Misplaced Pages

:Media copyright questions: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:21, 11 July 2010 editSenyorita7 (talk | contribs)1 edit Enquiry: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:25, 21 January 2025 edit undoMarchjuly (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users112,031 edits Building constructions in the Philippines and the United States: Added cmt 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Centralized discussion place in English Misplaced Pages}}
{{active editnotice}} <!-- See ] -->
{{/Header}}
<div style="position: absolute; top: 0.3em; right: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 1px; background: #FFFFFF;" class="boilerplate metadata plainlinks"><small>]</small></div>

{{Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions/Header}}

<!-- Please don't move the category links to the bottom, I know it's the norm, but in this case this would cause them to get "bumped" by new questions and possibly archived by mistake or otherwise lost -->

]
]
]
]

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!--

PLEASE DO NOT ADD QUESTIONS HERE. ADD THEM TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, INSTEAD. THANKS!

-->

{{AutoArchivingNotice|bot=MiszaBot II|age=7}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d) | algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | archive = Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
| minthreadsleft = 0
}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1

}}<!--PLEASE ADD QUESTIONS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, NOT HERE. THANKS!-->
== Cambridgeshire Collection images ==

The hold historic images. I have (copies of) three of them in my possession which I have paid for. I have not uploaded them into wikimedia as I am unsure of the copyright. I would like to use at least two if not three of the images within ] and perhaps one of them in ]. More details of the Little Thetford use at ]. I have sent an email to the Cambridgeshire Collection asking about copyright of the images. However, even if they say I can publish them on wikipedia, the[REDACTED] rules are so strict, I thought I had better check here too.

The rear of each photograph is stamped as follows: {{quote|CAMBRIDGESHIRE COLLECTION<br>PRINT print reference<br>NEG negative reference<br>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT<BR>PERMISSION & ACKNOWLEDGEMENT<br>CAMBRIDGESHIRE LIBRARIES}} Your advice would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. --] (]) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
*A primer on requesting copyright permissions is available at ]. Using that, you can more formally request release of the works you want to use under a ]. A permission to use on Misplaced Pages 'license' is meaningless to us. Either it's free licensed, or we use it under terms of ] and our policy at ] governs such usage. Are these historically important images that can not be replaced by someone taking a photograph today? --] (]) 14:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
: Thank you for the above. I will read and digest it. In the meantime, yes; these are historical important images that cannot be retaken.
:* Manor house (former home of ]) now a row of semi-detached houses
:* Old windmill and ] across the ]. Neither exist any more
:* . Still exists but not as it did then. The old photograph shows two cottages which is one house now. --] (]) 15:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:::These may be public domain because of their age, depending on when they were taken and published. Now, it is not unheard of for a library to say it "owns" a photograph when it really doesn't, it is unlikely to be challenged. I would review the Commons page on licensing, of which the key sentence for the UK seems to be "If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or if during that period the work is made available to the public 70 years after that."--] (]) 20:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Acknowledging that I have seen your post, Wehalt. I will re-post here when I get a response back from library --] (]) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
: I have heard back from the library as follows {{quote|text=Subject: Little Thetford images<br>
::Good Morning,<br>
::We have no information as to the photographer of the images you mention, unfortunately. They may be used as part of your website as long as they are of low resolution and that you acknowledge that they are from the Cambridgeshire Collection, Cambridge Central Library.<br>
::Many thanks<br>
::Sender blanked as this is a public website<br>
::Cambridgeshire Collection<br>
::Central Library<br>
::Cambridgeshire Libraries, Archives and Information.<br>}}
: I attempted to upload 72 dpi resolution copies of the images into wikimedia commons using the selection "Where is the work from? Somewhere else.". The upload failed as I do not have a date nor a photographer for the work. The images are all c. 1900 but no one, in the village; the local historian; nor the local library; have a date for any of these three images. So I am stuck. Any help would be appreciated. --] (]) 13:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
:*That "release" is a permission to use on Misplaced Pages release, which is meaningless here. You must ask them for release under a free license. Again, please see ]. If you are certain they are from around 1900, and definitely NOT past 1923, then you can upload them as public domain by age. --] (]) 02:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
::: OK, so I would rather these were not pulled due to doubt. Can anyone age these photos then please?
:::*Print: Y.THE.K6 10483 Neg: 73/7/35a
::::image of old manor house with a herd of cows in the foreground and the Three Horseshoes public house in the background
:::*Print: Y.THE.K1 10454 Neg: 73/8/3
::::Image of the River Great Ouse at Little Thetford; chain ferry in the foreground and old wind pump in the background
:::*Print: Y.THE.K 683(7?) Neg: 73/9/19a
::::Image of the Roundhouse at Little Thetford as it was when it was two three storey cottages
::::{{multiple image |align = right
| footer = Can you identify the date these photos were taken?
| image1 = Little Thetford Main street.jpg
| width1 = 100
| alt1 = old manor house
| caption1 = old manor house c.&nbsp; 1910
| image2 = Little Thetford Ferry c. 1905.jpg
| width2 = 100
| alt2 = b&w ferry with windmill
| caption2 = chain ferry c.&nbsp;1905
| image3 = Little Thetford Roundhouse 1910.jpg
| width3 = 50
| alt3 = Roundhouse
| caption3 = Roundhouse c.&nbsp;1910}}
::::: The main street image has telegraph poles. If these are electricy, then the photo was taken post 1953. If they are telephone then at present, I do not know when telephony came to the village. Assuming electricity, this image can and should be deleted. I have removed it from the article --] (]) 10:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::: The main street is definitely after 1953 as the electricity poles are still there to this day. Also, examining the three horse shoes in the background and comparing it with an dates this picture as after 1957. So it needs deleting. --] (]) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::: In the three Horseshoes (now the horseshoes) is an old picture on the wall - the same as the river great ouse & ferry above. Below the picture is a faded description which says "Tthe Thetford Ferry, 1905. The two Dewsbury children, Author and Alfred, died in the Great War.". So I am now certain this image is 1905. This image should stand as licensed. --] (]) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::: In the Roundhouse, we see a lady with child. My wife tells me that the clothing worn dates this image to the early 20th century - certainly before 1923. This image should stand as licensed. --] (]) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::: I would welcome a 2nd opinion, particularly for the three horseshoes and roundhouse images. --] (]) 13:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

== Question regarding adding an image to an article ==

If I add a picture of a college building taken from the college's website and upload it to an existing article about the college on Misplaced Pages, is this image considered fair use in terms of your potential copyright restrictions? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:In short, no, because someone could always go take a free picture of the college building. ] (]) 16:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it, then, that if I add a photo to my college Wiki, a photo that I have taken, this is ok? If ao, how do I tag it?
] (]) 06:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:]. If the photo is entirely yours (i.e. you took it), then you are free to choose any license that is compatible with our mission. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 14:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

== Images from Iran? ==

How are we supposed to treat recent images originating in Iran or other countries that don't have copyright ties with the USA? Obviously they're not permitted on Commons, since they aren't PD or freely-licensed in their countries of origin; however, since images here are generally required to be free only in the USA, do we permit recent Irani etc. images? ] (]) 03:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:Generally Iran copyright lasts for 30 years after the author's death or date of publication, whichever is later per ] so, because US licencing is longer, so the 1963 or 1978 dates mentioned in ] might apply. You will find many other countries' licencing there too. ] (]) 04:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, but the USA doesn't have copyright relations with Iran; as ] says, "Published works originating in Iran thus are not copyrighted in the United States". I'm asking whether we care about Irani copyright law for Irani images on en:wp, since they're all PD in the USA. ] (]) 04:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Indeed you are correct that Iran has no copyright relations with the USA but that we should respect Iran's copyright as also mentioned at ]. ] (]) 05:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
::::So we can't simply tag it as PD-US and add a {{tl|Do not move to Commons}}? ] (]) 21:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::That seems to be the case. There are instances in which WP goes beyond what the law requires in copyright matters, for example this, and also in fair use.--] (]) 22:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

== Photo copyright in book ==

Hi. I have a copy of ''Images of Reading and Surrounding Villages'', published in <s>1971</s> 1995 by the ]. It's chock full of old photographs. One particular image has a caption that says "Here is Friar Street looking towards the Town Hall in 1882". How will I know whether these photos are ]? The opening pages give the standard "no reproduction without prior permission". Cheers, ] (]) 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:Is there any evidence those photos were published before? Or is their presentation in your book the first time they were published? That is an important part. Also, is there a copyright notice at the beginning of the book for the book in general? Finally, does the image say anything about a source or "courtesy of.." or anything like that? -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 14:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

::I don't know why I wrote 1971, it was published in 1995. The copyright notice at the beginning of the book is "&copy; Reading Evening Post; Harold Hill, 1995". Below this is an "acknowledgements" section which implies there are four parties who have "loaned pictures or allowed the use of them" &ndash; Reading Library, ], the ], and an individual. There is nothing next to the photographs to be able to identify who took which. ] (]) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

:::I guess there is a possibility that it was an unpublished photo, so the best thing to do would be to contact either the author or the publishing company and ask for clarification. It probably is a PD image, but without further evidence, it may not be safe to assume that.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Right. And when you find out that it is PD, then upload it OTRS pending and forward the email to permissions.--] (]) 22:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

== drug dealing in south hedland 2005 2006 ==

has there been much documentation on the enormous amount of illegal drugs sold in that period of time in south hedland wa <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please see ]. ]≈<small>]</small> 01:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

== Incorrect credit on a picture of São Paulo ==

There is a file on Misplaced Pages, more specifically a picture that I took, that is being used without the correct credit and license. The file is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Saopaulo_noite.jpg

"Linneker" is not the author of the photo, but submitted it as "own work". However I (Rafael Rigues) am the author. It was taken on April 22, 2008 and is available on Flickr on a CC-BY-SA License. It is part of a tree-picture series. Here is the relevant Flickr page:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rigues/2435945512/in/photostream/

Keep in mind that I DO NOT object to the use of the picture on Misplaced Pages (having submitted various pictures myself), and I only wish to see the credit corrected. What is the most appropriate place/way to make a formal complaint? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I apologize that your photo has been misattributed. I'd love to just make the change, but the file on Flickr is released under a non-commercial use license. Unfortunately, we can't use images under that kind of license. If you would still like us to be able to use it, you'll need to release it under a similar license that allows for commercial use, like the CC-BY-SA license. If you do not wish to change the license, we will delete the file. The choice is yours, as you retain copyright. Please indicate here what you'd like to do, and I will act accordingly. ] <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 04:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
::The best way to get this corrected is to have it deleted and re-uploaded, since there won't be any copyvio in the history. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio, since it's claimed as an own work by the wrong person. ] (]) 21:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

== PEFC logo ==

Currently the is used on ] without proper permission from PEFC council. I am about to request permission from them to use the logo on a one-time basis for illustrative and educational purposes on Misplaced Pages from the international PEFC council. How do i detonate in the image meta data that the logo cant be used anywhere else? What else should i take in consideration that you can think of?

says following about the logo:
PEFC Trademark
The PEFC logo and the initials “PEFC” are the exclusive property of the PEFC Council and are internationally registered trademarks.


--] (]) 06:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:We do not accept permissions such as that. See ]. All permissions must release content under a free license compatible with our mission. That said, the image in question ] is currently being used without permission under a claim of "fair use", in conjunction with our strict non-free content guidelines ]. This means that we acknowledge the work is copyrighted, but believe our use is legal under a "fair use" claim. More details can be found on the copyright template on the image description page, and in our non-free content policy. The use of logos in this manner is quite routine on the English language Misplaced Pages, and there appears to be nothing wrong or mistagged on the image page, so I don't believe any further action is required. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

== Free state government agency materials ==

I'm a little confused about this situation. A state government agency makes posters as part of a public service announcement campaign. Anyone can order these posters online, for free. Since they're giving these posters away freely, does this mean you can take a picture of the poster from their website and use it on Misplaced Pages? Since they want people to have them and see them freely, my first impression would be ''yes, you can'', but I'd like to be sure. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:That is never a safe assumption. Just because something may be given away, does not mean it is licensed in a manner which is compatible with Misplaced Pages. Remember, we must allow third parties to reuse, modify, and possibly commercially profit from the content. A freely given away poster may have no modification (or no derivative) or noncommercial stipulations. Unless you have clear evidence that the content is released into the public domain or licensed freely, we cannot simply assume it is safe to use here (unless it is a work of the federal government, or some local jurisdiction). I'd say, just contact the state agency, and ask. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 19:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
::Which state do you mean? There are some governments that release their work into the public domain. ] (]) 21:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Possibly. We don't really have an inclusive list. I believe a good number of Florida State works are public domain. There may be one other state, and who knows about the thousands of local jurisdictions. It seems plausible that some may release stuff into the PD, but I don't know for sure. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 02:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Minnesota also does, and California apparently too; see ] and ]. Judging by the wording on the California template, no other US states do. ] (]) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

According to its article, this painting was produced and sold in 1921, but ] is currently tagged as nonfree with a fair use rationale. Is there any good reason not to treat this like ]? ] (]) 21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:Agreed and {{done}}. ] <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks! I've reverted to a larger resolution version. ] (]) 23:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

== question ==

i have a permission of the photographer to use a (c) image.
what license is that?
thanks <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:See ]. You need to first make sure the copyright holder agrees to license the content under the terms of a free license compatible with Misplaced Pages. Then you need to have them forward a filled out ] form to us (or you can forward the e-mails you receive on to us, but it needs to be clear who the copyright holder is, and what license they are choosing, and that they understand that third parties will be able to reuse, modify, and even commercially use their content). To answer your question, the license you will pick when you upload the file is the license the copyright holder has agreed to. You should not upload the file just yet because they have not specified a license. We cannot tell you what license, only the copyright holder (though we recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license).-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 04:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

== non-free media ] ==

Someone with a strong familiarity with non-free media fair use needs to look at the usage of ], it's currently in violation of the rules I believe since there isn't fair use justification for all the page's it's used on... —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">]</font>)</sup> 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:I don't think this is a case for strong familiarity. ] is straight forward. You are free to either remove the image from all articles that are not named on the file description page in the fair use rationale, or add custom fair use rationales for each use that you feel is appropriate. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 04:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
::Taken care of. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">]</font>)</sup> 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Actually in looking at the two uses of this image, it adds nothing to the reader's understanding of either article and is there only as decoration and to confirm the meeting of Hitler and France but that fact is clearly stated in the prose and therefore the use of a non-free image is unnnecessary so in my opinion fails ]. Personally I suggest you take it to ]. ] (]) 14:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::::*sigh* I don't really have much divested interest in this image, a user nominated it for a ] and it sorta took charge and dealt with it. I's a really poor image and I don't really have any desire to preserve it, it could be deleted for all I care. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">]</font>)</sup> 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I was thinking to myself last night it was rather useless and could likely be deleted. The resolution is too low to really see anything of value, and it doesn't seem to fit with any of the article content. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::Nominated for deletion ]. ] (]) 13:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Copyright for celebrity (or others) photos appearing on numerous websites ==

Misplaced Pages has copyright norms for uploading photographs.

1. What about photographs of celebrities or other individuals whose photographs appear in numerous websites with no specific copyright info on the photo? The person obviously has no objection to such photos being published all over (as long as they are decent ones and not morphed).

2. What about historic personality whose photos might have appeared elsewhere?

3. What tags to put in such cases?

SP 04:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:We have ] for historic photos that meet all 10 ] (meaning they don't hinder the copyright holder's commercial use, there is no free equivalent, the image is cropped and/or a reduced resolution, the image significantly contributes to the reader's understanding of the article topic, etc). As for your first question, we cannot use photos simply on the basis that they are ubiquitous. Misplaced Pages's free content license ensures that third parties may reuse, modify, and even commercially use our content. Photos you find on the internet may not allow modification (also called derivative work), and they may not allow commercial reuse. There are no circumstances where we would allow a photo on Misplaced Pages because the photo is simply found on multiple websites. We need clear evidence of free licensing. You can always contact the copyright holder, and ask them to release the image under a free license. If the photo is already all over the internet, they may be more likely to release the image. Then you can e-mail the permission to us, per ]. Make sure you check out our sample e-mails, because we require specific information in a ] form/release. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::I should add that just because a copyright doesn't appear doesn't mean there isn't permission as part of a commercial arrangement.--] (]) 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

== Licensing Issue regarding File:Vassula.jpg ==

I am currently in the process of editing / creating a network of entries related to True Life in God books whose author is Vassula Ryden. Recently I encountered issues when I tried to upload the Vassula.jpg profile picture as it got marked for speedy deletion with the claim that it did not adhere to the licensing policies.

I have since acquired permission from Vassula Ryden to make uses of any images or published material pertaining to Vassula Ryden / True Life in God material on wikipedia. This permission is in the form of a word document that specifies my[REDACTED] username and has been signed and scanned by Vassula Ryden. I would be happy to email any moderators / administrators this document as proof. Here are the things I need to do:

1) I need to have the Vassula.jpg image removed as I will be replacing it with a slightly modified version of that picture. How do I go about it doing this?

2) As I have been given permission to make uses of any images or published material pertaining to Vassula Ryden / True Life in God material on wikipedia, when I upload images, please kindly indicate exactly in a step by step procedure what licensing option I should use AND, specifically what tags I need to insert whenever I upload files related to this project, such that they are no longer marked for deletion.

I appreciate any feedback that you may extend. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Have you been granted a CC-BY-SA-3.0 like license? Or granted full rights including permission to grant further rights? Permission to use on Misplaced Pages or by you is not enough as every one at all must be given permission to use, and to make derivatives. This is how free is has to be. Follow the procedure at ]. You can add <nowiki>{{db-author}}</nowiki> to the picture you uploaded and someone will delete it. You can also upload over the top using the same name but the previous picture would still be accessible. ] (]) 00:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I have read the page CC-BY-SA-3.0, and the closest I could find is "Attribution by" which states "Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these." This seems to be the closest "license description" to what I have. I fully intend to credit the Author for her works. The intention is to upload a new profile picture of her, a picture of her book and a 3rd picture of her receiving an award. Again please advise what tags I should to upload these pictures such that they avoid being tagged with speedy deletion. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:YOu will have to describe the source of the picture, who owns the copyright, and describe the license, CC-BY-3.0 is acceptable too, as you describe above. Also put in the <nowiki>{{OTRS pending}}</nowiki> and follow up with the email proving that permission has been given by the copyright holder. Include the name of your upload in the email. ] (]) 12:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a file:

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:VassulaRyden.jpg

and following your instructions added the <nowiki>{{OTRS pending}}</nowiki> markup. Please advise who or which email address I should use to send the document that grants me the license to use these images. I could not find an email address in the upload section.
*You were told above, ]. However, it appears from the file you uploaded that you have permission to use this image on Misplaced Pages. That's not a free license, certainly not CC-BY-SA or anything else CC. --] (]) 03:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

== PC David Rathband ==

Hi, I'd like to upload of PC David Rathband to illustrate the ] article. They were reportedly issued by Northumbria Police "At his request we are releasing a photograph of his injuries before he received treatment. He has agreed to the release of this photos on the basis the media respect the express wishes of his family not to be approached or identified." Is there a reasonable justification for either fair use or PD? I'd hope, if it's available for all other media outlets to use commerically, it should be ok for us.--] (]) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
:I don't think that PD is applicable (the police have not formally relinquished all their rights), and ] would preclude the files' inclusion as fair-use. <font color="#A20846">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 13:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
::Ok, but if we said the image was descriptive of PC Rathband's injuries and treatment rather than a 'portrait' - it wouldn't be possible to take another non-free image. --] (]) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
:::There's definitely no reason to assume that was a PD release. I don't think UULP applies here, though, because the intent is to show the untreated injuries in the hopes that people will be more willing to turn the perp in, and a later photo wouldn't serve that purpose. That said, I'm still not convinced that there's a valid fair-use rationale for the picture.--] (]) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
::::My question is, why do we need these images? What do they possibly add to the article? Is a photo a a bloody face really encyclopaedic here? ] ] 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::We need these images (and an image of Moat) to illustrate the victim of his attack. I'm going to call Northumbria's media centre tomorrow and try and get some clarity on the licensing situation. Personally I believe the images bring a sensitivity to the reader that these are very real events with very real consequences. One assumes the police released them for similar reasons as they are soliciting help from the public. But the debate about whether to include it is going on at the talk page of the article - my question here is about licensing them in the current form without further clarification from the copyright holders. --] (]) 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::It could be justifiable. The photo is not meant to illustrate PC Rathband, but rather his injuries. The extent of the injuries is well illustrated by the photo (moreso than can be conveyed in words), and fair use is helped by the release of the photo to the media by the police being deliberate and there being no commercial rights that could be impinged upon. I think use of a single image could be supported. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 15:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

== Non-free videos ==

What is Misplaced Pages stand on non-free videos? Can a 30 second sample of a non-free video be included onto an article? ] ] 07:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:Pretty much, yes, as long as it helps readers understand the topic and can't be replaced by one or a few still images. See ], especially User:Masem's comment at the end. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for the input, the reason why I asked because I like to add the video to ], although the video will help the readers understand the subject a bit more, a image is already used and is currently doing alright job. So in this case a video may not be allowable. ] ] 13:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Copyright status of photo from unknown photographer ==

I think I know the answer to this one, but I'm looking for some other opinions. I'm wanting to use a photo, specifically the one , but there's no indication of the original source or photographer. The photo is old as the subject died in 1926. Can this photo be presumed PD in the US and/or in France (where it was presumably taken)? ] (]) 11:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:Firstly, I note that the site claims copyright of all images. Secondly, it depends on when the image was published. If the site found it in the effects of the artist's estate and published it for the first time in 2009 (the copyright date on the site) you are looking at 120 years from the date of creation. If it was published in France prior to 1923, it will be PD. If it was published in France post 1923 it cannot be presumed PD in 1996, therefore it cannot be PD in the united states. --] (]) 12:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks, I'm looking for more information to see if I can confirm when/where/by whom it was published first which would've answered my question, but its existence is all I have so far. ] (]) 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Help with explaining copyrights ==

] is a very recent picture of an ]. This photo was uploaded locally as fair use, but I contested it because anyone could take a picture of it; the uploader then claimed that it was PD-old (the entire image, not just the bust) and had it uploaded to Commons. I've deleted the original image, since it's a clear copyvio, and I've nominated it for speedy at Commons. Can anyone help me to explain to the ] that the image itself is copyrightable, and that we consider a photo of such an object replaceable? Although s/he has been an active editor for more than three years, the uploader appears to think that the photo itself is PD-old, and because s/he's on the other side of the ocean from the bust, s/he says that the image isn't replaceable because s/he can't photograph it personally. ] (]) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::Actually I am not the uploader, however the ] who is also a veteran editor for more than 4 years like me initially altered the copyrighted photograph and uploaded a cropped version of the image under Fair use. I think it should be reinstated as Fair use with the proviso that a new photo can preferably be supplied per ] at the very least, I did not upload it to commons by the way, although I strongly object to its being speedied. Why not just ask ] to supply a new image?...] (]) 15:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
*A photograph taken of any object can potentially have encumbered rights from the object being photographed, and the photography itself. In this case, the subject is old and no copyright sustains on the bust. However, there most emphatically is the possibility of copyright on the photography. If those rights have not been specifically released by the photographer, then there's no question it has to be treated as fair use. Given that this bust exists, a free replacement of it can be made. The image must go, and sorry 'common sense' here doesn't mean we maintain non-free content until someone manages to make a free version. --] (]) 15:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::The uploader may have been thinking of recent events relating to the National Portrait Gallery (have I got the right one?) attempting to claim copyright on slides of Old Masters. The thing with a photo of a statue is that there is inevitably more than just a straight reproduction of the statue in the image - there's lighting and angle and suchlike, which give it sufficient creative content to be copyrightable.--] (]) 16:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, you have the right people; see ]. ] (]) 17:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
*And, looking at the , right at the bottom of that page it says "photo &copy; : C.Chary/DRASSM ". Not that it needed to have a copyright displayed, but what more proof do we need that this image is in fact copyrighted? --] (]) 16:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:*That's what I tried to say. ] (]) 17:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::*I understand the reasoning, I just don't agree with it...] (]) 18:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:::*You are of course welcome to your opinion. However, the fact is this image is copyrighted, and cropping the source from which it is derived doesn't remove copyrights. --] (]) 19:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::::I've deleted the image from the Commons, as the source page clearly says photo © : C.Chary/DRASSM. When it comes to reproductions of PD art, 2D vs. 3D makes a big difference. This image is 3D, so ''Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.'' doesn't apply. Is there any reason why a user couldn't photograph this bust? Is there a valid fair use rationale? I'd be glad to restore the file here as a non-free image, but we don't allow non-free images because our users haven't gotten around to creating the free equivalent yet. Either it's not possible to create a free image and thus we allow the non-free, or it is possible, and we don't allow non-free. Which one is it? (use common sense here... ;) -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 19:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Common sense tells me the image can be used as fair use with its original Fair use rationale and never should have gone to Commons...] (]) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::Policy prevails over whatever people think common sense is. ] is very clear on this subject. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created," This bust exists. A new image could be created and licensed under a free license. We can not and will not accept non-free imagery of it. --] (]) 00:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Like I said, I'd gladly undelete the file here, and tag it as fair use... if it can be demonstrated such a use is in line with NFCC. Hammersoft clearly objects, but I'm willing to hear the other side. How does this image not fail ]? How is it not easily replaceable? Has the bust been destroyed? Is it not on public display or is it part of a private collection? What's the rationale? -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::That is precisely my point. I am on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and I cannot take a photograph of the piece, however I also am not aware of it being on public display anywhere in France where it was found, although it was given to the ]. While it does exist and theoretically it can be re-photographed; however in my opinion common sense says to use the image with its initial fair use rationale...] (]) 03:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Just because one individual cannot personally create a photographic replacement doesn't mean we have to resort to non-free content. We have tons of French users (and some even own cameras!) I think we should research this a bit, figure out whether it is indeed possible to photograph this item, and then, if we can demonstrate in the rationale that no replacement is possible, I'll gladly restore the photo. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 03:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Appreciated Andrew, perhaps you might enter a notice on the French Misplaced Pages, the issue is further complicated by its being a 3d object, that needs a quality picture. Thanks...] (]) 04:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== File:Seiler instrument home office.jpg ==

My photo "Seiler instrument home office" was flagged. I had included the fact that Craig Sullentrup, photographer and poster of the photo, had given me permission to post it via email. However, I see that this is not sufficient for the situation. I can forward his address to anyone interested and he will confirm. What is the best/quickest way to make my correspondence with him official as it is slated to be deleted on the 15th? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

link ] <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*Have a look at ] and follow the instructions there. Alternatively, can you take a photograph of this building yourself and post it? --] (]) 15:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Re-uploading pictures of ODXQ.jog or DinhXuanQuang.jgp ==

I hereby affirm that the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Judge Đinh Xuân Quảng- (see http: above) the work to be released in detail). I agree to release that work including the 2 pictures of DinhXuanQuang.jpg and TheCabinetBuuLoc.jpg into the public domain.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
(to allow future verification of authenticity)

] <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The idea is to send an email stating this as in ]. With your posting we cannot see where the email came from. I also removed your email. ] (]) 00:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== How do I ==

How do I post a new article on Misplaced Pages ?? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Create a new account and type the name of your article in the search box, or go to ] to get started without logging on. ] (]) 03:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Fair use? ==


This film on[REDACTED] is illegal in European union and another countries. It should be limited to only ip's of USA. It would be not available on another countries. It must implement to secure only ip's of USA. It will be required VPN. ] (]) 13:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe, but am not sure, that my fair use rationale for using ], from http://registerguard.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=650776&CategoryID=36198&ListSubAlbums=0&thisPage=2, is acceptable: I plan to use it in my article, which is at ''http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jsayre64/Oregon_Community_Credit_Union'', to represent the credit union and not to mention anything about the logo in the background nor the woman in front. Is my fair use rationale acceptable and can I and how can I use this image in my article without it having to be deleted in a week? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I think the image selection isn't what you want. I presume you're referring to . You'd be much better off using , and adding <nowiki>{{non-free logo}}</nowiki> to the image description page, along with a fair use rationale for ]. However, I would suggest you make this one of the last things you do before pushing the development article into the main namespace. Non-free images are deleted seven days after they are orphaned (not used in any articles). Also, are you an employee of this credit union? If so, you should read ]. --] (]) 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


:On the English Misplaced Pages, run on Wikimedia servers located in the United States, generally only US copyright is considered. This is different for Commons files intended to be used in Wikipedias in a variety of languages. There, the policy is also to respect the copyright of the source country of a work. In this case, the work is entirely American in origin and can therefore be hosted on Commons as well as used in the English Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Old photograph in old book ==
::But video's are still illegal to show in Europe. it's ilegal to due copy right notice in Europe. This video must be blocked at this regions europe,asia and america. It would be seen: This film is not available in this regio European Union and will showed only in USA. ] (]) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::The file is actually hosted on Commons. -- ] (]) 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Convenience link: ]
:::Misplaced Pages is unable to restrict content based on where a user is located. Different languages are free to make policies about what content they will include in their articles. That means (for example) the German-language Misplaced Pages can refuse to have that file in their articles, on the assumption that people who choose German Wiki are in Germany where the file is not free. Each language's Misplaced Pages site is independent, and will make its own decisions based on whatever their policies are. Whether it meets Commons rules is something you will have to take up on that site, which is independent of the English Misplaced Pages (we just use their media in our articles). The file on Commons has an extensive note about where the image is vs isn't usable. ] (]) 19:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: I'm not sure that note is correct. It should be fine in most of Europe due to the ]. Which is part of the problem of such things; I know US copyright pretty well, but knowing the rules of a couple dozen European states, even with EU unifications, is very hard, and all ~200 nations in the world impossible.--] (]) 06:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: I have heard of two court rulings on the rule of the shorter term of United States works in Europe.
:::::# There was supposedly a ruling in Germany (I don't know when or where) where it was concluded that the rule of the shorter term can't be used for United States works in Germany because of a very old bilateral treaty between Germany and the United States. The same problem could potentially arise in other countries which have entered bilateral treaties with the United States, if the country still considers the treaty to be in effect.
:::::# There was where it was concluded that it isn't possible to use the rule of the shorter term on United States works if the work is in the public domain because of lack of compliance with copyright formalities (i.e. {{tl|PD-US-no notice}}, {{tl|PD-US-not renewed}} or {{tl|PD-US-1978-89}}), because of a ban on formalities in the Berne Convention. This potentially also affects other Berne Convention countries, provided that the courts in other countries will interpret the Berne Convention in the same way. However, France presumably still applies the rule of the shorter term on United States works if the work is in the public domain in the United States due to having been published more than 95 years ago.
::::: There is also a general danger with the rule of the shorter term in that a work may have been published simultaneously (within 30 days) in multiple countries. The Berne Convention states that the source country is then the country with the shortest copyright term. In this situation, the rule of the shorter term isn't usually used in the countries in which it was published simultaneously. I don't know if this film was published simultaneously in multiple countries, but it can be the case with famous photographs (probably ] was published simultaneously in many countries) and with newspaper comic strips which were often published in many newspapers in many different countries.
::::: The {{tlxc|PD-in}} template on Commons doesn't seem to apply the rule of the shorter term wherever it should. It also fails with applying the correct copyright term for films as there is no internationally recognised way of determining who the author is; each country has its own way of producing a list of co-authors which may differ from the list used in other countries. --] (]) 11:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: I'm not really concerned about the German treaty issue applying to other countries. For one, the UK "bilateral treaty" seems to have been no more than the British ambassador assuring us that their copyright to didn't discriminate against Americans and the US president issuing a proclamation giving protection to British works. The German bilateral treaty is also really non-explicit. It required President McKinley to make that proclamation, but no details on what that bound the US to long term. It seems like more of a German thing to interpret the treaty as still in effect and meaning "no rule of the shorter term".--] (]) 23:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== Public domain work subject to copyright and terms ==
image on Flickr was uploaded with a CC attribution 2.0 generic license. According to the uploader it is from the book ''Im Fluge durch die Welt'' from around 1900. The photo is by John L. Stoddard (d. 1931). Is it acceptable to crop the image so as to remove the text and keep only the photo, and upload that to Commons? ] (]) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:It sounds like it is now public domain, as author dies over 70 years ago, so you can be free to do that. ] (]) 03:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:{{ec}} Normally, the CC-BY license would allow for derivative works, which is what you have suggested. But the flickr uploader is not the original copyright holder, making that licensing claim rather useless. However, if the photographer really died in 1931, the work is most likely ineligible for copyright (in the ]), since he died more than 70 years ago. You should be able to upload the image to Commons using their ] (1931+75=2006). Since it's in the Public Domain, you can make any modifications you would like before uploading. ] <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 03:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


I found an image at ] - ], a public domain image - that states a colourized original work can be found on an online art gallery. Upon going to the gallery - see ], the image download of the colourized painting comes with information stating that commercial use is disallowed without a license. Is this notice valid, considering the underlying work is in the public domain? If the work were to be uploaded to Commons, would it have a valid reason for deletion on copyright grounds? ] (]) 15:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. I wasn't aware of that template. ] (]) 11:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:{{ping|Departure–}} This is something probably worth asking about at ] than here because ultimately that's where the file is likely going to end up being hosted. I guess if the colorization of the photo involved enough creative input by whoever did it, it possibly could be argue that the colorized version is a derivative work eligible for its own copyright protection independent of the original work itself. You could colorize the original PD photo yourself if you wanted without infringing upon someone else's copyright, but you can't really take someone else's copyrighted colorized version and release it under a free license without first obtaining their ]. In a sense (at least to me), the original PD photo is kind of like the ] of a ] in that it's not under copyright protection and can be freely used by anyone as they see fit; the colorized photo, however, is kind of like an ] in that it's someone individual interpretation (revisualization) of a "blazon" and thus has a creative element to it that could be eligible for its own copyright protection.{{pb}}Perhaps the ] might provide some insight here; if you Google "copyright status of colorized films", you see that the US copyright office has in some instances granted copyright protection under US copyright law to the new colorized versions of some films despite the original black-and-white versions being within the public domain. I'd image the same applies in principle to still photos as well as explained . Of course, the copyright laws of other countries might treat things differently, which is probably another reason why it's a good idea to ask about this at Commons: Commons requires the content it hosts be in accordance with ] per the copyright laws of the US and the copyright laws of the country of first publication, whereas Misplaced Pages only is really concerned with the former. -- ] (]) 01:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::The gallery makes no note of any modern colorization; I believe the original work is in colour, and the gallery hosts a digitization of that, produced by the original artist in the 1800s. ] (]) 15:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Departure–}} If the original work was in color and it was just digitalized by the gallery, then you might want to take a look at ], '']'' and ] for some background information related to similar cases. Digitalization in and of itself doesn't seem to be have been considered creative enough to establish a new copyright for the digitalized work in several court cases, and Commons for the most part seems to ignore such claims of copyright. You still probably should ask about this at ] just to make sure, but the file should be OK if the color version is also old enough to be ]. One thing you might want to be careful of though is ]. Any agreement you might enter into with the gallery regarding the reuse of the image will be between you and the gallery. Commons is only concerned with the copyright status of the content it hosts, and the WMF will not jump in to defend you if you start having problems with the gallery over uploading this image. -- ] (]) 07:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Actually, the Copyright Office had a hearing in 1983 about whether to register colorized films, and eventually decided that colorization not being copyrightable in general, films were complex enough to be an exception to that. The US Copyright Office will not register a colorized version of a B&W work as a separate copyright in general.--] (]) 06:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== When Providing Proof of an image being in the Public Domain, can I remove any “necessary details required” tag placed on the image? ==
== ] ==


I uploaded ] but did not provide necessary details for who created the file and when. An image tagging bot commented on my profile, talking about this. I then provided the necessary details, that the image was painted in 1838 by a man named José de la Revilla. I then removed the “necessary details required” tag that was placed by the bot, as details for public domain works have now been provided. Was this okay? ] (]) 22:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Is there something akin to the OTRS process on Wiki? If this were on Commons I'd strongly suggest that this image needs OTRS permission but not sure what to do with it here. This seems to be in line with some ] editing at ] which suggests to me the image release may be valid but I'd like to get some confirmation of this prior to transferring it to the commons. Cheers, <b><i>]<small> ] • ] </small></i></b> 11:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


:It's fine to remove the tag. It's best practice to provide the file information using the {{tl|information}} template which structures the data so automated tools can use it. -- ] (]) 16:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:See ] (it's basically the same as Commons). E-mails with permission go to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, as described at ]. <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">]</font> 02:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


== Image removed by JJMC89 bot, but unclear why ==
::(Of course, if it's really being released into the public domain, then it really ought to end up on Commons anyway.) <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">]</font> 02:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I've had a film poster image upload to the article ] reverted by JJMC89 bot, with the message "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page". I'm confused as to the issue here, since whenever I upload an image of this kind I always use the same non-free use rationale wording in the upload wizard, and this seems to have been acceptable until now. The image in question is ]. I'd welcome any thoughts about whether my wording is flawed, or whether the bot has made a mistake, or any other advice. Thanks! ] (]) 12:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
:{{fixed}} - non-free use rationale said that the article's name was ''Stranger at My Door''. It should have been ''Stranger at My Door (1950 film)''. - ] (]) 12:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agggghhhh, my bad! So sorry. Thank you for fixing it! ] (]) 12:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
: Hi {{u|Tobyhoward}}. The problem has to do with the information you added for the {{para|article}} parameter for the non-free use rationale template; you added "Stranger at my Door", but actual tilte of the article is "Stranger at My Door (1950 film)". Since there's no article by the name "Stranger at my Door", it's showing up as a ] and that's what the bot is seeing. The bot usually catches mistakes like this when it's just a disambiguation error, but the capitalization error might also be throwing the bot off. -- ] (]) 12:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks very much for the explanation. So it was, as ever, human error! Aggghh! So sorry to have wasted your time with this, and thanks again. ] (]) 12:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== I am unclear about this image’s copyright ==
This image is tagged as non-free, but is it really complex enough for copyright? It consists solely of the letters "USRA" superimposed on a circle, and everything is the same color. ] (]) 01:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
*It isn't. I've re-tagged it. --] (]) 16:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


The ] in question. '']'' ''<sup>(] + ])</sup>'' 14:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== copyrighted getty image ==
:{{u|CosXZ}}: You need to show that this image is freely licensed. Who took it, where and when was it taken? Without that information, especially if you found this online, it is likely copyright so we probably can't use it. Such questions about commons files should be asked there not here. ] (]) 15:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry, I’ll ask there. '']'' ''<sup>(] + ])</sup>'' 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|CosXZ}}: I edit over on the commons too and this is the same response I would give you there. ] (]) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Future public domain ==
]


Currently, we have {{tl|Copy to Wikimedia Commons in}} which can be used for specifying when a file will be suitable for Commons; that is, when it will be in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country. However, there does not seem to be a template for marking when a file will become {{tl|PD-US-1923-abroad}}, if this happens before the file becomes PD-source. ] to make the file information page update automatically when the file enters the public domain in the United States, and ] so that the file information page is cleaned up after the file becomes {{tl|PD-US-1923-abroad}}. However, this seems unnecessary complicated, and users could be confused by the parser functions if they are around for a long time. Would it be possible to create a template for indicating the year when the file will become {{tl|PD-US-1923-abroad}}, so that we keep track of when to re-tag files? --] (]) 15:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
This image should be removed immediately for violation of copyright. From getty images: http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/102771090/Getty-Images-Sport -- <font face="Modern" size="2">''']|]'''</font> 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


:A future date displays:
:Makes sense; link says "USER IS NOT PERMITTED TO DOWNLOAD OR USE IMAGE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL.", and no evidence of permission was given. Since it's unlikely that user obtained commercial release for this use, ] applies, and I've tagged it. The uploader has been informed on his talk page. <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">]</font> 20:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
{{PD-US-expired-abroad|out_of_copyright_in=2027}}
:An older date displays:
{{PD-US-expired-abroad|out_of_copyright_in=2024}}
:-- ]] 17:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::That's for expiry in the source country. There is currently no template which can be added to non-free files which will become {{tl|PD-US-1923-abroad}} in a year or two, so it's hard to track which files to re-tag in the future. --] (]) 21:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::For example, on 1 January 2028, someone will have to re-tag ] from fair use to {{tl|PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Who will remember to do this without a template for tracking this? --] (]) 12:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::There could be a page or a category tracking this, like we have on Commons. ] (]) 16:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think that would be very useful. I find many files like this:
:::::# An unsigned film poster or book cover, but sometimes the art style is recognisable, so an art expert might have named the artist somewhere so it's not really safe to assume that it's anonymous, or
:::::# An unsigned book cover, but the name of the artist might appear on the title page or in the ], which I don't have access to, or
:::::# There's a signature, but due to ], I can't read it, or
:::::# I find a name but no death year, or
:::::# I find a death year but it's PD-US a decade before it's PD-source.
:::::If it was published in the 1920s, I just re-tag with {{tl|PD-US-1923-abroad}}, if possible with the correct year. If it was published in the 1930s, there would ideally be a way to keep track of the file so that it can be retagged in a few years. --] (]) 19:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] image question == == ] of a translation? ==


Does the difference between {{tq|Que ceux qui s'opposent à cette liste lèvent les mains ! ..... Qui donc se déclare "contre" cette liste ?}} and {{tq|All those who oppose this list raise their hands! ... Now, who says "no" to this list?}} meet the threshold of originality? That is, should ] be tagged with {{tlp|PD-US-1923-abroad|2054}} or with {{tls|rfu}}? --] (]) 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm expanding ] and as I was looking for additional images I found the image that was in the infobox when I first started editing the article is cropped from at Getty images. I don't know the policy regarding Getty images. Are we allowed to use them? If so, I'd prefer to use the uncropped image. Thanks. ] (]) 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
:It's not actually from Getty images. The image is so old, that copyright is expired. If you look at the file page ], it explains that it's old so there is no copyright. ]≈<small>]</small> 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for the reply. I saw that it's PD because of the age of the image, but was confused when I saw the Getty image from which it's cropped. If it's an old image and PD, is it possible to use the uncropped Getty image? ] (]) 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


== Copyright for Franz Eher Nachfolger postcards ==
== File O. DXQ.jpg ==


I have a concern with two images I've just uploaded of ] postcards, (which I added to ]) and . I placed the note on them, but their copyright in Germany is not clear to me. Is it correct for these images to be hosted on Wikimedia, or should they be hosted locally on English Misplaced Pages? If so, can they simply be moved to the English wiki, or must they be re-uploaded? ''''']'''''] 21:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I have sent a question on July 8. Thought there was a visit by admin with an answer but I could not locate the answer. Please let me know how to proceed to ensure the article is completed with Judge Dinh Xuân Quang's picture, and to place the article into public domain.
: Hi {{u|Indefatigable2}}. Since the files were uploaded to Commons, you're probably better off asking about them at ]. Commons and Misplaced Pages are separate projects with their own communites, policies, guidelines, etc. Even though there's lots of overlapping when it comes to image licensing, there's also some differences, and the two communities don't always see the same thing the same way. If Commons can't host the files, then whether they can be hosted locally here on Misplaced Pages most likely depends on the reason why can't host them. Commons requires the content it hosts to be acceptably licensed per both ] and the ]; in some cases, content which is considered to be PD under US copyright law can be hosted locally even if it's not OK for Commons because Misplaced Pages is only really concerned with US copyright law. Misplaced Pages also allows content to be uploaded as ] when it satisfies ], which is something Commons ]. As for the other part of your question, I don't believe there's a way to "move" files from Commons to Misplaced Pages, and that the files in question would need to be reuploaded locally to Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 00:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Appreciate the info. ''''']'''''] 00:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I have nominated both files for deletion on Commons. See ]. --] (]) 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
Below is the permission from Dr. Dinh Xuân Quan, the only son of Judge Dinh Xuân Quang:


] on ] is a fair use upload. The ] that's used in '']'' is licensed as public domain. Does the PD licensing also apply to the U.S.? I was thinking about nominating it for FP, but obviously I won't if it's considered fair use here. ] (]) 06:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I hereby affirm that the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Judge Đinh Xuân Quảng- (see http: above) the work to be released in detail). I agree to release that work into the public domain.
: See ]. --] (]) 11:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
::Ah ok, thanks. ] (]) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
(to allow future verification of authenticity)


== File:Shaxian Snacks Restaurant Tomas Mapua Santa Cruz Manila parkB.jpg ==
Thanks, <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*This is quite unclear. What is it you are trying to do? What work is it you are referring to? What do you want to do with it? Regardless, posting this 'permission' here isn't helpful. You need to be explicitly clear about what you want to do, and with what, and send it via the instructions at ]. --] (]) 03:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


There's no reason to not believe the own work claim made by {{u|Valenzuela400}} for ], but the photo could have issues per ] and ] because there's no ] for buildings built on or after November 14, 1972, in the Philippines, and the sign/logo shown in the photo could be above the ] of the Philippines. Given that the file is uploaded locally to (English) Misplaced Pages, the first issue probably can be resolved by adding a {{tlx|FoP-USonly}} license to the file's page for the building since there's freedom of panorama for buildings under US copyright law. One could debate whether the building is actually eligible for copyright protection since it appears to be fairly utilitarian in design, but "FoP-USonly" would still work even if the building's design is protected under Philippine copyright law. The logo, however, is where things get a bit murky; the US seems to have a lower threshold of originality than the Philippines; so, the license {{tlx|PD-ineligible-USonly}} could work for the logo if it's deemed below the US threshold; if not, however, and "]" isn't being claimed for the logo (which doesn't seem to be the case since it seems to be the focus of the photo), then the logo would need to be treated as ], with a ] and ] needing to be added to file's page. Given that the file isn't currently being used in any articles, treating the logo as non-free means the file would fail ] and subject to speedy deletion per ]. Any opinions on whether this logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law? -- ] (]) 01:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== Enquiry ==


: Hello ], first allow me to ''congratulate'' you as patroller; the subject photo was taken by me when an ] possibly bought food thereat and speedily rode the vehicle; sad that I could not take her pic; hence at least I got a pic of her vehicle, and note that the area is no parking and towing place, her vehicle may have issues on these 2 matters, and ] street is so long, for which reason I uploaded the entire photo; I agree with you that the pics is contentious on the angles you mentioned; for this reason I uploaded , so that in time, I may know who that actress was who regularly buy this food; therefore, I have no objection to the deletion, and you may tag it speedy deletion, thank you and very truly yours ] (]) 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC).
Greetings!


== Building constructions in the Philippines and the United States ==
Hello, can i share info / pages from[REDACTED] to my facebook?


Building constructions in the Philippines and the United States - I have in the past few days uploaded some of my own photos taken of buildings and structures under construction and located in the Philippines, particularly 7 pics in . Before I transferred some to Commons, I examined these , , 190 photos and 25 subcategories. In addition, I have uploaded 3 photos at Misplaced Pages, having in mind the above query; :::{{ping|Marchjuly}} Finding them fitting and OK, may I ask you opinion if these building under construction are correctly transferred to Commons, thank you and very truly yours ] (]) 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC).
Thanks
: There is ] (FOP) for buildings and other inhabitable structures located in the US under ], but other countries can and often do things differently. The Philippines, for examples, does allow freedom of panorama for buildings under its copyright law but only for buildings constructed prior to November 14, 1972; so, any photos of a building built after that date might be considered to be an infringement on the rights of the building's designer or whoever is considered to be the copyright holder of the building's design. Of course, I guess it's possible that in some cases a building's design might be so simple that it's considered utilitarian or otherwise absent of any elements which might be ], and this kind of rationale could apply to a building while its being built until it starts to get close to its completed state where it actually starts looking like its going to look upon completion. FWIW, this is not really an issue under US copyright law, but I'm not sure how countries with FOP practices more restrictive than the US deal with such things. One other thing to remember is that any signs or advertisements affixed to a building could in and of themselves be eligible for copyright protection separate from the building itself, particularly if not a permanent feature of the building that was part of the original structure; so, for example, a side wall of a building would, in principle, be ineligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, but a mural painted on that wall or an advertising poster papering the wall could be eligible for protection if certain conditions are met. Other countries might treat things differently. -- ] (]) 05:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:25, 21 January 2025

Centralized discussion place in English Misplaced Pages
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Media copyright questions Shortcuts

    Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Misplaced Pages:Questions.

    How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
    1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
    2. From the page Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
      • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
      • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
      • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
    3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
    4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
    5. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
    Note for those replying to posted questions

    If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

    CautionIf you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: ]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!
    Click here to start a new discussion
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)

    Archiving icon
    Archives
    Archive list
    1. Archive year 2006 Closed
    2. Archive year 2007 Closed
    3. Archive year 2008 Closed
    4. Archive year 2009 Closed
    5. Archive year 2010 Closed
    6. Archive year 2011 Closed
    7. Archive year 2012 Closed
    8. Archive year 2013 Closed
    9. Archive year 2014 Closed
    10. Archive year 2015 Closed
    11. Archive year 2016 Closed
    12. Archive year 2017 Closed
    13. Archive year 2018 Closed
    14. Archive year 2019 Closed
    15. Archive year 2020 Closed
    16. Archive year 2021 Closed
    17. Archive year 2022 Closed
    18. Archive year 2023 Closed
    19. Archive year 2024 Open
    Some pre-2009 archives from pages now merged here
    (note: more recent questions from these pages can be found at WP:MCQ or its archives above.)

    1. Requested copyright examinations archives
    2. Can I use... 2005-2006 archive
    3. Can I use... January-August 2007 archive
    4. Can I use... August-December 2007 archive
    5. Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1
    6. Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk/Archive 2
    This page serves as a portal for Yearly archives, inside the archives are in month format, please see the Archives in the sidebox. Thanks.


    This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    File:The Karnival Kid (1929).webm

    This film on[REDACTED] is illegal in European union and another countries. It should be limited to only ip's of USA. It would be not available on another countries. It must implement to secure only ip's of USA. It will be required VPN. Edwtie (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    On the English Misplaced Pages, run on Wikimedia servers located in the United States, generally only US copyright is considered. This is different for Commons files intended to be used in Wikipedias in a variety of languages. There, the policy is also to respect the copyright of the source country of a work. In this case, the work is entirely American in origin and can therefore be hosted on Commons as well as used in the English Misplaced Pages. Felix QW (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    But video's are still illegal to show in Europe. it's ilegal to due copy right notice in Europe. This video must be blocked at this regions europe,asia and america. It would be seen: This film is not available in this regio European Union and will showed only in USA. Edwtie (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The file is actually hosted on Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Convenience link: File:The Karnival Kid (1929).webm
    Misplaced Pages is unable to restrict content based on where a user is located. Different languages are free to make policies about what content they will include in their articles. That means (for example) the German-language Misplaced Pages can refuse to have that file in their articles, on the assumption that people who choose German Wiki are in Germany where the file is not free. Each language's Misplaced Pages site is independent, and will make its own decisions based on whatever their policies are. Whether it meets Commons rules is something you will have to take up on that site, which is independent of the English Misplaced Pages (we just use their media in our articles). The file on Commons has an extensive note about where the image is vs isn't usable. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that note is correct. It should be fine in most of Europe due to the rule of the shorter term. Which is part of the problem of such things; I know US copyright pretty well, but knowing the rules of a couple dozen European states, even with EU unifications, is very hard, and all ~200 nations in the world impossible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have heard of two court rulings on the rule of the shorter term of United States works in Europe.
    1. There was supposedly a ruling in Germany (I don't know when or where) where it was concluded that the rule of the shorter term can't be used for United States works in Germany because of a very old bilateral treaty between Germany and the United States. The same problem could potentially arise in other countries which have entered bilateral treaties with the United States, if the country still considers the treaty to be in effect.
    2. There was a ruling in France where it was concluded that it isn't possible to use the rule of the shorter term on United States works if the work is in the public domain because of lack of compliance with copyright formalities (i.e. {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}), because of a ban on formalities in the Berne Convention. This potentially also affects other Berne Convention countries, provided that the courts in other countries will interpret the Berne Convention in the same way. However, France presumably still applies the rule of the shorter term on United States works if the work is in the public domain in the United States due to having been published more than 95 years ago.
    There is also a general danger with the rule of the shorter term in that a work may have been published simultaneously (within 30 days) in multiple countries. The Berne Convention states that the source country is then the country with the shortest copyright term. In this situation, the rule of the shorter term isn't usually used in the countries in which it was published simultaneously. I don't know if this film was published simultaneously in multiple countries, but it can be the case with famous photographs (probably Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima was published simultaneously in many countries) and with newspaper comic strips which were often published in many newspapers in many different countries.
    The {{PD-in}} template on Commons doesn't seem to apply the rule of the shorter term wherever it should. It also fails with applying the correct copyright term for films as there is no internationally recognised way of determining who the author is; each country has its own way of producing a list of co-authors which may differ from the list used in other countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not really concerned about the German treaty issue applying to other countries. For one, the UK "bilateral treaty" seems to have been no more than the British ambassador assuring us that their copyright to didn't discriminate against Americans and the US president issuing a proclamation giving protection to British works. The German bilateral treaty is also really non-explicit. It required President McKinley to make that proclamation, but no details on what that bound the US to long term. It seems like more of a German thing to interpret the treaty as still in effect and meaning "no rule of the shorter term".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Public domain work subject to copyright and terms

    I found an image at Bosporus - File:Allum Bosphorus.jpg, a public domain image - that states a colourized original work can be found on an online art gallery. Upon going to the gallery here at collections.vam.ac.uk - see Victoria and Albert Museum, the image download of the colourized painting comes with information stating that commercial use is disallowed without a license. Is this notice valid, considering the underlying work is in the public domain? If the work were to be uploaded to Commons, would it have a valid reason for deletion on copyright grounds? Departure– (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Departure–: This is something probably worth asking about at c:COM:VPC than here because ultimately that's where the file is likely going to end up being hosted. I guess if the colorization of the photo involved enough creative input by whoever did it, it possibly could be argue that the colorized version is a derivative work eligible for its own copyright protection independent of the original work itself. You could colorize the original PD photo yourself if you wanted without infringing upon someone else's copyright, but you can't really take someone else's copyrighted colorized version and release it under a free license without first obtaining their WP:CONSENT. In a sense (at least to me), the original PD photo is kind of like the blazon of a coat-of-arms in that it's not under copyright protection and can be freely used by anyone as they see fit; the colorized photo, however, is kind of like an emblazon in that it's someone individual interpretation (revisualization) of a "blazon" and thus has a creative element to it that could be eligible for its own copyright protection.Perhaps the colorization of old black-and-white films might provide some insight here; if you Google "copyright status of colorized films", you see that the US copyright office has in some instances granted copyright protection under US copyright law to the new colorized versions of some films despite the original black-and-white versions being within the public domain. I'd image the same applies in principle to still photos as well as explained here. Of course, the copyright laws of other countries might treat things differently, which is probably another reason why it's a good idea to ask about this at Commons: Commons requires the content it hosts be in accordance with c:COM:L per the copyright laws of the US and the copyright laws of the country of first publication, whereas Misplaced Pages only is really concerned with the former. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The gallery makes no note of any modern colorization; I believe the original work is in colour, and the gallery hosts a digitization of that, produced by the original artist in the 1800s. Departure– (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Departure–: If the original work was in color and it was just digitalized by the gallery, then you might want to take a look at copyfraud, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute for some background information related to similar cases. Digitalization in and of itself doesn't seem to be have been considered creative enough to establish a new copyright for the digitalized work in several court cases, and Commons for the most part seems to ignore such claims of copyright. You still probably should ask about this at c:COM:VPC just to make sure, but the file should be OK if the color version is also old enough to be c:COM:PD-Art. One thing you might want to be careful of though is c:COM:NCR. Any agreement you might enter into with the gallery regarding the reuse of the image will be between you and the gallery. Commons is only concerned with the copyright status of the content it hosts, and the WMF will not jump in to defend you if you start having problems with the gallery over uploading this image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Actually, the Copyright Office had a hearing in 1983 about whether to register colorized films, and eventually decided that colorization not being copyrightable in general, films were complex enough to be an exception to that. The US Copyright Office will not register a colorized version of a B&W work as a separate copyright in general.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    When Providing Proof of an image being in the Public Domain, can I remove any “necessary details required” tag placed on the image?

    I uploaded this file but did not provide necessary details for who created the file and when. An image tagging bot commented on my profile, talking about this. I then provided the necessary details, that the image was painted in 1838 by a man named José de la Revilla. I then removed the “necessary details required” tag that was placed by the bot, as details for public domain works have now been provided. Was this okay? Newaccount33333 (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    It's fine to remove the tag. It's best practice to provide the file information using the {{information}} template which structures the data so automated tools can use it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Image removed by JJMC89 bot, but unclear why

    Hi, I've had a film poster image upload to the article Stranger at My Door (1950 film) reverted by JJMC89 bot, with the message "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page". I'm confused as to the issue here, since whenever I upload an image of this kind I always use the same non-free use rationale wording in the upload wizard, and this seems to have been acceptable until now. The image in question is here. I'd welcome any thoughts about whether my wording is flawed, or whether the bot has made a mistake, or any other advice. Thanks! Tobyhoward (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

     Fixed - non-free use rationale said that the article's name was Stranger at My Door. It should have been Stranger at My Door (1950 film). - X201 (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agggghhhh, my bad! So sorry. Thank you for fixing it! Tobyhoward (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi Tobyhoward. The problem has to do with the information you added for the |article= parameter for the non-free use rationale template; you added "Stranger at my Door", but actual tilte of the article is "Stranger at My Door (1950 film)". Since there's no article by the name "Stranger at my Door", it's showing up as a WP:REDLINK and that's what the bot is seeing. The bot usually catches mistakes like this when it's just a disambiguation error, but the capitalization error might also be throwing the bot off. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks very much for the explanation. So it was, as ever, human error! Aggghh! So sorry to have wasted your time with this, and thanks again. Tobyhoward (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    I am unclear about this image’s copyright

    The c:File:Hayes_truck_hauling_logs.png in question. Cos 14:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    CosXZ: You need to show that this image is freely licensed. Who took it, where and when was it taken? Without that information, especially if you found this online, it is likely copyright so we probably can't use it. Such questions about commons files should be asked there not here. ww2censor (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, I’ll ask there. Cos 15:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    CosXZ: I edit over on the commons too and this is the same response I would give you there. ww2censor (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Future public domain

    Currently, we have {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons in}} which can be used for specifying when a file will be suitable for Commons; that is, when it will be in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country. However, there does not seem to be a template for marking when a file will become {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, if this happens before the file becomes PD-source. You can use parser functions to make the file information page update automatically when the file enters the public domain in the United States, and the parser functions can be substituted so that the file information page is cleaned up after the file becomes {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. However, this seems unnecessary complicated, and users could be confused by the parser functions if they are around for a long time. Would it be possible to create a template for indicating the year when the file will become {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, so that we keep track of when to re-tag files? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    A future date displays:
    Public licenseThis image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1930. Other jurisdictions have other rules. Also note that this image may not be in the public domain in the 9th Circuit if it was first published on or after July 1, 1909 in noncompliance with US formalities, unless the author is known to have died in 1954 or earlier (more than 70 years ago) or the work was created in 1904 or earlier (more than 120 years ago.)

    PD-US Public domain in the United States //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions

    This file will not be in the public domain in both its home country and the United States until January 1, 2027 and should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons until that date, as Commons requires that images be free in the source country and in the United States.
    An older date displays:
    Public licenseThis image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1930. Other jurisdictions have other rules. Also note that this image may not be in the public domain in the 9th Circuit if it was first published on or after July 1, 1909 in noncompliance with US formalities, unless the author is known to have died in 1954 or earlier (more than 70 years ago) or the work was created in 1904 or earlier (more than 120 years ago.)

    PD-US Public domain in the United States //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions

    This image was uploaded when it was in copyright in its home country. However, it is now believed the image fell out of copyright on January 1, 2024. Please confirm the details, and if it seems correct, move this image to Wikimedia Commons.
    Copy to CommonsThis file is a candidate to be copied to Wikimedia Commons.

    Any user may perform this transfer; refer to Misplaced Pages:Moving files to Commons for details.

    If this file has problems with attribution, copyright, or is otherwise ineligible for Commons, then remove this tag and DO NOT transfer it; repeat violators may be blocked from editing.

    Other Instructions
    • Endorse this file for transfer by adding |human=<your username> to this Template.
    • If this file is freely licensed, but otherwise unsuitable for Commons (e.g. out of Commons' scope, still copyrighted in the US), then replace this Template with {{Do not move to Commons|reason=<Why it can't be moved>}}
    • If you think that a local copy of this file should be retained, then replace this Template with {{Keep local|reason=<Why a local copy is needed>}}
    • Please ensure that the file has a properly descriptive and unambiguous name before transferring; see Misplaced Pages:File mover#What files should be renamed? for details.
    -- GreenC 17:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's for expiry in the source country. There is currently no template which can be added to non-free files which will become {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} in a year or two, so it's hard to track which files to re-tag in the future. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    For example, on 1 January 2028, someone will have to re-tag File:Csvd1932.jpg from fair use to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Who will remember to do this without a template for tracking this? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    There could be a page or a category tracking this, like we have on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think that would be very useful. I find many files like this:
    1. An unsigned film poster or book cover, but sometimes the art style is recognisable, so an art expert might have named the artist somewhere so it's not really safe to assume that it's anonymous, or
    2. An unsigned book cover, but the name of the artist might appear on the title page or in the colophon, which I don't have access to, or
    3. There's a signature, but due to WP:NFCC#3b, I can't read it, or
    4. I find a name but no death year, or
    5. I find a death year but it's PD-US a decade before it's PD-source.
    If it was published in the 1920s, I just re-tag with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, if possible with the correct year. If it was published in the 1930s, there would ideally be a way to keep track of the file so that it can be retagged in a few years. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    Threshold of originality of a translation?

    Does the difference between Que ceux qui s'opposent à cette liste lèvent les mains ! ..... Qui donc se déclare "contre" cette liste ? and All those who oppose this list raise their hands! ... Now, who says "no" to this list? meet the threshold of originality? That is, should File:Bolshevik elections in Tintin.JPG be tagged with {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2054}} or with {{subst:rfu}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Copyright for Franz Eher Nachfolger postcards

    I have a concern with two images I've just uploaded of Franz Eher postcards, here (which I added to Nuremberg Laws) and here. I placed the U.S. Alien Property Custodian public domain note on them, but their copyright in Germany is not clear to me. Is it correct for these images to be hosted on Wikimedia, or should they be hosted locally on English Misplaced Pages? If so, can they simply be moved to the English wiki, or must they be re-uploaded? Indefatigable2 21:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hi Indefatigable2. Since the files were uploaded to Commons, you're probably better off asking about them at c:COM:VPC. Commons and Misplaced Pages are separate projects with their own communites, policies, guidelines, etc. Even though there's lots of overlapping when it comes to image licensing, there's also some differences, and the two communities don't always see the same thing the same way. If Commons can't host the files, then whether they can be hosted locally here on Misplaced Pages most likely depends on the reason why can't host them. Commons requires the content it hosts to be acceptably licensed per both US copyright law and the country of first publication's copyright law; in some cases, content which is considered to be PD under US copyright law can be hosted locally even if it's not OK for Commons because Misplaced Pages is only really concerned with US copyright law. Misplaced Pages also allows content to be uploaded as non-free when it satisfies Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy, which is something Commons doesn't allow at all. As for the other part of your question, I don't believe there's a way to "move" files from Commons to Misplaced Pages, and that the files in question would need to be reuploaded locally to Misplaced Pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Appreciate the info. Indefatigable2 00:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have nominated both files for deletion on Commons. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Richard Klein. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    St Paul's Survives

    This photo on St Paul's Cathedral is a fair use upload. The photo on Commons that's used in St Paul's Survives is licensed as public domain. Does the PD licensing also apply to the U.S.? I was thinking about nominating it for FP, but obviously I won't if it's considered fair use here. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air Raid Damage in Britain during the Second World War HU36220.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah ok, thanks. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    File:Shaxian Snacks Restaurant Tomas Mapua Santa Cruz Manila parkB.jpg

    There's no reason to not believe the own work claim made by Valenzuela400 for File:Shaxian Snacks Restaurant Tomas Mapua Santa Cruz Manila parkB.jpg, but the photo could have issues per c:COM:FOP Philippines and c:COM:TOO Philippines because there's no freedom of panorama for buildings built on or after November 14, 1972, in the Philippines, and the sign/logo shown in the photo could be above the threshold of originality of the Philippines. Given that the file is uploaded locally to (English) Misplaced Pages, the first issue probably can be resolved by adding a {{FoP-USonly}} license to the file's page for the building since there's freedom of panorama for buildings under US copyright law. One could debate whether the building is actually eligible for copyright protection since it appears to be fairly utilitarian in design, but "FoP-USonly" would still work even if the building's design is protected under Philippine copyright law. The logo, however, is where things get a bit murky; the US seems to have a lower threshold of originality than the Philippines; so, the license {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} could work for the logo if it's deemed below the US threshold; if not, however, and "de minimis" isn't being claimed for the logo (which doesn't seem to be the case since it seems to be the focus of the photo), then the logo would need to be treated as non-free, with a non-free use rationale and non-free copyright license needing to be added to file's page. Given that the file isn't currently being used in any articles, treating the logo as non-free means the file would fail non-free content use criterion #7 and subject to speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5. Any opinions on whether this logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hello Marchjuly, first allow me to congratulate you as patroller; the subject photo was taken by me when an actor possibly bought food thereat and speedily rode the vehicle; sad that I could not take her pic; hence at least I got a pic of her vehicle, and note that the area is no parking and towing place, her vehicle may have issues on these 2 matters, and Tomas Mapua street is so long, for which reason I uploaded the entire photo; I agree with you that the pics is contentious on the angles you mentioned; for this reason I uploaded another, so that in time, I may know who that actress was who regularly buy this food; therefore, I have no objection to the deletion, and you may tag it speedy deletion, thank you and very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC).

    Building constructions in the Philippines and the United States

    Building constructions in the Philippines and the United States - I have in the past few days uploaded some of my own photos taken of buildings and structures under construction and located in the Philippines, particularly 7 pics in Construction of Members Church of God International Hospital. Before I transferred some to Commons, I examined these Construction of the dome structure of the The Galeón, Construction of The Skysuites Tower as of July 27, 2016, Building construction in the United States 190 photos and 25 subcategories. In addition, I have uploaded 3 photos at Misplaced Pages, having in mind the above query; :::@Marchjuly: Finding them fitting and OK, may I ask you opinion if these building under construction are correctly transferred to Commons, thank you and very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC).

    There is freedom of panorama (FOP) for buildings and other inhabitable structures located in the US under US copyright law, but other countries can and often do things differently. The Philippines, for examples, does allow freedom of panorama for buildings under its copyright law but only for buildings constructed prior to November 14, 1972; so, any photos of a building built after that date might be considered to be an infringement on the rights of the building's designer or whoever is considered to be the copyright holder of the building's design. Of course, I guess it's possible that in some cases a building's design might be so simple that it's considered utilitarian or otherwise absent of any elements which might be considered creative enough to merit copyright protection, and this kind of rationale could apply to a building while its being built until it starts to get close to its completed state where it actually starts looking like its going to look upon completion. FWIW, this is not really an issue under US copyright law, but I'm not sure how countries with FOP practices more restrictive than the US deal with such things. One other thing to remember is that any signs or advertisements affixed to a building could in and of themselves be eligible for copyright protection separate from the building itself, particularly if not a permanent feature of the building that was part of the original structure; so, for example, a side wall of a building would, in principle, be ineligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, but a mural painted on that wall or an advertising poster papering the wall could be eligible for protection if certain conditions are met. Other countries might treat things differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions: Difference between revisions Add topic