on some. It was good material to work on. (I just finished, will put them on WeTransfer now. That can take a bit of time, I'm on a somewhat slow connection.) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I guess we are working with 3 from the R5M2 and 6 from the R6. The first one from the R5M2 looks like it is a lot closer to finished in terms of cropping out the frame. Is that your preference? TonyTheTiger (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      OK, I got what you meant with "trouble with WeTransfer" (it loops back after reaching ~90% upload). I'll use Google Drive too. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @TonyTheTiger: done, you've got the mail. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Kudos and thank you. Well done. Above and beyond. I was hoping you would find one you could clean up with little trouble. You squared them all up and adjusted the lighting (white balance). Much of the cropping has been done too. I am sure this was easier for you to do than it would have been for me. TonyTheTiger (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @TonyTheTiger: after a re-read of your post from 04:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC) and the part about the frame in your mail, I get what you're thinking about. First: you can chose any one of those JPEG I made from your raw files, there shouldn't be any copyright issues.Reply
      I am going to want to remove the frame as much as possible. Is either paint or photos more lossy in this regard? TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      File:Boating Party by Gustave Caillebotte pictured on August 7, 2025 at the Art Institute of Chicago.jpg is where we are right now. TonyTheTiger (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      The main issue with framed paintings is that those frames aren't flat. They are visibly present in 3 dimensions, this is what precludes people in simply copying imagery of framed old paintings from museum websites or similar. The photographer of those is seen as having made an image of a 3D object and is fully entitled to copyrights of that. BUT: if this frame gets cropped away, the Foundation upholds the stance of only hosting a 2D copy of a work that is out of copyrights. That has a logic: it doesn't matter which technique you're using to duplicate old works: a camera, a flatbed scanner, a drum scanner, a human tracing and repainting the work on sone medium... Those are all equal in the eyes of the law. So, a crop is a copy made with a camera.
      Here, as you are the actual photographer, future uploader and licensor, there's no problem with images of framed paintings.
      In the case where the photographer is identical to the licensor, we only have to consider whether the frame is an actual object of art itself. Some intrinsically sculpted specimen or some equipped with fine inlaid works can more or less easily get over any relevant COM:TOO. The one visible in your stills is not one of these, it's quite certainly below COM:TOO US.
      In conclusion: chose whatever image(s) pleases you the most, that's why I left several of them with the frame intact, (you can display the setting of the museal presentation, if you like) and cropped some others more or less close to the painting itself. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      User:Jmabel, I think I was probably 10 or so degrees off of straight on because the digital levels only guide you in two of three dimensions and I was distracted by them a bit.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all the advice. User:Grand-Duc has done a fantastic job cleaning up these files. I sent him 26 files and he tried his hand at editing 9 of them. He liked 4 of them and below are the three new ALTS (edited but not yet cropped) that I have uploaded: This one is also shown above. It is from a en:Canon EOS R5 Mark II with a 24mm/1.4 prime lens at 1/160, ISO 800:

We have two alternatives from a en:Canon EOS R6 The first is at 28mm/2.0 1/100 ISO 640:

We have two alternatives from a en:Canon EOS R6 The first is at 65mm/2.8 1/100 ISO 640:

This week I will try to use the Commons:CropTool to upload new versions over these without the frames in the coming days unless someone beats me to it.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Is it OK to upload a picture of a site of a demolished church in Finland? On the pic is also a memorial, which is essentially a shelter with two church bells attached to the roof.

I'm thinking also, could the bells be protected by copyright? Rle32795 (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Rle32795: should be fine. It is possible that some detail of the bells is unusual enough to merit copyright, I could not guess without seeing them. - Jmabel ! talk 16:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel could it be possible to show the bell picture on this topic or to someone for review before uploading to Commons? Rle32795 (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Rle32795: Just upload it and indicate here that you have done so. It isn't a calamity for us briefly to have a picture that is a copyright violation, happens hundreds (if not thousands) of times every day. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just a general note: while Commons benefits from safe harbour provisions (meaning the platform itself isn't liable for infringing content it hosts temporarily), individual uploaders are still legally responsible for what they upload. If something turns out to be a copyright violation, the project can remove it, but that doesn't protect the uploader from potential legal action by a rightsholder (even if that's unlikely in practice). So although accidental violations do happen and are routinely cleaned up, it's still best not to upload anything unless you're reasonably confident it's OK. You could also consider emailing a trusted admin or reaching out to a local Wikimedia chapter (such as Wikimedia Suomi) for advice on specific cases. And Jmabel, I know you're being pragmatic here, but we probably shouldn't give the impression that it's fine to upload something that might be a copyright violation, just speaking to the general framing of your comment, not necessarily the image in question. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Josve05a: it seems to me that there is a very small chance that a church bell raises copyright issues, and a vanishingly small chance that if it is here briefly so that an admin can get a look at it someone will discover that and pursue the matter legally. Yes, you are technically correct. And it is technically correct that there is a law against driving 2km/h over the speed limit. If the picture is a copyright infringement, then I believe there is literally no way the user could show it to someone online or via email without technically infringing copyright; temporarily uploading it here seems as good as any.
Seriously, Josve05a, have you ever in your life heard of anyone getting in trouble for such a thing? - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've uploaded pictures of the site and inside of the memorial now. Rle32795 (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pankakoski_church_after_demolition_-_memorial.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pankakoski_church_after_demolition_-_site.jpg Rle32795 (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I want to mention one thing about the bells, that there's some text on the upper part of the bells. "rvi" or järvi"? Didn't think about the copyright aspect then. Rle32795 (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
There's also an information sign on the right hand pillar, with a probably copyrighted photo. Though it may not matter here, as the bells or the inside is the main subject. Rle32795 (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
My thought exactly. I'll blur out the info sign. Everything else is fine. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

New Qatari emblem

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Qatari government does not mentioned copyright in Emblem of Qatar (see {{PD-QatarGov}}). But trademarks apply, it does not allow commercial use of a newer emblem. Unlike the State Emblem of India for example, the commercial use of the state emblem is forbidden by the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. Absolutiva 14:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Absolutiva: there is no link here to any Commons content, so I'm not sure what you are driving at changing.
Trademarks can be handled with just adding {{Trademark}}.
Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
See this file locally en:File:Emblem of Qatar (2022–present).svg on English Wikipedia, before it was deleted on Commons. Absolutiva 21:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Current state of photography of objects that are part of the Italian cultural heritage

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm getting a bit confounded by several seemingly conflicting rules concerning photography of Italian cultural heritage, e.g. of churches centuries old. As a baseline, we have COM:FOP Italy cautioning for Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. At this moment, there won't be copyrights left due to age in my example. BUT: meta:Italian cultural heritage on the Wikimedia projects from 2015 seems to advocate for an enforceable restriction that is not copyrights/author rights related and codified in other laws, the even older page Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC supports this. Then, there's Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Italy FOP again and artwork copyrights supposedly held by city councils of Italy which is, for me, also not providing clarity for the question "Uploading OK or not in 2025?", the same for Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Additional restrictions for cultural heritage assets. Maybe I've overlooked something due to inattentiveness. But is there any clear statement to be made whether Commons as of today can host photographs of Italian cultural heritage assets, at least those that are several decades or centuries old? It would be nice to be able to consolidate the guidances of COM:CRT/Italy, at least. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Uploading to Commons is ok. Template:Soprintendenza sums it up. (However, by exception, some files uploaded under a particular agreement follow special rules.) -- Asclepias (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Dick Powell - Publicity Photo.jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

File:Dick Powell - Publicity Photo.jpg is almost certainly incorrectly licensed and not the uploader's own work based on the file's description, but it might be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Is there any way to try and figure that out? There are lots of photos of en:Dick Powell found online, but I'm not seeing this one anywhere other than Wikipedia. The file's description also seems to imply the uploader might've modified the image in some way (they stated which I scanned and color and age corrected), but I'm unable to find anything even close to this photo being used anywhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Album cover. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for finding that Asclepias. That's certainly the same photo. Whether the album cover just used a previously taken photo or the photo was specifically take for the album cover is unclear, but the album is at least an acceptable instance of publication. The link you found states the album was released in 1963, which means (I think) both {{PD-US-not renewed}} and {{PD-US-no notice}} are still possible as a license. Pinging Yann and Jmabel for input since Yann has tagged the file for speedy deletion per COM:F5 and Jmabel has tried to help sort this out on the uploader's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't have anything really to add to what I wrote on the uploader's talk page. I'm not interested in doing the research myself to possibly salvage a photo of Dick Powell. - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't know the copyright status, but the current source, author (not own work), and license are wrong. Yann (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So I saw that the Hollister apparel Logo has been uploaded to Commons since 2020 by user 17jiangz1, they have put that the logo is below TOO under PD-logo. I'm not really sure the Seagull is below the US TOO. Has the logo been registred by Abercrombie (Hollister's Parent company) in the copyright registry? Hyperba21 (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've nominated it for deletion. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does Computer Screen cover under countries with 2D FOP or Text FOP

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

COM:FOP don’t say that. 6D (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@6D: I have no idea what you are asking. If there is some language in which you can ask this question more clearly than in English, would you please try that? - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notice of giveaway nomination

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've nominated Clindberg for a giveaway as a small gesture of appreciation for what he has done here.

Glrx (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have been hearing a quote from Freddie Mercury floating around the internet, particularly in YouTube comment sections on videos of derivative works of Queen songs. Reportedly, shortly before he died Mercury said about his legacy, "You can do what you want with my music, but don't make me boring." Does this statement classify Mercury's compositions (not the sound recordings owned by record labels) as {{Copyrighted free use}}, or is what he said meaningless copyright-wise? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

An interesting quote perhaps, but I would think it would be meaningless from a real world copyright standpoint in general and almost certainly too vague to be considered to be anything close to resembling COM:CONSENT per COM:PCP. I think any attempt to upload any of Mercury's work to Commons simply based on that would probably end up either quickly tagged for speedy deletion or nominated for deletion. Out in the real world, you might be able to argue en:fair use perhaps as a fall back position to claiming the quote was equivalent to Mercury releasing his work into the public domain, but that won't work on Commons. I think you're actually going to need some kind of court ruling that validates such a claim for it to be considered to be valid. All of this, though, is just my opinion and perhaps others will feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The copyright law of Hungary specifically says that copyright licenses are only valid if written, spoken isn't enough (with an exception that doesn't apply here). I don't know if other countries' laws say something similar, but I'd expect so. – b_jonas 11:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Correct US license for aerial imagery of Puerto Rico

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! Via this link aerial photographs of Puerto Rico can be obtained. The responsible organisation are the Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of eXpertise (JALBTCX), a subsidiary of the US-American military, and NOAA (FEMA was the effort). What could be the proper license template? PD-USGov-Military? Thanks and regards --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

PD-USGov is really the only actual license; the rest of the related tags are more for categorization purposes even though it's the same copyright reason. I'd probably just use {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks :). If even if another PD-USGov-Template is more appropiate, this can be changed easily --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Photograph of book cover

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, If an editor takes a high-res photo of a (presumably copyrighted) book cover, would it be considered CC0 under ‘own work’? My gut instinct / best guess from googling is that a reproduction would still have associated copyright from the original owner, but I'm having trouble finding a definitive answer. Thanks, Zzz plant (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The book cover would definitely still have the copyright belonging to the original. CC0 would only cover the photograph itself, it wouldn't override the copyright of the book cover. Abzeronow (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thank you for confirming! Follow up question, what do I do in this situation? It likely could be re-sized and used under fair-use in the article, but since it's on the commons under CC0 should it be nominated for deletion? Zzz plant (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Linking the file in question would be helpful (I could always nominate it for deletion). Abzeronow (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
File:A Haunting on the Hill.jpg Zzz plant (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Speedied as a copyvio Bedivere (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just going to add that a straight-on photograph of a book's cover most likely would be considered a case of COM:2D copying, meaning the photo itself wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
This question was dealt with in COM:BOOK, actually. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Valid prison photo?

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all. I just now uploaded this photo of Nizar Trabelsi in 2021, a former Tunisian footballer who was convicted of terrorism in Belgium and later extradited to the US, where he was found not guilty. According to this source, Trabelsi was detained in a US federal prison around this time. I therefore assumed that these photos were taken by an employee of the DOJ, and I added the license accordingly. Can anyone check to see if this reasoning is valid for Commons? I'm unsure if I have done too much speculation in the licensing. Howardcorn33 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The blog that published these images described their provenance thus: "Les photos que je publie ici, me sont parvenues comme a message in a bottle, comme une bouteille jetée à la mer. Peut-être m'ont-elles été envoyées par les autorités américaines qui me considèrent comme, je cite, 'Luk Vervaet, a Belgian supporter of Nizar Trabelsi' (sic) ? Pour me montrer qu'elles ont tenu parole, que leur proie est dans leurs mains, sous leur contrôle total, et tant pis pour tous ceux et celles qui ont cru aux garanties américaines sur un traitement humain pour obtenir son extradition." (machine translated to EN: "The photos I publish here came to me like a message in a bottle, like a bottle thrown into the sea. Perhaps they were sent to me by the American authorities who consider me, I quote, 'Luk Vervaet, a Belgian supporter of Nizar Trabelsi' (sic)? To show me that they have kept their word, that their prey is in their hands, under their total control, and too bad for all those who believed in the American guarantees of humane treatment to obtain his extradition.")
Even the publisher of these images is unsure who created them. American prisons - even military prisons - are notoriously leaky ships, with contraband constantly entering and exiting the facilities. There is a very distinct possibility that this image was created by another detainee or another party who is not an employee of the federal government. If this were officially published by the US gov, I'd be way less suspicious. But the author of the blog post is clear that these photos did not come from official channels and were shared surreptitiously. That makes the authorship incredibly difficult to ascertain. I would say these don't belong on Commons without more evidence. 19h00s (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see. I will nominate the photo for speedy deletion then. Howardcorn33 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OffenauS%C3%BCdzucker.jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Die Löschdiskussion zu dieser Datei wurde zu meiner Überraschung mit dem Argument mangelner Schöpfungshöhe beendet - Anlass für den Löschantrag war die Frage, ob es sich um ein Werk im Bereich der Panoramafreiheit handelt. Wie auch immer, ich halte das für eine schutzwürdige Steinmetz- bzw. Bildhauerarbeit, die zwar ein recht simples Grundmotiv umsetzt, aber auf die eigene Art des Bildhauers. Bildhauerei ist keine ClipArt, sondern man muss es erst einmal können. GerritR (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wenn es nicht die Schöpfungshöhe gewesen wäre, dann wäre wohl es die Panoramafreiheit gewesen, oder der Umstand, dass es sich um ein offizielles Wappen handelt, welches entsprechend nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt ist. Nakonana (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
1. Die Panoramafreiheit ist nach wie vor nicht bewiesen 2. Ungeschützt ist immer nur das Wappen an sich, nicht dessen künstlerische Umsetzung, hier als dreidimensionale Bildhauerei. Sonst wäre auch alle Wappen des Münchner Kalenders von Otto Hupp auf der Stelle gemeinfrei gewesen. GerritR (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It looks like a photo of a relief sculpture. If so, the file is missing a license for the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

w:en:File:The Congregation of Notre Dame convent from rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1684-1768..png

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, me and @UndercoverClassicist were debating whether this file is PD, and have decided to come here. Please feel free to leave comments here or participate in the original FFD. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

JAXA Photos

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Recently I have been working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Adopt an astronaut sub-project where we develop / upgrade astronaut pages to B-class on assessment scale. However, while developing a page on JAXA Astronaut Ayu Yoneda, I wanted to add her profile image to the Template:Infobox astronaut. I have selected the image for this provided by JAXA on Material Details|Search Results|JAXA Digital Archives. However, I am unsure which CC License to use, some users have previously used Template:Cc-by-2.1-jp while others have used CC 3.0 along with it. Can someone please tell me which license would be appropriate according to JAXA's policy stated here Manav2311 (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also a quick look at [[Category:License tags of Japan] shows that already special tags for agencies such as JHOD and OPA have been created so can someone well experienced in this matter kindly make one for JAXA too? It will be way more convenient for future image licensing for these types of images. Manav2311 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The site you linked states the license for the image is Press and educational use (not for commercial purposes). That's not compatible with Wikimedia Commons, and can't be uploaded here sorry. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is THJ v Sheridan retroactive?

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I know the decision in THJ v Sheridan has considerably raised the UK's threshold of originality. Is the new ToO retroactive, or does it only apply to new logos? Ixfd64 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

If I am correct, the THJ v Sheridan judgment didn’t create a new originality threshold so much as confirm the one the UK has been bound to since at least the 2009 Infopaq decision (and arguably since the 2002–2003 implementation of relevant EU directives). The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the correct test is whether a work is the “author’s own intellectual creation,” replacing the older "skill and labour" approach.
Because this is a clarification of what the law has been for years, it applies when courts assess any work today, including those made before the case was decided. In practice, that means the standard is effectively retroactive for logos created after the EU standard took effect. For older works, the difference may be academic, and in most cases the threshold remains low enough that a logo which met it before will still meet it now. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
So does this mean en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg may still be non-free? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
info: Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos Glrx (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Attachai Fairtex.jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Attachai Fairtex.jpg was uploaded back in April 2017 and appears to be the only contribution of Special:Contributions/Martial arts central. The file's description claims the photo to be the uploader's "own work", but the EXIF data includes a clear claim of copyright ownership for a facebook.com/AynasFoto. I tried checking the Facebook account listed in the EXIF data but can't find it; so, I can't determine whether that's really the source for the photo. Another url in the EXIF data is given as copyright@www.wetravelcenter.com, but that just leads back to Commons. Since this does look to be a professionally take photo given the way the dubject is posing and the tape mark on the floor indicating where the subject should stand, I'm wondering whether VRT verification (even 8 years after upload) might be necessary here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Egyptian FoP

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 hours ago21 comments6 people in discussion

I have some doubts about our acceptance of Egyptian Freedom of Panorama (COM:FOP Egypt), which claims FoP is permitted implicitly by expressly denying the author the right to control reproduction if the work is located in public places. I revisited the unofficial English translation of the 2002 law as held by WIPO (linked at the bottom of CRT page), and based on my comprehension, the clause is not independent from other clauses under the same article (Article 171). It is connected to the second clause. Here is the full version of the relevant parts:

Without prejudice to the moral rights of the author under this Law, the author may not, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts:

(2) Make a single copy of the work for one's exclusive personal use, provided that such a copy shall not hamper the normal exploitation of the work nor cause undue prejudice to the legitimate interests of the author or copyright holders;
However, the author or his successor may, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts without his authorization:
Reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts, unless they were displayed in a public place, or works of architecture;...
— Article 171(2 and the first bullet)

The second clause is clear that it is permitted to reproduce a single copy of the work for one's own personal use. The FoP clause that accompanies it is directly connected to this clause, not an independent (third) clause. The third clause is an unrelated clause concerning computer programs.

Based on my understanding, Egyptian FoP is invalid for Commons, since it is only for personal use of applied, fine, plastic arts, and architecture found in public places. If it were a separate clause not subordinate to the second clause, then there would have been no "personal use" only restriction. I would still need third opinions on this. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply


Translating the relevant section of the Arabic text of the 2020 revision of the law gives me the same clause. For the original, from the 2020 version of the 2002 law:

مادة (۱۷۱) مع عدم الإخلال بحقوق المؤلف الأدبية طبقاً لأحكام هذا القانون، ليس للمؤلف بعد نشر مصنفه أن يمنع الغير من القيام بأى عمل من الأعمال الآتية:

...

ثانياً عمل نسخة وحيدة من المصنف لاستعمال الناسخ الشخصي المحض وبشرط ألا يخل هذا النسخ بالاستغلال العادي للمصنف أو يلحق ضرراً غير مبرر بالمصالح المشروعة للمؤلف أو لأصحاب حق المؤلف. ومع ذلك يكون للمؤلف أو خلفه بعد نشر مصنفه أن يمنع الغير من القيام بدون إذنه بأي من الأعمال الآتية:

- نسخ أو تصوير مصنفات الفنون الجميلة أو التطبيقية أو التشكيلية ما لم تكن في مكان عام أو المصنفات المعمارية.

نسخ أو تصوير كل أو جزء جوهري لنوتة مصنف موسيقى.

نسخ أو تصوير كل أو جزء جوهري لقاعدة بيانات أو برامج حاسب آلي.


_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ping some interested users here: @Summering2018, دنيا, and Mohamed Ouda: , organizers of some previous editions of WLM in Egypt as per the participating countries lists (2024, 2023, 2022). For their comments on the possible unacceptable Egyptian Freedom of Panorama. If it's a sub-provision of Article 171(2), then the Egyptian FoP is for private use by individuals only (not OK for Wikimedia Commons which mandates free or commercial-type licenses). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ping also @Pharos: (who added the Egyptian FoP section in 2008) and @Nard the Bard: (who later expanded it) for their comments concerning my interpretation of Egyptian FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not a lawyer and when I was active here I worked on *a lot* of things, so I am not even a well-versed amateur on this. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any relevant Egyptian caselaw and inquiries through Google and LLMs just circularly lead back to our policy. The FoP carveout is unfortunately unclearly phrased, with a double negative, and grouped together with a right to make a single copy for personal use. If you wish to proceed, I would caution that Village Pump is not for major policy changes, it merely exists to discuss issues. If you believe you can make a good case for changing the policy, I would suggest you proceed to a DR for Egyptian FoP photos and tag the talk page of everyone you can think of who is interested. The way you pinged me will not work on most people the same way a talk page notification will. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that the structural placement of the "unless in a public place" carve-out inside Article 171(2) makes a strong case that this is not an independent FOP provision at all, but a sub-limitation to the personal use exception. Both the 2002 text (WIPO unofficial translation) and the 2020 Arabic revision keep the same nesting: the "ومع ذلك" clause sits within point (2), which is expressly limited to "a single copy [...] for one's exclusive personal use". If we read it that way, reproductions of public art or architecture would be lawful only as personal copies (not for publication, redistribution, or commercial use).
This interpretation is consistent with the Berne three-step test, where exceptions must be narrow and not prejudice the work's normal exploitation. I have not found any Egyptian case law or independent commentary supporting the broader FOP reading; our current acceptance on Commons appears to rest entirely on internal precedent rather than external legal analysis. If no contradictory legal authority emerges, we may need to treat Egyptian FOP as non-existent for Commons purposes. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
+1 to JWilz12345's and Josve05a's comments. I'll spare everyone the long winded diatribe for why since I think they already said it fine, but it seems like there isn't an independent provision for FOP in Egyptian law outside of personal use. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have now revised the FOP section. It seems even at the beginning of Egypt's modern history there is no acceptable FOP. The repealed 1954 law only permitted an exception of "quoting" 3D art and flat art in certain printed media (textbooks and books on history, literature, science, and arts) as long as the purpose is to clarify the associated text. So, overall, Egypt has no new media-friendly FOP since the beginning of their modern history. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Want to check over Category:Egyptian FOP cases/kept, all files tagged with (and DRs linked to) {{FoP-Egypt}} and perhaps rewrite that as a {{NoFoP-Egypt}}? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have started some. Minimum of three for now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
295 files transludces the template. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
By taking a photograph of a statue displayed in a public place or works of architecture you're not copying them. There are similar provisions in other laws, for example in the Croatian Copyright law: "It is permitted, without the permission of the right holder and without payment of compensation, to reproduce, except in three-dimensional form, works of authorship that are permanently located in streets, squares, parks or other places accessible to the public, and to distribute and communicate to the public such reproduced copies." The new interpretation of the Egyptian law is wrong. Deletion requests should stop. Ponor (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ponor: the problem with your interpretation is that Egyptian law expressly treats photography ("تصوير") of works of fine, applied, plastic arts and architecture as a form of reproduction ("نسخ") under Article 171, as seen in the Arabic phrasing "نسخ أو تصوير". It only allows such reproductions when they are (1) a single copy, (2) for one’s own exclusive personal use, and (3) not prejudicial to the normal exploitation of the work. While the double negative ("prevent... unless") implies some allowance, the "unless in a public place" carve-out sits structurally inside 171(2), which governs personal-use copies, not as an independent, stand-alone FOP provision.
If photographing a public sculpture or building were not "copying" in the legal sense, there would be no need for the legislature to create that public-place carve-out at all. Croatia’s law, which you cite, is structurally different: it has an explicit, independent FOP exception (Article 204) that allows reproduction, distribution, and communication to the public (including commercial reuse). Egypt’s clause is embedded under a personal-use limitation and does not permit publication, redistribution, or commercial licensing, all of which Commons requires. Without Egyptian case law clarifying otherwise — and none exists on this issue — we must rely on the law’s plain text.
Egyptian law likely allows you to take a personal snapshot of a public monument for private enjoyment, but not to upload it here under a free licence that enables worldwide reuse. I’d welcome any sources showing a broader interpretation. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I still disagree. Copyright laws are about people making copies of your work and competing with you. You can photocopy or copy/reproduce a 2D painting. You cannot photocopy a whole sculpture or a building. The Egyptian law says it's OK ("the author cannot prevent") to make a personal photocopy of a book, photocopy or reproduction of a painting, or a copy of a sculpture, as long as it doesn't compete with the original. Then it continues that it's not OK ("the author can prevent") "carrying out any of the following acts without his authorization". It's not "carrying out the aforementioned act", it's the "following acts". The following acts are "reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts" – "unless they were displayed in a public place". Ponor (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Under Egyptian law, photographing ("تصوير") is explicitly treated as a form of reproduction or copying ("نسخ"). This is not just a casual comparison. Article 171 uses the exact phrase "نسخ أو تصوير", meaning "reproduction or photographing" together, legally equating photography with copying.
The whole purpose of freedom of panorama (FOP) exceptions in copyright law is to permit limited reproduction of works (like photocopying or photographing) under defined conditions without constituting infringement. Saying that photographing a sculpture or building is not "copying" contradicts the very wording and structure of the law.
The public-place carve-out in Egyptian law is embedded within a personal-use limitation. It does not create a standalone exception allowing free reproduction, distribution, or commercial use. This differs from laws like Croatia’s, where the FOP exception explicitly allows reproduction and public communication beyond personal use.
So the question is not whether photography is copying (it clearly is) but whether Egyptian law permits that copying beyond a single, private-use copy. The answer based on the text and structure is no. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Even if you disregard what copying a 3D object means, there's a clear separation of the author cannot prevent and ("However...") the author can prevent in the text. See how they even repeat "after the publication of the work" for the two separate cases. We should not infer anything from the indentation and numbering. Case 1: "The author cannot prevent 1 personal copy" Case 2:"However... the author may object to the following (...), but only if his work was not displayed in a public place". Ponor (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate your persistence, but let's break this down further based on the law's text and structure. The "separation" you describe between "the author cannot prevent" and "However... the author can prevent" isn't as clear-cut as two independent cases. The "However" clause is directly attached to point (2) in both the Arabic original ("ومع ذلك" follows immediately after the personal use description) and the English translation, where it's indented under (2). This nesting indicates it's a limitation or exception within the personal use context, not a standalone provision. If it were truly separate, it would likely be formatted as a new point (e.g., as (3)), without the connective phrasing tying it back. The repetition of "after the publication of the work" doesn't create independence; it's reinforcing that the author's control post-publication is the overarching theme, but the clause remains subordinate. Legal interpretation often relies on such structural cues, especially absent case law (and previously noted, no Egyptian precedents clarify this).
On disregarding "copying a 3D object": The law explicitly includes "تصوير" (photographing) alongside "نسخ (reproduction/copying), so photographing is legally treated as a form of copying here. Dismissing that overlooks the precise wording chosen by the legislature. If photos weren't considered reproductions, the public-place carve-out wouldn't be needed in this section at all. Ultimately, without external authority (e.g., case law, scholarly analysis) backing the broader reading, the plain text points to a personal-use-only exception. This aligns with Berne Convention constraints on narrow exceptions. If you have sources interpreting it your way, please share, I'd genuinely like to find some. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Points (1) and (3) are, I assume, so separate from the cases in (2) that they continued with "what's not OK when it comes to this kind of art" under (2). I think you're reading too much from their numbering instead of reading the sentences as they flow. You're completely disregarding that they're not saying "the aforementioned 1-personal-copy case", but are saying "the following cases". They could have said "1-personal-copy is allowed for works displayed in public, full stop". They haven't, because they write it as two separate cases. The "absent case law" may be quite telling: no Egyptian author ever objected to souvenir copies of their art displayed in public? Ponor (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The "However" clause isn't introducing entirely separate "following cases" detached from the personal-use context, it's a direct qualifier nested under point (2), as evidenced by its indentation and immediate follow-on phrasing in both the English translation and Arabic original. This structure means the public-place allowance modifies the broader reproduction restriction: authors generally cannot prevent making a single copy for personal use regardless of display location, but they can prevent reproduction beyond personal use unless the works are permanently displayed in a public place, where that blocking power is lost. It doesn't create a free-standing right to reproduce, publish, or commercially exploit those works beyond personal boundaries. Your assumption that points (1) and (3) being distinct somehow justifies reading (2)'s sub-clause as independent overlooks how the law formats exceptions — major allowances get their own numbers, while qualifiers stay subordinate. If lawmakers intended a broad FOP, they'd have drafted it as a standalone point, like the explicit ones for criticism (4), legal proceedings (5), or teaching (6-7). Absent case law isn't "telling" of permissiveness; it more likely reflects limited challenges, perhaps because reproductions stay private or unchallenged under the narrow reading, aligning with Berne's narrow-exception mandate. Croatia's law, by contrast, has a dedicated Article 204 granting reproduction, distribution, and public communication rights, while Egypt lacks any equivalent language extending beyond personal. Without scholarly or judicial sources backing a broader view, the text's plain hierarchy prevails. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure they are going to respond, but just as an attempt I have sent inquiries to relevant authorities regarding this issue, including the Egyptian Patent Office, the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, and the Faculty of Law at Cairo University. I have asked if they are able to provide any commentary on the matter described above. See ticket:2025081110008053, ticket:2025081110008115, and ticket:2025081110008197. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ponor: re: Copyright laws are about people making copies of your work and competing with you etc. Copyright laws also protect you in terms of derivative works. A photograph of a building or sculpture clearly derives from that building or sculpture, and clearly that 2D representation of a 3D work derives at least part of its value from the underlying work. A postcard of a statue derives part of it's value from the copyrighted aspects of the statue. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Belgian Congo photos (Inforcongo, congopresse)

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

So, I've uploaded a few photos from the internet archive by Inforcongo (short for the Office of Information and Public Relations for the Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi) that are marked as public domain, but I see the same photos on the AfricaMuseum website marked as "Inforcongo © RMCA", sometimes with the photogher like "Photo © H. Goldstein, Sofam, RMCA" (A Henri Goldstein was a photographer from Inforcongo). Is this a case of Copyfraud, or is the internet archive in the wrong? Would these photos fall under PD-Belgium-exempt "– for the official products of the Belgian government", given that Inforcongo was a government agency that employed photographers and film makers and distributed their works to newspapers. What about works from Category:Congopresse (an agency part of Inforcongo and its predcessor, the Centre d'information et de documentation du Congo, which continued to work a few years after Congolese independence) that are mostly marked as PD-Democratic Republic of the Congo? Wowzers122 (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Copyright metadata on Internet Archive collections is provided by uploaders - much like Commons, but with less review (and, as far as I'm aware, no public process for other users to correct errors). I wouldn't trust the claimed "public domain mark", particularly as there's no information on the source. Omphalographer (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Could they fall under PD-Belgium-exempt if attributed to Inforcongo? Otherwise, I'll mark them for speedy delete. Wowzers122 (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Or possibly PD under Congolese rules. See COM:Democratic Republic of the Congo. For photos made from 1948 to 1986, the 1948 Belgian Congo law applies, giving a mere 10-year protection from first publication or public display. Of course, it only applies to images first published in Belgian Congo/Zaire itself. The current (1986) law gives 25 years of protection for photographic works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Template:Mazhilis

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 hours ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Can anyone kindly help me find cc-by-4.0 or any other compatible license at this website? @Kurmanbek: ? Quick1984 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Quick1984 here an archived version of the website at the time of creation of Template:Mazhilis : https://web.archive.org/web/20220805181615/www.parlam.kz/kk/mazhilis at the bottom it says "© 2022 Қазақстан Республикасының Парламенті Барлық құқығы қорғалған Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". Not sure where to look for it on the current website. Maybe on their Facebook, Instagram etc. accounts? Nakonana (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Any chance that the government site moved to a different URL? On the above website, there's a link to the "Government Website", which leads to https://primeminister.kz/. And at the bottom of https://primeminister.kz/ you can see "Сайттың барлық материалы Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 лицензиясы бойынша қолжетімді". Maybe the template needs updating? Nakonana (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I think the license of the website has changed. When I check the web archives, I can see that the old version has a CC license. I guess we need to update the template. Kurmanbek 💬 18:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
If the website no longer works under a free license, it is necessary to find out the date this happened and set a requirement in this template that the uploader must prove that the image was on the website before this date. Or delete this template, providing old free files with the old license directly and nominating new ones (uploaded after the license change) for deletion. Quick1984 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
When I looked at a similar template, I saw that a note had been added. However, I don't know exactly which day the Mazhilis website changed. Can we use the records in the web archive as a reference? Kurmanbek 💬 19:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why not? (if there is no possibility to ask this question to the website management). Quick1984 (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I originally thought (and still think) that Aegukka, the national anthem of North Korea, shouldn't be uploadable to Commons. But there have been different outcomes to deletion requests regarding Aegukka, see:

I'd like to get a concrete consensus on the topic. Regarding the only music file of Aegukka left, I did ask make a request for clarification for why it was kept under PD-North Korea, but I didn't get a concrete answer. TansoShoshen (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Template:YouTube CC-BY

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm noticed, that current page of "YouTube CC-BY" license led to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (I don't know since when). But Template:YouTube CC-BY still led to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

What should I do - update this template or create a new one and mark this one as obsolete? --Kaganer (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. As of July 30, it was still 3.0. The Wayback Machine normally archives that page frequently, but at least currently does not have any captures available between then and August 11 (today). Technically, I think any videos we copy off from the date of the change would have the 4.0 license, but any we copied earlier would still have the 3.0. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’m wondering if changing the link on YouTube’s help page from CC BY 3.0 to CC BY 4.0 really does automatically relicense older uploads (on YouTube). Currently older videos on YouTube which are marked as Creative Commons also link to the same help page where it specifies the version number. If that’s the case, why doesn’t Commons just "upgrade" all older CC-BY files to 4.0? How did Wikipedia go about it when they switched from 3.0 to 4.0? Is there some part of YouTube's TOS which allows them the right to sub-license under a newer version or something which allowed this? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1070642696"