Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

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.

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


I'm wondering whether File:New SYL Logo.png would be considered {{PD-logo}} since the claim of "own work" seems questionable. File:Super Y League logo 2016 (traced).svg is avector version of the same logo and it was licensed as {{PD-logo}}. If png file is not "PD-logo", then it seems that the svg file cannot also be "PD-logo". At the same time, if the png file isn't "PD-logo" but is OK as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, then it seems that the vector version would also need to be licensed as such. For reference, the logo belongs to en:Super Y League. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The individual elements may be too simple, but the selection and arrangement to me is likely enough for copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Clindberg. FWIW, the png file's licensing was converted to "PD-logo" by another user. So, I guess it probably needs to be discussed as COM:DR if there's disagreement about whether this meets COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


On the day 19th August 2022 Polish government updated terms of its website and changed license from CC-BY to CC-BY-NC-ND, making to it incompatible with commons. I cannot edit so I'm asking someone with permissions to update this template and remove files uploaded after this date. See website archvied on 19th and 18th. Borysk5 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should accept new uploads under the old license if we can establish that the file was on before the license changed, most likely by finding the file on Verbcatcher (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I know, I meant files uploaded on after that date (if there are any here). Borysk5 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should accept uploads made after the law changed, and into the future, if the image is in an archive of the website that was captured before the law changed. For example, the images at could still be uploaded and the existing {{}} license tag would be valid. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should add the date to the template, eg. this way:

This work was obtained from the official website of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Poland before 19th August 2022 and it is protected by copyright.

Ankry (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I favour this wording (in
The Polish and Russian language versions need equivalent modification.
Verbcatcher (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should handle this as in {{Pixabay}} referring to the change of the licensing terms at the source website. I.e. we may leave the current text of {{}} as is, but add a note that reads:

"Note: On 19 August 2022, the Polish government switched the old sitewide license for all uploads from CC-BY to CC-BY-NC-ND which does not meet the free content licensing requirements for Commons. Therefore, media published on this website from 19 August 2022 onwards is not considered to be freely licensed and can't be accepted on Commons. Files uploaded to Commons after this date should be subject to careful license review, verifying that the publication date on is prior to 19 August 2022."

De728631 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good for me. Borysk5 (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks ok. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, I added the update note to the English version. Now someone needs to adjust the /ru and /pl subpages. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a request at Commons:Translators' noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I edited the Polish version. Borysk5 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dziękuję! Face-smile.svg De728631 (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{NKC}} template for review[edit]

I am planning to begin using this new copyright license template, and wanted to run it by this forum. There is strong precedent for "no known copyright restrictions" templates where the rationale is tied to known institutions making a copyright determination and applying this assessment explicitly. See {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}} and Category:No known restrictions license tags for more.

The intention here is for a template for when institutions are marking their items with the "No Known Copyright" standardized rights statement URI in their metadata. ( is scheme used by thousands of institutions globally for marking copyright.) Based on feedback from Clindberg, I made it with a required parameter that would enforce that use of this template requires an accompanying institution source, so editors are not using this in place of other templates for their own copyright determinations.

I would probably upload tens of thousands of files, at least, with this template, if the Commons community approves it. Also, I am not the best template coder, so if anyone would like to improve it (especially localization or formatting), it's appreciated. Thanks! Dominic (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dominic: , It is a great idea to standardize some of the "no known copyright restrictions" templates (current and future) and re-use someone-else carefully researched and well translated text. I found 7 translations of , see for example italian version. Changes I made:
I think we should add {{NKC}} to other templates in Category:No known restrictions license tags, is that your intention? --Jarekt (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jarekt: Thank you SO MUCH for all that help with the template! Regarding your last question, I'm not sure what people want. It does make sense to standardize "no known copyright" where possible, but many of these other ones seem to be using custom text from the source institution that may not have the same wording at this one. It makes sense for NKC to be applied in cases where the institution is specifically using that statement URI in their metadata, but I am not sure about us applying it to other institutions that didn't use that. Dominic (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dominic: , that makes sense. --Jarekt (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg SupportAs the community already accepts other no known restrictions license tags in Category:No known restrictions license tags, I can't think of a reason to reject this one. It is the most standardized in the field. I would however clearly indicate that the remaining risk that comes with reuse is a risk taken by the reuser. That may be an institution uploading their own collection items, a third person or (once the files are on Commons) people reusing the files in other Wikimedia projects or outside Wikipedia. I can imagine that institutions deciding to publish their NKC items on their own website only don't want to be unintentionally exposed to any additional risk. Beireke1 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest trophy[edit]

Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Eurovision_microphone wants an SVG of the Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) trophy that does not infringe. The request pointed to the image File:ESC2016 Trophy.jpg that shows the trophy. Given the do not move to Commons comment about just the Eurovision Song Contest logo at w:File:Eurovision Song Contest.svg (below TOO-US but above TOO-Sweden) and the elaborate sculpture of the trophy, can Commons host File:ESC2016 Trophy.jpg without a release for the underlying trophy? Glrx (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:ESC2016 Trophy.jpg. Glrx (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also COM:VPC#Copyrighted Logos below and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2022 European Championships Logos. Glrx (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And COM:TROPHY.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other trophies[edit]

Apart from Eurovision trophy, I was checking the other trophies on Italian Wikipedia. I would like to know whether is possible or not to get a free version of these trophies and if/or they are OK for Wikipedia and Commons.--Carnby (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Luzern and Tirol[edit]

Are these below the threshold of originality (upload with PD-shape oder PD-inelgible)?


Greetings from Germany, --Mateus2019 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not an absolute expert, but I feel like the second image might be passable if uploaded under PD-textlogo. Would appreciate someone who is more knowledgeable about this sort of thing to confirm my opinion and to provide guidance on the first image.
Greetings from England! - Dvaderv2 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first one is most probably OK with {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per COM:TOO Austria I would rather not let the Tirol logo pass. See the "Zimmermann Fitness" footnote for an example of a textlogo that does enjoy copyright in Austria. As to the Luzern logo, copyright in Switzerland requires "creations with individual character". That mirrored name "Lucerne" with stripes is most likely meant to refer to a reflection in Lake Luzern, so I can see a creative and individual character for that logo, too. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USAF-hosted image that wasn't created by the USAF + subject of a third party photograph distributing/publishing the photo without the third party's involvement[edit]

I came across this USAF article about an individual who was originally in the Greek Army before enlisting with the USAF's Security Forces, with the article consequently featuring a few photos of the individual's Greek service. On the one hand, the photos are being hosted on an official USAF website (and with VIRIN numbers too) and possess the usual declaration of public domain status, but on the other they clearly haven't been taken by an USAF-employed photographer and are even indicated as being "courtesy photo[s]"/"courtesy asset[s]".

I am particularly interested in uploading this image to Wikimedia since it looks to be an informal photograph taken on the individual's behalf and thus conceivably something that could be uploaded here, but is that actually possible to do? All the uploads I've seen of similar photographs have almost always involved the subject of the photograph uploading the photo themselves (example 1, example 2) or getting the original photographer/agency to upload it themselves (example 1, example 2), and I don't think this is the sort of situation we're dealing with when it comes to this particular photograph. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dvaderv2, unfortunately since the license to the photograph would lie with the private photographer, by our precautionary principle we cannot presume any license other than All Rights Reserved. Merely being published on a U.S. government website doesn't mean the license has been waved. Such a thing is possible, but we do not have enough information to know that that is the case, and we do not know who the photographer even is. Huntster (t @ c) 00:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I checked the first image and it actually has metadata in it. It states that photographer is Senior Airman Tessa B. Corrick and it is in public domain. I also checked the image linked and it doesn't seem to have such info in metadata. Borysk5 (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Borysk5, Tessa Corrick is the writer of the article. Some of the images in the slideshow are public domain, such as this one and this one, and when you open the Photo Details pages they're clearly indicated as such (i.e., "U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Cassandra Johnson"). Huntster (t @ c) 13:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Er, 99% sure this is a copyvio, I put up a copyvio notice but the bloke who uploaded the video was quicker to the hip than me and has removed the notice. The original source is here, and it clearly says Acura in the bottom right corner. So I think rather than CC-BY-SA-4.0 this is just a press release. Thoughts? Thanks X750 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like it has already been deleted once as a copyvio by Pi.1415926535, and simply was reuploaded. I can't see anything on the source website that really indicates this file has been released under a CC-by-SA-4.0 as claimed. This could also be a case where there are two copyrights to consider: one for the photo and one for the car's design. Car shapes are generally considered to be utilitarian for the most part and are not usually subject to separate copyright protection. Some customized cars, however, can be eligible for their own copyright protection. If that's the case here, then the photo would be considered a COM:DW and two copyrights would need to be taken into account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted again, and blocked for a week. Gearheads seem to be in competition with football fans for who can upload the most copyvios lately. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Pi.1415926535. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers Pi.1415926535. I did a double take when I saw the redlink on his talk page but the file still existed. Odd. Yeah well I don't know about that Marchjuly, I always am under the impression that unless no examples of the car exist in the world anymore it is always replaceable with a free image, with does make it frustrating for elusive cars such as the en:Mazzanti Evantra but it is what it is. Thanks all for your help. X750 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There might be some cases per COM:CB#Vehicles where there's something about a car (e.g. a customized paint job) in which might be considered copyrightable in its own right. I'm stating that's the case here, but just mentioning that in some cases it might be possible. In addition, a car could exist in its testing or design stage, but it has not yet on the market. Perhaps in a case like that, there might be issues with COM:PUBLISHED in the sense that the car hasn't be "disseminated" publicly yet. On English Wikipedia, such a thing might be argued as a justification for the non-free use of a photo or other artistic rendition of a car. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Exterior of the Centre Georges-Pompidou[edit]

I am pretty sure than most of the image in the category, cannot be here on Commons. I have add the warning for 20 century architecture in France, but i never donne a category deletion request. If someone can do it for me i would appreciate (also many of the image are used by local Wikipedia, and may need to go back here as "Faire Use"). Miniwark (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks ShakespeareFan00 for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Exterior of the Centre Georges-Pompidou. Miniwark (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyrighted Logos[edit]

All the files of this category are clear copyright violation:

[1]: “The EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIPS and all related logos, pictograms and taglines are trademarks and copyrights of European Championships Management Sàrl.” (at the end of the page), and


© 2021 European Championships Management Sàrl. All rights reserved.

This website is owned and managed by European Championships Management Sàrl (“ECM”). Unless expressly stated to the contrary on this website, all material contained on this website, including any text, graphics, still images, moving images, audio, database and software is the sole property of ECM or of a third party expressly authorizing such use by ECM.

This website, all material contained on this website and its design are protected by all applicable copyright, design, moral, brand and other relevant intellectual property laws.

Please, delete them. 2A02:3032:A:D768:30C4:9BBC:9F2A:F92B 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2022 European Championships Logos‎. Yann (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:2D copying and a third-party photograph of an old Philippine Passport[edit]

The file in question: and en:File:1947 passport ph.png

Since that all Philippine government works (Template:PD-PhilippinesGov) are in the public domain, is this photo qualified in Commons? Or is this 3D enough (due to impressions) that the photo has a separate copyright? 2001:4453:53E:500:3936:4947:4A47:805E 10:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that 3D elements are insignificant here. Ruslik (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photograph of the person to whom a passport was issued might not be a government work. In some countries (including the UK) it is not taken by a government photographer but is supplied by the applicant for a passport. The photo might have been published before the passport was issued. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May be, but I don't see any photograph here. Just a passport cover. Yann (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
en:File:1947 passport ph.png is just the cover, but includes the inside pages – click on the almost-invisible '>'. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I didn't see these links. The passport is in the public domain as work of the Philippines government, but seeing the date (1947), any copyright would have expired anyway. Stamps are most of the time too simple to get a copyright anyway. The picture was published anonymously more than 70 years ago, so it is OK. Best would be to upload this as a PDF document. Yann (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's Move! videos[edit]

Not sure if this was asked here previously or elsewhere but are videos uploaded to the letsmove YouTube channel, which contain videos from the "Let's Move!" initiative, generally covered under PD-USGov-POTUS? -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that Category:Let's Move! already has some videos uploaded, so it seems so. Be wary of third-party copyrights, though. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asked that since I intended to upload this and possibly other videos from the said channel here but my primary concern is the music used in those videos (as discussed here and possibly elsewhere). -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification for File:Conservet Deus su Re.ogg's source was from audio restoration which has asserted copyright[edit]

While the recording is confirmed to be made by government-owned RAI and was performed by Banda dei Carabinieri (now known as it:Banda musicale dell'Arma dei Carabinieri/en:Italian Carabinieri Bands) by the long-dead Luigi Cirenei (wikidata:Q63290316), it seems that the file was derived from which according to the description has an asserted recording copyright. I also believed that since it was recorded before relatively noise-free recording mediums were invented that they took significant effort to clean-up this audio material. Should this be removed from Commons due to this? 2001:4453:53E:500:6C6E:CB60:2A7E:68D9 08:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for bringing this up. I have nominated the file for deletion. De728631 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are diagrams from scientific articles able to be used? if so, what limitations apply?[edit]

As it says on the tin. I want to use a diagram from a scientific article that is, as far as I can tell, not available from any other source. Is there any way to make that image available? or am I doomed to struggle and toil to create a similar diagram myself? Licks-rocks (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That depends on the individual journal and to some extent on the complexity of the diagram. Many journals have an Open Access policy where the content comes with a free licence, so you can upload those diagrams at Commons. Content from other journals without a free licence cannot be uploaded here unless the graphs are so simple that there is not individual copyright on them. So for an individual review, please provide a link to the article and tell us which diagram you would like to use. De728631 (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for your response, I am talking about figures 4 and 5 in this paper: link. they aren't all that complex, but it's the first diagram of a giant current ripple I have found. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The journal is copyrighted, but the chart seems so simple it may classify as Template:PD-textlogo (or something similar). Borysk5 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking through the text on that page I think the most appropriate option would be { {PD-chart} }?--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marco Verch[edit]

I'm looking for images in Flickr, and I've found these images from the profile cited above: 1, 2, 3 and 4. However, I've noticed that his account is banned here. Question: It should exists exceptions like with these 4 photos? As far I notice, images I've provided have an appropriate copyrightholder information, or perhaps I'm missing something and I'm wrong. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Apoxyomenus: Marco Verch is litigious regarding the attribution requirements and other terms of his CC licensed images. There are reports that his CC licensed photos are traps for the unwary, for examples see Automated image recognition: How using ‘free’ photos on the internet can lead to lawsuits and fines, Indiana Copyright Litigation: German Photographer Sues for Alleged Copyright Infringement, etc. What he is doing is probably legal, but nonetheless his photos are no longer welcome on Commons. See discussions from several years ago at COM:AN archive and DRs. —RP88 (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, good to know. Thanks --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status of Tea Party movement flag[edit]

An image of a flag that is supposed to be one of the symbols used the en:Tea Party movement was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:Second Revolution Flag 2x3.svg under a non-free license. As per the description given for the file, this flag is basically the en:Betsy Ross flag with a Roman numeral II added to it. I've already asked an English Wikipedia administrator about this, and they seem to agree with me that this flag doesn't need to be treated as non-free. However, I'd thought I'd pose the same question here as well just to make sure. Is this flag PD or is adding the "II" enough to make it a COM:DW under US copyright law? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is probably in PD in USA. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Ruslik0. The Betsy Ross flag is certainly PD 186 years after her death. A derivative of her work could gain its own copyright, but the addition of just the Roman numerals would fall under {{PD-textlogo}}. Glrx (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Ruslik0 and Glrx. What license should be used for the TP flag? {{PD-old-auto-expired}}? {{PD-shape}}? {{PD-logo}}? Some combination of licenses (i.e. one for the BR flag and one for the final TP flag)? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A combination of {{PD-old-auto-expired}} and {{PD-textlogo}} would suffice. Ruslik (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, Back in 2013 File:1986 Dodge D56 Alexander AM "MerseyMini".jpg was uploaded and was under a CC licence on Flickr, That licence has now been changed to "all rights reserved" however we don't have the original uncropped image and for some idiotic reason the Commons uploader had also chosen to blur the vehicle reg plate,

So would I be correct in assuing the now "all rights revserved" licence is irrelevant as it was originally reeased under a CC licence and therefore I would be well within my rights to upload the full non-cropped image?, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 08:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Davey2010. Creative Commons licenses aren't revocable as explained in COM:LRV as well as here and here on Creative Commons' website. So, you should be able to continue to use the file as long as you continue to abide by the terms of the original license. The catch, if there's one, could be that you may have to somehow "prove" that the image was originally released under such a license if push came to shove. If it's just your word against that of the copyright holder, then there's no way to tell who to believe. However, if there's an archived version of the website or something else (perhaps an email exchange) which shows that the file was originally released under a different license then it's currently released under, then that might be seen as sufficient proof. I'm not sure what Commons would do in such a case since it's really the uploader of a file who's responsible to proving the file is OK for Commons per COM:EVID and a common way this is done with Flickr seems to by providing a link to the page showing the license. If the copyright holder had emailed their COM:CONSENT to COM:VRT, then this would be on file and would support a claim that the license was subsequently changed. VRT verification; however, isn't always necessary as explained in COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary which seems like the case here. FWIW, I found what looks to be a 2019 archived version of that Flickr page here, but it shows the license as being "All rights reserved". I couldn't find anything going back to the time when the file was uploaded to Commons. Since you don't seem to have been the person who originally uploaded the file, maybe try asking the person who did (or the person who verified the license) about this. Perhaps, one of them can help sort this out. One of them might also be willing to contact the Flickr account holder to find out why the license was changed. One other possibility might be that a mistake was made verifying the license. Is it possible that the license was never in fact changed but was always as such? Not saying that's the case or implying something improper was done, but rather just trying to consider every possibility. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davey2010 and Marchjuly: License reviewer Leoboudv reviewed it as properly licensed in this edit 07:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC). However, a new filename is recommended, as overwriting Mr.choppers' upload would be unwise per COM:OW.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Marchjuly and User:Jeff G.. , Brilliant many thanks for your help, Apologies totally forgot to mention about the admin reviewing it and that it passed, I'll go ahead and upload that file in full under a new name, Many thanks again for both of your help greatly appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davey2010: You're welcome. However, please note that Mr.choppers is not an Admin on any WMF project covered by CentralAuth.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: FWIW, I wasn't trying to imply that either the original uploader or the license reviewer did anything wrong. I'm just not sure if there's a way of verifying that the photo was originally uploaded to Flickr under an acceptable license that goes beyond the diff left when the license was verified. Is there a way to show that the file was really uploaded to Flickr as such if the Flickr account holder tries to claim it wasn't? The copyright holder probably had a reason for changing the Flickr licensing. Perhaps this reason had nothing to do with Commons, but there's no way of knowing for sure. So, if the uploader is looking for "unauthorized" reuses of their Flickr photos and comes across the ones uploaded to Commons, then they might think they have the right to get them taken down. Could they try to do this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly: Anyone could try anything. Overly litigous Flickr uploaders will tend to go the way of Marco Verch. However, I will try to ensure that sources I review positively are archived.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The concern here is that whilst the publication or journal is clearly a work of a US Federal entity, the submissions to the journal are in some instances submitted by third parties, whose affiliations are independent from the Federal Government. Does this still mean the journal contents can be considered a being licensed under PD US Gov terms? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there copyright notices in the journals anywhere ? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had not found one in the pages I'd examined, However some of the issues post-date 1988. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The latest one I see in that category is 1979, so if no notice (and seriously doubt there would be one), they were all PD immediately upon publication. Issues after March 1, 1989 could not use that reasoning though. If the authors knew they were contributing to something like that, they usually expect effective public domain status, especially in that era. Anything before March 1989 should be fine though; anything after maybe the PD-USGov presumption holds, though it would get fuzzier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I got confused with a different category entirely. If these are all pre-1980, then there isn't an issue, as the licenses can be updated appropriately. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could please someone answer questions about copyrights in France?[edit]

I started a DR on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Affiche commémorations des 600 Franchimontois 1968.jpg; this is about a French poster made in 1968, by an artist who died in 1997. Now there are new questions, which I feel not confidence enough about to answer. I know the basics about copyrights (most about those of the Netherlands) but I do not know enough to answer these question. Could please someone answer these questions who has knowledge of copyrights in France? JopkeB (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Yann as our expert on French copyrights.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! --JopkeB (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing special about this case. There is no particular legal question. Your DR is fine. This file needs a license from the copyright holders. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typhoid Mary photo[edit]

I'm unsure what to do about this image. File:Mary Mallon in hospital.jpg The first upload is from an old newspaper, but was then "replaced by the original" (actually a thumbnail). The two images seem substantially different, and the particular variant from the new upload seems to stem from Getty Images as part of the Bettmann collection. [3] Is the Getty version also public domain, or does the scanning from the archive make it its own work? Does it even matter, since the image was ripped off of a website subject to Getty's license agreement? Should we delete the whole thing, revert to the old version, upload the full size new version, or maybe something else?

(P.S. I don't understand the notifications system very well, please mention me to make sure I see it.) Duckduckgoop (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Duckduckgoop: If the original photo was published before 1927 it's in public domain in the USA. Just because Getty scanned it doesn't give them copyright to it. Borysk5 (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]