Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ 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.

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.

Warner Bros. Games trailersEdit

I've noticed that Warner Bros. has been releasing their promotional materials under the standard CC BY 3.0 license on YouTube ({{YouTube CC-BY}}). This has been consistent for at least some years (Back 4 Blood [2019], Hogwarts Legacy [2023], Mortal Kombat 1 [TBA]), which would mean that the licensing is intended, and not a mistake. Would it be okay to upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Lugamo94 (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends whther the YouTube account in question has permission to upload them under said license. Borysk5 (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The accounts seem genuine, so I am uploading File:Hogwarts Legacy – Official 4K Reveal Trailer.webm. Yann (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hogwarts Legacy. Yann (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saudi Arabia's threshold of originalityEdit

There's nothing on COM:Saudi Arabia about the country's TOO so I'm wondering whether files like File:Saudi Arabia national football team logo.svg, File:Al-Ahli FC.png, File:Flag of the Special Security Unit (Saudi Arabia).svg and File:Saudi Arabian Football Federation Logo.svg are OK to treat as "PD-logo", even when it's not clear that they would be "PD-logo" per COM:TOO US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly I don't know about Saudi Arabia. But things must be free in both the U.S. and the source country for one reason or another to be hosted on Commons. (See Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law.) I think these are above COM:TOO US, and have tagged them accordingly. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at this. FWIW, I was aware of the "interaction" you mentioned above, but just wanted some other feedback before starting a DR about the files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map made in 1716 is it public domain?Edit

This map was made in 1716 by Gabriel Bodenehr (1664-1758). The website says CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license. However, since it was made so long ago is it in the public domain? -Artanisen (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is in the public domain. There is no base for the copyright / license claim, especially as the David Rumsey Historical Map Collection where the reproduction was made is apparently located in the United States, and for US reproductions, we have Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (and in the EU, we now have an even better base since 2019, as Article 14 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market expressly states that reproductions of works of visual art that are in the public domain cannot be subject to copyright or related rights, unless the reproduction is an original creative work). If you are concerned because of the 3D elements of the reproduction, you can crop them away. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artanisen: I imported the file from the original source, which is much higher resolution: File:Die Niederland Nach denen XVII Provincien Eingetheilet (11170024).jpg. Could you add categories please? Yann (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the advice Gestumblindi. @Yann, thanks, but I already uploaded the map here. It's cropped (the border), horizontally aligned and a smaller file size. So I think yours could be deleted or maybe keep it as a backup. -Artanisen (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artanisen: Fine. It is always useful to have the original. See also File:Die Niederland Nach denen XVII Provincien Eingetheilet (11170024).png. I created Category:Atlas Curieux oder Neuer und Compendieuser Atlas. We probably need a Wikidata item for this. Yann (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kakuda city rice paddy art 2023Edit

In Kakuda city, Japan, a team of farmers is currently working on a special rice paddy art that features two-time Olympic figure skating champion Yuzuru Hanyu and daimyo Date Masamune from the 17th century. Here is an article about the latest status of the project: TBS News Japan, July 7

Some fellow photographers plan to travel to Kakuda city and take pictures for Wikimedia Commons of that rice field this summer. However, before they do that, we wanted to ask how the current copyright situation is. I noticed that this image category is flagged with the {{NoFoP-Japan}} copyright template.

Update: according to this deletion discussion, tanbo art is not considered as a form of art under Japanese copyright law and is hence not affected by section 46 of the copyright law. If that is the case, the warning template may be removed from the affected categories? Henni147 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to handle the thousands of files in Category:ODbL OpenStreetMap without the required attribution attached to the maps?Edit

There are probably thousands of files in Category:ODbL OpenStreetMap which have not the required attribution attached to the maps. I now made a deletion request for one, but is there a procedure for, is every new OpenStreetMap in Commons checked for this requirement? JopkeB (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can admin find a bot maker to just delete all that don't meet attribution standards? Rules are rules, no DR needed, just speedy the batch. Zindra Lord (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not make stupid statement. These files are under a free license. If something is not properly attributed, fix that. Yann (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that the concerning files should all be equipped with {{OpenStreetMap}}, which includes the copyright annotations --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zindra Lord: I think it is hard to do it with a bot. The attribution should be on the map itself (see for instance File:20160726 OSM-Bonamoussadi.png on the bottom right corner), and I doubt whether a bot can "see" whether that is on it or not.
@Yann: It is not easy to fix this. All maps involved should be uploaded again, but now with the contribution on it. A sample showed me that there are far more maps without the contribution than with it.
@PantheraLeo1359531: {{OpenStreetMap}} will not do the thrick, it is not the files that lack the contribution, but the maps itself.

JopkeB (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand, the needed information are included in the file description. It is discouraged on Commons to put copyright information in graphic files itself, this is why they are cropped out and put in the file description. They must be credited if reused, but I don't get the point sorry. Is there a point that the maps MUST include this information? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think so, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guidelines#Static_images. JopkeB (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternatively, the attribution may be placed adjacent to the map or on a splash screen or pop-up shown when a user starts the app, device, website, etc. sounds for me that an attribution directly near the map is adequate, like performed on Commons --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think @Mateusz Konieczny: can probably provide an answer and solution to this since he's a member of OpenStreetMap's Licensing Working Group. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Market graphsEdit

File:Bitcoin July 11 2023.jpg

Copyvio or threshold of originality = PD?

Zindra Lord (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyrighted documents where copyright vanishedEdit

Hello dear community,

I have stumbled across scans of old documents and drawings of Hof (Saale) that I would like to transfer to Commons. However, these are under non-commercial licenses. However, I have doubts whether these licenses are applicable because the works depicted no longer have copyright protection (19th century and older, see Template:PD-OLD), and as far as I know no new copyright protection can be claimed by the process of scanning (Template:PD-Scan). Mainly it contains scans of old documents and books, but also old drawings and possibly photos. Or are there any blunders you could put in? What is your opinion?

The links in question (selection):

Thank you very much and regards, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright claim is bogus. These documents are in the public since long. You can upload them to Commons with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} (general case), or another license, depending on the country of origin. Yann (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I assume they are from Germany :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then documents from before 1870 can use {{PD-old-70-expired}} as license. Yann (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubtful images (probably not OK)Edit

I have uploaded some images to Commons with {{PD-Italy}} believing they were in public domain since 20 years after its creation; I've now discovered they cannot be uploaded on Commons if they were created after 1976. the list is this (I have already tagged them with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}):

You can delete them with {{Speedy delete}} if you think it's right. Sorry. -- Carnby (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carnby: It's fine to nominate them for deletion. But the template Not-PD-US-URAA is only for works that have a restored copyright. It does not apply to several of those photos, those published after 28 February 1989, which were always copyrighted in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carnby: If you tag uploads with G7 after the week allocated for G7, e.g. [1], the admins may not know what the request is really about. For the uploads older than a week, please use a rationale for speedy delete explaining the copyright reason. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public domain logoEdit

Im not sure if this logo is copyrighted or not because it contains the Disney logo, is it copyrighted because if not, i will transfer it to commons, i tried asking in the english wikipedia teahouse then someone said to ask here, so here i am. Notrealname1234 (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That swoosh to the right of "Premier" gives me pause in terms of the threshold of originality. Looks comparable to File:An Extremely Goofy Movie logo.webp, though, which we've accepted. I suggest waiting for a few more opinions before presuming it's OK. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not much different in terms of ToO from File:Disney_Plus_Premier_Access_(2020-2021).svg. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old file moved across from en:wikiEdit

File:Least grebe.jpg was moved to Commons from en:wiki (same filename, deleted after the move to Commons) in 2007, but without any author information. Can someone with admin rights at en:wiki look at the deleted original there, to see if there is any author/uploader info that wasn't copied across? If there is none, should it be nominated for deletion as missing essential source information? It is in use on a lot of pages, though. - MPF (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added data for date and author per deleted text at en:File:Least_grebe.jpg; the date was slightly different from that contained in Exif. There was no info about location. Mind matrix 22:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mindmatrix: Excellent, thanks! From that, I looked at the author's en page, and it says there that he took it at Edinburg, Texas; I'll add that too - MPF (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CopyrightEdit

Are these images of a 270-year-old manuscript, published in a copyrighted work about sixty years ago, copyrighted? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do think that [t]his image is in the public domain because it is a mere mechanical scan or photocopy of a public domain original, or – from the available evidence – is so similar to such a scan or photocopy that no copyright protection can be expected to arise applies. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, no issue with these images. You can upload them to Commons with {{PD-scan|PD-old-100-expired}}. Please give the source, date, author if possible. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status of European Union Geographical indications and quality scheme logosEdit

There are some logos on Commons representing European Union Geographical indications and quality schemes:

vector
vector
raster
raster
raster
raster
raster
raster
raster

They have been uploaded with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} license. Are they OK?

raster
raster
raster

These have been uploaded with a wrong license and, in my opinion, they should be deleted (or can we change license?) -- Carnby (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo-tsg el.png (the one without the symbol in the center) is clearly fine as textlogo. The others I'm not sure. - Jmabel ! talk 14:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the problem could be the stylized "hills" in the center?--Carnby (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's certainly how I see it. I have no idea whether those are enough to give this copyright, and who would hold that copyright. I'm hoping someone else will weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the page where they can be found. Honestly I'm not able to find anything about their copyright status.--Carnby (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploader = artist... or maybe notEdit

Hi, we are currently dealing with an article on a German artist that included tons of pictures. Now I am not sure what to make of these pictures:

They were uploaded by a user with the name of the artist, so everything may be all right.
However, this user has not been verified in any way, neither here nor on the German language WP. It seems likely that this is him, but we have no way of knowing for sure.
On his website, the artist claims all rights to his pictures and excludes any use without his explicit written permission. Not sure how that would go together with a CC licensing.

I would have addressed the user on his talk page, but as he has not been active in either project for years, that seems somewhat useless. The easiest way of course would be to simply e-mail the artist and ask him directly if this is his account, and if he is o.k. with a CC licensing. I personally would rather not extend my Wikipedia activities into Real Life, but maybe someone does not mind. Or maybe you have a better idea how to handle this. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F21:E100:EC08:4587:98D0:C555 23:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would probably be best if that email were written by a native German speaker. Any volunteers? - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creative Commons status on Internet Archive uploadsEdit

I'm wondering if Internet Archive uploads like this one ("Possible copyright status: Public Domain" from a reputable uploader) have been uploaded with a usable Creative Commons status. I noticed this upload; is this a proper tag, or is there one? Star Garnet (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any CC license there, and I don't think there is one. A 2006 publication by the US state of Illinois is also not in the public domain, so the file you linked is a copyvio IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 13:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mynewsdesk source where uploader is in fact the authorEdit

Hello!

There have been a bunch of discussions regarding mynewsdesk.com as a source, see just these 13 Village Pump discussions. The source is now listed as a bad source and the reason for this is that uploaders that do not own the copyright of a file still uploads it and the automatic CC license is applied - which of course is invalid since the uploader didn't own the copyright hence can't change its license. Anyhow, how should we handle files such as File:Harry Boy.png where the uploader is in fact the copyright holder? On its Mynewsdesk page it says CC license but on the owner's website it says that permission is needed to do pretty much anything with the logo, including displaying it on one's website or anywhere else. Jonteemil (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the uploading process in mynewsdesk.com sufficiently transparent, so that the uploader understands that they release the work under a CC license? Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archives of City of Nice, FranceEdit

The official website of archives of city of Nice includes photographs taken by municipal services of Nice, France. Some of which have a description in which it is stated: "Conditions d'utilisation : Libre" ("conditions d'utilisation" = terms of use) : [2] Are those photographs could be uploaded here ? Assalit (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. If the copyright holder is the city of Nice, these will be in the public domain 70 years after the first publication, so 2043 at the earliest. If the copyright holder is a person, it could be much longer. Yann (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Assalit: In addition to what Yann said, you can ask the city authorities to confirm that a free licence, compatible Commons, applies. See COM:VRT for the process they should follow. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright and privacyEdit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rza_Tal%C4%B1bov

This article is about me and I request its removal. I am ready for any participation to prove myself. Please delete all information in this category. Wikicosu (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I blocked Wikicosu for socking. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rza Talıbov (şəxsi foto).jpg and Special:Contributions/Elshad_Iman_(Elşad_İman). Yann (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: Another user also claims to be the same person: [3] (per Google Translate). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Blocked as well. Yann (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licensing: 1958 painting, US, painter d. 1970Edit

I imported this file from Wikipedia (where it was tagged, I believe erroneously, with CC0): File:First Station Newman.jpeg. Did I do it correctly, and is the licensing okay? The file was apparently ripped from the National Gallery of Art website which offers download for some images but not all of them, and this is one of the files that is explicitly marked as not available for download. -- Alalch E. (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There certainly seems to be no basis for CC0. You tagged it as {{PD-US-no notice}}, presumably because there is no copyright notice on the painting. But that, by itself, is not sufficient to show that the work was published without copyright notice. Publication means that the public is able to acquire dominion over the work or copies of it. For works of fine art like paintings, that may not happen until long after the work's creation, if ever. In this case, we can check the "Exhibition History" tab on the NGA page to see instances where the work may have been published. The first one listed is a 1966 exhibition at the Guggenheim. I found the catalog for that exhibition, which contains a full-page color reproduction of the painting. There is no copyright notice in the catalog (only an "all rights reserved", which is not a valid copyright notice under U.S. law). So I think you have the correct assertion of public domain status, but the information above should be added to show that the assertion is true. Toohool (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot for that. Would you add the extra information yourself so that I may see how best to do that myself in the future.Alalch E. (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did it myself.Alalch E. (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File needs a rev del my original uploadEdit

File:Ukraine's Nobel laureate Oleksandra Matviichuk at the Kyiv Security Forum, Jan 23, 2023 - 52666649346.jpg

I proactively cropped my recent upload of a useful photo of a Nobel laureate Per COM:CROP -

"Blurring, cropping or otherwise obscuring unfree elements and any other unacceptable parts (like sensitive personal information) that would otherwise result in deletion or a deletion request, provided that the file is still useful and in scope after the offending element has been obscured."

Please, rev del old version. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done --Rosenzweig τ 22:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your prompt action. -- Ooligan (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rosenzweig τ 14:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about copyrightEdit

Moved from Commons:Help desk#Question about copyright. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can/does a specific vectorization of a logo (e.g. the SVG source code) Sorry if this is a bit of a dumb question: Can/d Sorry if this is a bit of a dumb question: Does a specific vectorization of a logo (e.g. the SVG source code) have a separate license to the logo itself (e.g. the rendering of that SVG)?

If I upload another person's vectorization of a logo (and also crediting them), could that be a copyvio? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw sorry if this is a dumb question with an obvious answer. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The SVG file can be copyrighted. Think of it this way: you are copying a hunk of code, and code can be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Higher-resolution after Flickr licence changeEdit

User:JWilz12345 has just reverted my upload of a higher resolution version of File:Manila by night.jpg, from Flickr, with an edit summary "the irrevocable CC license only applies to the copy of the file as it was imported here. The higher/original resolution copies no longer apply as these are governed by restrictive licensing; basis: Template:Flickr-change-of-license/doc". I can see nothing on the latter page which justifies this claim. Is my upload valid, and if not, why not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: quoting the latter page, which is actually an excerpt from CC FAQ, with emphases added: "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work." The original author (in this case, Filipino Flickr user Vanessa David) can stop their distribution of commercial CC license for current and future uses, but they cannot order users of existing copies or derivative works (in this case we, Wikimedia) to withdraw or take down those copies or derivatives since those copies became possible through the earlier free license that was formerly applied to the file (since CC licenses cannot be revoked of course). This means we can still continue to host imported Flickr files. We can also freely modify the image based on the existing import we have, but we cannot ~~upload~~ overwrite the existing import with original or higher resolutions coming from Flickr image as these are now governed by the unfree license. Unless the Flickr author reinstates the use of free license, we cannot import original or higher resolution version of the image. Note I already asked about this before here, now archived at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/08#Question regarding certain Flickr pictures hosted here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that I already checked the Wayback Machine in August 2020, after getting response from King of Hearts. I don't see webpage captures that show the Flickr file as under free CC license, which means when the Wayback Machine began scanning the Flickr file, it was already under the unfree license then. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The flickr license history records the license change as done on 4 April 2009. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Asclepias yep. Unfortunately, Wayback Machine's scanning of the Flickr file only shows that the earliest web capture was in April 2016. This means every instance of higher resolution version of the Flickr photo, including archived copies on Wayback Machine, are now regulated by the unfree license, and we cannot import that higher resolution version here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was looking for others' opinions rather than asking you to restate yours. But what you have quoted does not mean that the higher resolution version was not under a non-revocable free licence at the same time as the lower resolution version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a difficult question. It is possible that higher-resolution photos may have separate copyright protection from lower-resolution versions. At any rate, I think we generally respect an author's desire to do that, and only take the resolutions explicitly licensed that way. This one is... slightly different than that, though. It looks like it was originally uploaded as CC-BY-2.0. Per the Flickr license history, the author changed the license to All Rights Reserved on Flickr in 2009, so they stopped distributing under free licenses at that time. In all likelihood, the higher-resolution one was available at the time, but for whatever reason that was not uploaded. So, our exploitation which dates from that period is the lower-resolution one. I'm not sure we have absolute proof the higher resolution one was available then, though. Copying a version from that source now means you are copying it without an explicit license -- the author is free to stop distributing under the free license, which they did in 2009. Versions already distributed retain the original license, irrevocably, but uploading a new version now is technically a new exploitation, and it would be unlicensed (if there is a copyright on the higher-res version). As a technical matter, if no copies were actually distributed under the free license at the time, then there are no copies which have that license attached anymore. If we find a higher-res copy elsewhere which was taken from the Flickr site at the time, that would be OK. There is nothing cut and dried about this, but the Flickr license history should be used to validate actions taken at the time, not permit uploads of images which once were marked that way but no longer. This is admittedly a much closer call than most, as odds (from a couple different perspectives) are it would be OK, but it's not cut and dried so I can understand the reversion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licenses of miniscule cycling jersy iconsEdit

Back in 2006, I created and uploaded a few SVG icons of cycling jerseys to use in template. Examples include File:Jersey yellow.svg ( ), File:Jersey red number.svg ( ) and File:Jersey polkadot.svg ( ). I uploaded them CC-BY-SA 2.5+GFDL at the time. They are used in many cycling templates on many wikis. I mostly forgot about them afterwards.

This year, the price for the most competetive rider in the Tour de France changed from a red to a beige number. I remembered my Icons, then wanted to upload a beige numbered one and was happy that user:GAN had already made File:Jersey_beige_number.svg ( ).

However, what I am not happy about is that is sourced as "own work" by user:GAN, without any mention to my original icon. When looking at Category:SVG cycling jerseys I see that most (not all: this has a slighly different shape and neck line) icons there seem to be derivatives of my work, having the exact same shape of the t-shirt outline. Some (examples: 1, 2) have made a reference to my original works (sometimes with link to that item, somtimes not) but most are without any mention to my work.

I now have checked 25 images in the Category:SVG cycling jerseys, found

5 which properly attributed my work (though some without link)
4 that were my own work
15 that claimed "own work"
1 that properly attributed some other image as the base. That other image was claimed as own work.

I would like to notify all uploaders and request them to put in a link to my work (and those that chose an incompatible license, to re-license their images). Is that the right course of action? What if they don't respond or do but don't comply?

Note that I would not want all these images deleted at all - they are good quality images, and I am perfectly ok with them being used, just with a proper link to my original image. For the images that did properly attribute my work but without a link, is it ok to change the image description page with the addition of the link? Thx IIVQ (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IIVQ: You can write what you need to add (I write through a translator) - I will add it. Or, if the rules allow, you can add the necessary information to this image yourself. When I downloaded to "commons" I chose from the available options. — GAN (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright Protection all License are placeEdit

ADMIN Wiki Own many Domain Talk Page Disallowed @Actor at volation to Rule code conduction please follow the rules we like to keep this site up for everyone for yrs to come 2601:603:7F:9D0:58EF:D3A4:EB12:72F7 20:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's pretty much incomprehensible. If there is some language you write better than English, please try writing this again in that language. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Page Is"nt Allowed for vistor to Copy reading onlyEdit

All license information are connected to Admin page, miss conduction volation will be band not allowed api lock out please use the website comfortably and pleas report any miss conduction. <♤£♡¥♤> 2601:603:7F:9D0:58EF:D3A4:EB12:72F7 20:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's pretty much incomprehensible. If there is some language you write better than English, please try writing this again in that language. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add topic