Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Please note
  1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
  5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

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


are images from wikimapia free licensed?

[edit]

check this out. user has over 16K images, at least half of them is from wikimapia which is free licensed website. BUT, images that are upload is really free licensed? i saw nothing about licenses in these images in wikimapia. please enlighten me, thank you. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Modern primat: All WikiMapia submissions are CC-BY-SA 3.0 per https://wikimapia.org/terms_reference.html Term of Service 1F.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.  thank you so much!!! modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Modern primat: You're welcome!!!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of Prolewiki content

[edit]

The copyright policy of Prolewiki says "fuck copyright, comrade". Does it mean {{attribution}} will be granted? I was asking if screenshots of the wiki are allowed here. Ahri.boy (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahri.boy unreliable IMO. Such a statement is not a guarantee that their content can be reused commercially in accordance with COM:Licensing. A more valid statement would have been like or similar to this: "We, at Prolewiki, aim to build a collaborative Marxist-Leninist encyclopedia that opposes any idealogies of capitalism, including intellectual property which is a form of private property. As part of this common mission, we are releasing our content into the public domain for the benefit of all our readers and future comrades of the communist world. This release into the public domain is also part of our advocacy in continuously opposing the imperialist and capitalist copyright principle." This would have been more obvious instead of plain remark "The socialist science should not be held by intellectual private property. Fuck copyright, comrade." At the very least, COM:VRTS confirmation may be needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An individual or an organization calling themselves as socialists, communists, or leftists is not a good indication that they oppose intellectual property. Banksy once said "copyright is for losers", yet he always gets tangled in issues concerning his registration of several items as his trademarks. Another thing, France as a country seems to be anchored on the leftist ideologies of "liberty, equality, and fraternity". They even turned their municipal-level local government units – cities and towns – into communes in which there are no more differences between cities like Paris and towns like w:en:Rochefourchat. Yet, most of their artists and politicians oppose allowing Wikimedia sites, like Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation, to host images of copyrighted architecture and public art, with one politician from a center-left party once touting Freedom of Panorama as "a Wikipedia amendment". That "privatization" of public art and architecture culminated in the 2015 debate at the EU Parliament over German MEP Felix Reda's insistence of making FoP mandatory across the Continent, with French MEP Jean-Marie Cavada being Reda's main opponent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just asked one of ProleWiki admins privately and they will relay the message to other admins of the site. Ahri.boy (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahri.boy share also to them COM:VRTS, specifically the email template, should they desire to permit sharing of their content under free culture licensing or public domain (COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia mugshots

[edit]

Hi. After skimming through Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States, I gather that mugshots taken in the state of Virginia are subject to copyright, is this correct? Many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Understood, thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{Wikisource Discussion} National Weather Service - Partial not free-to-use

[edit]

A discussion regarding copyright stuff with the National Weather Service publications, a branch of the U.S. government is ongoing on Wikisource. The Commons is involved as publications need to be uploaded in PDF form here before transcribing onto Wikisource.

Please see the discussion here: Wikisource:Copyright discussions#National Weather Service - Partial not free-to-use (Question on how to deal with this). WeatherWriter (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that familiar with what Wikisource's policies are on this, but I'd think redacting the nonfree works would be the best way to deal with uploading it here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bleuet de France

[edit]

I'm looking to use this image : https://twitter.com/MIRALLESMP/status/1798310798399607173 to illustrate a relevant wikipedia article - It's an image published on twitter by the French Veterans' Minister and seems to attribute the photo to various government agencies. The objective of using the image would be to illustrate the special edition of the thing on the photo (the Bleuet) created. I can't seem to find another image of it and as it's a special edition have no idea where one could be tracked. Is this suitable for uploading? LazareouJanus (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LazareouJanus: I would think not; is there any reason you would think it is either in the {{Public domain}} or free-licensed? - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certain French government works are exempt from copyright too (and it's a photo of an official item - the national symbol of Remembrance - from an official twitter account. (Article L. 321-1 of the CRPA provides that administrative documents aren't subject to copyright). LazareouJanus (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LazareouJanus: Bonjour, Non, les documents publiés par le gouvernement français ne sont pas dans le domaine public. Seuls les lois et les décisions des courts de justice sont dans le domaine public, i.e. ce qui est publié au Journal Officiel. Yann (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, documents published by the French government are not in the public domain. Only laws and courts decisions are in the public domain, i.e. what is published in the Journal officiel de la République française. Yann (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo der Schlossbrauerei Hirschau.svg

[edit]

Diese Datei hat schon zwei Löschanträge hinter sich, die binnen kurzer Zeit vom gleichen Admin verworfen wurden. Ich kann diese Entscheidungen nicht nachvollziehen. Meiner Meinung ist das Urheberrecht für das Wappen keineswegs geklärt. In der zweiten Löschdiskussion sei insbesondere auf den Trugschluss hingewiesen, der sich um den Geschäftseinstieg der Familie Dorfner (1817) und das Wappen dreht. Wer sagt denn, dass das Wappen so alt ist? Es könnte (wie jedes PR-Symbol) erst vor kurzer Zeit entworfen worden sein. Das Wappen in seiner Darstellung ist meiner Meinung auch deutlich über der Schöpfungshöhe. English: I'm still in doubt about the copyright for the coat of arms in the image. I think the decisions about my deletion requests were wrong. GerritR (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Coats of arms, it doesn't really matter what the age of the general design is, it matters more who made that particular drawing (including the vectorization). If it was truly drawn by the uploader, it is OK. If it was traced from another drawing, then the copyright on that drawing matters. If this was extracted from a publication elsewhere, it's not "own work" and we'd need a license for that particular drawing. So... I'm not sure either, but not sure the deletion reasons directly addressed the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does look very similar to the realisation on this coaster, down to details that any new realisation of the blazon would probably do differently. Felix QW (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely a derivative work (or both from a common source). The vectorization did fix a coloring mistake around the neck of the swan, so it may have been from a common ancestor. But the copyright of that other drawing matters. Any idea of when it was from? I see it on the website here; there are similar drawings of the same arms but that one has the particular details. Another copy is here (from https://web.archive.org/web/20220816133148/https://www.european-beer-star.com/ebs-en/gewinner/unsere-gewinner/ this web page] (does not have the coloration mistake); that seems like a more or less modern drawing. The upload is either a derivative work, or they found a vector drawing somewhere and copied it (the details seem extremely close, so that may be likely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and re-nominated it for deletion, under new reasoning. I did find a PDF with what seems to be the exact design. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
btw, there's something strange in this coat of arms: The white cross in a red field, showing up in the helmet. I've never seen something like that.--GerritR (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit odd, but seems to be on some versions of the arms -- such as a bottle cap. Not an invention of the uploader. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of originality (Pozón del Saladillo)

[edit]

Is the threshold of originality of this logo ([1]) considered to be low enough for it to be under public domain and its upload to be acceptable? Many thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to upload it Bedivere (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: Thanks! Uploaded: File:El Pozón del Saladillo.png. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of 2024 New Hampshire US presidential Republican primary ballot

[edit]

File:Primary republican ballot.jpg seems incorrectly licensed as {{PD-US}} given that it wasn't published prior to 1929, and that it also wouldn't be covered by {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} given that it's from January 2024. I believe that most ballots for state primaries of US federal elections are not published by the US federal government; so, I don't any of the {{PD-US-Gov}} licenses will work. Moreover, New Hampshire doesn't appear to be one of the US states that releases works created by its employees as part of their official duties into the the public domain per Harvard's State Copyright Resource Center. Can this be kept per some other PD license, perhaps {{PD-text}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire is a "public records are not public domain" state, so it's not automatically public domain by that method. Most ballots are going to be {{PD-text}} though, and I think this ballot qualifies as well. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PD-ineligible or PD-text would be better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the state seal is PD (it dates back at least to the 19th Century), there is certainly nothing copyrightable there. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a modern drawing, it's pretty much de minimis in that scan, as it's basically blurred. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bettmann Archive photos

[edit]

Over at Category:Bettmann Archive, there is a decent number of photos that use the {{PD-US-no notice}} tag, however they show no source or evidence it ever was published at the time without a notice. Perhaps a book or newspaper source, or a press photo would suffice? Yet the only source is from Getty - but how do we know for sure these images weren't just scanned in the last 10 years as their first instance of publication? I mean one could also argue because they are in this collection, they were infact published as Otto Bettman got a copy somehow, yet we cannot confirm if there's ever a notice. For example, this photo: File:Ronald Reagan, 14 May 1974.jpg. A little hard to look for a copyright registration/renewal when the author is Unknown on almost all photos. I'm looking for some other opinions on this, I don't want to go mass deleting just yet. PascalHD (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. If Bettman got copies, there was something distributed at the time, so they were probably published. But agreed that we need to see the distributed copies to see the lack of notice. Of course, if Bettman did not own the copyright, Getty is also publishing them without permission, which means they are comfortable enough that there won't be repercussions. That could well be because they are public domain. But, not sure that's enough to make an assumption on. Eventually there will be a real problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file linked in the original post is actually credited by getty originally to UPI, a press agency. I see no reason to assume that such images have been distributed without copyright notice. The Bettmann archive obtained the UPI collection in 1984 (according to its English Wikipedia page), and as far as we know it could have had any sort of copyright agreement with UPI. Felix QW (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, I somehow missed that. Even with the 'copyright' holder being UPI, I didn't find many registrations past 1978. Still, without actually seeing the photo lacking a notice, all the photos are being uploaded on the mere assumption they are PD - I'm sure most photos are, but without being able to confirm is bothersome. PascalHD (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-1963 images are a very different case, since they would have had to have been renewed. However, I really don't see a way to keep post-1962 photos like this without any direct proof that they were published without notice. They could well have been given to publications under the condition that a notice is affixed or kept merely in their own archive until Bettmann purchased it in 1984. Felix QW (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think they should only be uploaded if there is proof. Whether you can find registration/renewal or lack there of, or a copy that shows no notice. All anyone has to do is go on eBay, one can find a large number of UPI or AP / press images that don’t have notices. If only Getty would tell you which ones were PD, but of course they need to make money… I’ll have to open a mass DR on certain files to further discuss them. PascalHD (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I went ahead and made a DR, I encourage further discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Bettmann. PascalHD (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Uruguay had a term of life + 40 years prior to 2003, when it was retroactively sxtended to Life + 50 and Life + 70 in 2019. However, it also had copyright formalties (registration).

"The National Library will keep a Registry of copyrights, in which the interested parties will be obliged to register, compulsorily, in accordance with article 6, the title of the works published for the first time in the territory of the Republic. A period of two years is indicated for the registration of works that are published, exhibited or reproduced in the country from their publication, exhibition or performance. The term will be three years when the publication, exhibition or representation takes place abroad, and the author is Uruguayan.

In other words, a work had to be registered with the Uruguayan Register of Copyrights within 2 years of its publication in order to be copyrighted, or 3 yeaea for works made by Uruguayan authors but published abroad (but those works will be covered under different countries). In 2003, the copyright was extended to Life + 50 years and not only were copyright formalties abolished:

The National Library shall keep a register of copyright, in which interested parties may register the works and other intellectual property protected in this law. The registration in the Registry referred to in this article is merely optional, so that its omission does not in any way harm the enjoyment and exercise of the rights recognized in this law. The application, collections, procedure, registration and publication regime will be made in accordance with the relevant regulations. All disputes arising on the occasion of registrations in the Registry will be resolved by the Copyright Council.

But copyright was revived on all previously PD works under the old terms! In 2019, it was further retroactively extended to Life + 70 years.

However, the registration requirement means that a whole lot of Uruguayan works are PD in the US under the URAA, despite most of them having revived copyright. Works published prior to 1994 and not registered had no time to receive copyright protection left as of January 1, 1996. So I created the template w:Template:PD-URAA-Not-PD-Uruguay because of the copyright formalties which were abolished in 2003 and the copyright extensions applied to most non-registered works.VTSGsRock (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about some images

[edit]

Hi, I was doing a review and I came across some images that were made in the 1910s/1920s with no provided authorship, but had "In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable" and "Copyright undetermined". Would these be able to be under a license like {{PD-US-expired}} or something similar?

The images are these:

And I ask because of this file: File:Edward P. Thomas (1896-1916), Sergeant, Machine Gun Company, 1st Missouri National Guard.jpg. Thanks. reppoptalk 00:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are these US files? If so, then PD-US-expired would certainly apply. Bedivere (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, except for I think File:Keeley in France.jpg, which seems to imply that it was taken in France. reppoptalk 03:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is good reason to think its first publication was in the U.S., that's what usually counts. - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's what I don't really know. reppoptalk 04:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure about photos such as File:Mary and John Keeley.jpg, which are likely to be private amateur photos from a family archive. Although the contemporary American definition of publication is sufficiently liberal to accommodate professional photographers handing copies to patrons, such family photograohs are far less clear. In those cases, they could be in copyright until 120 years after creation. Felix QW (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines TOO

[edit]

File:CC6 Casino Logo.jpg seems OK for Commons per COM:TOO US, but things are much less clear with respect to COM:TOO Philippines because the Philippines apparently doesn't have a TOO to speak of. IThe file's current {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} seems incorrect based on the decription given by the uploader, but maybe "PD-logo" OK. However, given COM:TOO UK and the UK is another country applying en:sweat of the brow, this isn't so clear. Can Commons keep this file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the previous discussion, I am inclined to think this may be eligible for copyright in the Philippines. I have changed the licenses to PD-textlogo/PD-simple, but it may be a copyright violation anyway. Bedivere (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MHIRJ Aviation

[edit]

Buenas este logo too simple (https://www.mhirj.com/) se puede publicar a Wikimedia?? Ese fue creado en Canadá después de que Mitsubishi adquirió el programa del Bombardier CRJ Series AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that is below the TOO for Canada (so it should be {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible}}, plus of course {{Trademarked}}). - Jmabel ! talk 12:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is email permission by official copyright holder adequate -- WA State Legislature Portraits

[edit]

I'm leading a volunteer project with high school students to upload WA State legislator (reps & senators) public portrait photos from app.leg.wa.gov (example [2] ) to Wikipedia Commons

I have written permission from WA Legislative Information Center (app.leg.wa.gov) , House & Senate that The portraits on the legislative webpage are downloadable for public use.

I recommended the agency add a Public Domain license to the website, but that may take some time for technical reasons.

Can I use the recorded permission from the WA Legislative Information Center as license to upload the Legislator portraits to Wikimedia Commons? Tonymetz (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cases like this are handled through VRTS. Please notice that Permission grants must specifically contain a free license grant. ‘Downloadable for public use’ is not quite enough as it is too vague about the granted rights. --Geohakkeri (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an example license / template that I could share with them? Tonymetz (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of well-known licenses. --Geohakkeri (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible issue with the image of a flyer in the Heaven's Gate (religious group) Wikipedia article

[edit]

This post concerns an image of a flyer for a meeting in Berkeley, CA in May, 1994. I picked up the flyer at the now defunct Mo's Bookstore. I thought it was utterly crazy and so I saved it. Only in 2009 following the Heaven's Gate cult mass suicide did I connect the flyer with the group. Several years later in 2014 I realized the historic value of what I had. So I scanned the flyer and posted it as part of the Wikipedia article "Heaven's Gate (religious group)." Here is a link to the image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)#/media/File:HeavensGateRecruitmentMeetingFlyer.jpg .

The scanned image has been an important part of that article for the last ten years. If you examine the image you will see that the original flyer completely lacks a copyright indicator mark as well as any indication whatsoever as to authorship, the group organizing the meeting, a claim for restriction of rights such as subsequent distribution, prohibition of sale of copies, etc., etc. Even labeling the flyer as a Heaven's Gate meeting is an inference that I made years after its posting based upon its content.

All was well until yesterday when I received a notice from someone named PARAKANYAA arguing that the image should be removed from the Wikipedia article for possible copyright infringement. Since then PARAKANYAA and I have argued back and forth regarding this matter. The purpose of this post is to obtain advice as to determine whether the flyer image should be deleted from Wikipedia.

In brief, I cannot believe that the image in question is problematic. It was posted ten years ago. No one has ever raised any issue with it. The mere fact that the image has been online for ten years without prior complaint itself constitutes evidence that the document is now public domain (estoppel by laches). There is no hard evidence who authored, produced, or distributed the image. The original flyer completely lacks identification and was freely distributed. Even labeling the flyer as a Heaven's Gate meeting is my inference based on the content. Presumably anyone trying to claim rights to the document would have a very hard time doing so given that all of the people associated with the image's authorship, production, and distribution are long dead. Furthermore Wikipedia is a non-profit. So the rules for use should be looser, not more restrictive, than for for profit media such as commercial newspapers. A newspaper writing a news article on the Heaven's Gate cult would have no problem using this image. So why should Wikipedia have a problem with its use?

While PARAKANYAA's desire to protect Wikipedia is laudatory, clearly PARAKANYAA is being overly zealous. If the image in question is deleted, it will significantly reduce the information value of the Wikipedia Heaven's Gate article.

What is your opinion as to whether some Heaven's Gate suicide might have a relative or assignee who would try to sue Wikipedia for copyright infringement?

Wsjacobs Wsjacobs (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this file is currently being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:HeavensGateRecruitmentMeetingFlyer.jpg, it's not really a good idea to try and seek other input here at VPC or anywhere else; doing so runs the risk of spitting the discussion and making it confusing to follow. It's probably OK to post a link to the discussion to let others know about it, but that's about it. Everything else is really best left to the DR where the file is being discussed because that's where its fate is going to be decided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CROSS-POSTED: @Wsjacobs: it might well be a valid part of an en-wiki article (and could probably be uploaded to en-wiki as non-free content, but if it is not either in the public domain or free licensed, then it doesn't belong on Commons.
If it was produced in the U.S. in 1994, it is certainly not in the public domain, because copyright has been the default ever since 1 March 1989. That copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author, so assuming the author died in the mass suicide, that would mean it is copyrighted until 1 January 2080. We apparently have no idea who the heirs may be, so there is no one to grant a license.
Under Commons' precautionary principle, Commons doesn't host images on the basis that the copyright holder won't sue or wouldn't mind. We require explicit licensing, including consent for commercial use and derivative works. - Jmabel ! talk 03:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
… and I will repeat that on the DR. - Jmabel ! talk 03:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about posting this image being a fair use exception to copyright concerns?
Clearly the image is being posted solely for informational purposes. It is a historic document. Removing the image from the article deprives the public of an important piece of information, namely that it is an example of the sort of recruitment activities in which the Heaven's Gate cult engaged. Wikipedia is a non-profit. No one is seeking to profit from posting the image.
The arguments being made against posting the image would deprive Wikipedia and the public of an important piece of historic information and, if followed more broadly, would serious negatively impact the study and writing of history. I cannot believe that that was the intent of the copyright law revisions.
Wsjacobs (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wsjacobs: (1) I have no idea why you are splitting the discussion between here and the DR. (2) Yes, the document is valuable. Yes, it is doubtless legal to reprint it on a "fair use" basis in a discussion of the Heaven's Gate. No, Commons does not accept images on a fair use basis. This is a policy matter about this site, not a legal matter. Any given site has a scope; this is outside of ours. As for the policies of the English-language Wikipedia, Commons is really not the place to discuss them. - Jmabel ! talk 00:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads Salamander

[edit]

Can I upload an image of the Crossroads Salamander created by John Sendelbach in 1998? It's a public landscape installation on Cushman Common in Amherst Massachusetts. See Crossroads Salamander. My photo is similar to the one seen in Crossroads Salamander - Amherst, Massachusetts - Figurative Public Sculpture on Waymarking.com. Faolin42 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Moldova

[edit]

I just noticed that our template {{PD-Moldova}} is still based on the pre-2010 law, while the new rules (which are in line with the standard EU terms) are apparently retroactive per CRT/Moldova. Am I missing something, or should this template be updated or deleted and the 38 transclusions checked for compatibility with the current state of affairs? Felix QW (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know much about Moldova copyrights, but I think the template is so little used that nobody noticed the issue. Reviewing the files using it would be a great start. than we can decide if we want to delete or improve the template. --Jarekt (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Lanterns of Pampanga, Philippines

[edit]

Are several files at Category:Giant Lantern Festival, San Fernando OK for hosting on Commons (or even locally on English Wikipedia)? I have seen a few deletion requests concerning Taiwanese lanterns that are used in their festivals (for example, Commons:Deletion requests/Taiwan Lantern Festival), using "no FoP for artworks in Taiwan" as a reason. As it is very likely that most of the lanterns being shown at the w:en:Giant Lantern Festival were made by craftsmen who haven't died for more than 50 years (or let's day 70 years if U.S. copyright intervenes especially on enwiki), are several images of the lanterns we currently host unfree? Or we can treat Philippine lanterns of Pampanga as not meeting originality or as utilitarian articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter does not mention about festival lanterns, or even other objects that are associated with elaborate festivals (although parade floats are mentioned in the talk page of the image casebook). This WIPO document may be of relevance here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=883539702"