This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Category:Free emulation software Copyright and PD issues in 74 categories.
In files in the free emulation software category,
In 74 categories from A to Z,
Some files contain copyrights and PDs.
Copyright without the owner's permission and files with PD's permission
It's being left unattended.
The files are in Korean wikipedia, Japanese wikipedia, English wikipedia, Chinese wikipedia, German wikipedia, Russian wikipedia, French wikipedia, and Italian wikipedia.
In numerous documents, uploaded public files are being used without copyright discussion.
Here
Free emulation software (Category)
SubcategoriesThis category has the following 74 subcategories, out of 74 total.
Free emulation software has 74 categories.
Duckstation, Joiplay, Redream, etc. that have been confirmed to be deleted.
Three needs to be deleted along with the category.
I think we need to consider whether to preserve or delete the remaining categories left empty.
Among these categories, it is important to check whether the uploaded files have copyrights and PDs.
There are dozens of files that need to be deleted and left unattended.
From 1964 (emulator) to ZSNES, we'll investigate everything in alphabetical order (A to Z)
All copyrighted and PD files must be deleted.
Out of the 74 categories,
Copyright and PD files without the owner's permission may be uploaded countless times.
End users should be prevented from uploading it.
Weki Media has copyrighted and strongly denied PDs.
If there's no way to solve this problem, Weki Media's public use will be damaged.
This user has posted the same message on both this board and the Village Pump. To avoid splitting the discussion, I'd advise continuing the discussion at the Village Pump (as it is a mixture of issues including copyright and management of categories). I will mark this section as resolved. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
artworks in the United Nations Headquarter
Key 1: COM:FOP US is for buildings only, not for any other permanently placed works;
The United Nations Headquarters is subject to United States federal, state and local law. It was part of the United Nations Headquarters agreement of 26 June 1947. In return for receiving the protection of the US police and fire service (and probably receiving other benefits from the host country) they accepted the application of US law to the site. Article 3, Section 7(b), "Except as otherwise provided in this agreement or in the General Convention, the federal, state and local law of the United States shall apply within the headquarters district."
On COM:Forum, the question arose whether the terms of use for the website of the official Hungarian football association are compatible with Commons. https://en.mlsz.hu/imprint states that "Articles, photos and videos on this site may be used free of charge, with the reference to the source." If this does include derivative works and commercial reuse, it would be a {{Attribution only license}}. So how do we usually interpret the "use" in such permissions? @Grin and Regasterios: Maybe the original Hungarian imprint is a bit more specific? De728631 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
At least in post-USSR countries copyrights laws by default allow only quoting. So use must be explicitly defined and existing well-know licenses are good on that. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
In the Hungarian text they use the same word: felhasználás. This word is specifically defined by the Copyright law, and means any and all possible use, including multiplication, publishing, displaying, performing, providing access to, creating derivative works and commercial exploitaion[1].
So this permission is basically the Attribution license you have quoted. (Also, Hungary never have been "USSR country", it only had Soviet oppression, or "so called socialism". Our copyright law however dates back before the occupation and has been generally in par with the WIPO decrees.)
I also suggest to make a screenshot (or direct quote and date) of the permission. Just sayin', just in case. grin✎11:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
For PD-old-assumed, you will need to wait a few more years. However, I have seen some unverified information online that a photographer named Louis Aimé Maxime Galibert was born in 1865 and died in 1945. Barring the complication of French law about extensions due to the World Wars, this would have become PD in 1995 (life+50) but may have been caught by the extension in 1995 to life+70, so would have become PD in 2015. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The 120 years used in PD-old-assumed is basically 70 + 50 years after the creation of the work. There is a certain tail risk which the community has considered acceptable, i.e. the chance that a creator lived for more than 50 years after creating a work. We currently have no consensus-supported assumption on maximum lifespan (i.e. the risk of them living longer than X is considered reasonable), but we should develop one. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠22:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Henrichsen
See Category:Henrichsen.
Another issue with a photographer. I can't read Norwegian, but if he is Svend Jørstad Henrichsen, which is quite probable, we can't keep these images. Comments? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Norwegian Copyright Act seems to make a distinction between between work of art ("fotografiske verk") and other photos ("fotografiske bilder"), see Copyright_rules_by_territory/Norway. If the photos by Henrichsen would be "fotografiske bilder", the term ended 25 years after creation. In any case: Svend Henrichsen died in 1952, so if deleted: undelete in 2023. Vysotsky (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Is this in the public domain?
If a photograph was created in 1848 or earlier in the US but was first published in 1936 (in a book by someone other than its creator), has it entered the public domain yet, or will it enter the public domain only when the book in which it was published does? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The en:Copyright Act of 1909 would have applied at the time the book was published. According to that article and [1], unpublished works were covered by state copyright laws and only gained federal copyright protection upon being published with a proper notice or registered with the Copyright Office. This Senate study talks about the status of unpublished works circa 1961. clpo13(talk)20:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
All this to say that if the photograph was never published or registered before that book was published, it would not have become public domain by that time and would have needed permission, as KoH notes. Unpublished works in the US didn't gain a fixed term of copyright protection until the en:Copyright Act of 1976 took effect. clpo13(talk)20:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
If it was published in 1936 with the permission of the copyright holder, then it is considered a 1936 work and does not expire until 95 years after publication. If it was published without authorization, then under the law it was never published at all, and it is {{PD-US-unpublished}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠20:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
(ec) If the 1936 publication is the first time it was published (with authorization from the copyright holder as you mention), then that is the start of the U.S. copyright term -- but it would have also needed to be renewed in 1963 or 1964, if it was a U.S. publication. If the book was renewed, it's still under copyright until 2032. If not, it's {{PD-US-not renewed}}. And I'm not completely sure if the book renewal would cover the photograph, if the copyright owners were different. If the photograph was generally distributed prior to that (how did the 1936 book author get access to it?) then it was published earlier. (And yes, if never published with permission, it's now PD.) It's rather unlikely an 1848 photo is still under copyright, though it's theoretically possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
What was the term for unpublished works in 1936? If that term is shorter than 88 years, that picture was in the public domain before being published. Does the publication create a new copyright? In French law, it does, but for 25 years only. Yann (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
At the time, an unpublished work was subject to common-law copyright in the U.S., which was in theory indefinite (inherited from UK law). That law is per-state, based on judicial precedent, with unclear protections. The act of general publication terminated common law copyright, and started the statutory protections in the federal copyright law. If you published with notice, you got 28 years of copyright, after which you could then renew for (what eventually became) a total of 95 years. If you published without notice, it became PD immediately. You could not claim damages under the federal law until you published, or at least registered with the U.S. Copyright Office (which would also end common law copyright, and start the 28 year clock of federal protection). So if you managed to keep something private in a family for decades, it might possibly still have copyright. But if someone else got a copy, you'd have to explain how that copy existed without being published, which is probably hard. Most likely, it was PD before 1936. The concept of common law copyright was mostly eradicated in 1978, after which works are automatically under protection of the federal law. The last vestige was sound recordings, where common-law copyright is now being sunsetted after a recent law change (commercial music recordings had strong common-law precedents which record companies were reluctant to give up I'm guessing). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@廣九直通車 Section (13) gives SSO users permission to reproduce legislation, but this permission does not seem to extend to non-users, and is revocable by section (14). :(
@Brianjd: Thanks, but are the terms in that part of COM:Singapore really relevant? I think a number of the definitions are relatively trivial and may be removed? Examples include those related to "Broadcast", "Cable programme" or "Television broadcast" — most of them can be understand with common sense.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
@廣九直通車 Maybe, maybe not: I don't know how previous discussions of Singapore copyright issues turned out. I know that the definitions were included in the original revision of this page, by Aymatth2; perhaps they would like to comment. Brianjd (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure about this.
In general, all governments allow their laws to be freely copied and published, for obvious reasons of natural justice. I would have assumed that applied in Singapore when I started the page.
It is very hard to imagine the government of Singapore suing Wikimedia for violating copyright by publishing excerpts of their copyright law to educate Wikimedia contributors.
The copyright laws of Singapore apply to original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, sound recordings and cinematograph films, television broadcasts and sound broadcasts. "Literary work" is not defined. It is not obvious that a law would count as an original literary work.
The definitions may help to speed resolution of disputes. For example, a map is a drawing, and a drawing is an artistic work whether the work is of artistic quality or not, so a map is an artistic work and is subject to copyright. That might not be obvious without the definition.
That said, the definitions are easily accessible by following the link to the WIPO database. I would not object to their being deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
His profile at behance.net says he has released some works under Creative Commons licences, but there is no indication that the files uploaded here are included or which specific CC licence he uses for each work. It is possible that he uses CC NC licences, which would preclude them from retention here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't see a renewal for the original 1951 book. Several of Hamilton's books were renewed but not that one. No idea about the status of the recording itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The Office of the Ombudsman of Solomon Islands (OOSI) has the following copyright policy:
This website is maintained by the Office of the Ombudsman of Solomon Islands (OOSI).
The Solomon Islands Government (SIG) owns the copyright in all SIG materials published by OOSI on this website.
OOSI materials published on this website may be copied, downloaded, shared or printed for one’s own use, or any other use permitted under the Copyright Act, so long as the source is acknowledged.
Third party copyright regarding non-OOSI material presented on this website remains with the third party hence their permission may be required to use the material.
Hi Joofjoof. I think the key part of that statement any other use permitted under the Copyright Act since the license would seem to be clearly too restrictive for Commons if it was limited to one's own use. So, I guess it depends on the exact wording of the Copyright Act and exactly what type of work you want to upload per COM:Solomon Islands. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
"any other use permitted under the Copyright Act" sure sounds like it is limited to fair use. Which is probably pretty wide for that material, but not "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
No, it is a generalisation that may apply in some countries but not others. Until about 15 years ago, UK legislation was released under Crown Copyright and was printed in physical books. Readers had to buy the printed copies or access them in libraries (whether through taxes or sales of the books, the government has to cover the cost of printing). In the UK the development of the internet has allowed the majority of legislation to be published online, which can be accessed for free. It is still subject to Crown Copyright but is usually available under the UK's Open Government Licence (OGL). That is the situation in just one country. There may be many others that have yet to make their legislation accessible for free. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it applies in most countries, but agree that each country has its own laws. I imagine that some repressive regimes make and enforce laws that they do not publish at all. See Commons:Unprotected works for an incomplete country-by-country list. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that in the US, inaccessible legislation would not be due process under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and thus would not be enforceable. I also think that it is a basic human right to have access to legislation that affects us. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me15:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Some US legislation incorporates other material by reference, but that material isn't freely accessible. That material might be from a third party, who only provides access at a high cost. Various independent code-setting organizations come to mind, though some are now providing free access to individuals. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
In the US, edicts of government aren't copyrightable; see w:Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. I know of no ruling as to foreign laws, but the Copyright Office won't register for copyright any government's laws, foreign or domestic. So Singapore would have an uphill battle suing in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a very important side issue here if we are talking about storing legislative documents on Commons. Every country I am aware of has a right for people to access legislation, though not necessarily for free. However, even for countries that allow "free" access, the terms of access may not be compatible with our licensing policies for files. For example, a government may release legislation under a non-commercial licence to prevent someone from trying to resell the "free" legislation. While we could argue that all legislation in the world meets PD terms in the US, do we set aside normal Commons policy of ensuring suitable terms are available in both the country of origin and the US? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I think fair use text is something we've always de facto allowed in the Commons namespace, even if there is no explicit policy on it. We have quoted from several opinions from legal scholars, for instance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠00:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
Obviously, Commons take copyright very seriously in files, and it seems reasonable to expect Commons to take copyright just as seriously in text, noting that text actually has stricter rules about how it must be licensed. And if we somehow decide we want to allow "fair use" in text, we need to make that clear. Brianjd (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Again, it's not fair use in the US; it's public domain. I don't see why the rules for the files we export to other projects should be the same as the rules for our internal documents.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
It is PD in the US regardless of source country, and likely falls under fair use / fair dealing elsewhere, even if the copying is technically protected by a country, since we give it a context. We disallow fair use in the File space because there is no context for its use, thus it's much harder to show fair use, but it's plenty reasonable to rely on it in Commons space. As does Wikipedia, in their articles, which are also "free". A great many countries explicitly allow the copying of laws, and many of the ones who technically do protect it have since made CC-BY compatible licenses for them, and they typically have fair use / fair dealing sections in their law as well. This is far from something I'd be worrying about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
License tag for File:Noether.jpg
I am not very familiar with Commons license tags. A while ago I updated the license tags of File:Noether.jpg in this Diff. The image has gone through a DR review Here. Are there better license tags for this image, or are the current tags sufficient? Thank you in advance. Bammesk (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
A user Coldstreamer20 has uploaded a file "Royal Regiment of Scotland Badge.jpg" here on Commons and placed it on the Wikipedia page at en:Royal Regiment of Scotland, replacing (and hence orphaning) a "fair-use" image I had uploaded to English Wikipedia for that page. My understanding is that the OGL v1.0 license specifically does not apply to military insignia. Please advise, before the bots automatically delete my own version. I presume that the correct action is for an admin to delete Coldstreamers20's upload here on Commons as a copyvio. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
(Further information) The MODs webpage on licensing insignia suggests that insignia can be licensed, for payment, to be used on merchandise. My interpretation of that is that they would never allow particular insignia such as this cap-badge to be made available royalty-free through Commons. The uploaded file in question linked here states that the source was "Ministry of Defence, Defence Brand Portal", which is not a generally-accessible website but one where an account must be created at this login page and where, presumably, those who wish to purchase a license can do so. Coldstreamer20 has uploaded a large number of files with the same source/licensing, so these all need to be reviewed. They can mainly be found at Category:British Army Cap Badges, uploaded on 3 December. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I’m not sure about the copyright status of File:76933124 mayall.jpg per COM:FOP UK since it appears to be a graphic work of art and there is no freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works of art in the UK. The file was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:76933124 mayall.jpg back in 2016 and it was kept, but there wasn’t any real discussion and I’m not sure the close was correct. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something here which is why I’m interested in what others may think. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to re-nominate. I should probably have closed that DR as either delete or stale because the deletion rational provided at that time is insufficient. Natuur12 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Meanwhile all the affected files were speedily deleted. My question is: How does the mentioned pemission as licensed by the typeface creator agrees with the copyright doctrine behind {{PD-font}}? Should it be ignored in the sameway we ignore, say, some library’s copyright claims over PD-old 2D documents they scanned, and therefore should all these images of individual letters be undeleted? (@Person or Persons Unknown and Mercury: pinging.)
The speedy deletion was clearly incorrect IMO, as COM:CSD#F1 states: "This does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality." Whether or not it is actually below TOO does not matter, only that it is plausible to make such an argument. Borderline cases should go to DR.
However, if the SVGs were created by Person or Persons Unknown based on Robert Pfeffer's design, then it is probably OK. Per w:Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts and typefaces, a typeface as such is not copyrightable; it is when it is turned into a computer program that it becomes copyrightable.
He ripped SVGs from Unicode tables, and standard Unicode terms for fonts are: Consortium can install the font on any number of computers and do whatever they want, but being a member does not imply a license to font. This is not the first time what User:Person or Persons Unknown gets caught on wrong licensing. --Mercury (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Mercury (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, that information is necessary, but it means that this file may not have been published until recently, which would be a problem. In that case, copyright in USA runs for 95 years after publication. Best would be to contact this Archives Larbor, and ask for the publication history. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
To whom belong the rights of this bas relief's pic?
Hello guys. Am I right assuming that the rights of this are belong to the 14th-century Flemish artist who made the bas relief (kept indoor at the Schepenhuis of Mechelen) and not to the photographer who took this frontal picture? There is no creativity to this picture. As for a painting, you can only take a skewed picture (where you'll lack parts) of a bas relief or a frontal one, and this, fortunately for us, happens to be a good, frontal picture. It's different from, say, a 3D sculpture held in a public place, where not only you have many angles to evaluate but you also have to consider the weather.
To put it another way, if the author of the bas-relief was still alive or had recently died, I'd have way more qualms releasing such a picture of such a work in the public domain if the photographer had released it under a shareAlike 4.0 or it was me.
Bas reliefs are in-between 2D and 3D works, and I don't know whether there is a specific law addressing them in this respect. If there isn't, as per what explained, I would release this picture in the public domain.
Well, we consider that a photograph of a coin has a specific copyright, and there is a lot more relief here, than on a coin. Yann (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Well if by coins you mean money issued by a central bank maybe that's another matter. But if by coin you mean a medallion such as this, then same applies there imo, which is way the coin by Frumiere I linked is in the public domain. As for the amount of relief, that's not a sound argument imo. A relief is a relief.--Cassius Fury (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Category:Murals in Pittsburgh
I came across Category:Murals in Pittsburgh which has images of murals on buildings. Are these considered paintings (2D art in a public space) or are the considered part of the building? If the former, then these would potentially be a problem as the USA does not have freedom of panorama for paintings. -- Whpq (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
In general, US murals are not allowed. In the following cases they may be allowed:
If it is intended to be a photo of the building or overall surroundings which just happens to have a mural on it (COM:DM).
If the mural was installed in a public place before 1978 with no copyright notice (COM:PACUSA).
If the mural was painted illegally (COM:GRAFFITI). This one is controversial but based on actual DR case history, graffiti is de facto allowed on Commons and slapped with a {{Non-free graffiti}} if there is no suitable FoP provision.
AFAIK in my own country called Iran we didn't sign any international copyright agreements
But in local law we have some rules for protection of authors
So can I upload every Iranian work, or not?
If so, How to upload them? Which license I should choose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiria703 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Update: Based on this: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf
Iran and Iraq doesn't have any copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiria703 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm seeking help on how to determine if a logo is original enough to be considered copyrighted and, therefore, no suitable to be uploaded here. What should I look when assessing a trademark/logo? See those two examples (here and here), are they original enough to warrant copyright protection or not? Thanks. Kacamata!Dimmi!!!04:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kacamata. I believe it basically is going to come down to Commons:Threshold of originality and whether the logo is going to be considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in both the United States and its en:country of origin. Since Commons is a "global site", a logo file needs to be within the public domain in both the United States and its country of origin for Commons to keep it. Sometimes in the case of simple text-only logos (even colored text-only logos), it can be easy to assess because such things are generally not considered to be creative enough to be eligible for copyright protection on their own merit; however, different countries often have quite different threshold's of originality which can complicate things greatly when it comes to more complex logos with lots of different elements. For the two files you're asking about, I think File:AGrandeVerdadeLogo.jpg is going to be considered {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States and also probably per COM:TOO Portugal. As for File:CuritibaSocialMix.jpg, this one isn't so clear. It might be a bit of a close call in the US given that it's a bit more than a simple text logo, but I'm not sure at all about Portugal. Often there's no definitive way to no for sure without specific court cases or other examples to use for reference and there's not really any such examples provided on Commons for logos and Portuguese copyright law. I think those two files are, however, likely incorrectly licensed since it's doubtful that they are the "own work" of the uploader. Sometimes such a thing can be fixed by simply changing the license to a more appropriate, but other times the COM:CONSENT of the copyright holder is needed for the file to be kept.Finally, trademark and copyright aren't really the same thing and Commons is more concerned with the copyright status of a logo than its trademark status. Commons hosts lots of files of trademarked logos that are deemed to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
It feels like policy in this area is slightly incongruous with general policies and their implementation. If I were to upload the A Grande Verdade Logo but tagged it as an artwork I photographed at a gallery, I suspect it would be deleted rather fast on copyright reasons, and appeals to Commons:Threshold of originality would have little chance of success. Case in point: The Deutsche Bank logo for which dozens of stories like this can be found on how original and iconic it was/is. This leniency shown within the domain of corporate logos seems to mostly compensate for a different flaw, namely that copyright in logos is largely ignored in outside of commons, with tacit approval by the organizations in questions who tend appreciate press coverage. --Karl Oblique (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The policy is to follow copyright law. Some countries do not like trademark and copyright to overlap, so they might have a higher threshold for trademark-area works (Germany used to, but some more recent rulings have gone the other way). The U.S. does not care; the two rights can overlap if they both apply per the law -- the fact that something is trademarkable or not has no bearing on its copyright (and vice versa). It can be a difficult area, given that we don't have a lot of court decisions for many countries, so we are mostly just guessing in those situations. The U.S. has a few examples though, and the U.S. Copyright Office publishes their review board decisions when copyrightable-or-not decisions reach their highest appeal level, so there is a pretty constant stream where if you read enough of them, you can get a feel for things. But it's not easy. For one example, the wrapped Reichstag building I think was deemed copyrightable in Germany, but not the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
As for the two mentioned here, agreed that File:AGrandeVerdadeLogo.jpg is fine (even if photographed in a museum) and File:CuritibaSocialMix.jpg is dicier. The wording is fine, but the jumble of circles and lines (while being made up of uncopyrightable elements) could well qualify for a selection and arrangement copyright; there are a number of elements there. I'd probably guess that was above the U.S. line. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
For example: File:Rudyard Kipling.jpg is dated to 1914 or earlier in the file description, but the public domain tag claims the photograph were published before 1896, which is quite certainly not true. When I tried to correct this, I saw that the Template:PD-anon-1923 is used, so one would expect that the tag should state published before 1923, or maybe before 1926 due to the redirect, but for some reason unclear to me it does not. --Megalogastor (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be the combination of PD-art and PD-anon-expired that for some reason triggers a weird behaviour of the "anon" template. De728631 (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. It was a bug in PD-anon-expired itself, not handling an empty argument the same as a missing argument (PD-Art will pass an empty argument, which if present is the publication year). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
images from the Columbus Metropolitan Library digital collection
A few files from the collection are marked as non-free on the English Wikipedia. I checked the sources, and they all say the image is free of copyright restrictions in the United States. However, they don't indicate why that is the case. For example, en:File:First Wendy's.jpg was taken in 2007 and certainly too recent to be in public domain.
But what I did find is that the contribution guide says that donated images must be in public domain unless the copyright holder signs a release form. The only issue is that the link to the form goes to a 404 error and says nothing about free licenses. I checked the Wayback Machine, but it seems the form was not archived.
Yes, I think so, if they are marked with that statement. The only issue would be if they own a foreign artwork, and have a picture of it -- we would need to look whether the artwork was still under copyright in its country of origin. The release form I think is now here, and that does indicate that the donors transfer all copyright to the library, so if the library says they are PD, that is a form of {{PD-author}}. But easiest would be to use that CML specific template. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
en:File:Villa Khuner, Eastern façade, Kreutzberg, Semmering, Austria in 1930.jpeg was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, but it was pointed out during a discussion about it's non-free use that it might actually be PD given that it seems to have been first published in 1931 and the photographer who took the photo died in 1944. If the photo is PD in the US but not in Austria, then I realize that would mean Commons can't host it; in such a case, though, it would probably be OK to convert the file to en:Template:PD-URAA or something similar for local use on English Wikipedia. Another photo from the same publication taken by the same photographer has already been deleted as orphaned non-free use, but it could be restored if it too is PD. Finally, a number of other photos were discussed in the same discussion and if any of these stand out as having a pretty good chance of being PD, then please feel free to comment on them as well. It would be a big help if those which absolutely need to remain non-free can be seperated from those which might possibly be converted to some form of PD, even if they would only be PD in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe so, due to historical copyright laws -- see Template:PD-Austria-1932. In the 1936 law, all photos in Austria had a 20 year from making-available-to-public term (and 20 years from creation if not made available/published in that time). The 1953 amendment changed photographic works to the full 50pma (and I think left "simple photos" at the older terms), and also added a 7-year wartime extension, but it was non-retroactive it appears -- so photos published 1932 and before remained PD it would seem. The 1972 amendment changed to 70pma (which would include all 1933+ photographic works), and simple photos to 30 years from publication, but it again was not retroactive. Austria did apply the EU directive to make 70pma retroactive (thus making that tag invalid for Austria, and why it was disallowed here), but only in April 1996, a short time after the URAA date. That also increased simple photo protection from 30 to 50 years. So on the URAA date itself, I think the situation explained on that deprecated tag was still in force, and photos published 1932 and before remained PD in the US I think. The photo would have been restored in Austria of course in April 1996, but since the author died in 1944, it would have expired there again in 2015. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I received a ping on this; I will just say, the initial statement seems sensible to me, but I do not have any special insight into URAA etc., so I'm not sure there's much I can add to the discussion. -2601:1C2:200:42D:65A0:8CB1:2898:9DE3
For the URAA, the question would be what was the copyright status in Austria on January 1, 1996. If it was under copyright in Austria, then the U.S. copyright got restored and they are not OK here for a few more years. If they were PD in Austria on that date, the URAA had no effect. The only slight question to me might be in that 1953 law, if they included the 7-year extension to photos that would have otherwise already expired. But it sure looks like they did not give that extension to anything which had expired by the older law as of July 1953 (i.e. at the end of their copyright life at the time), so the 1931 photos in question remained PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
If it is life of author + 70 years (1944+70=2014), then it should be PD. Lindberg's assessment seems most accurate. Buffs (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Works from regions that change countries
When a region goes from being controlled by one country to being controlled by another (e.g. Silesia between Germany and Poland), how does the change in copyright law affect existing works? For example, if a photograph was taken when the region was controlled by Germany, would German law still apply to these works today? Or would the current Polish law apply because the region is now part of Poland? IronGargoyle (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Each of the affected countries will probably apply its own copyright laws to the works in question. So the more pertinent question for Wikimedia Commons is: Which country do we consider to be the source country of the work as mentioned in Commons:Licensing? I'd say the country that existed there at the time the work was created (the photograph was taken). Another, slightly different example (not from a region that changed countries): A photo is taken in New Zealand by a UK citizen, then published in New Zealand (in a book). Do we apply UK law (life + 70 years) or NZ law (life + 50 years)? Here, the country of (original) publication is an additional factor, and that might also be the case for works from the German/Polish regions. --Rosenzweigτ10:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
In your example, the nationality or residence of the author doesn't matter. It is always the place of publication which does. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I just uploaded this image on Commons and I have a few questions. First, is it old enough (1902) for the public domain, considering I have only the editor name, not the author? If so, what would be the appropriate template? Also, I'm using "Esquimaux" (rather than Inuit) to respect the original title. Is there a preference or a particular rule in Commons regarding this kind of issue? Any other comments will be appreciated regarding the best way to describe such pictures. --Cephas (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Cephas: The language to use in the file name is up to the uploader; Commons is agnostic on the choice. I'd recommend adding Inuit, if you can, in the description, out of respect. –LPfi (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Can I upload a photo from a U.S. Government publication?
Hello,
I am creating a Wikipedia page for the Moyaone Reserve, a community on the U.S. Register of National Historic Places. Given that designation, several books written about the community, several newspaper and magazine articles written about the community and it's architecture, and some academic work about the community as a model of historic and nature preservation, I am not too worried about notability.
As you can see from the URLs, these are on a U.S. Government website, so I am imagining in the public domain. You can also see a PDF of a publication that clearly indicates it was a National Park Service publication, had a National Park Service address, etc. Example: http://npshistory.com/newsletters/crm/journal-v3n2.pdf
Images appearing in US government works should not be automatically assumed to be created by the US government. That said:
https://www.nps.gov/CRMJournal/winter2008/images/article3A.jpg is a pre-1978 advertisement with no copyright notice, so it can be uploaded as {{PD-US-no notice}}. (Note that whether or not The Washington Post carried a copyright notice is unimportant, as advertisements were considered a separate work and required their own notices.)
https://www.nps.gov/CRMJournal/winter2008/images/article3E.jpg is "Courtesy of the Mount Vernon Ladies Association", so you would have to find the original publication it appeared in to see if it had a copyright notice. If you cannot find it, then per COM:PRP we would not be able to accept this image.
As a special exception to this rule, all images submitted by private individuals to the National Weather Service are public domain unless otherwise noted; see {{PD-NWS}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠18:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
What do we do when ...
What do we do when we find a series of uploads that are exceedingly unlikely to be "own work" or free of copyright when we can't find another copy online through image searches? Do we just ignore it and await a copyright claim from the owners or are we proactive? My example for the questions is this collection which were uploaded over a spread of at least five years: Special:ListFiles/Wilgrim. The user has made no other contributions. I did notice they are listed as cross-wiki. Does that mean Wilgrim might not have uploaded but just transferred? How can we track this if that's the case? --SVTCobra06:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
You can do a batch DR, as mentioned. Obviously, finding pre-existing versions make the case much better -- the most recent two uploads are also at here and here, both of which predate the uploads here, and seem to be official photos from movie sites. So I'd say your instincts are pretty good on these. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks, King and Carl. I will do just that. And thanks for finding them for me. Is it just me or is Google's image search getting worse and worse? I came up with no hits that weren't related to Wikimedia.
But let's say I had no such evidence ... it would be OK to nominate for deletion just on the basis that they look like professional photographers and taken in different countries? THanks, --SVTCobra10:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
re Google image search: it does seem to be worse now. I often need to check pre-existing use of images for a non-Wiki project. Searching with image-links for "example A" often fails to find "example B" and vice versa, where both sites are extensively (fully?) indexed. Davidships (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Upload works of others with written permission
I am sorry, if this matter has been resolved elsewhere. I've been looking around, and I couldn't really find any answer, why I post this now.
I have been granted permission to upload a few photos to Wikimedia Commons that are not my own. But, how do I document this permission, thus avoiding the photo being deleted right away? Do I upload the consent of the copyright holder somewhere, or do I send documentation via e-mail (if so, to what mail address). I want to do this the right way. Please advise :) - Best wishes and happy holidays soon - Cheers, Kmilling (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Al-A'lam is a famous biographical dictionary by Khayr al-Din al-Zirikli (1893 – 1976). In its second edition (1957), He added many photos to his work, not as copyright holder but as collector. Actually, half of those photos currently uploaded in the Commons, under a related PD. I am interested to upload all those photos (after I found it in archive.org), and making a new template to make it regularly, like: "This picture collected by Khayr al-Din al-Zirikli for his work Al-A'lam , It's copyright is unknown, and can be in public domain". But i am concerned about copyright, and other issues.
Being a collector just shows that the photos were (almost certainly) published before that time. Per {{PD-Egypt}}, if they were non-creative photos (which usually means things like snapshots, not studio portraits), they would likely be fine. If that work was the first publication and they are creative photos, they would still be under U.S. copyright. Anything else, you would probably have to show publication before 1946 at least. If before 1926 (and soon 1927), they should be fine. If 1927 or later but before 1946, and anonymous (i.e. no human author was named on the original publication), they are OK. 1946 or later means the U.S. copyright was restored. If you find the photographer name, the U.S. copyright would exist if they lived to 1946 or later (unless of course they were also published before 1927). If that photographer lived to 1971 or later, then they are still under copyright in Egypt too. Anything created more than 120 years ago, if you have no idea about publication or an author, can use {{PD-old-assumed}}. So, you may need to do some research on each photo, unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree, I need to do some research on each photo, but where is country of origin for Al-A'lam? He was Syrian Lebanon-born Egypt-based, and neutralized Saudi Arabian.
I mean something like Template:Getty Center for Al-A'lam. All we know: Zirikli collected portaits from various sources, with unknown author/photographer, he also added some documents (like handwritten, signatures, manuscripts), sometimes he used his personal archive too (still copyrighted if we count Syria as country of origin: fifty years thereafter, he died on 1976). And, He was not first publisher, but todays, because of lack of archive in Arab world, we can trust Al-A'lam as an "Arabic Gettey Image".
So, i am really confused. And hope some helps, because Al-A'lam is only where we can see portraits of notable 20th-century Arabs. Ruwaym (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Country of origin is the country where a work was first published. So it could be different countries for the same author, depending on where he published each work. The book in question sounds like it was published in Cairo, so Egypt is the country of origin for any photos first published in that book (regardless of who the author was). But if they were taken from an older non-Egypt publication, the "country of origin" would then be different, and at that point the URAA calcluation could be different than Egypt (maybe better, maybe worse). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
And yes, the complexity of copyright is awful. No getting around it though, unless you simply want to wait for the 120 years. We have to follow the laws. The Getty tag might also be for works which are still under copyright but they own; if someone has done a serious search and determined that, we may take their judgement (though sometimes only for the country of the institution; if the country of origin is somewhere else that can change things per our own rules). There are lots of work in gray copyright areas; orphan works are a contentious issue and we generally avoid them (since those are under copyright still, usually, you just don't know who to ask for permission). Ones which have very possibly expired, and where we have no provenance at all, are the most frustrating. If any of those photos are from before 1926 (or 1927; we are under a month away from that line changing) they are almost certainly fine. The 1926-1946 ones though are harder. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks like we don't need a specific template for Al-A'lam, and I have to search deeper for every picture printed in Al-A'lam. At least for those who died before 1927, I can be sure that their poritrait are now in the public domain, if the author is unclear. Anyways, thank you @Clindberg: Carl. Ruwaym (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Öffentliches Foto abfotografieren und hochladen erlaubt?
Hallo zusammen !
Ist es erlaubt ein Foto, das im öffentlich Raum zugänglich ist (Z.B von einer Info-Tafel bei einem Naturdenkmal), ab zu fotografieren und hoch zu laden. Gibt der Hersteller des Fotos damit daß es ja jeder sehen kann, das Urheberrecht auf?
Es ist praktisch unmöglich den Urheber von älteren Fotos zu ermitteln...
solange du als Fotograf auf öffentlichem Grund stehst und das abzubildende Foto offenkundig legitimerweise und dauerhaft angebracht ist, darfst du es abfotografieren und nutzen, gemäß der sog. Panoramafreiheit, siehe: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Europe/de#Deutschland. Es empfiehlt sich allerdings auch eine Aufnahme von der "Installation", also z.B. der Infotafel, insgesamt aufzunehmen. --Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Photo of a Brazilian Mayor
I have the photograph of a Brazilian mayor of Ilhéus that was taken in 1945 by an anonymous source, 76 years ago. The problem is that I found this image in a book published in 2011 and it appears again in a prefecture magazine from 2016 with no credit give to the photographer again. Would this image under Brazilian law be under public domain? Lugë Ushqimi (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded some NASA Flickr images (by a NASA photographer or astronaut) and I'd like to have it's licenses confirmed, since is already been a week that I uploaded some of these images. As I understand, it should be something like: {{Flickr-unfree-but|{{tl|PD-NASA}}}}:
What should I do to have uploads from NASA creators to be quickly confirmed in the future? Is all right for the uploader to use the "Flickr unfree but"? Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Erick Soares3, if you upload a NASA Flickr item like these (i.e. inappropriately "copyrighted"), and you're absolutely certain it is NASA produced, then just add the same template I did. Even if it still gets tagged, the situation will be much more obvious to the eventual reviewing admin. — Huntster (t@c)14:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with the copyright status of some of my uploads
Apparently a lot if not all of my pics on fossil animals are being either marked for deletion of copyright infringement or are going to be deleted, can anyone help me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossiladder13 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Fossiladder13: One of the files you have added recently is File:An illustration of dracopristis.jpg, which is marked as being under the copyright of "Spencer Lucas" at [2]. Are you Spencer Lucas or have you received permission from Spencer Lucas to upload their files here? If not, then your upload is a copyright violation and the file will be deleted. If you are Spencer Lucas or you do have permission, there is a process we have where you can submit your evidence of copyright ownership. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Does COM:FOP Belgium include pictures made at the park of Mini-Europe, in Category:Mini-Europe? It appears that Mini-Europe is not a public place in the sense of the Belgium law, but it is a museum, see the website. And some additional questions, are images of public domain buildings in this park also in PD, because the miniature buildings are exact copies of PD works? And how about buildings which are still copyrighted, such as the miniature version of the Centre Georges-Pompidou, the famous building in Paris of which photographs cannot be published here as it is protected per COM:FOP France? This last example (copied from Flickr) was the trigger for my question, because it was designed by Richard Rogers who died yesterday. Ellywa (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I organised the project to get FOP in Belgium, and FOP in Belgium has been based on how it is in the Netherlands. Mini-Europe is not a private space but a public space outside in the open air where people can go to. Mini-Europe is not a museum but an attraction park. Just as other attraction parks the outside environment belongs to the public space and FOP applies. Romaine (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
If the mini-buildings are there with permission of their architects, which I presume they are, then I'd say that Belgian FoP holds for them. So if that is in an area which qualifies for Belgian FoP, I'd say they are OK per our policies. The ability to commercially use such a photo may vary in each country of Europe, but I think it's fine for us. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
FoP is a special exemption to copyright law, and so usual rules around DW don't apply. If an authorized reproduction of a copyrighted building from a non-FoP country is made in an FoP country, then the copied building may be freely reproduced. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠21:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
The licensing of these files indicates that it came from a CC-BY marked YouTube video, however the video is private and cannot be viewed. How can I verify that these files are under the license they claim?
@Newfiebluejay: I have managed to find an archive copy of the YouTube page on the Internet Archive's WayBackMachine, which shows the video was available under a Creative Commons licence. I have added the archive link to the two files. We were lucky here as the WayBackMachine doesn't create records for every video and even when it does, the text about the licence is not always captured. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Adobe Stock free section images
Hello all, hope you're having a great day-
I want to discuss about Adobe Stock. Now, this website have a free images section, and most of them are licenced under their Standard Licence. This licence allows us to-
1) Unlimited web views
2) Use the asset in email marketing, mobile advertising, social media, or a broadcast program*
3) Can modify the asset*
4) Up to 500,000 prints of the asset
However, we are not allowed to-
1) More than 500,000 prints of the asset
2) Asset may be used in merchandise, templates, or other products for resale*
Now, the million dollar question is- Are images in this stock website acceptable for Commons.
Please respond. --Contributers2020Talk to me here03:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The Internet Archive has scans of a particular Canadian newspaper ranging from 1858 to 1947. I'd like to upload at least one of these scans to use in the corresponding Wikipedia article, but it's not clear to me which issues would be considered PD, and what the appropriate license tag would be. COM:CANADA gives the rule "life of the author plus 50 years", but it's not clear how to apply that in this case. The newspaper collects the work of many authors - most articles are not attributed to a named author, but some are. So would it be 50 years plus the life of the last known surviving author? Alternatively, Template:PD-old-assumed says that when the date of an author's death is unknown, date of publication + 120 years is safe to use as a proxy for death + 70. So does that mean date of publication + 100 years is suitable for Canada's rules? (i.e. any Canadian newspaper or other collective work published before 1901 can be considered PD?)
COM:PD also says If the work is anonymous or a collaborative work (e.g. an encyclopedia), it is typically in the public domain 70 years after the date of the first publication. Is that relevant here?
I was able to find a couple previous discussions about copyright of newspapers, but only for other countries:
By the way, here are a few examples of extant files which are scans of non-ancient Canadian newspapers. Most of them just use a generic {{PD-Canada}} license tag, which I'm not convinced is actually appropriate (since in none of these cases has the uploader identified the "author" of the original work and provided evidence of their year of death):
But pre-1926 isn't old enough to satisfy the wording of {{PD-old-assumed}} ("the date of creation of the work was over 120 years ago"), and {{PD-US-1923}} only applies to US copyright, but I thought it was necessary that the item be PD in the US and its country of origin? Colin M (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Right, this should be a combination of {{PD-Canada}} along with {{PD-US-expired}} or {{PD-1996}}, not {{PD-old-assumed}} (though that can be used for pre-1901 newspapers I guess). These works are definitely published, so a lot of the "unknown" goes away. If there is a human author named (on the text), the Canadian term is 50pma, and if not, they are anonymous and it was 50 years from publication. Those would have needed to expire before 1996, of course, which means death or publication before 1946. If we can't find the date of death, that is where the PD-US-assumed might come in. The 120 years was partly based around a 70pma assumption, while Canada is 50pma. It was also partly based on a clause of U.S. copyright law -- but in this case, anything pre-1926 (and soon, 1927) newspaper is guaranteed PD in the US no matter what, so that part is moot. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Also if the Canadian copyright expired before the URAA date (1996?), the document will also be in the public domain in USA. @Clindberg: Can you confirm that? Yann (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Right. This would largely limit things to newspapers published before 1946, but it sounds like that is most of them. Articles by named authors would only be PD if that author died before 1946. On the other hand, all photographs (if author is named or not) would have expired, since those were 50 years from creation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
If the scan includes text or a photograph that was first published outside Canada then the copyright laws of the country of first publication would probably apply. For example, this might affect articles on the coronation on King George VI in London in 1937. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Which was pulled because non-free can't appear on the Main Page. We're having a discussion here about whether the can represents free rather than fair use. We could use input from someone who actually knows what they're talking about, which I don't. Thanks for any help! Valereee (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Or not-so-clear example of a non-derivative photo, in line with the Ets-Hokin decision that a photo of a bottle would not be derivative of the label, unless focusing on the label. In this case, just the artwork around the beans themselves would be copyrightable I think; there isn't a whole lot else. And I'm not sure the photo is focusing on that part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
In summary, it's a 1950s Canadian government technical document, currently shared via a Canadian university.
And in case this is confusion the chain of events that got me here is:
1 - I created this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the_Bancroft_area It includes long quotes from this document because it's very technical stuff and I cannot summarise it.
2 - Someone pointed out that the Wikipedia article relies too heavily on quotes and the tag suggested I use WikiSource
3 - When I asked about that here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help someone said I should share it with Wikimedia commons.
I'm a bit confused.
Heh, yeah. It should be fine to upload here, though you'd be surprised by how old some works need to be.
Longer answer... Wikipedia is for original encyclopedia articles. Using raw, technical wording to describe a concept can be a bad idea -- if there is a way to reword the source material to make it more accessible, that is preferred (but of course all the details and facts must be present in the source material -- you can't editorialize). If most of the article is just a repeat of the source text, then the article isn't adding a lot of value over the original. Wikisource then is a sister project, where the idea is to transcribe primary source documents page by page, so it can be there as a reference (and possibly serve as a translation platform to other language wikisources). You can then provide a link to the Wikisource sections, rather than copying lots of the text. Wikisource in turn prefers that the source PDF or Djvu file with the actual scans be uploaded to Commons, for widest possible use. That of course mean the work has to be public domain in the U.S. and the country of origin -- though English Wikisource at least can host files locally on that project, if they are PD in the US only. In this case thankfully, that document qualifies as {{PD-Canada-Crown}}, so it should be fine to upload on Commons under that tag. What you do with it at that point is up to you -- if your goal is mainly to get that document more widely available, it may make sense to learn Wikisource and get all of the text up (or just the text you are interested in). If your goal is primarily to write that Wikipedia article, you may still need to write some summarizing text, and just use the PDF as the source reference. Uploading the PDF to Commons makes it easier to use no matter how that turns out, so yes upload it here first. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Query about 2D status
During a Wikipedia FAC for the article about the Umayyad caliph Muawiya I (d. 680 AD) the permissibility of this photograph of an ancient inscription, File:Greek Muawiya inscription of Hammat Gader, 663 AD.png, was raised by a reviewer. Another reviewer proposed that it may be considered two-dimensional and presumably permissible. The photo was taken in 1980 under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority, an Israeli government dept. Not being sure, I removed the image pending further clarity. Could this image be considered 2D, and if so, permissible for us to use in the Muawiya article? The article will appear on the Main Page early next month. I was hoping to clarify the status before then. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. —Al Ameer son (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
In the past we have treated low-relief or bas-relief, as two dimensional, especially when the shot is perpendicular to the plane of the object, like we do with coins. --RAN (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Thanks. I believe this image would qualify as low-relief or bas-relief. I will add the image back to the article with the appropriate licensing. If an objection is raised then we could resume discussion. In the meantime, Wesha, I have also made a request to re-draw. Al Ameer son (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
As the Deletion Request starter, my concern is that there is no evidence that the uploader (User talk:Wolnaencyklopedia) is the copyright holder (which is presumably the Pałacu Kultury i Nauki w Warszawie [Poland]) - MPF (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
So "webcam" is a term that has multiple meanings. The case being discussed is more of a security camera, and I think it depends on whether the person who placed it demonstrated creativity; I've seen DRs go either way. Regarding the other form of webcam that people use to broadcast themselves during a videoconference, per meta:Wikilegal/Copyright in Zoom Images the webcam operator does not have copyright because they are not fixing the video in a tangible medium; the person who takes a screenshot holds the sole copyright. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠22:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Australian Power distribution maps
User:Rosettaanalytics has uploaded 17 Australian Power distribution maps (see File:WesternPower Network.png as an example) sourced from https://networkmap.com.au/. Apart from carrying the logo of the provider I don't think their lengthy Terms and Conditions allow such a thing. Additionally, the maps are actually based on Google Maps. I pretty sure, despite their usefulness, these are copyright violations but would like a second opinion please. Should these be nominated for speedy deletion under "Report copyright violation" or should they be tagged as "No permission"? Calistemon (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Their terms and conditions don't matter when they are actually claiming to be the copyright holder (who can do whatever they want with the image), so "No permission" is correct here. The Google Maps COM:DW angle is also important, but that can perhaps be sorted out over COM:VRT or via editing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠15:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks much. I suspected as much. Was hoping that due to the Flickr account being the province's account, there might have been some linkage to a province OGL. But, apparently, not. Thanks for checking. Ktin (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This is one of a number of use cases, but observe a portrait I see on Gov.uk that I would wish to take to commons to use in an article. The page appears licensed to OGL 3.0 unless otherwise stated, and I assume this covers the portrait of am I missing something?
Hi, this user has uploaded a whole bunch of pictures, most of which appear to be derivative work from some unknown source, certainly not "own work". Is there some way to batch process these, or do we have to go through each single one of them individually? --91.34.38.14420:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
There are articles on the monastery in Romanian and Russian Wikipedia at w:ro:Mănăstirea Slătioara and w:ru:Слэтьоарский монастырь. Google translation of these indicates that it was first built in 1947 and was substantially rebuilt and extended in 1978 to 1982. The architect does not seem to be named. The building is unlikely to be public domain and freedom of panorama does not apply. The photographs of the building should be deleted. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Would this press photo of en:Jerry Leahy be OK to upload to Commons under a {{PD-US-no notice}} license? The photo was taken in October 1956 and there doesn't appear to be any copyright markings anywhere on the back of the photo (though it could be behind the newspaper clipping I guess). The photo is heavily watermarked though and I'm not sure whether that makes a difference. If the watermarked file is PD and can't be used for some reason, then perhaps this lower quality version uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content could be converted to PD since it appears to be the same photo that it supposed to have be published in the en:Fort Collins Coloradan in December 1956. Even if there is a copyright notice behind th clipping, maybe this could possibly be uploaded as {{PD-US-not renewed}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Is that a wire photo, or a photo distributed by another company? I'm not sure that wire photos, printed out privately by newspapers and stored internally (though possibly sold on the market many years later), would count as PD-US-no_notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I'm not seeing any clear identification of the "publisher" anywhere on the back of the photo though a crop of the image is what's being used in the newspaper clipping. The photo isn't attributed in the clipping, but perhaps another paper also used it and did attribute it. Do you have any idea what "spts file 5p" might mean? Could "spts" mean "sports"? I tried Googling this and got lots of hits of Getty Images with the same description. Getty Images claiming ownership over content that might be PD is not something totally unheard of, but it would be a bit odd for another website to be selling content owned by Getty Images, wouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Most like "sports" yes, and was likely related to that newspaper's filing system. In the days before computers, they needed ways to look up past stories on particular subjects, and that sort of thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Krok6kola: You may tag this for speedy deletion using {{Copyvio}}; before using this tag, be sure to read COM:CSD carefully and start a regular DR if you're not sure whether CSD applies. However, the purpose of VPC is to discuss difficult or controversial interpretations of copyright law, not to expedite the deletion of a specific image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠03:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
While FOP Moldova currently states that buildings and sculptures are only allowed, closer reading and interpretation means that even 2D works are allowed (murals for example), as long as these are "made to be located permanently in public places":
Yes, it seems that 2D works are allowed when "made to be located permanently in public places". That could include murals, graffiti, mosaics, explanatory notices (with maps, text, photographs...) in parks and so on. The wording of COM:FOP Moldova should be corrected. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Romanian law differs from Moldovan and does not allow FOP. The pictures should be deleted if they have copyrighted works as their primary subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Per this post, the comma before the "such as" means it's not appositive, i.e. it does not restrict the noun before it. With the English reading, I'd agree with Aymatth2, in that it does not serve to restrict the term "works" but is just giving two common examples. If they wanted to limit the term, they would not need to use "such as" or use the word "works" at all. My one hesitation is that this is an English translation; might be good to find a speaker in the native language to give a sense of what the original text really says, since this can be a very subtle point that can get a little bit lost in translation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, Carl, I don't read your cite that way. While it says that the comma probably makes the following phrase non-restrictive, it clearly says (and provides an example) that the use is ambiguous. Based on the English text, I think we must assume the more restrictive condition applies. I agree, however, that it would be best to get a local language speaker to interpret for us -- preferably someone accustomed to reading legalese. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The example they gave was a court case without the comma -- which the judges disagreed on but the majority said was restrictive. The article then says, Placing a comma before the such as phrase, as in the two preceding examples, would help make the such as phrase nonrestrictive. But yes, it also says the comma would not be definite, either. The Russian and Romanian text does seem to have the comma. I can't read it as being completely restrictive, but perhaps only including works along the same lines as the examples given (such as applied art). And maybe works of architecture with other stuff (murals) on them. But it could be read as completely non-restrictive, as well. The question is how ambiguous really, and that might be hard to know without the input of someone experienced in Moldavian, Russian, or Romanian legal texts. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The Romanian text is k) utilizarea operelor, precum ar fi cele de arhitectură sau sculptură amplasate permanent în locuri publice;, which Google translates as "k) the use of works, such as those of architecture or sculpture permanently placed in public places;" Since there is no second comma, I would read that as "the use of works (for example architecture or sculpture permanently placed in public places)", But that makes no sense at all since it would allow any works to be used. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The Russian text seems to have the second comma. So, the "permanently placed in public places" I think is definitely part of the definition. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
yes, since on the basis of the Laws of Malta e.g. photographs published before 1948 or in 1970-1973 are already in the public domain, irrespective of the date of death of their author :) --Dans (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah. I'm not sure that Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Malta is accurate. Per this law, copyright was made retroactive per the normal EU regulations as of May 1, 2004. So any work protected in any EEA state as of May 1, 2004, was restored in Malta to the full terms in their current copyright law. @Aymatth2: The Malta page may need to be updated. Those older terms would have been in place in 1996 though, for URAA purposes, so it's far less likely a Maltese work would be PD there today but also restored by the URAA. So those do remain relevant for Commons, but not for the "country of origin" situation, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
One minor nit on the existing text -- the UK Copyright Act 1911 protected photographs for 50 years from creation, not publication. The 1970 act changed that to 25 years from the making available of the work... is there any indication that the previous terms were not shortened to that? I did not see any transitional provisions in that 1970 law which preserve the older terms, so I'm not sure. But again, that question would only matter for URAA purposes, since photographs would now seem to be 70pma in Malta itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The one that you mention has "War Artists' Advisory Committee commission" at the IWM source. That seems to be a UK government agency during WWII, and if it was commissioned by them, then it would be Crown Copyright unless there was a specific different arrangement at the time, which seems unlikely. That page lists Frances Macdonald as one of the artists given short-term contracts. We seem to have many of that type of work uploaded here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
VRT identity verification from organizations
Let me start establishing some preliminaries. COM:VRT serves two purposes: verification and legal effectiveness.
For a previously unpublished work by the uploader, we do not require VRT at all, since we can COM:AGF that they are telling the truth about their authorship and the clickwrap in UploadWizard makes the release legally binding.
For a previously unpublished work by a third party, we require VRT to make the release legally binding since the uploader cannot accept the terms on behalf of someone else, but we do not need any additional verification (i.e. the ticket can come from a random Gmail account and we would accept it as long as there are no red flags).
For a previously published work by the uploader, we require VRT for verification. If the email comes from an account which is publicly associated with the author of the work, it need not contain a free license release so long as it clearly indicates that the Wikimedia account belongs to them. As in the first case, the UploadWizard clickwrap is sufficient to serve as the license release as long as we are convinced that the uploader is the author of the work.
For a previously published work by a third party, we require VRT for both verification and legal effectiveness.
@King of Hearts: It seems to me that if we are convinced that this account is operated by someone from the LNB who has the legal authority to release limited rights to frwiki, the account would probably also have the legal authority to assign CC-BY-4.0. The only reason this might not be true is if the account is run by like a social media intern who doesn't actually have full authority over the copyright, and only had permission to do the former. I don't know if it's our responsibility to try to suss that out, but maybe it is. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's usually the case. For publishing things on the Internet, organisations usually employ someone with the technical skills to do. This person has rarely authority over the copyright of the documents published. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
If we're going to apply consistent standards, I don't think it is necessary to probe which individual is behind the Wikimedia account, when we don't do the same for the sender of an email to VRT (we kind of just assume that if it comes from the right domain, then it's authorized). My question is more about whether the UploadWizard clickwrap is just as binding on an individual acting on behalf of a corporation as an individual acting on behalf of themself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠02:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I have seen several cases, where someone uploads some files of behalf of an organization without real understanding of the copyright issues. Of course, it happens also with individuals, but the consequenses are usually much less serious. After asking the upper management for a confirmation of the license, it appeared that they didn't intend to publish anything under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: So are you saying that the difference between uploading on Commons and sending in a COM:CONSENT form is that the representative of the organization would be more likely to read the terms carefully in the latter case? Or are you suggesting that we apply additional scrutiny to VRT releases from organizations as well? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠01:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Simply, the main reason is that the person sending the email won't be the same as the one uploading files. And yes, I guess that people take more attention to email content than to the license attached to uploads. I know as I did the uploading part (not specifically for Commons) for several organizations. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I wonder about the box package. With or without copyright notice, a rainbow arrow looks impressive. Is it free to use in the US per COM:TOO US? Also, what about the rest of the front cover of the box? George Ho (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's fine. It's a curved arrow, with the selection of colors pretty standard too. It's also just a part of the packaging, and the photo is not focusing on it, which per Ets-Hokins decision would mean the photo is not derivative. Even if it is, it's {{PD-US-1978-89}} anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at this? The artist is still alive, so none of the regular (artist dead since 70 years or whatever) public domain reasons apply. There seems to have been VRT correspondence on some of them (not all!). However, some of that doesn't make any sense to me: How does CC licensing go together with the author claiming full rights to every kind of use ("Werner Zganiacz ist der alleinige Urheber des Bildes mit ollumfänglichen [sic] Nutzungsrechten")? --217.239.3.22416:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The author would own the copyright; they are apparently licensing that copyright under the terms of CC-BY-SA however. If the uploading account was confirmed to be the author through VRT, then whatever license they give would be valid, for that or any future uploads. There may not be a VRT ticket on the page, if it was an account-based item, though those always help -- looks like one of their uploads was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:1989 Das Geschenk.jpg because the nominator and admin were unaware of any VRT activity. It would probably need a VRT agent to check the contents of the original communications, to see if the author did confirm the identity of the upload account. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, dear. That is unfortunate since many of those works seem to have been uploaded over ten years ago, and those uploads included the license, of their own choosing (which may have been a mistake on their side, but may well also be binding). So yes, we should get to the bottom of this -- thanks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a 83-year-old gentleman who probably didn't have a clue about what he was getting into with all this licensing stuff. My gut feeling is that we should keep the options simple and straightforward... --217.239.3.22423:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Seems like he was 73 then when they were uploaded... ;) If they have been spread around by virtue of the license here, it may not be the best idea to remove them though, given this is part of the evidence for their use. There probably aren't really good options at this point. The low-res thing would be a middle ground. It's one thing after a month, it's quite another after ten years, unfortunately. If they are removed, we should leave a good explanation in a DR that they were only deleted upon request, and note that they were uploaded years ago with the license, in case someone else's use becomes the subject of a lawsuit -- it's not fair to them either, to just remove validly-licensed files that have been here that long. But, much may depend on the VRT communication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
If User:Zganiacz has been confirmed via VRT to be the artist's account, I think that is enough to verify the license (i.e. whatever license that user has added). I have no idea if that's the case, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Good then, but we should have the permission template in each file description. And on the user home page. What's the ticket number? Yann (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
From what he said on his German WP user talk page, I think we can leave the pictures in here now. Seems like he doesn't want any changes made if he can avoid it.
About the Luther picture, I told him he'd have to send permission. I can only hope there aren't any other rights (like a publisher's) involved, as this seems to be a book cover. --217.239.4.22312:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I started work on a book in Wikibooks about LOLGraphics - an esoteric programming language that I developed, and would like to upload screenshots to commons. How to go about in doing that? I have already checked with Wikibooks to make sure it’s notable enough for inclusion. Also I will greatly appreciate it if you ping me in your reply. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Since you are the author, you can upload screenshots just like any other images (under CC-BY-SA license, for instance). Ruslik (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
7. You can freely reproduce data, images and infographics published on the Chamber's portal, as long as the source "Câmara dos Deputados" is cited and the authorship of the information, if any. You can also reproduce excerpts from texts, news or studies published on the Portal da Câmara, as long as they are enclosed in quotation marks, with the font "Câmara dos Deputados" and the authorship of the text, if any.
A file uploaded to Commons, Minecraft skin template.png, has been tagged as lacking permission to be uploaded. As the file's uploader, I would like to point out that I had a discussion about this nearly two months ago. Only one other user commented, but there seemed to be no opposition to uploading the template image to Commons since it was reasoned that the template serves only as a blueprint to be used by the game's code for painting a model and itself does not contain anything copyrightable. If instead the reason for tagging the file were based on the belief that I found it on some place on the Internet that I did not attribute, that would be incorrect. I used Paint.NET to create this visualization of the template, and if I remember correctly, it took less than a week to draw. The greatest difficulty was drawing the shading based on which parts of the skin, especially the head, correspond to which parts of the model, and the reason I chose the lighting was to indicate which sides are the front, top, bottom, left, right, and back sides. Users Leonel Sohns and ViperSnake151 are invited for their input. FreeMediaKid$17:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the service provided by canva.com but [5], for example, suggests that some or all images made using their software are incompatible with Commons.
File:Tips for Parents of Children with ASD.pdf claims "This infographics was created through the website Canva and all images used were provided by Canva and are free media that can be used for free for commercial and noncommercial use. Here is the Free Media License Agreement for Canva: here Watermarked by author Nicole DeGeorge with the creative commons license too." and relies on [8].
Should be OK as long as it is coming from the creators of the game. Then there are no issues around COM:DW since they hold all rights to the game and are free to release them however they want. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠20:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
That's a great find. The YouTube account does seem to be the official AOE account with all external links to going to official websites. So I think the Creative Commons licences are genuine and we should use that content. De728631 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
A point of technicality: The right way to verify a website/email address/social media account A, is to find a website/email address/social media account B known to be legitimate which vouches for the authenticity of A (such as by linking to it), not the other way around. In this case, the official website links to a trailer from that Youtube channel, so we're good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠02:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Is it copyrightable to colorize a black and white photo?
The photo "File:Kongo 1936.jpg" is of the battleship Kongou, which belonged to the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. It is published on a website called MONOCHROME SPECTER (戦艦 金剛). I don't even know where the original file came from, but this file has been given a Template:PD-US-alien property.
I understand that it is in the public domain if it is still a black and white photo, but is there a copyright on something that has been independently colored?
If it is copyrighted, then it cannot be offered as free content according to the copyright notice of MONOCHROME SPECTER.--アルトクール (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Maybe. Not sure there have been court cases on this subject anywhere. The U.S. has a prohibition on "mere variations of coloring" being copyrightable, as part of 37 CFR 202.1(a). The U.S. Copyright Office for a long time used that to avoid registering anything based purely on color changes, but in the 1980s it was ruled that colorizing motion pictures was usually copyrightable -- this was based on the selection aspect alone of a "selection and arrangement" copyright, since per their original guidelines, colorizing a film usually involves selection of over 4000 colors, and that degree of human involvement supports a copyright. The criteria at the time was 1) Numerous color selections must be made by human beings from an extensive color inventory, 2) The range end extent of colors added to the black and white work must represent more than a trivial variation, and 3) The overall appearance of the motion picture must be modified; registration will not be made for the coloring of a few frames or the enhancement of color in a previously colored film. That logic apparently still applies, since that document is cited in the current Copyright Compendium. Whether colorizing a single frame qualifies, might be a harder question -- if there were only a few colors, it may not, and it could also depend on the process used (if it is the result of a computer algorithm, then no).
The current guidance is in the Copyright Compendium, section 906.3 . It states: Merely adding or changing one or relatively few colors in a work, or combining expected or familiar pairs or sets of colors is not copyrightable. It has this among its examples: Clara Connor found a black and white photograph that is in the public domain. She altered the image by adding a variety of colors, shades, and tones to make it appear as if the photo was taken in a different season. Clara submitted an application to register the revised photograph and in the Author Created and New Material Included fields she described her authorship as “adapted public domain black-white image by adding different colors, shades, tones, in various places of derivative work.” The registration specialist may register the work if Clara made sufficient changes to the preexisting photograph. That implies that it's possible that a colorization of a photo could be copyrightable, although the changes described there might be a higher degree of change than pure colorization (making it appear to be a different season).
All of the above is for the U.S.; I have no idea what Japanese law would say. I would say it would be preferable to avoid third-party colorizations unless it has been explicitly licensed. It would likely be sufficient to simply change the photo back to black and white, rather than deleting it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Atsushi Yamashita, has signed his name (Irootoko.Jr) in the image.
According to MONOCHROME SPECTER, it is not a color restoration, but a subjective coloring.
In Japan, there is a precedent called this (古地図事件（東京地判（46 部）平成 26 年 12 月18 日（平成 22 年(ワ)第 38369 号））). Regarding an old map from the Meiji era, when a specific person did the coloring, if it has originality, it is said to be copyrighted.
In Clara's case, just as the copyright is recognized by the coloring with originality, if it is not due to the automatic coloring of the application, the right can be claimed.
It is not advisable to re-upload a map that has been signed by a person by processing it into black and white. If it is possible, the original image before coloring should be re-uploaded, but unfortunately I don't know where the original image is stored or available.
It is wrong to offer something as public domain when it is not supposed to be public domain. In that case, I would have no choice but to submit it for deletion, wouldn't you?--アルトクール (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
If we change it back to black and white, i.e. remove the colorization, then we are just left with the PD photo since we removed any of the copyrightable expression. For a map, less sure if even the black and white version has expression added from the orginal, but for a colorized photo it should pretty much go back to the original, or at least be a trivial change from the original. Agreed it would be preferable to find the original version, but don't think it's necessary in this case -- the only additional copyright was the selection of the actual colors, so removing the colors also removes that selection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I think there is an original version on this page (direct image here). Higher quality one on this page (direct image here). Those look to be slightly tighter crops than the version which was colorized, so there is likely a further original somewhere, but uploading one of those is probably better, and then deleting the original upload. Unsure of the alien custodian tag -- that would imply a copy was taken by the U.S. (quite plausible) and a copy would likely be at www.archives.gov, but that is not shown. However, it would be PD-1996 anyways because the other tag, PD-Japan-oldphoto, also implies that, so that is enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC) 
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Done Deleted. Clear derivative work of the packaging. Yann (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
![[4]](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/person/image/4759/s465_Ewen-Fergusson-960-by-640.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(Art.IWM_ART_LD_5167).jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://static.canva.com/charts/thumbnails/ring-progresschart-v2-2.svg){kind=link}
