Jump to content

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Village pump
(Redirected from Commons:VPC)
Latest comment: 3 hours ago by 19h00s in topic Sculpture "publication" question

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
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.

Improving an image

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago63 comments7 people in discussion

Currently the image options for EN:Boating Party are a low resolution image, a defective high resolution one and a cropped high resolution one. For a 147 year old painting like that are we allowed to copy images from museum websites?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@TonyTheTiger: As long as it's just the image of the 2D work, yes; not if it includes the frame, though (which you can crop out). - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:Jmabel I went to see the Caillebotte exhibition last Saturday here in Chicago and noticing that the work had no article I created it. I am realizing that musuems don't put such high quality files on line. I am not going to be able to get anything better than the current low resolution one. I intend to revisit the exhibit once or twice more between now and the end of its run in October. Am I also able to take a picture of this and post it? I am going to have to bring my own camera and take a picture to get something high resolution. I am not sure if I am allowed to bring a tripod or monopod, but I will try to get something high quality. -TonyTheTiger (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@TonyTheTiger You can definitely take and post a picture of that work, yes! If you're referring to the Caillebotte show at the Art Institute, just be aware of their visitor policies (they don't allow tripods if I'm reading that correctly). Jealous that you get to see that exhibition, I can't make it to Chicago before it closes. 19h00s (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:19h00s, if you are ever interesting in dropping in on Chicago and need a place to crash let me know. My mother has been with me since the pandemic, but spends several months a year with my sister. My Costco sleeper sofa is free well over 100 nights a year.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@TonyTheTiger: The most important things technically in taking a picture like that (I'm presuming a DSLR here, but most of this is true regardless):
  • Obviously, use the best lens you've got. I use a 24mm prime lens for this.
  • Hold the camera as steady as you can.
  • You want the highest resolution and highest quality that you can reasonably get.
  • Among other things, this means you probably want the shortest exposure practicable, and only as much depth of field as necessary, but …
  • … don't hesitate to take multiple pictures with different settings as insurance.
  • Take at least onev photo as straight on as possible so that you have proportions right for reference [in this case, you already have that from other sources] but …
  • … for the picture you are actually going to work with, a tool like GIMP or Photoshop is perfectly able to adjust perspective (and even lens distortion, assuming the distortion is "regular"), but cannot properly fix reflections, so if you have to aim other than straight on to get an image with no reflections, do that and fix it in post-processing.
  • File:St. Nicholas icon - Banat - 18th-century.jpg is a good illustration of how much you can get away with in terms of underexposure and a weird angle and still get a pretty good image via post-processing (the file history shows the original for reference). There's a bit of reflection there even as it is, but it's tremendously better than what I could have gotten out of a more obvious way of taking the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • User:Jmabel, thanks for the advice. I will be returning to attend an August 7 Caillebotte lecture at the AIC. I do not have any prime lenses. I have a few lenses I would be considering for the task. The approximate ranking order is RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM, RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM, RF28-70mm F2 L USM, and RF10-20mm F4 L IS STM. Do you think a monopod would be under the same restrictions as a selfie stick?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I am going to check in with Canon Professional Services. I am suppose to be able to borrow stuff for up to 10 days. I am going to see if they have a prime available for loans.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • User:Jmabel I just got off the phone with Canon Professional Services. The following lenses are on the list I am eligible to borrow, but I won't know what is in stock until I send in an email request: 50mm/1.2, 50mm/1.4, 35mm/1.8, 24mm/1.4 and 20mm/1.4. What order would you rank these in for this shoot. What order would you rank my lenses in for this shoot if I am too late/too low a priority for an August 7 request (they like 2 weeks notice).-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I am home with my camera and using the 28-70 it seems that a 50mm prime should be able to capture a 4ft wide field at a reasonable distance. I will request 50mm/1.2 with 50mm/1.4 as my contingency request. I'll keep you posted.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 24mm/1.4 would be comparable to what I use for this (mine's 24mm/1.8). I never shoot with a 50mm, but I can tell you that 85mm is quite inconveniently long for working in a museum. Most likely it is not a big deal to get down below f/4 anyway: unless the light is awful (or you are photographing something really small so it doesn't matter), it's usually good to have quite that little depth of field: it starts to matter that the corners of the painting are farther away than the center. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • I have little idea what the museum's rules on a monopod might be, other than that I would think they would not look kindly on someone walking around the galleries with a long, moderately sharp stick. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      For what it's worth, I recall the rule of thumbs that 50mm focal length on full-frame is said to approximately equal the normal human viewing angle, that's why 50mm sets the limit between "wide-angle" and "telephoto", as far as I'm aware. For museum photography, something shorter than 50mm may be sensible, this way, you'll gain room on your still for perspective corrections and crops. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2601:240:C481:5B0:D471:7C29:A3A:2445, I fixed in place the broken link to the example image and example article, hope you don't mind. – b_jonas 12:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:b_jonas, Thx-TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I got tracking info from Canon. AM delivery expected today. I am just realizing that although I want to take images for 4 or 5 (potential) articles, most of them are still under copyright so having 45 megapixel images with a really fast lens is not going to make that big of a difference. Maybe I should have gotten the 50mm rather than the 24mm, because the 4ft wide w:en:Boating Party might have been better with it while for the images from the 12 stop Art Institute of Chicago app Essentials Tour that needed images and articles w:en:America Window and w:en:User:TonyTheTiger/Sandbox/City Landscape, the fancy gear is not going to be as meaningful. I shouldn't have factored the larger works into the decision making.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • User:Jmabel, I have about 2 dozen photos to work from. Do you have any suggestions on judging which one is best to work from. E.g., is it better to start with a brighter one or one that is closer to perfectly rectangular?-2601:240:C481:5B0:6DF5:95B2:FB81:703C 10:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Hard to tell without seeing. "Brighter" is likely to be good, as long as the highlights aren't washed out. If it's from more than 30° off of straight on, it gets a lot tougher. I'd start by correcting lens distortion (Filters|Distorts|Lens Distortion...) and aspect ratio (Perspective Tool, probably in Corrective mode) and see what further work is needed. If it is too far off of straight-on, then fixing any separate distortion of the frame is much harder, very advanced GIMPing, but you can always take just the work itself and leave out the frame. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @TonyTheTiger: did you shoot in raw format? If yes and if you don't mind sharing some files with me (I suggest using WeTransfer and Wikimail), I'm willing to give it a shot using Adobe Camera Raw, it's built-in automated perspective correction is quite proficient in my experience.
      Technically, you usually exposed analogue film more towards the bright side (slightly long), because the sensitive chemicals were still able to record minute details in bright zones, even when overexposed: they were hard to saturate. It's the opposite for electronic sensors. If those are saturated, and that's much more easily achieved and a hard threshold, they won't record any more lighting changes. That's why you should aim for a slight underexposure when needed, because sensors react to a much lower threshold/number of photons than chemicals like silver halogenides. You'll record meaningful lighting intensity values even if you're not having a perfect exposure, for the price of some noise, you can amplify those signals. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      User:Grand-Duc, I shoot CRAW + JPG. I'd be happy to share files. With 26 images, most of which are probably in the range that they could be edited to better than what we have. I am mostly slightly underexposed. I could send some or all in JPEG and then you could help me select and then I'd be happy to also send the CRAW because I don't get into editing so much.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm totally fine with that. As said, I suggest using the en:WeTransfer service to get a link to be mailed, we both have Wikimail (Special:Email) enabled. Make a folder with the 26 candidates, put it on WeTransfer and send the link. I'll tell you then on which stills I'd like to try a raw development. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I sent a link. TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @TonyTheTiger: thanks, received and replied to. (Lately, some Wikimails I exchanged with colleagues here were caught into the provider's spamfilter. We're using the same service, so you may have to check there.) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I got your email. I am having trouble with WeTransfer.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I emailed a Google Drive link. TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      TonyTheTiger, I have the files, thanks, and I'm working on them. What do you like the best in return as format? JPEG, TIFF, DNG? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I usually post as JPG. If you tell me which one you are editing, I will post the original and you can post the edit by updating over the original for proper credit. TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Are you having better luck with the R5M2 shots or the R6? TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Uh, "proper credit"? I would say that it would actually only go to you, as you went ant took the stills, I'm only something like a technician. I was planning on mailing you my results back, so that you can upload the finished image(s) that you like the best.
      None of them were troublesome, I think; I tried several crops and changed the white balance on some. It was good material to work on. (I just finished, will put them on WeTransfer now. That can take a bit of time, I'm on a somewhat slow connection.) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I guess we are working with 3 from the R5M2 and 6 from the R6. The first one from the R5M2 looks like it is a lot closer to finished in terms of cropping out the frame. Is that your preference? TonyTheTiger (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      OK, I got what you meant with "trouble with WeTransfer" (it loops back after reaching ~90% upload). I'll use Google Drive too. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @TonyTheTiger: done, you've got the mail. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Kudos and thank you. Well done. Above and beyond. I was hoping you would find one you could clean up with little trouble. You squared them all up and adjusted the lighting (white balance). Much of the cropping has been done too. I am sure this was easier for you to do than it would have been for me. TonyTheTiger (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @TonyTheTiger: after a re-read of your post from 04:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC) and the part about the frame in your mail, I get what you're thinking about. First: you can chose any one of those JPEG I made from your raw files, there shouldn't be any copyright issues.Reply
      I am going to want to remove the frame as much as possible. Is either paint or photos more lossy in this regard? TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      File:Boating Party by Gustave Caillebotte pictured on August 7, 2025 at the Art Institute of Chicago.jpg is where we are right now. TonyTheTiger (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      The main issue with framed paintings is that those frames aren't flat. They are visibly present in 3 dimensions, this is what precludes people in simply copying imagery of framed old paintings from museum websites or similar. The photographer of those is seen as having made an image of a 3D object and is fully entitled to copyrights of that. BUT: if this frame gets cropped away, the Foundation upholds the stance of only hosting a 2D copy of a work that is out of copyrights. That has a logic: it doesn't matter which technique you're using to duplicate old works: a camera, a flatbed scanner, a drum scanner, a human tracing and repainting the work on sone medium... Those are all equal in the eyes of the law. So, a crop is a copy made with a camera.
      Here, as you are the actual photographer, future uploader and licensor, there's no problem with images of framed paintings.
      In the case where the photographer is identical to the licensor, we only have to consider whether the frame is an actual object of art itself. Some intrinsically sculpted specimen or some equipped with fine inlaid works can more or less easily get over any relevant COM:TOO. The one visible in your stills is not one of these, it's quite certainly below COM:TOO US.
      In conclusion: chose whatever image(s) pleases you the most, that's why I left several of them with the frame intact, (you can display the setting of the museal presentation, if you like) and cropped some others more or less close to the painting itself. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      User:Jmabel, I think I was probably 10 or so degrees off of straight on because the digital levels only guide you in two of three dimensions and I was distracted by them a bit.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all the advice. User:Grand-Duc has done a fantastic job cleaning up these files. I sent him 26 files and he tried his hand at editing 9 of them. He liked 4 of them and below are the three new ALTS (edited but not yet cropped) that I have uploaded: This one is also shown above. It is from a en:Canon EOS R5 Mark II with a 24mm/1.4 prime lens at 1/160, ISO 800:

We have two alternatives from a en:Canon EOS R6 The first is at 28mm/2.0 1/100 ISO 640:

We have two alternatives from a en:Canon EOS R6 The first is at 65mm/2.8 1/100 ISO 640:

This week I will try to use the Commons:CropTool to upload new versions over these without the frames in the coming days unless someone beats me to it.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc, Jmabel, and 19h00s: The preexisting image that I was so down on is looking better to me know. My question is whether the vest is supposed to be blue matching the pants or black matching the hat. My picks have a blacker vest. If you look close up, I have black with white nicks and the preexisting has black with blue nicks. What do you think is truer. I'll probably go to another Caillebotte lecture at the Art Institute next month, so I can look. The question is which image should I go with for a nomination for the DYK picture slot on the ENWP main page for EN:Boating Party?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC) File:Lyon 1er - Musée des Beaux-Arts - Salle 229 - Partie de bateau (Gustave Caillebotte).jpgReply

Uhh... Now, it boils down to the colour / white balance. Photoshop's automatism said that a colour temperature of 2850K is appropriate for your shots, your camera had that a lot warmer (around 5400K IIRC). I think that a middle area may render well, something around 3600K, to keep a bit of the warm lights, but without having a gray card or another reference in the picture for that purpose, one can only guess. If you can re-visit the place and shot the painting again, hold something truly white in the picture please (a handkerchief, a clean cotton tissue) or a gray card if you happen upon one. Assuming that the lighting in the exhibition won't change, such an image would provide a reference to a better raw processing (I can return to your files). It doesn't need to get particularly well framed, it would only be a measuring of the actual lights. I actually tried to use the explanatory sign on the right as white reference, but that wasn't producing a convincing result (I think that it's not truly white, but either tinted or transparent and showing the wall colour). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
GD, you are a very knowledgeable editor. I am a guy who logs on to the free Canon Digital Photo Professional and hits the autolighting optimizer button. With EN:WP:File:City Landscape.jpg, I got really fancy and brightened it one stop before hitting the button. My eyes are glazing over with this talk of temperatures and such. When I go back for the next Caillebotte lecture, I'll take a white hanky, envelope, or t-shirt. It is not until mid to late September. I won't have the 24mm/1.4, but I got reasonable results with my 28-70/2.0. I guess I could ask for the 50m/1.2, but I am only allowed to borrow a piece of equipment once (it is an evaluation loan afterall). BTW, I think the sign is seashell, cream, bone, ivory, or some other ite|offwhite color]]. So in the mean time have my three versions above, original high res (File:Lyon 1er - Musée des Beaux-Arts - Salle 229 - Partie de bateau (Gustave Caillebotte).jpg) and its cropped top counterpart (File:Lyon 1er - Musée des Beaux-Arts - Salle 229 - Partie de bateau (Gustave Caillebotte) (cropped).jpg). Which would you want to see on the main page of ENWP if you had your choice. (Don't worry about hurting my feelings, the best choice will lead to the best chance to get it on the main page).-TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I meant: don't bother about making a shot worth editing afterwards. The current material is ample enough. In fact, a shot with the white cloth held as close as possible to the painting (maybe near to the bluish pants) so that it gets nearly the same light as the painting, is that what would be helpful. It can be skewed, obliquely framed, whatever, the important thing is to have the white reference under the same light as the motif. That would allow the software (Camera Raw) to measure the colour values and compute a set of them that reproduce the visual experience as close as possible. Then, these values can be used e.g. on the 5529 or any of the other raws. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
        • Looking at the versions used by the 6 museums that have hosted the painting since 2023 d'Orsay, Getty, AIC, Lyon, Marseille, Nantes at least 4 and probably 5 are closer to the color of the preexisting image's shading for the vest. I take solace that Musee d'Orsay, its actual home, has shading closer to our work, IMO, but possibly the lighting or Canon software made all my results too black. We can leave the image. All I was able to do was take a picture in a setting where a smaller portion of the shot is impacted by the shading at the top. For educational purposes, I will try to retake the shot again in September. I had never noticed the difficulty museum-goers have in taking photos without a flash. I had completely misunderstood the brown strip at the top and had no idea the expertise it took to reduce the shadow and present the lighting data. Kudos to User:Romainbehar the uploader.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
          The curators of a museum have more photographic equipment than the general public at their disposition. Most importantly, they have the opportunity to take the exhibit to a working area with duly controlled, shadow-free lighting (like provided by an array of softboxes) and can leisurely control every aspect of this task of reproduction photography (camera orientation, subject orientation, state of cleanliness of the subject, exposure time, format choice - middle format or even larger using scan backs may not be uncommon, lens choice and focal length, white balance, etc.). So, of course images presented on museum websites are likely to look different from what museum visitors can achieve, as these visitors have to cope with an illumination that is likely dimmer and similar to incandescent lamps colour-wise. Studio lighting is often aimed at neutral white, similar to daylight or electronic flashes, at 5500K. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
          • User:Grand-Duc, if I were arguing on ENWP, it would certainly be the case that what we hope to do is represent that which can be found in the public domain. I.E., WP is a tertiary source which attempts to present a summary of secondary sources. However, at commons, I am not sure whether the objective is to produce an image that aims to be as close to the best public domain digital presentations of the subject or whether the objective is to produce an image that is the best depiction of the actual subject. If you were to judge a photo as a good depiction would it be based on it being the best depiction of what we feel are the most perfect digital depictions of the subject or the best depiction of what we feel the subject actually looks like? I think the latter is an impossible task. I think the former is something that can be judged.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
            Judging a photo... Uhh. It will depend on the circumstances, I think, and I won't be able to distance myself from expectations and earlier experiences. There are also the objectifiable characteristics like sharpness, noise, framing (golden rule / rule of the 2/3) to consider. So, I may judge differently for a shot that captured a fleeting moment (example: a flying bird doing shenanigans) than for some static subject where the photographer is in total control of everything (shot-related). I think that I may like photos the most that aim at showing their subject as similar to what a human can see on-location. That's why I asked for your feedback on how you recalled the colours - if your images show the painting like you experienced it, then they should be good. The technical characteristics stated above aren't an issue, as your experience and equipment weren't a bottleneck, so it'll boil down to subjective impressions. I am more fond of showing the frame, for instance, you preferred to crop it away. My reasoning: a visitor of a museum will see the painting in a frame, so a photograph may show it to better the recognisability on-location. But the frame-less image will serve better in Wikipedia's infoboxes, of course. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
            So can you teach me anything about why my vests have a different shade from the preexisting hi res?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
            @TonyTheTiger: I can try. But that may end in long texts, maybe better per e-mail or on one of our talk pages? And how much background knowledge about relevant physics and chemistry do you have? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
            It has been 40 years since I have studied chemistry or physics. I thought it might be something that could be answered fairly quickly.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
            The short answer is: it depends on the light source illuminating the subject.
            The long answer is... From what I saw in your raw files and in previous posts, the museum probably had spotlights on the painting and warm-white lamps in the corridors.
            Since nearly time immemorial, humans are trained to see and feel a reddish-yellowish light hue as cozy, comforting and warm - as that's the colour of fires in hearths and oil lamps. It's also the colour of light emmitted by incandescent light bulbs. The first bulb of Edison's make had a carbon fibre glowing / being heated to around 2600 Kelvin. Later on, osmium and tungsten wires allowed up to 3000K, in halogen lamps up to IIRC 3400K. The hotter a glowing object, the more shorter wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum are noticeable in its emissions (at the extreme end: a giant blue star with a surface temperature of 50'000K has quite a lot of ultraviolet emissions in its spectrum, same for a thunderbolt at 30'000K). Incidentally, the light received from the sun at noon is similar to the light that a body heated to around 5000-5500K would emit - this is the average surface temperature of our sun, too (sunspots are cooler, BTW, at ~3600K).
            Modern LED light sources are often built to emit a light that feels similar to old halogen lamps (the package will say: warm white, 3600K) or are sold as daylight lamps (light temperature of 5500K). The former is most likely what the museum in Chicago is using, for general illumination and for the spotlights.
            Now, let's make a thought experiment. Imagine that you have a vase with a pure primary blue enamel holding a red rose with green leaves. You're going to make photos or observations with your eyes of that. First, you're outside on a sunny day at noon, you observe the colours of your subject. Then, you're still outside, but under a cloud cover - the colours will become "cooler", the blue and green more prominent, the red more subdued, with a slight magenta touch. Now, you go inside and use halogen flood lights to light your vase. The red will become more prominent, now, and the blue and green less vibrant, getting a darker feeling. This effect will get more pronounced if you use classical light bulbs and even more so by candlelight (the light of candles is emitted by incandescent carbon particles glowing at approx. 1800K; if you cool those, you get a deposit of soot). Last setting: an illumination with fluorescent lamps. This will make the red nearly brownish, the green maybe kaki and the blue will seem violet.
            The first light sources, from the sun to the candles, were all emitters that have a quite uniform, a continuous spectrum, there are no wavelengths that are more or less absent, the relative amount of energy for each wavelength only depends on the surface temperature. That's idealized as black-body radiation. IIRC, the clouds of the second example make for that the diffracted light below them has gone through rayleigh scattering, so that your object gets more illuminated by shorter wavelengths. The last source, the fluorescent lamp, does not have such a continuous spectrum. The atoms of the filling, mercury vapour, get excited by an electric discharge, their electrons get pushed to a higher energy state. When they "fall back down", photons of a defined energy get emitted. They are in the ultraviolet range, so to produce visible light, those photons must get absorbed in a phosphor based coating. There, the photons push again electrons to a higher energy level. When these electrons come back to their ground state, they emit photons again, but also only on a discrete level of energy, a discrete wavelength. To get light that humans perceive as white, several different coatings (minimum three IIRC) must be combined, each with a phosphorous substance emitting a different wavelength.
            LED are similar in that regard, but the amount of discrete emitters (several different light-producing zones on the die, actually, each possibly with several semi-conductors with differing chemistries / doping) is higher so that you have a spectrum closer to a continuous one than with fluorescent lamps.
            Now, you have your subject, painting or vase, lighted. Each light source has its intrinsic emitting characteristics, aka dominating wavelengths. So, the amount of light that the colouring constituents can reflect is depending on what falls on them - there aren't much shorter, blue, wavelengths in candlelight, so that a surface that could appear blue under sunlight actually becomes dark to black under this light. Blue colours do generally not contain lots of substances that reflect red or yellow easily. Conversely, red colours aren't well suited to reflect blue.
            Another real-life example: a classical case of light sources with a clear coloured hue are the yellowish sodium vapour lamps used on streets - if that light falls on foliage of shrubs on the roadside, these shrubs appear dark. The discrete sodium emission spectrum does not contain wavelengths in the blue part of the visible spectrum.
            All of this is the background of why something allegedly painted blue looks different in your shots from another image of the same painting.
            In digital photography, you have the leisure to amplify or to weaken the signals for colour intensities during the post-processing. Software allows you to emulate most kinds of lighting, be it incandescent light bulbs, a photographic flash (that's the actual baseline for colour rendering), overcast conditions, fluorescent lamps... For any of these options, profiles of colour amplifications or attenuations are proposed that you can manually tweak.
            While I edited your stills, I took into consideration that they were most likely lit with lamps aiming at giving a warm, soft feeling like halogen lamps, and at a subdued intensity. That is a light with more yellowish and less bluish spectrum parts, hence blue motif parts will be seen darker. Of course, there's the option of ignoring that lighting and simulate the appearance of that painting under daylight with a brighter rendering of the blue parts. I think that I sent you the last image (5530) with such an edit towards a "neutral" colour rendering, even though I didn't raise the brightness a lot
            Last but not least, on a purely academic level, you may also have to consider the spectral response of your sensor (silicon photocells have IIRC a stronger response towards the red part of the spectrum and a less stronger towards violet, so that you must have more blue photons hitting the pixel than yellow ones for the same recorded signal strength. But that's already taken care of by the low-pass filter and the firmware in your camera which show for providing a more or less uniform recording performance over the visible spectrum). The actual resolution, meaning here how many discrete values for colours can be recorded, is also relevant. This is described by the number of bits per channel. I guess that your camera records 14 bit raws, which is current standard. JPEG have a colour resolution of 8 bit per RGB channel BTW. It's also important to observe the characteristics of the device used to display or tangibly fix the image, that's why professional graphic artists use calibrated monitors which are conform to standardized colour profiles, see Commons:Image guidelines#Your monitor and Color calibration. For prints, service providers also often rely upon colour profiles to produce a result that is the most faithful to the input (it's actually physically impossible to reproduce at 100% any source shown on a display, as displays are active emitters operating in RGB / addictive colour mixing which have their own individual intricacies, whereas prints make use of pigments and dyes for subtractive colour mixing. The conversion between both worlds is tricky and a science unto itself). This last digression would be background info about how something I find personally good is maybe bad on your screen (I'm actually using simple, older LCD screens which are a far cry from professional, calibrated tools).
            I hope that I didn't kill you with this text wall...
            Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
            You understand lighting. I still don't understand why preexisting file has blues where I have whites. I.e., my vest is blacks and whites and theirs is blacks and blues.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
            left source and right source.
            I'm having difficulties in understanding what you meant with the vest rendering, Tony. So I made a screenshot with a comparison, the right image is your ALT 2. Some differences would be due to a differing contrast, I think. Mind using annotations there to mark what you meant with blacks, whites and blues? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Folks, interesting though some of this is, it has gotten way removed from the concerns of VP/C, and really of any VP or similar page. I was quiet about this because I kept assuming you were done, but this seems to be going on forever. Could you take it somewhere else? - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I concur, Commons:Graphics village pump or perhaps Commons:Photography critiques are most likely better venues for such talk... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
User:Jmabel and User:Grand-Duc, thx for all your help. I did not know there was a place to seek evaluation. Let's see if they have anything to say.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply


Egyptian FoP

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago35 comments8 people in discussion

I have some doubts about our acceptance of Egyptian Freedom of Panorama (COM:FOP Egypt), which claims FoP is permitted implicitly by expressly denying the author the right to control reproduction if the work is located in public places. I revisited the unofficial English translation of the 2002 law as held by WIPO (linked at the bottom of CRT page), and based on my comprehension, the clause is not independent from other clauses under the same article (Article 171). It is connected to the second clause. Here is the full version of the relevant parts:

Without prejudice to the moral rights of the author under this Law, the author may not, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts:

(2) Make a single copy of the work for one's exclusive personal use, provided that such a copy shall not hamper the normal exploitation of the work nor cause undue prejudice to the legitimate interests of the author or copyright holders;
However, the author or his successor may, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts without his authorization:
Reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts, unless they were displayed in a public place, or works of architecture;...
— Article 171(2 and the first bullet)

The second clause is clear that it is permitted to reproduce a single copy of the work for one's own personal use. The FoP clause that accompanies it is directly connected to this clause, not an independent (third) clause. The third clause is an unrelated clause concerning computer programs.

Based on my understanding, Egyptian FoP is invalid for Commons, since it is only for personal use of applied, fine, plastic arts, and architecture found in public places. If it were a separate clause not subordinate to the second clause, then there would have been no "personal use" only restriction. I would still need third opinions on this. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply


Translating the relevant section of the Arabic text of the 2020 revision of the law gives me the same clause. For the original, from the 2020 version of the 2002 law:

مادة (۱۷۱) مع عدم الإخلال بحقوق المؤلف الأدبية طبقاً لأحكام هذا القانون، ليس للمؤلف بعد نشر مصنفه أن يمنع الغير من القيام بأى عمل من الأعمال الآتية:

...

ثانياً عمل نسخة وحيدة من المصنف لاستعمال الناسخ الشخصي المحض وبشرط ألا يخل هذا النسخ بالاستغلال العادي للمصنف أو يلحق ضرراً غير مبرر بالمصالح المشروعة للمؤلف أو لأصحاب حق المؤلف. ومع ذلك يكون للمؤلف أو خلفه بعد نشر مصنفه أن يمنع الغير من القيام بدون إذنه بأي من الأعمال الآتية:

- نسخ أو تصوير مصنفات الفنون الجميلة أو التطبيقية أو التشكيلية ما لم تكن في مكان عام أو المصنفات المعمارية.

نسخ أو تصوير كل أو جزء جوهري لنوتة مصنف موسيقى.

نسخ أو تصوير كل أو جزء جوهري لقاعدة بيانات أو برامج حاسب آلي.


_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ping some interested users here: @Summering2018, دنيا, and Mohamed Ouda: , organizers of some previous editions of WLM in Egypt as per the participating countries lists (2024, 2023, 2022). For their comments on the possible unacceptable Egyptian Freedom of Panorama. If it's a sub-provision of Article 171(2), then the Egyptian FoP is for private use by individuals only (not OK for Wikimedia Commons which mandates free or commercial-type licenses). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ping also @Pharos: (who added the Egyptian FoP section in 2008) and @Nard the Bard: (who later expanded it) for their comments concerning my interpretation of Egyptian FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not a lawyer and when I was active here I worked on *a lot* of things, so I am not even a well-versed amateur on this. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any relevant Egyptian caselaw and inquiries through Google and LLMs just circularly lead back to our policy. The FoP carveout is unfortunately unclearly phrased, with a double negative, and grouped together with a right to make a single copy for personal use. If you wish to proceed, I would caution that Village Pump is not for major policy changes, it merely exists to discuss issues. If you believe you can make a good case for changing the policy, I would suggest you proceed to a DR for Egyptian FoP photos and tag the talk page of everyone you can think of who is interested. The way you pinged me will not work on most people the same way a talk page notification will. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that the structural placement of the "unless in a public place" carve-out inside Article 171(2) makes a strong case that this is not an independent FOP provision at all, but a sub-limitation to the personal use exception. Both the 2002 text (WIPO unofficial translation) and the 2020 Arabic revision keep the same nesting: the "ومع ذلك" clause sits within point (2), which is expressly limited to "a single copy [...] for one's exclusive personal use". If we read it that way, reproductions of public art or architecture would be lawful only as personal copies (not for publication, redistribution, or commercial use).
This interpretation is consistent with the Berne three-step test, where exceptions must be narrow and not prejudice the work's normal exploitation. I have not found any Egyptian case law or independent commentary supporting the broader FOP reading; our current acceptance on Commons appears to rest entirely on internal precedent rather than external legal analysis. If no contradictory legal authority emerges, we may need to treat Egyptian FOP as non-existent for Commons purposes. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
+1 to JWilz12345's and Josve05a's comments. I'll spare everyone the long winded diatribe for why since I think they already said it fine, but it seems like there isn't an independent provision for FOP in Egyptian law outside of personal use. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have now revised the FOP section. It seems even at the beginning of Egypt's modern history there is no acceptable FOP. The repealed 1954 law only permitted an exception of "quoting" 3D art and flat art in certain printed media (textbooks and books on history, literature, science, and arts) as long as the purpose is to clarify the associated text. So, overall, Egypt has no new media-friendly FOP since the beginning of their modern history. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Want to check over Category:Egyptian FOP cases/kept, all files tagged with (and DRs linked to) {{FoP-Egypt}} and perhaps rewrite that as a {{NoFoP-Egypt}}? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have started some. Minimum of three for now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
295 files transludces the template. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
By taking a photograph of a statue displayed in a public place or works of architecture you're not copying them. There are similar provisions in other laws, for example in the Croatian Copyright law: "It is permitted, without the permission of the right holder and without payment of compensation, to reproduce, except in three-dimensional form, works of authorship that are permanently located in streets, squares, parks or other places accessible to the public, and to distribute and communicate to the public such reproduced copies." The new interpretation of the Egyptian law is wrong. Deletion requests should stop. Ponor (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ponor: the problem with your interpretation is that Egyptian law expressly treats photography ("تصوير") of works of fine, applied, plastic arts and architecture as a form of reproduction ("نسخ") under Article 171, as seen in the Arabic phrasing "نسخ أو تصوير". It only allows such reproductions when they are (1) a single copy, (2) for one’s own exclusive personal use, and (3) not prejudicial to the normal exploitation of the work. While the double negative ("prevent... unless") implies some allowance, the "unless in a public place" carve-out sits structurally inside 171(2), which governs personal-use copies, not as an independent, stand-alone FOP provision.
If photographing a public sculpture or building were not "copying" in the legal sense, there would be no need for the legislature to create that public-place carve-out at all. Croatia’s law, which you cite, is structurally different: it has an explicit, independent FOP exception (Article 204) that allows reproduction, distribution, and communication to the public (including commercial reuse). Egypt’s clause is embedded under a personal-use limitation and does not permit publication, redistribution, or commercial licensing, all of which Commons requires. Without Egyptian case law clarifying otherwise — and none exists on this issue — we must rely on the law’s plain text.
Egyptian law likely allows you to take a personal snapshot of a public monument for private enjoyment, but not to upload it here under a free licence that enables worldwide reuse. I’d welcome any sources showing a broader interpretation. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I still disagree. Copyright laws are about people making copies of your work and competing with you. You can photocopy or copy/reproduce a 2D painting. You cannot photocopy a whole sculpture or a building. The Egyptian law says it's OK ("the author cannot prevent") to make a personal photocopy of a book, photocopy or reproduction of a painting, or a copy of a sculpture, as long as it doesn't compete with the original. Then it continues that it's not OK ("the author can prevent") "carrying out any of the following acts without his authorization". It's not "carrying out the aforementioned act", it's the "following acts". The following acts are "reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts" – "unless they were displayed in a public place". Ponor (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Under Egyptian law, photographing ("تصوير") is explicitly treated as a form of reproduction or copying ("نسخ"). This is not just a casual comparison. Article 171 uses the exact phrase "نسخ أو تصوير", meaning "reproduction or photographing" together, legally equating photography with copying.
The whole purpose of freedom of panorama (FOP) exceptions in copyright law is to permit limited reproduction of works (like photocopying or photographing) under defined conditions without constituting infringement. Saying that photographing a sculpture or building is not "copying" contradicts the very wording and structure of the law.
The public-place carve-out in Egyptian law is embedded within a personal-use limitation. It does not create a standalone exception allowing free reproduction, distribution, or commercial use. This differs from laws like Croatia’s, where the FOP exception explicitly allows reproduction and public communication beyond personal use.
So the question is not whether photography is copying (it clearly is) but whether Egyptian law permits that copying beyond a single, private-use copy. The answer based on the text and structure is no. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Even if you disregard what copying a 3D object means, there's a clear separation of the author cannot prevent and ("However...") the author can prevent in the text. See how they even repeat "after the publication of the work" for the two separate cases. We should not infer anything from the indentation and numbering. Case 1: "The author cannot prevent 1 personal copy" Case 2:"However... the author may object to the following (...), but only if his work was not displayed in a public place". Ponor (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate your persistence, but let's break this down further based on the law's text and structure. The "separation" you describe between "the author cannot prevent" and "However... the author can prevent" isn't as clear-cut as two independent cases. The "However" clause is directly attached to point (2) in both the Arabic original ("ومع ذلك" follows immediately after the personal use description) and the English translation, where it's indented under (2). This nesting indicates it's a limitation or exception within the personal use context, not a standalone provision. If it were truly separate, it would likely be formatted as a new point (e.g., as (3)), without the connective phrasing tying it back. The repetition of "after the publication of the work" doesn't create independence; it's reinforcing that the author's control post-publication is the overarching theme, but the clause remains subordinate. Legal interpretation often relies on such structural cues, especially absent case law (and previously noted, no Egyptian precedents clarify this).
On disregarding "copying a 3D object": The law explicitly includes "تصوير" (photographing) alongside "نسخ (reproduction/copying), so photographing is legally treated as a form of copying here. Dismissing that overlooks the precise wording chosen by the legislature. If photos weren't considered reproductions, the public-place carve-out wouldn't be needed in this section at all. Ultimately, without external authority (e.g., case law, scholarly analysis) backing the broader reading, the plain text points to a personal-use-only exception. This aligns with Berne Convention constraints on narrow exceptions. If you have sources interpreting it your way, please share, I'd genuinely like to find some. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Points (1) and (3) are, I assume, so separate from the cases in (2) that they continued with "what's not OK when it comes to this kind of art" under (2). I think you're reading too much from their numbering instead of reading the sentences as they flow. You're completely disregarding that they're not saying "the aforementioned 1-personal-copy case", but are saying "the following cases". They could have said "1-personal-copy is allowed for works displayed in public, full stop". They haven't, because they write it as two separate cases. The "absent case law" may be quite telling: no Egyptian author ever objected to souvenir copies of their art displayed in public? Ponor (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The "However" clause isn't introducing entirely separate "following cases" detached from the personal-use context, it's a direct qualifier nested under point (2), as evidenced by its indentation and immediate follow-on phrasing in both the English translation and Arabic original. This structure means the public-place allowance modifies the broader reproduction restriction: authors generally cannot prevent making a single copy for personal use regardless of display location, but they can prevent reproduction beyond personal use unless the works are permanently displayed in a public place, where that blocking power is lost. It doesn't create a free-standing right to reproduce, publish, or commercially exploit those works beyond personal boundaries. Your assumption that points (1) and (3) being distinct somehow justifies reading (2)'s sub-clause as independent overlooks how the law formats exceptions — major allowances get their own numbers, while qualifiers stay subordinate. If lawmakers intended a broad FOP, they'd have drafted it as a standalone point, like the explicit ones for criticism (4), legal proceedings (5), or teaching (6-7). Absent case law isn't "telling" of permissiveness; it more likely reflects limited challenges, perhaps because reproductions stay private or unchallenged under the narrow reading, aligning with Berne's narrow-exception mandate. Croatia's law, by contrast, has a dedicated Article 204 granting reproduction, distribution, and public communication rights, while Egypt lacks any equivalent language extending beyond personal. Without scholarly or judicial sources backing a broader view, the text's plain hierarchy prevails. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure they are going to respond, but just as an attempt I have sent inquiries to relevant authorities regarding this issue, including the Egyptian Patent Office, the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, and the Faculty of Law at Cairo University. I have asked if they are able to provide any commentary on the matter described above. See ticket:2025081110008053, ticket:2025081110008115, and ticket:2025081110008197. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ponor: re: Copyright laws are about people making copies of your work and competing with you etc. Copyright laws also protect you in terms of derivative works. A photograph of a building or sculpture clearly derives from that building or sculpture, and clearly that 2D representation of a 3D work derives at least part of its value from the underlying work. A postcard of a statue derives part of it's value from the copyrighted aspects of the statue. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Josve05a ping for update: are there any replies from the two Egyptian contacts you mentioned concerning this? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sadly not. Most email addresses bounced, despite being listed as official addresses. The rest I have received no reply from as of yet. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Hello everyone, I'm Egyptian Citizen, I'm Executive Director of Egypt Wikimedians User Group, Volunteer since 2009, Admin at Ar.Wiki, license reviewer since 2014, Network Member at Creative commons Organization in Egypt since 2017, I have worked on several projects of the Egyptian Ministry of Culture for several years. I know the copyright laws well and I have two books on this subject. I see a lot of misinformation in this discussion, and with all due respect, I see some people trying to rely on translation, which is not accurate. Also, the Egyptian intellectual property laws is not one law, but rather several laws and regulations, and the process is a bit complicated and need someone Speak Arabic and has a knowledge with Egyptian laws.

I have personally attended several discussions (2010 - 2013) with several people from the region, most notably: Tarawneh (a former admin at Commons). After investigation and discussion, we found that the freedom to panorama is allowed in Egypt. I also confirm that there is no law in Egypt that prohibits photographing buildings, statues, etc, some narrw, There are very few and very rare legal cases that may prevent this, but in general they do not concern us as users of Commons.
Please do not rely on some assumptions made by some. I see that some here have quickly reached the conclusion that it "FOP is forbidden in Egypt" and this would be a big mistake. I am ready to work on this topic and prove it with sources, but it may take some time and discussions with some specialists in Egypt. Please give us some time. I came across this discussion by chance, and I hope I came at the right time. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate you joining the discussion and sharing your background and experience. However, the question here is not about whether tourists or citizens may take photos of public works in Egypt, but whether such photos can be published and freely licensed on Commons under Egyptian copyright law.
Based on my reading of the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) translations of the Egyptian copyright law, Article 171 treats photographing works of fine, applied, or plastic art (including sculptures and monuments) as a form of reproduction. The exception in 171(2) allows such reproductions only for personal use, and the phrase unless displayed in a public place is embedded within that personal-use clause. This means the law distinguishes between making a copy for oneself and publishing or distributing it, and only the private use is permitted.
So when it is said that there is no law that prohibits photographing buildings, statues, etc., that is addressing a different matter. Of course photography for personal use is not prohibited. The difficulty for Commons is that material here must be free for distribution and derivative use worldwide. For that, we need clear statutory support for a freedom of panorama exception, and the wording of the law as translated by WIPO does not provide such a broad permission.
Earlier community-level discussions from 2010–2013 may have reflected understandings at the time, but they were not grounded in a full reading of the law itself. Commons' legal interpretations can and do shift when statutes are examined in more detail. Unless there are citations to reliable legal sources — such as court rulings, government guidance, or recognized commentaries — that affirm FOP for public art in Egypt beyond personal use, we must rely on a stricter reading of the law.
If you can share such sources (or help gather legal opinion briefs by IP experts in the area), they would be very helpful. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see some people trying to rely on translation, which is not accurate. Not to speak for Josve05a or anyone else, but I assume they are basing their translations on the English language document from the WIPO site here. I know that's what I was using when I made my original comment. There's really no point in doing this if we can't trust WIPO to translate things accurately. I'd certainly trust their translation of the law more then one made by a random user. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Whichever translation is right, the problem here is that people are reading too much from its layout, which is: "random users" interpreting stuff the way they think is right. So, according to some, the law says "The author cannot prevent me from making 1 personal copy of anything (say, the notes of a musical work). However, the autor can prevent me from making 1 personal copy of said notes of a musical work." Makes no sense, right? Why would they say yes, but no? The law clearly says 1 copy is always fine; no more copies are fine, unless it's architecture and publicly displayed art. Ponor (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ponor: "Makes no sense, right?" This is the way I look at it. The clause says "Without prejudice to the moral rights of the author under this Law, the author may not, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts...However, the author or his successor may, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts without his authorization..Reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts, unless they were displayed in a public place, or works of architecture.
Notice the two words I highlighted there, "publication" and "reproduction." Reproducing something clearly has nothing to do publishing it to the public and they clearly know the difference. Since they went out of their way to layout exactly when someone can "reproduce" something. But there's nothing in the clause about third parties publishing anything to the public. I. E. "individuals can reproduce works for private use that were displayed in a public place, or works of architecture." --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ibrahim.ID thanks for your insights, but simply allowing photography of copyrighted monuments and buildings is not enough. Even in countries with inadequate or vague FoP, anyone can take pictures of works of art and architecture still under their designers' copyrights. What is being questioned here is, despite the FoP being placed under a clause dedicated to personal uses of copyrighted works, is it allowed under Egyptian law to freely use the resulting photographs for any purposes? The purposes include (not exclude) commercial uses like in postcards, travel blogs, advertising, and TikTok vlogs which are not authorized by the architects, painters or sculptors. Freedom of Panorama, in essence, is the freedom to commercially and freely use pieces of architecture and monuments, without restraint from the designers of the said works or even from the legislation itself. Non-commercial use is forbidden, because Wikimedia Commons is supposed to host images of works that can be freely used by anyone, as per COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses.
And don't treat my concern as a misinformation or disinformation. Even in the Arabic text, there is no indication that the implicit FoP is a standalone provision separate from the clause that only grants personal uses of works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
My biggest concern is that this discussion (which may not have been attended by more specialists — Egyptians or those with knowledge of Egyptian law — speak Arabic "the language in which laws are written in our country") will either not take long enough or be widely discussed. Then we find the discussion may concluding that "there is no FOP in Egypt." Let's delete the images of the Pyramids, Sphinx, and Karnak! I'm not exaggerating, but in my more than 15 years of experience on Commons, I've encountered similar cases. I certainly respect everyone who participates in the discussion here, but I've also encountered some people who seem very strict about the issue of images and a desire to delete images simply because of differences in legal interpretations.
Secondly, it's crucial to understand that not all countries follow the same legal methods and concepts. 99% of legislators and legal experts in the Middle East are unaware of the term "Freedom of Panorama," and therefore may not explicitly permit it. However, if you ask them, they'll tell you there's no problem with photographing buildings and statues! This is what happened during my visit to the UAE. I found officials willing to photograph buildings and statues and even they encourage it, but we at Commons consider the UAE to be (No FOP) because there is no law permitting it. This issue is clearly misunderstood.
In Egypt, we have several laws on intellectual property rights, not just one. We also have a law on photography and other related topics. We shouldn't base our discussion on a single law, as the issue is complex and requires time. The issue is very important, and I hope the conclusion end quickly. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 08:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just to clarify, freedom of panorama provisions are exceptions to the general rule of copyright protection -- if there is no clear and explicit statutory exception, then copyright applies in full, and we must err on the side of caution. The fact that many people may be unfamiliar with these legal technicalities does not alter the underlying legal reality. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ibrahim.ID for one country you mentioned, no. UAE does have a very limited version of Freedom of Panorama, which is only good for broadcasters. The broadcasters can freely present the visual appearances of Burj Khalifa and other modern icons of Dubai without needing licenses from the architects. However, the UAE law is framed as such that images can only be freely used in broadcasts, not photography. See their 2021 copyright law, under Article (22) "Limitations and Exceptions", "7. Present Works of fine, applied, plastic or architectural arts in broadcasting programs if such Works are permanently exist at public places." (Note: not photographs but broadcasting programs). This must be shown to the government officials of the UAE; their claim that "there is no problem with photographing buildings and statues" is directly contrary to the law that they wrote and formulated. UAE officials need explanation for the discrepancies between their claim and the law that they supposedly wrote. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Clarification regarding the translation point: what I mean is that there are big differences between Arabic and English, and there are also cultural differences regarding the meanings of words, so the translation may translate the meaning but it may not translate the intended meaning accurately, like when we say to someone (أنت على راسي من فوق = You are on the top of my head) a different meaning, or like (أحنا دافنينه سوا = we buried him together!) A phrase that might suggest a crime, but the intent is something entirely different. Therefore, I am only afraid that the inaccuracy of the translation will lead to misinterpretations because there are many things in Egyptian laws that are written in a slightly complex linguistic form that only Arabic speakers may understand, and this is all I am talking about.--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 08:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Ibrahim.ID, Images of the Pyramids, Sphinx, and Karnak will not deleted. they are old enough. I do agree that understanding of Arabic in important her. Thats why I dropped a note in ar.wiki. In Israel the in Hebrew is the official law and translation is only a translation. It is not official version. I do believe that it is the case also in Egypt. But in your comment you did not mentioned any different understanding of the law in the discussion above. And also you have mentioned other laws. I think examples be appropriate her. There is a point of disagreement in the discussion above. I would appreciate it if you could address this point after reading the Arabic text. -- Geagea (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    to make it easier. links to the law in Arabic:
    -- Geagea (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I originally thought (and still think) that Aegukka, the national anthem of North Korea, shouldn't be uploadable to Commons. But there have been different outcomes to deletion requests regarding Aegukka, see:

I'd like to get a concrete consensus on the topic. Regarding the only music file of Aegukka left, I did ask make a request for clarification for why it was kept under PD-North Korea, but I didn't get a concrete answer. TansoShoshen (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • Commons’ template is incorrect—only the first three prongs are legitimate; the last is an unacceptable no-commercial-works restriction. Given this, works which fall under that clause are (1) copyrighted in the U.S. and D.P.R.K. and (2) not acceptable for upload here because of that restriction. For the Aegukka, the copyright will expire in 2040 (lyrics) and 2053 (melody) in D.P.R.K. Because both were copyrighted in 2003, the copyright was restored in the U.S. under the URAA, and thus it will be copyrighted until 2041. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Template:YouTube CC-BY

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I'm noticed, that current page of "YouTube CC-BY" license led to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (I don't know since when). But Template:YouTube CC-BY still led to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

What should I do - update this template or create a new one and mark this one as obsolete? --Kaganer (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. As of July 30, it was still 3.0. The Wayback Machine normally archives that page frequently, but at least currently does not have any captures available between then and August 11 (today). Technically, I think any videos we copy off from the date of the change would have the 4.0 license, but any we copied earlier would still have the 3.0. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’m wondering if changing the link on YouTube’s help page from CC BY 3.0 to CC BY 4.0 really does automatically relicense older uploads (on YouTube). Currently older videos on YouTube which are marked as Creative Commons also link to the same help page where it specifies the version number. If that’s the case, why doesn’t Commons just "upgrade" all older CC-BY files to 4.0? How did Wikipedia go about it when they switched from 3.0 to 4.0? Is there some part of YouTube's TOS which allows them the right to sub-license under a newer version or something which allowed this? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#27dc3bf5d9 "By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable licence to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display and perform it) for the purpose of operating, promoting, and improving the Service." I don't know if that is enough  REAL 💬 ⬆   04:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's certainly not enough... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Josve05a: not enough for what? "Sublicensable" may well give YouTube the right to "update" a CC license at their discretion (and quite possibly to do far more than that). Commons, of course, does not have similar terms of use. - Jmabel ! talk 21:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The TOS clause that was quoted gives YouTube a sublicensable license to use the content themselves for operating and promoting the service, but it does not automatically change the license granted by the uploader to the public. In other words, it lets YouTube reproduce, distribute, and modify the content internally or for the service, and even sublicense those rights to third parties, but it does not retroactively alter the Creative Commons license the uploader applied at the time of upload.
Just as if you had uploaded a video under "all rights reserved", YouTube could not decide to license it under a CC license without your permission.
CC licenses are irrevocable and granted by the copyright holder to the public. Only the copyright holder can choose to "upgrade" or change the license version of their own work. YouTube’s ability to sublicense the content for service purposes does not include the right to relicense public CC BY videos under a newer version, because that would require a separate permission from the original uploader.
(From what I’ve read about Wikipedia’s switch from 3.0 to 4.0, articles were effectively dual-licensed: past revisions remained under 3.0, but any new revision constitutes a new work, which can then be licensed under 4.0. WMF were not able to just decide all past 3.0 revisions were automatically 4.0) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Let's consider four groups of works.
Two groups of works are relatively easier to handle.
A. Files present on Commons of which the Youtube source has been deleted from Youtube, or had its CC license removed, before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube. Those works were never offered under version 4.0 on Youtube. Given that Commons cannot review every file ever copied from Youtube to check if it is still present on Youtube now, and still under a CC license there, those files must remain under version 3.0 on Commons. They must keep their version 3.0 template.
B. Works uploaded to Youtube for the first time after the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube and offered under the CC license. Those works were never offered under version 3.0 on Youtube. They must be under version 4.0 on Commons. They must get a version 4.0 template.
Two other groups of works could present more difficulty. It has to do in large part with the question: could Youtube change unilaterally the license offered by the copyright owners? It is dubious. The section of the Youtube terms of use quoted by 999real says the license granted to Youtube is "for the purpose of [...] the Service". In the FAQ section of the "License types" page [1], Youtube adds "YouTube can’t grant you rights to use someone else’s content [...]. YouTube cannot grant you the rights to use content that has already been uploaded to YouTube. If you want to use someone else’s YouTube content, you may want to reach out to them directly." My understanding is that there is nothing there that authorises Youtube to offer a work, for a use outside of Youtube, under a free license different from the CC license that was offered by the copyright owner. But can it be said that after a certain time, the copyright owners implicitly consent to the change?
C. Works that were offered on Youtube with the CC license before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube, and are still available there under CC, and were also uploaded to Commons before that change. Given that they were under version 3.0 when they were uploaded to Commons, and that license is undoubtebly valid for the Commons copy and for any subsequent copies made from the Commons copy, the simple solution is to keep that version 3.0 license for those files. There's no reason to complicate matters on Commons. If an external reuser wants and feels comfortable to use the version 4.0, they can copy the work directly from Youtube.
D. Works that were offered on Youtube with the CC license before the change from version 3.0 to version 4.0 by Youtube, and are still available there under CC, but were uploaded to Commons for the first time after that change. They were (and may still be) offered under version 3.0 by their copyright owners. But now they are presented by Youtube (validly or not) as offered under version 4.0. The problem is worsened by the fact that there may not be (or is there?) a way to know the precise day when a work was uploaded to Youtube. There may not be a good solution for this group of works. I suppose that users will upload those files to Commons under version 4.0, because that will seem the easy thing, the chances of complaints by copyright owners may be low, and users may think that if complaints occur, it could be the responsibility of Youtube.
-- Asclepias (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
One can hover the mouse over the "2 weeks ago" on YouTube and be presented with the upload date. However, we don't know the date they selected the file to be freely licensed (they could e.g. have applied the CC license a year after upload).
Given the size of our project, and WMF in particular, dont't we have any contacts within Google/YouTube to help with these questions? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seattle Municipal Archives

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago13 comments6 people in discussion

How does one correctly upload and tag clearly-marked public domain images from the Seattle Municipal Archives, for example https://archives.seattle.gov/digital-collections/index.php/Detail/objects/38367 - as no specific PD tag appears to exist yet - FYI @Billmckern OceanLoop (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd say use this tag {{PD-US-not renewed}} which is for photos published between 1930 and 1963, with a copyright that was not renewed. Billmckern (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
How does one ascertain a copyright was not renewed though? OceanLoop (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Seattle only states that the photograph is public record, not public domain. And the no-renewal doctrine would only apply if the photograph was published in that time range, not just created; it’s not clear that the photograph was published until it was uploaded, in which case it would be copyrighted until 2061 or 70 years after the photographer’s death. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
They're not "clearly msrked public domain". The website says that their photographs "do not require permission for use". That is not the same thing. it sounds like they are keeping their copyrights. (When not expired). In the same spirit, on their flickr account, their images are licensed CC BY 2.0. People here will probably tell if they think that the text on the website can be interpreted as equivalent to "Attribution only license" or not. You could contact the administration of the archives and obtain a clarification. Maybe Jmabel has an idea if communication with the archives has already been established. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
They credit that to W.L. Dahl, who was city photographer. It would be a safe bet that it was {{PD-US-no notice}}, but it would be more polite to use {{attribution|Courtesy of the Seattle Municipal Archives: Item 12292, Box 84, Series 2613-07: Engineering Department Negatives}}. If you want/need confirmation from them, in my experience they will consistently give it.
On Flickr they use CC-BY 2.0 (or more recently 4.0), but that is mainly because there is no other way on Flickr to indicate that they want attribution. - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I do not follow how the "no notice" tag applies here. I am not qualified to negotiate a legal stipulation with a government entity, nor have any incentive to take on such risk. My understanding is there exists a dedicated team to undertake such efforts and enable the use of high quality data. If so, I cordially invite them to this endeavor. OceanLoop (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
"No notice" is a safe bet because the city government never put copyright notices on their materials, and clearly this was some sort of official portrait and would have been made public at the time. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but what material facts support the conclusion a copyright notice was "never" published? OceanLoop (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
My experience in dealing with several thousand artifacts from this archive, both hands-on and in digital form, and my discussions with the archivists. Given that the attribution is to the official city photographer, it would be truly bizarre if this image had been handled differently from their hundreds of thousands of others. From the era where copyright notices were needed, the only things I've ever seen in that archive that had copyright notices were third-party materials. - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
This does not help as your first-hand experience does not scale; we need to establish a copyright tag to share appropriate content from Seattle Archives, if this is indeed feasible and permissible. OceanLoop (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Then make a wrapper template that calls {{Attribution}} and takes the specific item number, plus collection name, etc. (I suggest lumping all of those as one parameter) as parameters be able to indicate the correct attribution. On all materials where they own the copyright, that meets their policy. - Jmabel ! talk 05:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another one useful is: {{PD-Because|Seattle Municipal Archives says do not require permission for use.}} You customize the rationale quoting the source. We use it for several archives. --RAN (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I work at First Financial Bank and would like to correct the logo used on our Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Financial_Bank). It currently has a very outdated version with the company name underlined in red. I tried to upload a new image but was stopped due to copyright issues.

How do I correct with the new logo? MrDave83 (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@MrDave83: If the new logo is copyrightable (you don't link, so I cannot judge), then barring the very unlikely scenario that the bank would free-license it, it cannot be on Commons. This becomes a matter entirely for the English-language Wikipedia which, unlike Commons, makes some allowance for non-free use. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content and especially en:Template:Non-free logo. - Jmabel ! talk 05:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tzadik_Penimi_self_portrait.jpg

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I assisted the owner of the self created work to upload through the upload wizard and they filled out the copyright acknowledgment/sharealike license but as of this morning the page was flagged for deletion. What else needs to be done? Herecomestheshylock (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Herecomestheshylock not anymore. But someone should probably add some categories to the image. Nakonana (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, its good that someone recognized their mistake. Herecomestheshylock (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hey you have given me the most positive and constructive feedback I think I've received. Would you mind reviewing the recent submission I just updated taking all the brutal and constructive comments I've received and tell me what you think? Is it closer to being eligible for approval?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tzadik_Penimi Herecomestheshylock (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 6 hours ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, What is the copyright status of these, and the proper licensing? Also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Currency does not mention who holds the copyright of German currency. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Rosenzweig: any information on who created these 1930s bills? Abzeronow (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The designer may be known, but no designer is directly mentioned and credited on the bills. So this is one of the few exceptions in German copyright where a corporate entity would be the copyright holder ({{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} for pre-1966 works), in this case, the Deutsche Rentenbank or its successor. Since the bills are older than 70 years, their German copyright has expired. They're still copyrighted in the US though. For bills after 1965, the copyright holder is the designer (mentioned or not), though the bank would have exclusive usage rights. --Rosenzweig τ 10:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
OK, I added a mention about the designer for post-1965 notes.
I doubt anyone will claim a copyright for the Third Reich banknotes in USA, if there is a copyright there, which is also questionable. {{PD-US-alien property}}? Yann (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Is there any evidence that the Alien Property Custodian vested the copyright for 1937 German bank notes? --Rosenzweig τ 08:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have corrected the file names btw. Reichsmark and Rentenmark are not the same thing. --Rosenzweig τ 08:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
How do we know which works does the Alien Property Custodian exception cover? Does it not cover all works which copyright belonged to the Third Reich? If not, what are the criteria? Is there a list somewhere? Yann (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not aware of a list (there still might be one, perhaps not online though). From what I gathered, they did not indiscriminately vest (that's the technical term) any copyrights from Germany or even the German state. Due to the nature of US copyright, the bank notes probably were not even copyrighted in the US at the time (until the URAA went into effect), so there was no copyright to vest. There was a copyright treaty in effect between Germany and the US, but any German author / rights holder would have needed to register a copyright just like their US counterparts. Per [2] (section Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents), “only selected copyrights and trademarks were vested, [but] "all patents of nationals of enemy and enemy-occupied countries" were vested”. I've written a bit more about vesting in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Oskar Garvens (and some other deletion requests), but the subject is still rather murky. --Rosenzweig τ 11:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Model railway expositions

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Good morning community. I am turning to you with a concern regarding a copyright issue. Specifically, I'm concerned with the legal question of how we should handle model railway expositions on Commons. My view so far has been that miniature exhibitions with replicas of landscapes and buildings are works of art and, as a general rule, reach the threshold of originality. Accordingly, I also assume that these models enjoy copyright protection. In the past, I have therefore submitted deletion requests, for example for the Loxx in Berlin or the Miniatur Wunderland in Hamburg. I would like to mention in this context that these deletion requests have always been successful. There are certainly more of these successful deletion requests. There is therefore a considerable number of images on Commons that have been deleted and are no longer available to the project. @Gnom recently decided in two of my deletion requests for a model railway in Dresden (1 and 2) to keep the pictures. He justified his decision by stating that there was a consensus on Commons that model railways are not protected by copyright. Since this contradicts both my personal legal opinion and the successful deletion requests in the past, I would like to debate this in a larger group. At the very least, I would like to have a conclusive explanation from an expert in copyright protection as to why even images like this should not be protected by copyright. Ping @Grand-Duc, as he is involved in the discussion. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

My main point to introduce here is that I see an area of tension between these two "keeping" DR decisions and COM:TOYS. Model railways are often seen as toys, as far as I know (despite them being rather collectibles for grown-ups), and our synopsis at TOYS contain a reference to a US court case dealing with plane models. I cannot see a difference between planes and trains here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Toys which are "mere copies" of useful articles like cars or trains can be ineligible for copyright. However, the elaborate installations involved in these DRs are not mere copies; they involve extensive creative work in the design of landscapes and buildings for these trains to run through. As such, I see no reason why the installations in these photos would be ineligible for copyright. A close-up photo of a model train which is in all respects intended as a replica of a real train might be an exception, but the installation as a whole is not.
With regard to Gnom's assertion that "there currently is a consensus on Commons that railway models (even elaborate sets) are not copyrightable", consensus is arrived at through discussion. The existence of a category for a subject is certainly not a "consensus" that images of that subject are always acceptable on Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Let's call it 'longstanding practice' then. Gnom (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I also see no reason why building an artificial landscape should not create a copyright. GPSLeo (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
We have deleted hundreds of files taken at Miniaturwunderland. Search for Commons:Deletion requests Wunderland. --Rosenzweig τ 08:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
An aside, but relevant: since almost no one ever put a copyright notice on anything like this, pretty much anything from the U.S. built in February 1989 or earlier should be fine, even if photographed later. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Image from CRT screen

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, would [3] be {{PD-Art}} (with the original being {{PD-text}})? The screen is a CRT, so it's not perfectly a 2D image. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

That image is simply {{PD-text}}; the stylized appearance of the text is below TOO. However, you should be aware that it's a simulated image, not a photo of a real CRT. Omphalographer (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Just checking, also just realised it's simulated but it should still be fine. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Additional creator "requests" on top of Creative Commons open licenses

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Luisa Neubauer image with additional "requests"
Luisa Neubauer image with additional "requests"

I would like to flag an issue that I am increasingly seeing these days: the use of additional "requests" on top of Creative Commons open licenses.

The accompanying photograph of German climate activist Luisa Neubauer contains a custom template placed in the Permission field with one such "request".

Here is another non‑Wikimedia example from Red Hat that I recently blogged about: forum.openmod.org/t/3102/18 And also scroll up for more instances involving public datasets.

Personally, I would remove the user Superbass template from the cited example. The request and/or requirement to add "(via Wikimedia Commons)" lies outside the terms of the CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 license and potentially invalidates that instrument. The same goes for the request and/or need to contact the creator for approval to use a more truncated wording.

What do other editors think? Is there Wikimedia policy on this?

Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • The request and/or requirement to add "(via Wikimedia Commons)" lies outside the terms of the CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 license. Not really. People are entitled to specify their attribution. Probably the right way to do this, though, would be to dispense with this monster template and simply state the license as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0|attribution=© Superbass / [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de CC-BY-SA-4.0] (via Wikimedia Commons)}}.
That produces the following:
w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Attribution:
© Superbass / CC-BY-SA-4.0 (via Wikimedia Commons)
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.


Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@RobbieIanMorrison: Let's try an experiment. Please go to this file by this user, click on "use this file on the web", look at the line "attribution". What do you see? A user cannot be blamed for using an attribution format suggested by the Wikimedia software. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with the template of Superbass. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Asclepias: I was not aware of that Wikimedia generated attribution string. Actually I am not especially concerned about its content. But I do insert When re-using this work, please credit metadata to all variants of my uploaded file/s using ExifTool and Python and YAML. And I rather think that that information should take priority. Sure, the Wikimedia Author field defaults to my username — which I once used to modify by hand but gave up doing so. To repeat, I am not especially worried about the current practice but it is somewhat different from my expectations. Thanks too to @Jmabel for responding, as always. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've always understood the Attribution requirement allows the copyright owner to specify how they'd like to be attributed – at the very least, whether they'd prefer their real name or username. CC Atribution 4.0 requires "the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material" if these are supplied. Indicating just that the file comes from Wikimedia Commons if that link cannot be made live is perfectly acceptable and common practice in print (although it should really be a live link in the above permissions box example). And of course anyone can ask or request anything they like; I've often supplied a credit line for an institution even when they're uploading public domain material, where it's very clear a credit line is not required. People are welcome to use a credit line it if they want ("please" is the key). — Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Giantflightlessbirds: thanks for digging into the licensing details and such. I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I am more sensitive to these issues because the use of CC‑BY‑4.0 licensing in the data space is sometimes accompanied by explicit additional terms — which may then invalidate the original license. Here is an example from the World Bank:

All users of these Datasets under the CC-BY 4.0 License also agree to the following mandatory terms: Any and all disputes arising under this License that cannot be settled amicably shall be resolved in accordance with the following procedure: [omitted]

I have other examples from the data space where the notion of a request is ambiguous at best. Such statements are presumably written by General Counsel and some are aimed at choice of law provisions. Returning to Wikimedia and creative content — I also see some risks from these extended user requests. One risk is that such requests may exceed the scope of attribution. Another is that such requests may be framed to look more like instructions (and note that many instructions contain the word "please"). Another is complicating the supply chain of informing works — although this is usually more of a problem for datasets and software with their complicated provenances. Wikimedia editors may not think this issue requires additional consideration or even new Wikimedia policies. But I would waver that this practice is going to increase. And I would remind people that one reason that Creative Commons licenses prevailed (after several iterations) was because of their clarity and uniformity. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
All good points! —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I do not see a strict limitation such as this license is the whole agreement.
From the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license:
Section 7 – Other Terms and Conditions.
  1. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.
  2. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.
That sounds like the licensor can impose additional terms. If the file page states additional terms, and the licensor uses the file after reading those additional terms, then the licensor has impliedly agreed to the additional terms.
I'm not opposed to honoring "requests," but not when those "requests" violate the spirit of the CC license. For example, I"ve seen additional terms that require the attribution be placed adjacent to the image.
To keep things clean and simple, I would limit licenses to a small, well known, set.
Glrx (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Section 7 is the same for both CC‑BY‑4.0 and CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0. I usually work with software licenses, some of which terminate on the imposition of additional measures — so I was a bit muddled here. Sorry. However I will note that the author "request" contained in the image of Luisa Neubauer (cited in the OP) "asks" for the recipient to contact the copyright holder in some circumstances — quite possibly to negotiate a parallel agreement. What happens when that agreement conflicts with the current Creative Commons license is anyone's guess? And then what happens when the recipient passes the work in question to another entity to reuse — does the parallel agreement persist or vanish? I am also not going to buy into the notion of implied consent in the context that @Glrx suggests either — indeed, the downloader may never see the file landing page with these custom "requests" and conditions. I think I would like Wikimedia lawyers to address this issue and make some recommendations or even help create binding policy before the practice of author "requests" becomes more common, doubtless more confusing, and even invalidating at worst. Moreover, it is not for ordinary users to know which additional representations they can safely ignore and which they cannot. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Logos: how much copyrighted background is OK?

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, For Logos, how much copyrighted background is OK? Yann (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I sent three images from the lot into the DR process: File:UnderSkin.png, File:DuneDrifter.png and File:UltiMarte.png, for which I'm more sure than not that they can't be hosted here. The last one may have been made with some PD Mars image though (maybe from some Mars NASA rover from 2013 or before), but then, this source has to be found. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Logos on objects that are over 100 years old?

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I am editing the history section of the Diary entry. I have an image of two 19th century pocket diaries from my collection to use as a reference for my corrections, but both diaries have the publishing company logos on them. Both companies are out of business, and to the best of my knowledge have been for over 50 years. The diaries in the picture are dated 1880 and 1907. Can I use my image? DMWBBA (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

1880 should be reliably OK ({{PD-old-assumed-expired}}, if nothing else). 1907 would be OK for the U.S. (by its nature, it was immediately "published", so {{PD-US-expired}}. In or out of business is irrelevant. You don't say what country, and that is just shy of the 120 years for {{PD-old-assumed}}, though if you know the logo was older (pre-1905) or is too simple ever to have had copyright, then you are again OK. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Both were published in the USA. The 1907 volume is from the Standard Diary Company which was founded in 1850.
Side question: (years of publication aside) if the blank book was published by Standard Diary with their logo on the front cover and decorative graphics and/or prompts on the interior pages, but the manuscript contained in the book was written by a New Hampshire farmer, does the farmer's copyright take precedence over the publisher? Or to put it another way, do blank book publishers have any copyrights after the book has been filled up with the diarist's manuscript? DMWBBA (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the US. Blank book publishers have no copyrights on the work, but books that have copyrightable material printed on or in them don't lose copyright just because somebody wrote in them. Copyright can be and frequently is a heavily layered mess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  1. Anything published before 1930 is in the public domain in the US.
  2. What do we know about the death date of that New Hampshire farmer and the publication date of the diary contents? - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • (Just to clarify, "this will be the first publication" would be a perfectly good answer.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    These diaries are unpublished. I'm not sure of the death date of the two farmers. My photo for the wiki entry is just the covers, as examples of the popularity of these pocket diaries during the 19th century. I'm not posting any of the personal writing inside them. I am a bookbinder getting them ready for donation to the American Diary Project. ADP will publish them. DMWBBA (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • @DMWBBA: If they are from the U.S., before 1930, and you are not publishing anything copyrightable by the diarists, then it's {{PD-US-expired}}. If you are publishing previously unpublished diary content and the death year is known, then if the author died at least 70 years ago that content is {{PD-old-70}}; if author death date is unknown, that limit is 120 years from creation, and the tag is {{PD-US-unpublished}}. (On these latter two, you'd still need the expired tag for the parts that were published and copyrighted.)
    • If you want to see this all in excruciating detail, see Commons:Hirtle chart, which is a first-rate characterization of the basics of U.S. copyright durations. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Stik graffiti in UK - TOO?

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Some of our many Stiks

Hi, en:Stik is a graffiti artist in the UK who has many graffiti works/murals posted here, including most of the above two categories. Typically due to COM:FOP UK, COM:Graffiti, and COM:Mural, UK graffiti is not allowed to be uploaded here.
These are fairly simple drawings, do they exceed COM:TOO UK where the test is "author’s own intellectual creation"? In my opinion yes, these are unique intellectual creations of the artist. What do others think? Consigned (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Status of an American city flag

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 hours ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I have noticed that there are 2 digital files that pertain to the flag of Cedar City in Utah. Over at Wikipedia, the file was uploaded as fair use. However, the file uploaded here was "too simple" to be considered above the threshold of originality, and is in the public domain. Now, I have informed the copyright media desk, and the only thing about the flag is the "3D effect of the 3 pennants", aside from the colors. So, should the file here be deleted? Please discuss here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#c-Marchjuly-20250819072600-Mod_creator-20250819043000, and here is the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Cedar_City,_Iron_County,_Utah.png Consider notifying the uploader about a potential deletion because of said circumstance. ₘₒd cᵣₑₐₜₒᵣ 01:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mod creator (talk • contribs) 01:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The city's website says that the city council adopted this design [4]. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we can safely say that this is a government edict without evidence of a work-for-hire agreement between the legislative body (the city council) and the work's creator (Kenten Pope), as was the case with the Annotated Code of Georgia. The rationale behind the government edicts doctrine is that a body elected by the people cannot be considered an author, so a work needs to be legally authored by such a body in order to qualify.
If the flag is incorporated into law, then you can use {{PD-US-Codes-and-Standards-as-Statutory-Law}}, but the grounds for that template are more tenuous in my opinion. prospectprospekt (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The rules of the contest in which the flag prevailed say that "[i]f flag design is chosen, artist understands the copyright will belong to the city" and "[i]f chosen, the copyright will belong to Cedar City", so Pope agreed to a transfer agreement instead of a work for hire agreement. prospectprospekt (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
What @Prospectprospekt: says is sufficient to say that the copyright was transferred from Kenten Pope to Cedar City. I still doubt, though, that the inclusion of a copyrighted image in a piece of legislation inherently places the image in the public domain, and would be a lot more comfortable with a VRT email from the city government. (Certainly if the copyright had been owned by anyone other than the city, it could not place the image in the public domain; I'm not sure that the city owning the copyright automatically makes this different.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Totally agree with Jmabel. I was just browsing through some local government flags on here and most (if not all) of them were IMO questionably attributed as the uploaders own work and licensed under the COO or PD as a government work. Just because something is included in a government document doesn't mean it automatically qualifies as PD just because the document might be and there should really be stronger standards about it on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Parents of Earth (Star Wars)

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZIimXRelfA Trade (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (also known as HEW) was a cabinet-level department of the United States government from 1953 until 1979. It was administered by the United States Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. In 1979, a separate Department of Education (ED) was created from this department, and HEW was renamed as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
This should be covered by {{PD-USGov-HHS}}, correct?--Trade (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Médecins sans frontières logos

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to participate in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Médecins sans frontières.

I know there are many deletion requests of logo images, but I wanted to draw attention here because of the prominent organization and the wide usage. The previous deletion request linked from there (not mine) didn't get any attention either. whym (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Center for Investigative Reporting images

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello there. Some images, such as Sevlid Hurtić CIN.jpg and Lidija Bradara CIN.jpg from the Bosnian Center for Investigative Reporting, have been uploaded locally on to Wikipedia with the Center for Investigative Reporting license. Also, when you go to the very bottom of the website, it says, translated from Bosnian: "Acquisition of content from the Center for Investigative Journalism is permitted with the obligatory reference to the source www.cin.ba". I am now wondering whether these images can be exported to Commons. Also, it says in the aforementioned images that "If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license", but I have been made aware that I can just ignore this redirection as it is used mistakenly on en.wikipedia. Still, I am wondering if the license used on these images is okay for me to go ahead and export them to Commons without the images getting deleted. Bakir123 (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Unfortunately, you did not receive answers when you asked this question here in May (Commons:Help desk/Archive/2025/05#Center for Investigative Reporting images and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/05#Center for Investigative Reporting images). Hopefully, you will receive more answers this time. IMHO, the current text is vague. It's not clear if the content can be reused for any purpose by anyone and modified. The English version of the website footer says "Downloading of the content of the CIN is permitted with the mandatory reference to the source at www.cin.ba." Maybe more importantly, their "About" page specifies "CIN work is available for free to all partner organizations that credit CIN as their source.", which is certainly too restrictive. The best thing to do would be to contact CIN and ask them to clarify their permission, by either issuing a clear free license or by confirming that it is not a free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 23 hours ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all, Sorry I am a bit new to this process. I stumbled upon File:Babur meeting with Sultan Ali Mirza at the Kohik River - 1590- Cleveland Museum of Art (30250148295).jpg, which was marked on FlickR as CC 2.0 by the uploader/photographer (unsure if they are the same individual). But it is a 400-year-old 2D artistic medium, and it does not appear to have been substantially altered. I believe that the image is in the public domain; in fact, I am sure of it, as the CMA denotes it themselves (https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1971.85 ; page freezes when I try and add an external link). I am, however, unsure if the accompanying description is public domain content, and it may have been written by the Cleveland Museum of Art or through additional research by the FlickR photographer.

It appears that the uploader to Wikimedia was banned as a "sockpuppet account," and I am unsure if they were the same individual as the person who snapped this photo and uploaded it to their FlickR account. Going through the photographer's FlickR Photo Album from their Museum trip, it appears that they've tagged everything as CC ShareAlike 2.0 - including centuries-old, faithful reproductions of 2D artwork (here is a second example File:Alam Shah cleaving the chain of the wheel - 1565 - Cleveland Museum of Art (30164502511).jpg).

Ordinarily I would change it and move along, but it seems like a bigger task than just for me right now - I typically only correct things in passing while at work. I figured I ought to place it here in the Village Pump, as the Flickr album is some 500 photos and a large portion are 2D artwork mixed with copyrighted photos of 3D artifacts. DBlasioN (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@DBlasioN: You are doubtless correct about this photo.
Uploads from that Flickr account can be seen at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=100&offset=0&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&search=insource%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fpeople%2F23165290%40N00+Tim+Evanson%22 (that shows the first 100; there are at least several hundred). I looked at a couple of hundred and didn't see a lot of older 2D works but there may be more there than I am readily finding. - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hey @Jmabel I appreciate you showing me how to do a special search like this. I went through a few pages organized at 500 per page using the Find function on "Museum of Art." I only looked through 3 pages (up to 1500 results), but I did notice some other incidences of paintings or 2D mediums tagged as CC by SA 2.0. Its probably something I can go through and correct a couple photos of PD artwork as PD over the next few work weeks.
I have some further questions if anyone can spare the time on what is preferred and what's best practice.
What license tag should I give photos of paintings in the public domain, and is this answer dependent on the death of the author or creation before 1790? Should I make an effort to remove the Flickr boxes by FlickrReviewR on those public domain works? I appreciate the assistance. DBlasioN (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'd certainly leave license tags for anything where (for example) a picture frame or even a bit of wall is visible; in some jurisdictions they might be necessary. If literally all that is visible is a 2D work of art, then I guess it's your call. They are harmless, but probably useless. Here is how I handled one like this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
{{PD-old-auto-expired}} with a specific death year is probably ideal; {{PD-old-100-expired}} is next best. In cases from (say) the late 1800s, it may be that the best you can do is {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 18 hours ago20 comments7 people in discussion

I would like to bring to community attention a concern about certain uploads on Commons being used in ways that may undermine the project’s mission.

A Commons user has uploaded around 381 high-quality photographs under CC BY-SA 3.0 DE. Multiple reusers have since reported receiving repeated demands for retroactive license fees, often in the high hundreds of euros, whenever attribution was incomplete. The uploader’s own emails mention that each “violation” is documented by an external company for enforcement purposes.

This practice is not new: reports of similar demands go back to 2016, and German courts (e.g. OLG Köln, 2014 & 2018) have ruled that the objective market value of CC works is zero, making such high damages claims questionable. Independent reports and legal commentary are included in the detailed thread.

I have opened a full documentation of this issue — with sources and references — on the uploader’s talk page:

→ Full discussion here

My concern is whether Commons should continue to host files if they are being systematically used not to encourage free culture, but as a basis for aggressive legal claims against reusers. I believe this deserves wider community discussion. Nilive1 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

(I've got a COI) This has been discussed here multiple times before; one notorious Flickr and Commons user was even banned, and their files deleted, because they aggressively pursued every minor mistake in attribution rather than focusing on clear cases of misuse. I assume you are talking about a service such as pixsy.com? I use them myself (as noted on all my files as “warnings” and on my talk page), but only in cases where companies (not individuals) have completely failed to provide attribution (simply taking the image as if it were their own). An example is this court case filed through them for me.
It is, of course, always the copyright holder's right to ensure that licenses are followed. Otherwise we are effectively saying the license does not matter at all; in that case one might as well release works under PD or CC0 instead. The key question for Commons is whether the enforcement practice crosses a line from reasonable license defense into behavior that undermines the project's spirit of supporting free culture.
That said, I think we must also be realistic: if, for instance, Disney or another major studio were ever kind enough to license one of their films or other works under a CC license, Commons would undoubtedly welcome hosting it. But at the same time we can be absolutely certain they would enforce compliance with that license vigorously, and nobody here would argue that they should be barred from hosting on Commons because of it. The principle is the same, free licenses come with conditions, and it is neither unusual nor inherently abusive for the copyright holder to insist that those conditions are respected.
Finally, it should be noted that Commons should not attempt to evaluate whether individual compensation claims are proportionate or excessive; that is a matter for courts to decide, while our task is only to ensure that files meet licensing requirements and that the licenses are clear and enforceable. --Josve05a (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)(Added sentence about court case --Josve05a (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC))Reply
The user in question has seemingly saught legal actions on multiple occasions to receive compensations for the alleged copyright infringement and was smacked down by courts multiple times to the point where they had to pay compensations to the accused party rather than the other way around. So, in this case the courts are clearly taking the side of the accused party but it looks like the user in question still continues with the practice. Nakonana (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the thoughtful response, Jonatan. I fully agree that Creative Commons licenses must be respected, and attribution is not optional. The issue here is not about defending attribution in principle, but about the systematic use of Commons uploads as a revenue stream, with disproportionate demands for minor mistakes.
As you note, Commons has already banned a Flickr/Commons user in the past for precisely this — aggressively pursuing every minor slip rather than focusing on clear misuse. What I am documenting here is a pattern going back to at least 2016, with repeated reports in legal blogs, news, and court defeats, showing that this is not a one-off case but a sustained business model.
You are correct that proportionality of damages is for the courts. But Commons does have to decide whether hosting such files aligns with its mission. If reusers begin to see Commons as a legal trap, that undermines free culture just as much as ignoring attribution would.
In my view, the community discussion should focus not on whether attribution is required (we probably all agree it is), but whether an uploader who systematically uses Commons contributions to generate legal claims is acting in the spirit of the project. Nilive1 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
As a curious follow up, I cannot see that you have ever edited here on Commons before, and only 4 edits on Italian Wikipedia over 4 years ago. Are you yourself the victim of this license enforcement practice, or are you perhaps using an alternative account? --Josve05a (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Das ist aber nebensächlich, mich würde mehr interessieren was du zu seinen Argumenten sagst, oder willst du nur ablenken? -- Bwag (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, I agree that legal traps are bad, but I also believe a copyright owner shall be entitled to enforce their rights. I think Commons:Copyleft trolling summarizes it quite well: enforcement of clear infringements and against corporations can be acceptable (even if unfortunate), while other forms of enforcement due to technicalities edge much closer to trolling and do not serve the spirit of free culture. I've no comment about this specific user above, since i have not looked at the articles in question, just wanted to chime in with my 2c in general. --Josve05a (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Schau, seine Rechte könnte der liebe Wolf auch mit der 4.0-Lizenz einfordern. Er nimmt aber lieber die veraltete 3.0-Lizenz, denn die ermöglicht noch im Falle eines Lizenzverstoßes gleich einen Erlagschein in drei-, vierstelliger Höhe mitzuschicken, so dass lukrative Einnahmen winken. -- Bwag (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Genau, Bwag. Wenn Herr Wolf wirklich nur um die korrekte Namensnennung gehen würde, könnte er seine Dateien schon lange unter CC 4.0 freigeben. Mit dieser Lizenz bleibt das Recht auf Attribution immer noch, aber das Geschäftsmodell, kleine Verstöße sofort als „unlizenzierte Nutzung“ auszulegen und hohe Rechnungen zu schicken, wäre nicht mehr möglich. Dass er konsequent bei 3.0 DE bleibt, scheint nicht zufällig. Nilive1 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
True, I’m not a very active editor on Commons, but I’m a regular Wikipedia reader and also an amateur photographer who shares photos under CC on Flickr. That’s exactly why this issue caught my attention: I know how CC is supposed to work from the contributor side, and this pattern of enforcement seems to go against that spirit.
So yes, I personally came across the problem, and I thought it was important to raise it here for a wider discussion. Nilive1 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
See also Commons:Copyleft trolling. Glrx (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The case in question
The Company of User:Nilive1 used my picture Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2019.jpg on this site without a copyright attribution. Neither my name nor the license was mentioned. That’s a clear violation and definitely not a minor mistake in attribution.

A company that presents itself as a modern online company should be expected to comply with the license terms. Instead of spreading defamatory statements based on ignorance, subjective misjudgments and questionable internet propaganda from other copyright infringers, it would be more appropriate to show respect for authors and the CC license.

The legal situation
In most cases, courts award damages for copyright infringements involving CC licensed images by professional photographers such as myself. It is therefore not true that you cannot claim damages if you have been the victim of a copyright violation. For example, the Cologne District Court and the Cologne Regional Court already ruled that I am entitled to claim my regular license fee in the event of a copyright violation involving a CC picture.

Of course, you won't find anything about these rulings on the internet, because the linked postings and articles are either from people who have violated the license or from their lawyers who want to attract as many future clients as possible. Neither of these are reliable sources.

My license enforcement practice
I would like to point out that I do not take action against minor infringements. I also do not demand money from single private individuals, unless my picture is being used without permission in a commercial way. Furthermore, I do not use automated software like “Pixsy” or external agencies to search for infringements or even issue warnings. It is important to me that I can decide for myself how to proceed in each individual case, as it is always a case-by-case decision and my actions must be appropriate.

For example, if my name was mentioned near the image or far away in a list of image sources but the license was not mentioned, or if there was only a typo, this would not constitute a violation for which I would demand financial compensation. Of course, such minor violations also take up a certain amount of time, but in the case of minor careless mistakes, I don't think it's necessary to demand compensation. If someone runs a private online blog as a hobby without earning any money from it, that person usually would not have to pay anything, although I would of course still have the right to claim damages. But I don’t do so in the very most cases.

In summary, I think that the way how I deal with copyright violations can definitely not be described as “copyleft trolling” or “aggressive”.

CC BY-SA 4.0 versus the absolutely evil CC BY-SA 3.0
When using the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the author can still demand compensation for past unauthorized use of an image. The only difference is the possibility of future use. If the reuser of the image adds or corrects the missing or insufficient copyright credit within 30 days, he/she may continue to use the image under the CC license. The CC BY-SA 3.0 license does not include this opportunity. I prefer this license because I don't always automatically want a reuser to be able to use my image again after a violation. Sometimes reusers behave very disrespectfully after committing a violation, and then I want to be able to decide for myself whether or not to allow future use. If the person behaves fairly, I can still allow her/him future use after a violation. However, I do not consider this appropriate in the case of disrespectful behavior. A good example is User:Nilive1 and his company, which fortunately will not be able to earn money with my picture in the future. There have also been incidents with extremist groups of questionable political views. They have misused my work and, in the end, I was glad to be able to prohibit further use.

So, it's a matter of your personal opinion and your past experiences whether you prefer CC BY-SA 3.0 or CC BY-SA 4.0. Both are free licenses which are allowed and popular on Commons, so no uploader has to justify why to use license A or B.

How I prevent violations
Copyright violations are always very annoying and I much prefer it if the license is respected. In order to prevent violations, I create my image description pages as understandable as possible and make it as easy as possible for reusers without copyright knowledge to comply with the license terms. Therefore, there's always a clearly visible blue button to the ‘’Lizenzhinweisgenerator’’ under my images. The ‘’Lizenzhinweisgenerator’’ is a tool in German language which generates a correct copyright attribution within a few seconds. The tool distinguishes between online or print usage. This is good because different copyright and license notices are required depending on the type of use. In the ‘’Permission’’ section of the summary, I always include a clearly visible example copyright notice that can be copied easily. I also include the correct copyright attribution in the license info box in case a potential reuser only reads that license info box ({{self|cc-by-sa-3.0-de|attribution=Thomas Wolf, [http://www.foto-tw.de www.foto-tw.de]}}).

Overall, I think my image description pages are easy to understand, and my efforts have surely prevented many violations. However, if there are any suggestions for improvement, I would be happy to hear them.

No risk zone for unsuspecting users
Because the license terms on my image pages are very clear and I do not take action against minor violations or private individuals (non-commercial), my images are in no way “a risk zone for unsuspecting users”. -- Wolf im Wald 05:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Danke für die ausführliche Antwort und alles so schlüssig erklärt. Trotzdem keimt in mir der Verdacht, dass Commons eher als Geschäftsplattform genutzt wird, wenn man bei Commonsbilder Abmahnungen von 5.000 Euro aufwärts versendet: [5]. -- Bwag (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Das ist natürlich völliger Unsinn. Kompa konnte diese absurde Behauptung bis heute aus gutem Grund nicht belegen. Meine Schadensersatzforderungen sind viel niedriger und bewegen sich ganz überwiegend im dreistelligen Bereich, so auch im vorliegenden Fall. -- Wolf im Wald 07:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
OK, Kompa stellt nur eine "Behauptung" auf, aber wie ist es mit irights.info? Schreiben die auch einen "Unsinn", wenn sie berichten, dass du bei einem anderen Foto 4.300,- Euro verlangt hast: [6]? -- Bwag (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Vor allem wird dort von 2 Verstößen berichtet, vermutlich sehr umfangreiche kommerzielle Verstöße. Leider ist es für mich nicht nachvollziehbar, da aus dem Artikel nicht hervor geht, um welchen Fall es sich gehandelt haben soll. Daher kann ich mich dazu nicht detailliert äußern. Ich weiß hingegen, dass ich heutzutage niemals so viel Geld für einen Verstoß verlangen würde, egal wie umfangreich er ist. Um auf eine derart hohe Summe zu kommen, müsste man heute 5 oder 10 Verstöße auf einmal begehen. Der Artikel ist inzwischen 9 Jahre alt und damals habe ich bei Verstößen mehr verlangt, worauf ich nicht stolz bin. Damals war ich anwaltlich nicht gut beraten und die Rechtslage war noch unklar. Im Jahre 2017 habe ich jedoch meine Vorgehensweise reflektiert und grundlegend geändert. Seitdem verlange ich weniger und gehe wie gesagt grundsätzlich nicht mehr gegen private Einzelpersonen vor, die ohne kommerziellen Hintergrund handeln. Dies stellt meiner Meinung nach einen guten Kompromiss zwischen Durchsetzung/Schutz der Lizenz und Verständnis gegenüber unversierten Nachnutzern dar. Gegen Kleinstverstöße bin ich übrigens nie vorgegangen. -- Wolf im Wald 13:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your detailed explanation. However, there are two points that raise concern. First, your statements here contradict your own correspondence, in which you mentioned that “each violation is documented by an external company.” Here you now write that you never use external services. This inconsistency makes it difficult to assess the credibility of your account.
Second, there are multiple independent reports (Kompa, iRights.info, Tarnkappe, court commentary) that describe very different experiences, including cases where demands reached into the thousands of euros. In my own situation, the use was minimal — a small hotlinked thumbnail on a page with no traffic — yet it still led to repeated payment demands of almost four figures. This makes it difficult to reconcile your assurances that you do not act on “minor” infringements with the practice others and I have experienced.
In any case, the core question for Commons is not whether German courts sometimes award damages, but whether Commons should be hosting works that are repeatedly used as the basis for disproportionate demands. That is a community issue, and it goes beyond any single case. Nilive1 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Above I didn't say that I don't have violations secured externally. I did say that I don't work with external agencies to search for violations or send warnings. Furthermore, I don't use automated software like “Pixsy” to find plenty of violations.
Ever since I was scammed in court when someone faked screenshots to conceal his violation, I have been having violations documented by a friend who is IT specialist and who also does my web hosting. So, something like that can't happen again. This is a precaution because I don't want to be ripped off by scammers in court again. But that has nothing to do with what you're accusing me of. It's my right to collect evidence of a violation and to have it secured by a witness.
The linked reports are, as I said above, mostly not independent. It’s more appropriate to call them propaganda of copyright infringers or advertising of lawyers who want to attract as many future clients as possible.
What's striking, in any case, is that the reports aren't from the past few years or months, but rather very old. This is likely due to the fact that I haven't been taking stringent action against all violations since 2017, as I described above (in German language). Since then, I have not taken action against private (non-commercial acting) individuals and I have never taken action against minor violations, not even before 2017. In this respect, none of these reports refer to a minor violation.
The violation in question of User:Nilive1 was neither committed by a private individual nor is it a minor violation. The image was used commercially and no copyright attribution or license notice was provided. Furthermore, the violation was committed by an online company whose owner identifies himself as a SEO and web marketing expert who worked as a graphic designer in some of the largest European agencies of design and advertising. Such a company can be expected to at least comply reasonably with the licensing terms. A typo in the copyright credit or an incorrect license link wouldn't have been a problem. The problem is that the license terms were completely ignored and that is not acceptable. Instead of showing understanding for the concerns of the injured author, User:Nilive1 engages in defamation and downplays the violation by arguing that it is not so bad to violate the license terms because the subpage allegedly had only a few page views. -- Wolf im Wald 18:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I can't say I have much sympathy for a commercial entity using someone else's copyrighted material with no credit at all, and then complaining when they get sued because it was material that they could have licensed at no expense to themselves. I personally have never sought damages for someone failing to exactly properly conform to the terms of a CC license, but not mentioning my name would definitely put things in another category. In my view, a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license amounts to saying "I don't demand money for my work, all I'm asking for is clear attribution." If the latter isn't forthcoming, then it's the same as any other copyright violation.
objective market value of CC works is zero - I have several dozen times been paid anywhere from US$50 to US$1500 for the use of a photo where I had offered a CC-BY-SA license because someone did not want to conform to the terms of that license. (This does not count the couple of times I've pursued matters legally, one for uncredited use in a print medium, and one for uncredited use in a film.) About half of those have been precisely because someone did not want to have to credit a photographer, and preferred to pay me money rather than give such a credit. @Nilive1: you are questioning Der Wolf im Wald's intentions, but what were your organization's intentions in using third-party material with no attribution? - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
To add some perspective on what might be considered “reasonable” compensation globally when attribution is completely ignored by a commercial actor: in my own enforcement practice (in Sweden), I typically ask for around USD 200 if I pursue the case myself. If handled via an external partner such as Pixsy, the requested settlement usually ends up between roughly USD 300–900, depending on the case. This is because I don’t pay for their premium subscription but instead let them take 50% of any pre-trial settlement.
I should also note that I have been involved in settlements ending up in the thousands, but only in cases where lawsuits had to be filed and where companies (never private individuals) had made absolutely no attempt at attribution whatsoever.
From my perspective, the distinction is important: we should be angry about copyleft trolling, where minor technicalities are exploited as a business model, not about people enforcing common-sense attribution. Ensuring that attribution actually matters helps all of us, because otherwise the very basis of the free licenses we rely on would be undermined. --Josve05a (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

License review for Fandom files

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If a specific image on a Fandom wiki is specifically claimed to be freely licensed (which should appear under "more info" when viewing that image), users importing that content to Commons should take appropriate steps to ensure that license is accurate, as Fandom does not have any license verification process. Some Fandom wiki have many images that freely licensed such as Category:Images_from_Encyclopedia_of_Bus_Transport_in_Hong_Kong and Category:Images_from_The_Encyclopedia_of_Rail_Transport_in_Hong_Kong etc, but if a image are deleted from Fandom wiki, there are no way to verify license, so someone need to review license for images on Fandom wiki to avoid deleted for missing permission. KMB1933 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Schöpfungshöhe für Werbeanzeige 1930er Jahre?

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo,

besteht für eine Werbeanzeige in einer deutschen Zeitung der 1930er Jahre eine Schöpfungshöhe? Bzw. was müsste/könnte man hier als Copyrightangabe verwenden? Konkret geht es um so etwas hier: Arisierungsanzeige. Bei der vergleichbaren Datei File:Arisierung_Kaufhaus_Geschwister_Knopf_1938.jpg wird ja eine Schöpfungshöhe verneint. Ich möchte mich deshalb nur nochmal vergewissern. Viele Grüße Martin Bahmann (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ich würde das mit {{PD-text}} hochladen. --Rosenzweig τ 11:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Danke, werde ich dann machen. Viele Grüße Martin Bahmann (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

UAE

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 hours ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Ping @Adamant1@Josve05a speaking of UAE (which got mentioned in the Egyptian FoP discussion), I noticed a different clause under the UAE copyright limitations and exceptions that seem to mirror that of Egypt's. Aside from the infamous "for broadcasting program-only" FoP clause found at the 7th item, the 1st item of Article 22 states:

1. Make a single copy of the Work for personal and non-commercial or professional use of the copier, excluding the following:
a. Works of fine and applied arts, unless they are placed at a public place, with the consent of the right holder or his successor;
b. Works of architecture if permanently standing at public places; and
c. Software, software applications and databases, except as indicated in Clause (2) below.

For reference, here is the link to the English translation of the latest (2021) version of the copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like the UAE's law is a little clear. Although it's pretty similar to Egypts. I wonder the later fashioned their law off of the former and just left some words out of their version or something lol. But it's hard for me to see there being FOP in Egypt if that's essentially what the law there is getting at. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Adamant1 we have some problem though. The "professional" term may imply even activities by professional photographers (who make profit from their outputs) are somehow tolerated, but note that architecture seen in public spaces is excluded (again, contradicting what UAE officials claim). The only thing included for professional purposes are fine and applied arts placed in public spaces. So perhaps, a reverse of US FoP, if we were to accept the "professional" wording as suitable for COM:Licensing rules. So, any public art OK, and architecture  Not OK? Might be weird but possible. I'll wait for other insights though. Ping also @Clindberg and Rosenzweig: for their inputs (since they frequently comment on FoP-related matters). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I forgot a crucial phrase "with the consent of the right holder or his successor" for the public art item. So of no use. (Hosting images on Commons must not require permission from the artists of the public artworks.) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
So perhaps, a reverse of US FoP That's kind of my reading of it. Although it seems like a weird way to do things lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how that is a FoP clause at all. "Make a single copy" is not something that applies here, where we need to allow as many copies as people want. That is more a private-use clause (where they of course have to exclude works of architecture from that permission). The 7th item looks like the only FoP clause to me, and is restricted to "broadcasting programs" unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Clindberg by the way, can you chime in the Egyptian Fop discussion above? It's due to my discovery that the "implicit FoP" we long accepted is only embedded in the provision only permitting single copies, similar to this UAE Article 22(1) wording. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sculpture "publication" question

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey all, looking for some assistance on confirming publication of a sculpture in the U.S.

Melvin Edwards created the small sculpture Afrophoenix No. 1 in 1963, without a copyright notice, and shortly thereafter sold it to a collector in Chicago. The work was eventually purchased by the Art Institute of Chicago, where it currently resides. I would think the sale to the collector would count as publication at the time, but I didn't want to just assume. The sale detail comes from Edwards himself, in an oral history he participated in several years ago (p. 54); it's unclear if this sculpture was exhibited in Chicago at Richard Gray Gallery, which he references in his retelling of the sale, or if he just sold it to the collector without showing it in a gallery.

Am I correct to assume this work was published by virtue of its sale and thus is in the public domain due to lack of notice? A picture of the work is currently in use as non-free fair use on EN Wiki. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1076567099"