I was somewhat surprised by today's picture of the day, File:Oratorio de Santa María Reina y Madre, Málaga, España, 2023-05-20, DD 08-10 HDR.jpg, showing a church ceiling painting in Spain by a living artist (Raúl Berzosa Fernández (Q20013463)). The painting is not in the public domain, and I don't see any VRT tags on the file page.

Instead, there is the tag {{FoP-Spain}}, claiming that “The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article 35.2 of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and amended by Law 5/1998 of March 6, 1998, which states that: Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.”

The way I interpret that law is that it covers works located in public outdoors (parks, streets, squares, other public thoroughfares), but not inside buildings (public or not). The map in Commons:Freedom of panorama also shows Spain in light green color for a simple OK, not in the dark green color for OK, including public interiors.

Am I missing or misinterpreting something? Does Spanish fop cover indoor works after all? Or is the {{FoP-Spain}} tag just wrong for that file (which would ultimately mean it needs to be deleted)? Pinging @Poco a poco: as the uploader. --Rosenzweig τ 06:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is some minor reservation at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oratorio de Santa María Reina y Madre, Málaga, España, 2023-05-20, DD 08-10 HDR.jpg though; ping @BigDom: who uttered the reservation. See also Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 5#does FOP in Spain also apply to interiours of public buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just seen the ping, thanks for letting me know. I don't really have anything more to add; I raised the query at FPC, everyone ignored it and I forgot the whole thing ever happened. Reading the FoP-Spain text again today I still think it's very possible that indoor works are excluded, but we would need someone more versed in Spanish law to confirm one way or the other. BigDom (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, yes, right, I took that shot. How couldn't I photographed that awesome fresco, when I saw it? In fact, I upload pictures from everywhere and cannot give a clear statement whether we have an issue here (although I'm Spaniard). Poco a poco (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll ping @MarcoAurelio: who has an essay on Spanish FoP (User:MarcoAurelio/FoP-ES). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is not much interest in this topic apparently ... --Rosenzweig τ 06:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The image must be nominated for deletion. Nail in the coffin: from Marco Aurelio's userspace page which I mentioned: "The only court opinion I could find addressing that concept is one from the 28th Section of the Provincial Court of Madrid (Judgement no. 95/2014 dated June 16, 2014; AC 2014\1573; ECLI:ES:APM:2014:11756) which held that a public thoroughfare is a space in the public domain suitable for pedestrian perambulation and/or motor vehicle circulation." Note: pedestrians and motor vehicles. So, outdoors only and not indoors.

Furthermore:

"The 15th section of the Provincial Court of Barcelona (Judgement no. 147/2006 dated March 28, 2006) held that Article 35.2 does not apply to the works located indoors of a church (in this case, photographing protected works the interior of the Barcelona's Sagrada Familia Cathedral is not covered by FoP)."

So, that's it. Church indoors are DENIED, courtesy of a court case files. The POTD file must be nominated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dear Admins and Trusted users,

I was about to review this CC BY 3.0 image here: File:Kate bush 1978 1.png when I noticed that the Youtube source account has 855 videos all licensed freely with a cc by 3.0 Youtube license. Is this possible or is this account commiting a major copyright violation. There are about 7 videos from this account on Commons. When I was about to review the video, I did not receive a warning. I don't know the account user. If this is a Youtube washing account, then it should be blacklisted. Any views anyone? User:Krd, User:Rosenzweig or someone else. I am not an Admin. Something does not smell right but as I said I don't know this Youtube account. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

•  Comment: Does the Youtube account hold the copyright to this freely licensed 1975 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KL0oCchy5A OR this freely licensed 1985 video with Donna Summer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3il35ewe0zo ? It does not feel right, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Watching the DAC clip all the way through, the narration ends with "Channel 8 News". WFAA's film archives are held by Southern Methodist University. While they have released plenty of clips online, I've never known any which have been released under a CC license. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It would appear to me that this channel is just a collection/archive of television clips. I don't think the uploader is the original copyright holder for any of this content. The about section of the channel sort of implies this and doesn't admit to actually creating or owning any of the content. Whichever TV stations these clips originated from would likely hold the copyright. For an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFv3aB6JtJI - This clip is from The Wil Shriner Show, 1988. Perhaps the uploader recorded the clip back in the day and thinks they can license their own recording? PascalHD (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Comment – Just added this user to Commons:Questionable YouTube videos, just in case. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

From the channel description: "All content legitimately exhibited under Fair Use terms and Creative Commons license. Copyrights in all content, both video and sound recordings, acknowledged and attributed accordingly." So, in short: they don't understand copyright law, and none of the licenses on their channel should be treated as valid. Omphalographer (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can Admin User:Krd or User:Rosenzweig or User:MGA73 add this account to the Commons:Questionable YouTube videos list? If the source account could be added to a blacklist, that is sufficient...but the 7 videos from this account should also just be deleted ASAP if possible. I am not an Admin. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Leoboudv: Please create a deletion request for all these videos. Yann (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned above, I have already updated that list to include this account. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann or User:Rosenzweig,

• I have nominated all 7 images for deletion. Please add the source Youtube account to Commons:Questionable YouTube videos Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Already done. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Thank You JohnCWiesenthal and Yann for all your help here. I am not an Admin, just a trusted user and don't want to edit this list on my own in case I make a mistake. Kind Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

just a note - the Taste of Kiwiana channel appears to be operated by the same person. applecuckoo 09:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I saw a recent upload by SuperSkaterDude45 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user which I deemed problematic. I went on and began to review his most recent uploads. When I got back to File:Miguel Ángel Cottón Pumas UNAM.jpg from 2025-06-01, I was already at 7 DR out of 9 reviewed files, Special:Diff/1041006922/1041010709 (diff to the daily DR listing page). In my opinion, he's interpreting public domain regulations in the Americas in a (too) lax way, using social networks (Facebook, Twitter) as sources and evidence for publications and PD status. I'd like to invite some scrutiny over these proceedings and a discussion whether this is a sound behaviour and acceptable on copyright grounds. I'm not convinced that it's with the purview of COM:L and COM:PRP. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc: Most of the uploads that you have tagged for deletion have largely been that of smaller clubs of decades past in countries that don't tend to focus on clubs that tend to have an exclusively local following in countries that don't have the most readily available access. Naturally, this results in social media posts tending to be the only available sources of a direct scan of images otherwise found in dedicated blogs (to which I'm also assuming you deem unreliable) to said clubs. This is only reinforced as even through the use of several image searches with different indexes with nearly all of the files you've filed for deletion yielding the same results of said social media post or displaying results of entirely different players of the same era. Naturally, if there were better sources, I'd use them but going off of the precedent you want to establish, this leaves a lot of files of more niche subject matter to essentially never be uploaded on Commons for an unreasonably long amount of time.

You can label my interpretations as being "too lax" but I am following the example that has been set to me by various other contributors throughout the past few years of uploading files on Commons, especially when some of your own deletion reasons lack certainty of the copyright laws of other countries such as your citation for the deletion of File:Bonavena Ramírez 1985.png where you state that The use cases of the claimed PD statuses aren't applicable as far as I can tell. despite the PD-Mexico template directly stating that anonymous works are considered to be PD until the author comes forward with this especially being the case after I had directly cited a news publication that used the same image you're currently attempting to delete. I could point out other flaws in your arguments such as say for example how other sources I've found for File:Plaza San Martín 1970 (2).jpg tend to be either other social media posts or forum posts as well as other equivalent images such as this and this that are dated as being either of the same era or decades prior that would still put it within PD-Peru-photo, giving an estimate that would still put the image at PD-Peru-anonymous but I want to see what others have to say before I add on to my previous comments. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, about "lot of files of more niche subject matter to essentially never be uploaded on Commons" - that's a consequence of a strict application of the precautionary principle, our mandatory prerequisite of commercial usability and the result of works being orphaned, yes. You cannot assume that stuff like author attributions not visible on the Internet don't exist. Especially for sports subjects, there could be very well be newspapers in microfilm archives holding information relevant to the copyright status that were never digitised and made available online. For the concise example of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bonavena Ramírez 1985.png, you provided a link to a news outlet (MSN, aggregated from en:El Universal (Mexico City)), claiming it didn't "cite no author nor publisher". The credit line of the image says "Muere leyenda del Atlante / Foto: Especiales", which is IMHO a huge hint that the journalist Édgar Luna Cruz indeed actually had clues about the image author or provenience. By that alone, the assumption of an anonymous work is not valable any more, I think, at least not in the light of the precautionary principle.

For "I want to see what others have to say before I add on to my previous comments" - me too; I hope for a good participation in this redactional quality assurance work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc: In the article you've seemingly attempted to cite (Orphaned works), the majority of its contents are largely through a more Western point of view that doesn't exactly give specifics on third world countries with other language Wikipedia's usually being a translated version of the few general paragraphs of the main English version. I'll state this again, comparisons to other photos of the era from more reliable sources can at the very least give a rough estimate of a definitive time frame and thus, meet eligibility for both PD in their home nation as well as in the US. Furthermore, if you're aware that a majority of these images are direct scans from, in your own words, newspapers in microfilm archives, why is this conversation even being held in the first place? This is especially odd since a majority of Argentinian and Peruvian sports images are sourced from the magazines El Gráfico and Ovación respectively with more niche images and teams typically being direct scans from local newspapers that don't have an internet archive for the public to use on their own free will and volition unlike major publications such as the South China Morning Post and The New York Times. Hence, this is why a majority of these images tend to be from social media posts that are direct scans from said publications. Again, you could say that these are precautionary principles (which doesn't make much sense for reasons I have already cited) but to state that none of the images you have filed for deletion aren't at least within the general time frame of the aforementioned templates for PD status is quite absurd, especially since I highly doubt that there were many people in Peru that had readily available access to color film in the early 1970s.

As per your second argument, this is purely reliant on speculation with no actual basis as typically, if a known author is found of a work, the publisher is at the very least credited with this especially being the case for obituaries. For example, this Der Spiegel article announcing the death of German footballer Volker Graul cites both the photographer (Horst Müller) as well as the publishing company of the image used of Graul (IMAGO). If either of these were known prior to the publication of Ramírez's obituary, I can assure you one of the longest running newspaper companies in Mexico would've already given the proper attribution needed in order to use the image in the first place. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I fixed the typo in the orphan works link. I may answer later to the remainder. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I still maintain that "rough estimate of a definitive time frame and thus, meet eligibility for both PD in their home nation as well as in the US" is a thinking fully incompatible with COM:PRP. Using estimates for determining a PD status is actually a valid thing in our project, but only if there's a safety margin. This is exemplified with out templates {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}, which show for an assumption of expired copyrights, but only with a 50 YEARS margin. You claimed a PD status for File:Hugo Madera.jpg and that this one was produced between 1970 and 1979. The needed limiting date for PD there is 1972-02-20, so forget about safety margins, it's even possible that the PD limit wasn't even reached!

Incidentally, my wife is an actual journalist trained and employed at a local publisher, so I got first-hand experience in seeing how screwed-up attributions often were (wrong names, to archives without stating individuals despite them being known...). Hence, your argument about "one of the longest running newspaper companies in Mexico would've already given the proper attribution" is moot; the line "Foto: Especiales" is more of a hint meaning in fact "Photo: Courtesy of XY" in similar cases.

I concede that your way of thinking is totally fine for private publishing venues like blogs et al., where you're free to ignore a small residual litigation risk. But it's unfit for Commons, where the policy is to COM:CARES even about these small residual risks of rights infringements, and to avoid them. This often entails an inability to host images, but we can't do much about this. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc: Right, but your statements are usually just exclusive to say, Cuban players and even then, no one is truly certain of specific dates due to information regarding 1970s Cuban footballers generally being scarce for reasons that I think are obvious to many here. Once again, sourcing for images, especially those of sports, are largely from at least some news local publication as once more, I highly doubt that football officials just allow any random Joe to invade the pitch to take a photo shot of players from angles that only official photojournalists are normally only allowed to take. Further arguments for the verification of the dates can also be seen with other reliable sources corroborating the same general dates that give eligibility for the files falling within the required dates. For example, this article details on the career of Juan del Águila's career with CNI de Iquitos largely being derived in at least in the 1970s with {{PD-Peru-anonymous}} still being applicable due to again, the lack of information pertaining to both the photographer and the publishing studio of File:Juan del Águila Salazar 1974.jpg as well as all of the 1970s being covered before Peru joined the URAA in 1996. This is still applicable if hypothetically, the date wasn't exactly 1974 (which doesn't correlate with team images of later years used in reliable sources but I'm making this argument for the sake of the criteria you've established).

I am saying this with no intentions of ill will, but this is largely purely anecdotal evidence that wouldn't be appropriate for use in say, a discussion in the English Wikipedia. If a secondary source was used to describe the aforementioned that would be something else entirely but the lack of any definitive source nor rationale for a given author nor publishing company like in the Der Spiegel article I've cited earlier makes me less inclined to believe that the author has the sufficient information for proper attribution for the following:

Considering that most reliable sources derived in Latin America typically use images sourced from blogs or social media posts such as for example, this El Comercio article detailing the biography of Peruvian footballer Pedro Aicart using an image directly from a blog about retro Peruvian football, this just further inclines me to believe that the El Universal article I've cited is another one of those instances due to again, the lack of a readily available internet archive for local newspapers based in third world countries with inconsistent internet access. This also being assuming said publications are still operating as of 2025. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You've introduced {{PD-Peru-anonymous}} in this thread, good. Then, you talk about the improbability of "any random Joe to invade the pitch to take a photo shot of players from angles that only official photojournalists are normally only allowed to take". I totally follow you there. But the template states several prerequisites for that a work can be considered anonymous. I strongly doubt that imagery produced by professional photographers can fulfil them at all! For us at Commons, it's sensible to assume that newspapers have some kind of records on who provided what and it's not sensible to assume that there were no registration at all, maybe in some almanach for a jubilee or whatever - I reiterate again: COM:CARES, COM:PRP, COM:L are the framework on which we have to operate. I doubt that one can demonstrate the applicability of "XY-anonymous" templates only by online searches, possibly from abroad. You've got to get your feet on the ground and search through local physical archives to get a level of certainty where it becomes reasonable to assume anonymity of the photographer of any work to be hosted on Commons! What somebody does on social networks, especially from countries where, I surmise, the awareness towards copyrights is low, is not to be replicated here, on Commons. Policies and guidelines forbid it.

Newspaper editorial departments and publishers can often get away from copyright infringements, simply by healing the error after the fact and paying fees due. The compagnies are likely already allocating budgets for this. Copyright laws show for this possibility and there are such disclaimers on a lot of publications, something along the lines of "Great care was taken to determinate and contact all rights holders. That was not successful in all cases. In case you have legitimate claims, contact the editor to settle the matter." But that is not a course of action for us, we've got to clear the rights situations before any rights holders put forth a DMCA takedown, for instance.

For the record: I was surprised by Yann's quick action lately, yes. I would have preferred a thorough discussion involving more people than both of us beforehand. But apparently, he was convinced by my arguments and not by yours. So, while I totally agree that you're not intending to do harm to the project, I think that your interpretations of these PD rules from the Americas are flawed or biased towards a (likely non-existent) admissibility for Commons. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc: Since I've previously begun using the template, I've always used it whenever it met the two set criteria of how the work failed to mention the given name of author and if the copyright had been registered in the National Copyright Registry by 1996 (when again, Peru joined the URAA which extended copyright protections from 15 years to 70 years). Reading the official PDF provided on Commons also largely reaffirms these two as being the major criterias Unfortunately, the framework you're proposing is rather unreasonable as not only are again, is this significantly more doable for 1st world countries as opposed to their 3rd world counterparts given that a majority of Commons contributors are based in the US but also how I'm certain even physical archives of 3rd world publications aren't as readily available as you make them out to be. Sure, you can make the argument of say, me directly contacting the accounts for what original source scanned the image from so that I can give more direct attribution and sourcing which is fair although this also varies as some of the accounts I have posted from have remained dormant for several years with this especially being the case for countries where internet access is not only inconsistent but also heavily restrictive such as in again, Cuba.

As per your second series of arguments, you'd think that a major club such as Barcelona would've already made a series of legal complaints with this especially being the case since not only do European countries take copyright a lot more seriously but also how a majority of these official photographs are usually by a major photographing company with this especially being the case for stickers of the era. I doubt a potential significant copyright violation like that can be let go by simply by healing the error after the fact and paying fees due considering how protective said companies tend to be over their intellectual property to the point where some of these images can't even be used for files exclusive for the English Wikipedia such as almost every image from IMAGO. Taking these restrictions in mind, these potential issues are significantly more consequential than what you're attempting to depict it as. Finally, haphazardly filing eleven additional files for deletion for quite literally no reason with some of them somehow having even weaker rationale than your first bunch with this conversation even coming close to reaching to a consensus doesn't exactly bode well with me when all I'm really asking for is a centralized conversation here. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Did you compare your Special:ListFiles/SuperSkaterDude45 against the DR opened? I went down from youngest towards older uploads. I hope that you have noticed that I'm not against your work, there are several uploads for which I do indeed not harbour sufficient doubts about their admissibility here, e.g. File:Rua Líbero Badaró 1977.jpg. But with Jmabel's and Yann's postings here, I felt confident enough to put more of your uploads for definite scrutiny, hence some more DR.

BTW, as it stands, Commons is indeed rather operating on first-world standards in copyright matters. Only because getting certainty about (copy-)rights is factually nigh impossible in some countries does not mean that uploads to Commons are possible under our standing policies. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc: Question, what makes that file different from the other ones? Is it because of the Brazil template? I mean, it fulfills all you relatively lax qualification for deletions when it comes to the sourcing. Just because other contributors express mild support, doesn't mean you can now file more DR because you have a hunch feeling, especially when again, my aforementioned arguments directly conflate with deletion requests such as with File:Raúl Giustozzi River Plate.jpg where despite clear sourcing from various sources on his tenure with River Plate as well as the latest year still falling safe within {{PD-Argentina}} with the latest year being 1976, you still file it for deletion for... reasons. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. {{PD-Brazil-Photo}} refers to the creation of a photograph; the example being documentary in my opinion. {{PD-Argentina}} on the other hand refers to a publication of a photograph! A creation date can be gauged by the depicted scene (you've got to look for technical devices and vehicles, clothing and so on) and is easier taken out of sources than a publication date. For File:Raúl Giustozzi River Plate.jpg, the general appearance is that of a lithograph printed on paper used in books, for instance, it's not a glossy postcard nor newsprint (I saw images of a similar printing quality in illustrations in books printed between ~1960 and ~1985). Images taken for books can be published much later than the date they were shot as the editing processes of books may be slow. So, it's up to the uploader to demonstrate a valid publication date, until it's done, a brash PD-Argentina claim is misplaced.

And yes, I'm taking the media appearance into account when reviewing files; several files you uploaded were clearly scans from photo prints with creases and scratches, where I assumed that they may have been postcards. Others were clear scans from newspapers, the crude image raster was evident. The framing and possible posing of the motifs is also relevant. Any of these small indices combined may lead or not to the decision of opening a DR, everything can be a hint for determining a creation and publication history. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc: So in summary, your arguments largely boil down to personal preference and interpretation with little reasoning nor basis to objective facts and dates which is something that I had previously thought we could come to a consensus to. Not even prior editors that I've engaged with have even told me your statements should be applicable when it comes to which files are allowed on Common. Also, if we were to go by technical devices and vehicles, clothing and so on then your rationale for deletion has even less basis if we were to go by the kits used in just about every image as I highly doubt that say, the jersey used in File:Raúl Giustozzi River Plate.jpg was the same kit used in 1977, especially when again, you compare and contrast with similar images used by reliable sources (with all the other aforementioned arguments I've made still applicable here. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

What did I say to give you this impression of "arguments largely boil down to personal preference and interpretation with little reasoning nor basis to objective facts and dates"? It's the complete opposite. I clearly said that "it's up to the uploader to demonstrate a valid publication date" (as for PD-Argentina cases); it should be clear that I'm arguing for a stringency in providing data and facts in order to determine PD statuses. But these datasets should be clear-cut (ISBN + page numbers, DOI, concise links, you get it?) and not some wishy-washy excerpt of random social media cruft. To gain knowledge about a creation history of a photo in the absence of concise data, you could use several proxies (appearance of the image, motifs, background features...) for that. Your Raúl Giustozzi image does not really need such roundabout ways. The creation is plausibly dated, but {{PD-Argentina}} mandates "Date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old must be indicated so anyone can check it." This is currently not the case, information about a publication is absent, so the usage of the PD claim is not valid.

Provide publication dates for PD-Argentina claims and any other where it's relevant, give the largest amount possible of information for any other PD case, plan with safety margins around PD dates and you would be safe from copyright-founded deletion requests. Not doing that is quite a sloppy work, I think and makes your uploads liable for deletions. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc: I'll reiterate: This is the very first time I've seen any other contributor on Commons present the very arguments you are currently making for eligibility for uploading in commons. Furthermore, the datasets you have listed are largely once more, significantly more suitable for first world countries that are more likely to have internet archives at their disposal. The criteria you're also attempting to establish would also significantly reduce files that were already uploaded years ago. I'm not sure about you but trying to scour the internet for a specific source (that may not even be digitally uploaded at all mind you) just for this standard to not be applied to other contributors as a majority of my uploads are largely similarly structured to older posts that have been up for years with absolutely no prior qualms. I'd give more specifics such as say for example, the source of File:László Harsányi 1978 Media Archive.jpg being a direct PDF scan of the original source, but I'm interested in reading your inevitable response to this. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

My response is, after doing the work that YOU should have done: the attribution to the San Diego Sockers" is likely wrong, on the source PDF at page 2, there's a photographer named: "Ron McClendon". It's sensible to assume that he made the pictures displayed in the PDF. Then, the probability of a copyvio grew, as there's a copyright registration from 1983 for a NASL player manual, see https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/voyager_16703089 (I admit, that's after when the soccer player went back to Europe). This means that you absolutely cannot be sure at the moment that the photo never went into a copyrighted publication. If people with experience in judging US copyrights come forth and say, "it's OK", I can likely trust them, but you're currently not worth this trust, not with how lax an attitude you displayed towards copyrights. You should maybe admit that there are difficult areas to get illustrations for (these third world countries with fragmented and analog archives, if there are archives at all) and that there will be areas where illustrations found aren't fit for Commons. For EN-WP, you can easily fall back on fair use, which is not possible here, as you surely know (Commons:Fair use). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc: Not sure what's up with the sudden increase in personal attacks towards me, but please, relax. Anyways, for this particular instance, this is largely based on files within Category:Los Angeles Aztecs 1979 media guide. There are separate media archives per season as the site in where I had even found the PDF had. At the end of the day however, these are largely your own personal preferences with prior uploads that had underwent similar deletions stating otherwise. I'm ultimately going to wait and abide on a consensus by a series of different contributors rather than appeasing a singular editor whose criteria for inclusion isn't used by even other users that have filed DRs on prior uploads. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: You came into my mind as fellow Wikimedian here with relevant language, good communication skills and experience. Could I ask you for your opinion about our arguments? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Comment Grand-Duc is mostly right. SuperSkaterDude45 has uploaded quite a large number of copyright violations with bogus license, so a formal warning is quite needed. Yann (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but my main opinion here his that you've both gone on at great length and provided no summary of what you are saying, and I'm not slogging through it. At a skim: the precautionary principle does, indeed, mean that there are a lot of subjects where we end up not being able to get photos that meet Commons' criteria. Given our intent to host only material that is clearly "free content", we end up being way more limited than most other websites. I routinely upload images to my own Flickr account or (when I was doing one) my own blog that I would not upload to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Aye, then I will try to sum up my ideas, Jmabel.

• I looked through 10 recent uploads of SuperSkaterDude45, 10 of them claimed to be PD due to various laws in the Americas.
• I challenged these PD opinions, making 7 DR while reviewing these 10 files, as I think that SSD45 is too lax, too lenient in his interpretation of PD rules:
  • Three examples:
    • File:Hugo Madera.jpg is said to be PD, but its creation and publication date is IMHO by far not long enough ago to fulfil {{PD-Cuba}} without further evidence
    • File:Juan del Águila Salazar 1974.jpg is said to be PD, but there's not information provided that the prerequisites of {{PD-Peru-anonymous}} are fulfilled, beyond a Facebook posting.
    • In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bonavena Ramírez 1985.png Yann got already convinced by my argumentation and deleted the file for failing the {{PD-Mexico}} prerequisites.
• Our discussion here has two opposite poles, mine can be summed up to that a positive demonstration of PD status by virtue of having anonymous creators is not doable by online searches and that the remaining uncertainty makes such files unfit for Commons per COM:PRP and COM:CARES. SSD45 says the opposite. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Demonstration of anonymity is usually very difficult, barring that you can find a clearly initial publication that didn't credit the work to an individual but rather to a collective entity, e.g. a press agency or a postcard company. Even then, it's possible that the author becomes known. Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

    @Jmabel: You'd be correct if we were referring to say, files using the {{PD-Mexico}} template due to authors coming back (although it should be stated that a majority of these scans are from some form of professional sports magazine/newspaper that are difficult to track down due to being in a third world country), however a file such as File:Juan del Águila Salazar 1974.jpg also qualifies for {{PD-Peru-photo}} considering that both the publication date (1974) and corresponding uniforms are given with the template being applicable with {{PD-1996}} due to Peru initially only giving a 20 year protection for photographs with authors before joining the URAA in 1996, ideally making this image PD in both Peru and the US. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    • That last (Peru) may be fine; all I'm saying is that if you have pictures that would be PD only if they are anonymous (because otherwise photographers' lifetimes come into play), you actually need some proof of anonymity, not just "I don't know who took it." - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

      @Jmabel: All of my latest uploads use anonymous templates if the original source and other websites I run through multiple search engines that also include those used in their original countries. Some files that were marked for deletion in this latest wave such as File:Sporting Cristal 1980 (2).jpg are even sourced from official websites where no author is credited. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

      • But surely that website is not the original published source of that photo from 1980. It's perfectly possible either (1) that they knew they had reproduction rights (which doesn't give anyone else reproduction rights) or even (2) that they had the photo and did basically no diligence of their own about who took it, figuring they'd get away with it. We've seen more or less the latter happen with agencies of the U.S. government, libraries in several countries, etc. The existence of one reuse that fails to acknowledge a source does not make the work anonymous. I've caught websites, newspapers, magazines, TV stations, even a U.S. congressional office, and a moderately big-budget French film violating my own copyrights this way literally dozens of times, and it would be unlikely that I've found even 10% of the times someone has used a photo of mine without naming me, since there is not a lot to actively draw my attention to work where my name isn't there. - Jmabel ! talk 21:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

        @Jmabel: Wouldn't this just make a majority of recent uploads of Commons that aren't directly an own work eligible for deletion then? The source for the image is directly from the club's website and considering the current financial troubles of the Peruvian Liga 1, I highly doubt that one of their biggest clubs wants to enter into further legal troubles. Whilst the aforementioned scenario you've mention can be rather commonplace in the internet nowadays, if multiple sources generally give zero information on an image that has entered publication for around 45 years that has likely came from some official collective press that hasn't cited a photographer, especially when you consider the financial and geopolitical status of Peru at the time.

        Either way, I don't even see the point in even bothering trying to even present my arguments on this website anymore considering that they ALWAYS fall on deaf ears with just about every editor on Commons seeking to go on a report spree my uploads and restrict on which templates that have been previously been considered fine for me to use, I can even still use anymore. This has led to me strongly considering either retiring from Commons on my own volition for a long time or make VERY sparse contributions moving forward as it has been made apparent that I can't even do ANYTHING here anymore. It doesn't help administrators just abide by nearly every DR my account has faced with zero question nor challenge with every undeletion request I make always being ignored once I present an actual argument for PD status or just so there can be further rationale for my inevitable indefinite block. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have a hunch that the File:Polar Logo 2012.png trademark isn't actually CC BY-SA. I don't know if maybe it's PD-textlogo or if it should just be deleted (or moved to Wikipedia to use only under fair use or the like). -- PeterCooperJr (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

My opinion is a Above TOO ,the symbol of a Polar is not simple, need to transfer a Wikipedia (English) as Fair-use (google translato). AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@PeterCooperJr AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I uploaded a photo yesterday to Wikimedia Commons that was forwarded to me by the person who took the photo, and who just today submitted a copyright release under CCA Share Alike 4.0. I received a bot message that says I have not provided enough information and it may be deleted, although I completely filled out the template form for the upload. I am completely confused and don't know where to go from here. There are so many different instructions and directions and it's hard to tell which one applies to this situation. Help please! 2601:204:4000:9780:B538:BC56:73E:C1B8 03:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed you aren’t logged in, so I don’t know which image you are referring to. Can you perhaps provide a link to the image? Tvpuppy (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Even without that, I'm going to make a guess: you may have missed step 12 of Commons:Uploading works by a third party#How they can grant a license (and how you upload). There is a known deficiency in the UploadWizard, and no committed date for when it will be fixed. This has created a problem for a lot of uploaders of third-party material. - Jmabel ! talk 05:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if this post is off-topic. It might be too obscure of a query. The following link is reachable at Ref 137 at the WP article "Paul Martin (illustrator)." https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433019298268&seq=1189. I was wondering for awhile about the significance of the "+ A.C." on the cover. Is A. C. someone who assisted Martin in the cover illustration? The odd thing is that if one scrolls up a few pages, the same "+ A.C." initials are on the June, July, and Aug. covers. They are all by different artists. So maybe "A. C." instead of an unknown name stands for something else. Some guesses of mine are "Artist's Copy," "Art Department Copy," or an in-house or staff artist named A. C. JimPercy (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's a web series online called The New Norm, and the show's promo was made with AI, however the voice acting isn't (except Elon's, who's is AI). Even though AI is public domain in the U.S (which is where the show is produced) I figured I'd ask to make sure it's public domain to avoid a potential copyright violation. CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The texts are presumably human, which is more of an issue than the voicings of them. There are probably some visuals in there that would be PD (but possibly not in scope, unless to illustrate the show itself), but the video as a whole, not. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the text is ineligible for copyright, as it consists only of simple geometric shapes or text and does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection.

Also as for the scope, the file can be added on the show's wiki page as "Official promo for the show".

What do you think? CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@CMBGAMER 2018: There is a lot of text here, mostly in the form of dialogue, enough to be copyrightable as such.

Sure, you can't copyright a word or two, as would be in a logo, but (for example) plenty of plaques have enough text to be copyrightable. This is well over that threshold. - Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alright, makes sense CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Here there is a discussion on the topic. Friniate (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

To users who have access to info on the sculptural age and origins of the Japanese statues, kindly review these four files. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It wasn’t clear to me from the wording in {{YouTube-change-of-license}}, but do we allow files to be uploaded to Commons after the youtube channel removed the CC license from the video?

The file in question is File:2022-08-02 重要貴賓機場迎賓直播.webm, which the archives shows there was a CC license initially, but I noticed the CC license was removed before it was uploaded to Commons. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The media in question must be CC licensed at the time of import. If not, then it must be nominated. The template text is clear. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

And what is supposed to be the reason for this? Creative Commons is clear, their licenses are not revokable.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   13:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@999real only for the copies or reproductions of the file when it was under CC licensing. If the author chose to stop distributing the original media under that license, that original can no longer be derived from. The existing copies of the original stemming from the CC licensing era can still be derived or distributed. See Carl's comment at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/07#Higher-resolution after Flickr licence change. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is clearly not the same case as there when there was 2 different resolution photos. I don't know why we only link the Creative Commons FAQ instead of the legal code. Section 7. b. of CC BY 3.0 states clearly that the license lasts for the entire duration of copyright and cannot be withdrawn, without mentioning anything about they must be "copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license" like the FAQ does  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Edit conflict) I agree this is a nuanced area, and as Clindberg noted in a related Flickr case, there's no one-size-fits-all rule. But I think there's a strong argument for this file being acceptable under Commons policy, provided certain facts hold.

Per the Wayback Machine, the video was clearly offered under a Creative Commons license at a specific point in time. While the video itself was not archived for playback, the license statement appears in the metadata of the archived YouTube page (title, description, and license field). That constitutes a public distribution under a CC license—i.e. "this video (with this ID) is distributed under license X"—even if the actual media file is not downloadable via Wayback. Also, we can never prove when --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, we can never prove when a user chose to download their copy prior to upload here... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I personally would prefer to not upload works that are not currently being distributed under a free license. The CC licenses do note that authors have the right to stop distributing works under the license -- which they did. Anyone who copied it during that time, their license is perpetual yes. Copying off an archive site is fuzzier, but the archive site did copy it while licensed, and we'd be copying it from them. There is a reason why we have a license reviewer verify the license at the time for other works. I just don't like taking advantage of the Flickr license history function, or the Internet Archive, to copy something the author has stopped distributing. You can argue we are not yet a licensee until we validly copy it from a licensed source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If Internet Archive has made a copy of the work itself (i.e. we are not using it solely to verify the license of a file downloaded from some currently unlicensed source), then I don't see any legal issue with us copying it from IA. This is different from using license history to copy a work that the copyright holder is now distributing under a non-free license. If there was a legal issue with us copying from IA, then there is also a legal issue with third parties copying from Wikimedia Commons after the original source goes down. This would be a massive violation of free content principles, so that fact that we have a license review process and don't delete existing files after the source goes down must mean that licensees can continue distributing CC works without the consent of the original copyright holder. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@King of Hearts: I agree with you that there is no legal issue here, but there may reasonably be a question of courtesy. - Jmabel ! talk 21:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: Is your ethical concern over the use of automated scrapers to indiscriminately archive free content? Otherwise, I don't see how this is different from Commoners importing large amounts of Flickr files, to be preserved for posterity regardless of what happens to the Flickr original. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say it was unethical, I said it was discourteous. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, courtesy doesn't have much of a place in policy, outside of a few exceptions like COM:CSD#G7 or w:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. You or I could, of course, choose to refrain from taking actions that we individually find to be impolite. But if somebody else does it, there is no basis for deleting it unless this form of courtesy is made explicitly a part of policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Tvpuppy as an alternative, have you tried emailing the alleged copyright holder, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China (ROC)? It's worth trying to request/convince them to (re-)relicense their YouTube media under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I will send them an email and try to see if that can be done. I can imagine it will take a while for them to reply, so if I get anything back and this thread gets archived, I will update it in the file talk page. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I came across this image of computer-generated text written in the Langdi script, an extinct script. Is this image copyrightable? If not, what licence should one use if uploading it onto Commons? MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I cannot imagine a basis on which that could be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

orwell's works are in the public domain in the uk, where copyright is life + 70 years. are they public domain in the us? wikisource:Author:George Orwell says no, but someone on the talk page said that

The Bern Convention specifies that if a book is published "simultaneously" in two nations, nations that subscribe to the convention must honor the EARLIER entry into the public domain, that is, that nation must put the work into the public domain at the same time as the nation of the two which places the work in the public domain the SOONEST. Nineteen Eighty-four was published in the month of June 1949 in BOTH the USA and the United Kingdom, so the work is classified as having been published "simultaneously" in both nations...

is that correct? ltbdl (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The US did not apply this rule of the shorter term. 1984 did get a copyright renewal in the US https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/catalog/R641953  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ltbdl: See also meta:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

They are in the public domain in the United States if they were either

• published before 1930, OR
• published between 1930 and 1963, with the first publication being in the United States (first publication within 30 days counts), without a proper copyright renewal.

There are some works by Orwell that were published early enough that they are in the public domain in the US, but most of his works aren't.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm looking at cover art of w:I_Am_the_Greatest_(Cassius_Clay_album) (1963), there is a renewal by Peter Matz as "Type of Work: Music", did this cover album art or not?  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This copyright record is only for the musical composition, not the album cover. It didn't cover the recording, either (as recordings were not covered by U.S. federal statutory copyright at the time). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello !

I have a quite precise question... I already asked the question on the french village pump, people weren't sure and I was sent here. You're my last hope. I made a page french page for Lusitania (mathematical society), a Moscow school of mathematics active between the 1910s and 1930s. It had a major impact on the history of Russian mathematics. In particular, it is interesting for understanding the filiation of ideas in different subfields. A family tree, nicknamed “Luzin's Tree” in honor of one of its founders, can still be seen at Moscow University. It is displayed on Файл:Luzin_Tree.jpg, but this file is only usable on russian WP. This tree is taken up schematically in several scientific articles on the history of maths. First in celui-là (p.8), then in this book (chap.8) which simply repeats the other diagram, adding a name (without quoting the first article). I wrote to one of the authors of the book (the only one still alive...) and he said he'd put the image on commons. But he's old and seems to have trouble using his computer. I've had no answer for 2 months :/

My question is: what is the status of this diagram? Considering that it comes from a supposedly collective work in the 20s~30s, with no clear author, and that the diagram has been reposted from scientific article to scientific article, I'm a bit confused. As it's quoted every time people mention Lusitania, I think it's very relevant to put it in the article (in one form or another). Can I just vectorize it myself (but it's a lot of work...) and upload it to Commons? I'll take any advice :)

Best regards, Entropy fighter (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If published in 1920s, it will be in public domain in USA now per {{PD-US-expired}}. In Russia under the pma-70 rule its status is less clear. Ruslik (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Though, if the work is anonymous, then {{PD-Russia}} will apply making the work public domain in Russia as well. Ruslik (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For information, the short discussion in French is at Commons:Bistro#Droits d'auteurs peu clairs pour "L'arbre de Luzin", in case someone wants to look at the questions discussed. As I observed there, the user who uploaded the file to ru.wikipedia estimated that the original work was from the 1960s or 1970s. That seems more probable than the 1920s-1930s. The year of the original work can make a difference for its copyright status. The work is a sort of tree of intellectual filiation. Just like a genealogical tree, the year in which the tree was made cannot be estimated from its oldest members. But it might be estimated from its youngest members. By looking at some names near the middle of the tree, we can find for example Самарский (1919-2008) and Костомаров (1929-2014). Their careers were apparently circa 1950-2000. There are also other people after them. So, the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s may be possible for the work. Another question is to determine to what extent the 2003 and 2009 diagrams, published in the 2003 article and the 2009 book, are or are not derived from the original work. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Asclepias for the clarification. Indeed, the photo from the russian article is of very unclear status. I'm more interested in the diagram. I tried to remake it myself on a vectorised way, but it's just so much work... and if it's gonna be refused in the end, I'd rather not do it. Entropy fighter (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If a reproduction in diagram, by you or someone else, of the original work, although with the modification of the style, is still a derivative work of the original work, then it is important to date the original work, at least approximately, to know if it is under copyright or not and to know if the modified version can be freely published or not. If the original work is under copyright, which seems likely, then the question is if the modified version is a derivative work of the original. So, there are at least two questions. 1. Is the original work under copyright? 2. Is a modified version, such as a reproduction in diagram, a derivative of the original? To conclude that the modified version can be freely published, it would be necessary to arrive at a negative answer to at least one of those two questions. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that the information in this tree cannot have a copyright. Ideas and raw data cannot have a copyright. Now the design of the tree might still be under a copyright. But recreating the tree with another design should be OK. Yann (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: I disagree. The claim of who influenced whom is not a simple fact, and when you put several dozen such linked claims together you get a pretty complex intellectual construct. You can't copyright ideas, but a reproducing all of the information in a chart like this gets into the realm of paraphrasing an entire literary work, which is clearly a copyright violation.

(Now, if the copyright is expired, we are on a perfectly good footing.) - Jmabel ! talk 21:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I think we are going to discuss what is a fact. Would this be different if it were a simple genealogy tree? Or a biological tree about species? Yann (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: Simple genealogy: absolutely. Species: if there is strong agreement among scientists, yes. Conversely, if something like this were a radical re-clading, expressing one particular scientist's theory, possibly not. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

"strong agreement among scientists": I don't think this matters for copyright. Whether it is a one-man idea, or a commonly accepted idea, it is still only an idea. Only the representation of the idea can get a copyright. Yann (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It matters in terms of whether it is "fact". For example, I cannot copyright a listing of the Beatles' songs in chronological order, but if I were to make up a list of the Beatles' songs in terms of quality, by my own standard, most likely I could copyright that list. - Jmabel ! talk 22:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Buenas se puede publicar el escudo de armas del Tachira en Venezuela como este (https://bitacorasamisan.blogspot.com/2013/01/heraldica-tachirense-escudo-del-estado.html?m=1) el primer escudo (con color) fue pintado por Marcos Mariño en 1914 pero falleció en 1965 pero el primer escudo (sin color) fue creado en 1878 ,es posible publicar con template {{PD-Venezuela-old}}?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

El escudo de 1878 no puede retener derechos de autor.

El de 1914 no hay derechos de autor en los EEUU (publicado antes de 1930).

Para el de 1914, la situación en Venezuela es menos clara. La unica posiblidad perteniente en {{PD-Venezuela-old}} para perder derechos de autor sería "La obra estuvo sujeta a la ley de 1928 pero no cumplió con los requisitos obligatorios de registro y depósito dentro de los tres años desde su publicación, y fue publicada en 1960 o antes," y yo no tengo ningún idea como verificar registraciones (o ausencia de ella) en Venezuela.

Pero en 2026, será 60 años después del muerto de Marcos Mariño, y se le permitirá {{PD-Venezuela}}. - Jmabel ! talk 03:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel:En EEUU en que template se utiliza para las fotografías (como esta) publicado antes de 1930?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

{{PD-US-expired}}. - Jmabel ! talk 06:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel:Porque 2026?? Según la calculadora era (1965+60=2025)? Osea estamos en 2025? AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@AbchyZa22: Porque los derechos de autor siempre expiran al final del año calendario. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Heya folks, the perennial issue of US passport photos came up again. Here's a link to the inconclusive last discussion and the deletion nomination that prompted this post. Thanks to anyone who weighs in! Bremps... 03:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I noticed an inconsistency in the source referenced by {{Mehr}}. The Arabian page of mehrnews.com does indeed state the CC-By-SA 4.0 licensing in the footer, as does tehrantimes.com. But when you switch the language to English on "Mehr", the footer statement becomes "© 2017 Mehr News Agency. All rights reserved". Are we still safe in trusting the Arabian version? I tend to say yes, but I still want to ask. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For a work with an unknown date of publication or even publication status, but a known author deathyear, what's the latest deathyear that guarantees the work is expired in the US? Based on COM:HIRTLE, I think it would be NOW - 95 - 120, but I wanted to get a check on that. My logic is that a work posthumously published would be copyrighted for publication+95, but an unpublished work lapses after, at the latest, 120 years, so publication would not (I would think) regenerate copyrighted status at that point. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Actually since we're indexing from the date of death, I think it would be NOW - 95 - 70. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

According to {{PD-US-unpublished}}, all unpublished works from before 1905 are in the public domain. Yann (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: that is if the work is known not to have been published before 1978 and we don't know the creator, but the question was about known author death date and unknown publication history. Let's breaks that down to cases.

• If the work was first published before 1930, then author death date is irrelevant, the work is in the public domain.
• [Edited, per Prosfilaes below] If the work was first published 1930 - 1977 1995 in a country where the URAA restoration applies (without simultaneous U.S. publication), and was still in copyright in that country in 1996, then author death date is irrelevant, the work is copyrighted in the U.S.

• If the original country of publication had a rule of p.m.a.+70, this would mean that posthumous works published in this period by authors who had died in 1926 or later would still be copyright in the U.S. Similarly for other durations; in the few countries with p.m.a. + 100, that would be 1896 of later.
• (There are some edge cases here of countries where the URAA restoration date was later than 1996, I'm not going down that rabbit hole here.)
• Note that if the other country's laws did not take author death date into account, you can have cases here where author death date is irrelevant, the work is still in copyright.

• [Deleted, per Prosfilaes below] If the work was first published 1978 - 28 February 1989 in a country where the URAA restoration applies (without simultaneous U.S. publication), and was still in copyright in that country in 1996, then if author died in 1954 or earlier, the work is now in the public domain, otherwise not.
• I believe URAA restoration is the only case where copyright history in another country is relevant to copyright status in the U.S. For further cases, we can ignore copyright status in other countries.
• [Edited, per Prosfilaes below] If the work had its first publication 1930 - 1977 2002, and U.S. relevant requirements for notice, registration, renewal were met, then author death date is irrelevant, the work is still in copyright.
• If the work had its first publication 1930 - 1977, and URAA restoration does not apply and U.S. relevant requirements for notice, registration, renewal were not all met, then author death date is irrelevant, the work is public domain.
• [Edited, per Prosfilaes below] If the work was unpublished at the beginning of 1978 2003, and the known author died in 1954 or earlier, the work is now in the public domain.

The known death date gets rid of some of the miserable cases, but as you can see above there are some pretty extreme ones still left. There are still a couple of cases where the author death date does not guarantee the work is in the public domain, unless we can also guarantee that it was not published as of 31 December 1977, and others where this is only true for an author death date of 1925 or earlier. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's right generally, but there are exceptions with shorter duration for some types of works and for some countries (e.g. photographs and/or films). Yann (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: Wouldn't those all be special cases of the URAA restoration situation (out of copyright before 1996 in original country of publication, so restoration does not apply)? - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are cases where copyright expired before 1996, so URAA does not apply (Poland, Russia, Japan, etc.). Yann (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. So what would apply there is to fall back to the case where foreign copyright is irrelevant, and (if published 1930 or later) it falls back to whether it conformed to U.S. notice, registration, and renewal. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think you're missing a case; a work first legally published in 1978-2002 is under copyright for the longer of life+70 or 2048. There's some sort of common law rules about how unpublished copyright could be lost, but a bunch of Mark Twain works were published in 2001 by copyright holders and are in copyright until 2048.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Prosfilaes: you are correct, I missed that case. So "author death date is irrelevant, the work is still in copyright" case applies to those as well. - Jmabel ! talk 22:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which presumably also means I had "If the work was first published 1978 - 28 February 1989 in a country where the URAA restoration applies" wrong, because these would all still be in copyright.

I'll add/correct above. - Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please let me know if anything is still missing. - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the in-depth analysis, Jmabel. It's certainly more complicated than I hoped, but I'll see if I can use any of the cases you identified. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Buenas ,que pasaría si el logo o imagen publicó en 1973 pasará al Dominio Público sin la noticia del copyright ,es posible agregar el {{PD-US-no notice}}? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Teoreticamente, sí. Es casi imposible para logos de la mayoría de países distintos de los Estados Unidos, por razón de restauración de derechos de autor de la URAA en 1996. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel:Según en el anterior Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/04#Restaurar el logo del Movimiento Al Socialismo (Venezuela) el logo fue publicado en 1973 pero el logo fue expirado bajo la ley anterior ({{PD-Venezuela-old}}) en 2023 (ósea 2024) antes de que el Congreso derogara la ley anterior (50 años) para que creara la ley actual ({{PD-Venezuela}}) (60 años) pero este logo fue publicado en 1973 antes de que el Congreso creara la ley en 1993. AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel:Si el Congreso no derogará la ley anterior ,el logo pasó al Dominio Público de Venezuela en 2024. AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Todo esto no tiene ninguna importancia para los derechos de autor en EEUU. Lo único que importa para determinar los derechos de autor en EEUU es que se publicó originalmente en Venezuela después de 1929 y que yo tenía derechos de autor en Venezuela en 1996. - Jmabel ! talk 22:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel:Osea no se puede publicar (restaurar el logo) en Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, hace 2069. - Jmabel ! talk 01:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@AbchyZa22 no sé bajo qué precepto el logotipo habría expirado por una ley no vigente al momento de su creación. Realmente estás malentendiendo la situación de las obras que podrían haber expirado hasta la fecha URAA. Para eso sirve la plantilla Venezuela-old, nada más. Si los derechos de una obra no habían expirado al momento de la derogación de la ley de los 60, no aplica bajo ningún concepto esa ley sino la nueva Bedivere (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel:Ok con respecto a este (File:MAS.svg) cambia de categoría de undeleted en 2033 a Category:Undelete en 2069 (osea 1973+95+1=2069 como {{PD-Venezuela}}+{{PD-1996}}) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@AbchyZa22 Puedes hacerlo tu mismo. Bedivere (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Footage of the Presidential Parade following the inauguration (where Elon did the gesture) was filmed by employees of the government at Washington D.C.'s Capital One Arena. Therefore, it is public domain under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. Therefore, we do not need a GIF of the gesture marked as "fair use" on the page, we can use the footage from that video. However I wanted to come here and make sure. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there a timestamp on the video that you linked, where Elon does the thing? Hyperba21 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's at 1:41:42. If it's public domain, we should add Elon's full speech on the page, along with a time stamp of the gesture on the file caption. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the "T" watermark on the video? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is the symbol for Trump and Vance's inauguration. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not that symbol. The "T" watermark. Can it be a logo of a private Trump entity, possibly meaning the video was created and produced by that private entity? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Where do you see the T? PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's not a watermark on the actual video, that's the YouTube channel annotation - Trump's account has a little "T" logo projected on the bottom right of the video when you're watching on desktop. But this is indeed the Trump campaign account. 19h00s (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bottom right corner of the video. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, my mistake. I was watching on mobile. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you confirm that it was indeed a government employee who produced this video? The account is Trump's own YouTube account, not the POTUS/White House account, so this may have been produced by his campaign team, a member of his non-government staff, or an outside contractor. That's not normal - usually it is indeed federal staff who produce/coordinate all this - but what about this presidency has been normal? I wouldn't be surprised at all if Trump's team demanded that an outside firm/agency handled the filming of the inaugural. Do we have any proof that it was filmed by federal employees? 19h00s (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The federal employees attended the arena for the presidential parade and filmed it as well as took pictures. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's not really an answer to my question - how do you know that federal employees made this video? If this video were posted from the White House account, I would have way less doubt, but it was posted to Donald Trump's own YouTube. 19h00s (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since Trump was inaugurated as president, what he does is filmed by federal employees, that's why I believe they were involved. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's dubious, but I get your point PDF08. Tweets and truthsocials by Trump as president, for example, are considered PD. But since we can't say Trump produced this film himself, published on his official YouTube, it is more doubtful. Bedivere (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alright, makes sense. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should ask admins and see what they think. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

You need to know who made the video. That youtube channel has a lot of fair use on it. So you can't say that being posted there is a sign of original authorship. It's not enough that gov employees were there or were making videos. You need to know who made this one. GMG^talk 20:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I believe the flickr account rds323 does not have the rights to licence the images uploaded and this is a case of licence laundering. See this [1] flickr image which is clearly copyrighted to Dan Heller.

File:WTC 7 rubble.jpg was uploaded to flickr in 2018 but this image exists online earlier [2]

Some of these uploads have been relicenced as PD based on them being created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, although I have no idea why images of the 9/11 attacks would fall under that. One of the images is even featured File:Explosion following the plane impact into the South Tower (WTC 2) - B6019~11.jpg

I haven't done a full investigation as I am a bit busy at the moment but I believe most files uploaded from this flickr account are copyright violations or incorrectly licenced. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should we allow the use these files of free depictions of non-free works within German-language Wikimedia projects. Unless {{Urheberrechtlich geschützt}}. Absolutiva (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Absolutiva: What is the question exactly? Commons makes its own policy, which allows hosting files that are free in the U.S and their country of origin. And de.wikipedia makes its own policy, which, for its own reasons, does not allow the display of some such files there. Neither Commons nor de.wikipedia are likely to adopt the policy of the other. It would be impractical for Commons to remove files every time a local project decides to have a more restrictive policy than Commons. Changes to the policy of de.wikipedia must be discussed on de.wikipedia. Or maybe I misunderstood your question. What do you mean by "free depictions of non-free works"? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think they mean stuff like Category:Files from the official Cartoon Network Scratch account which contains free depictions of normally non-free works, probably. HyperAnd (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Those files are free licensed with CC BY-SA 2.0. Such free licenses are in principle usable worldwide. The template "Urheberrechtlich geschützt" is not meant for free licensed material. If the question is if those files may be used in de.wikipedia, an actual answer can only be given by de.wikipedia. But normally, validly free licensed files are supposed to be usable. Unless de.wikipedia decides to disagree with the decision of Commons to consider those files as validly free licensed. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it allowed to use these files of free depictions of non-free anime on Japanese Wikipedia? Absolutiva (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

To ask if something is allowed or not on the Japanese Wikipedia, please ask the question on the Japanese Wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

These files are uploaded in Library back up project. Besides them, More copyright books was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. This problem must be solved. Biáng (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Biáng: Hi, You can simply nominate them for deletion, and add the DR in the appropriate "Undelete in ...." category. Yann (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Or add the filenames to the specific categories of Commons:Library back up project/deletion requests and nominate the files for speedy deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Campbell's Soup Cans by Andy Warhol.jpg was uploaded yesterday and inserted into Wikipedia article space. Is its claimed PD-US-not renewed/cc-by-2.0 licensing correct.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have two more photos of these paintings in Category:Campbell's Soup Cans and have also deleted several files showing them over the years. MOMA and Campbell's Soup Cans (Q2697937) say they are copyrighted. Is there any evidence that they are in fact PD-US-not-renewed as claimed? --Rosenzweig τ 14:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, MoMA is probably relying on the Warhol Foundation's claim of copyright, not their own analysis/research.

The uploader appears to be correct that the paintings in the image are indeed the same set that were first exhibited at Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles in 1962 (Warhol made many additional versions of his soup can works as both paintings and prints, but we can rule out the possibility that the pictured works are from a later version/set). Unclear if the works sold at that specific show; is the offer of sale enough for publication?

I have never seen the back of these paintings (nor could I find a photo with a cursory Google search) so I don't know if they truly lack a copyright notice, but I've also never been clear on whether the notice needs to be on the front of 2-d works of art like this - I've always just assumed that the notice can be anywhere on the work, even the verso.

But if there is indeed no notice on the paintings, and if the exhibition in Los Angeles counted as publication, and if the uploader/others were/are unable to find a renewal, then it would seem they're PD.

Late addition: Didn't think about the Campbell's of it all. Not sure how their IP plays into this situation; I believe Warhol got permission to make these works originally, but I have no idea what kind of agreement might have been made re: ownership. The uploader says they couldn't find a renewal under Campbell's name either, so it might be a moot issue. --19h00s (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagging in @Toohool as a courtesy as the uploader! 19h00s (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is any Campbell's issue. Likely not copyrightable in the first place, published without notice anyways, de minimis in the paintings even if it was under copyright, and the design dates from long before 1930 as well so it's expired. The paintings come down to whether the they were legally published before 1964, which is very possible but a thorny question, and can be possibly be different based on judicial circuit and precedent court cases. Before 1976, Melville Nimmer's 1956 distillation of court cases said: The relevant decisions indicate that publication occurs when by consent of the copyright owner the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur. The Copyright Compendium of the era was a bit more equivocal if it was a single painting being sold. Sale or offering for sale of a single copy could be publication, depending upon the intent of the copyright proprietor. When the applicant states that only one copy has been sold, registration will be made if the applicant also indicates that he considers this publication. Post 1978, the 1984 compendium said that a sale of a painting to a private collector was not publication. The reference cited did seem as though the works were up for sale to the general public -- unsure if those were the originals, or a print. But that is a pretty good case for publication. The exhibition alone is not publication, unless they allowed photographs etc. inside (which is hard to know). But the offering for sale, documented in the 1962 newspaper article linked from the image, is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like only two of the paintings actually sold and left the gallery during that exhibition (plus several others that were paid for but bought back by the gallery before being picked up), but they were indeed the originals and they were indeed available for public purchase. It seems like the price on the paintings changed between the article and the show actually opening - they went for $100 each, not $200 as the LA Times says. (Perhaps the works just weren't selling and they had to cut the price). But yes, based on your analysis and the history of the exhibition/sales, it seems like these paintings were all published by virtue of being offered for public sale at this exhibition. 19h00s (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does this meet the threshold of originality to be copyrightable? Wowzers122 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

IMO, yes. The original credit mentions even "visualization" contribution by a third party. Why not ask them directly for permission (https://www.criticalthreats.org/terms) ? --Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

People are scary ;-; Wowzers122 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The particular placement of the boxes, sure. Could you show the same information arranged differently? Possibly, though if it's not purely factual and may be the opinion of the author, the choices of the organization or particular boxes might also be copyrightable -- that's a bit harder. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The FBI have along history of using photos created by people other than the agency in their wanted posters. How should Commons deal with this copyright issue? Trade (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

FBI website's legal disclaimer link directs me to this page, in which the copyright policy is stated as (quote in full):

Unless otherwise indicated, information on Department of Justice websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the Department of Justice as source of the information is appreciated, as appropriate. The use of any Department of Justice seals, however, is protected and requires advance authorization, as described below.
If a source other than the Department of Justice or other federal government agency is indicated on a photo, graphic, or other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source. Please note that some photos, graphics and other materials used on this website are copyrighted. For information on materials generated by external entities with Department of Justice funding, please refer to individual component policies. This copyright notice only pertains to the Department of Justice website.

It seems to imply that generally, websites of DOJ and its attached subordinates (like FBI) are PD by default ({{PD-USGov-FBI}} or {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}), but that doesn't mean that every image on their site/s is PD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

While many FBI wanted posters are hosted on official government websites and may include public domain elements (like the poster layout or text), this does not automatically make every image within them free of copyright. In most cases, the source photo was not created by a U.S. federal government employee, but rather obtained from third parties (relatives, news outlets, etc.). The FBI's use of such photos does not strip their copyright. As such, unless there's clear evidence that a particular photo was taken by a government employee or explicitly released into the public domain or under a free license, we must assume standard copyright protections still apply. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Common sense would dictate that any agency cannot license the photos of someone who they published an wanted poster for (unless they somehow have escaped custody) Trade (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg is uploaded under a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license but I'm concerned about the validity of this. It's not claimed that the image was created from a blazon but from here and is therefore a derived work. The UK Supreme Court was only established in 2009 so this isn't a case of this being an old badge copied. This is a logo to which UK Crown Copyright applies and the Royal Arms, or Crest at the top are never covered by the UK's Open Government Licence even if that were applicable to the rest of the design. Nthep (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

I would like to upload this and this image showing a well-known musician of Hof who unfortunately died recently. The files on flickr are marked as CC-BY-2.0, which is fine, but shows BY NC ND 4.0 in the EXIF metadata. How to deal with it?
Thanks :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Theoretically, the Flickr licenses should override the EXIF statement. It's obvious that the photographer did some processing in raw format, most likely to achieve the B&W coversion (the 240 dpi resolution that's stated in the EXIF is the default value in Adobe Camera Raw). As far as I know, Adobe Lightroom is also a photo management tool (not only a raw converter) similar to Adobe Bridge, meaning it should offer the possibility to edit EXIF and IPTC fields as was consciously done here. But it is also a conscious choice to set licenses on Flickr uploads, and that is a more recent choice than the filling of metadata fields (the latter is done at any time between creation and upload, the former after the upload).

Nevertheless, in such a situation of conflicting information and possibly conflicting author intent, grabbing the image without asking first is, while most likely legal, not courteous and may not be the best practice four our community. @Gnom: could you eventually confirm this? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

A lot of people are unaware of EXIF data and, unlike Commons, Flickr does not present EXIF data at the UI. - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This continues off of the New Norm discussion earlier, which was concluded to be inelegible due to the writing and VA being human-done - may I post officially-made AI content by corporations of their IP if it appears to not have significant human authorship? My particular sight has been on promo images made by Activision to test responses to possible Crash Bandicoot mobile games, the only things that look human-made (to my eyes) are the logos, which could be easily cropped or blurred out if they're even elegible for copyright at all.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/activision-apparently-using-ai-art-to-float-concepts-for-guitar-hero-crash-bandicoot/ RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, they are derivative works and should not be uploaded. Bedivere (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Following this recent deletion of a photo of a poster for Aberystwyth Comedy Festival that had been used on the cy-wp article for the festival, I went back to check the article again and found that File:Arad Goch Gwyl Gomedi.jpg is still in use there. This feels like it's still a derivative work of the sign/poster depicted, but I'm less confident as to whether there's a copyvio issue here, given that most of the poster is just text. I'd be interested to know what others think about whether this is problematic or if I'm just overthinking! Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply