Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/12

Blocking a picture after 3 revocations

Hello All,

Is there no rule of blocking the page after 3 revocations or cancelations, as it is the case for this file File:Craqdi and Dani Martínez.ogg, as it is the case on Wikipedia? I am fighting with the troll Craqdi/Punxito right now. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Jeff_G., Yann ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

AmandaNP ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer: I see one logged deletion for that file, where do you see 3?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Jeff G. How many cancellation or revocation does it take on a file to flag it as an issue? It does need three separate porposals for deletion now? Do you know how many weeks it would take? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer: One conventional DR should be enough. However, some people like to interfere, most DRs have to run for at least a week, and some can take up to three months (Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08 still has DRs from "August 6") due to insufficient Admin attention.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer: are you talking about the "3RR"? If so, that's about three reversions, which is probably why someone wouldn't know what you meant by "3 revocations or cancelations". Yes, the now=blocked user probably could have been blocked for that instead. Typically, when one person has been the problem over and over, we block the person rather than protecting a page; if multiple people seem to be a problem on the same page, only then would we (semi-)protect the page. - Jmabel ! talk 04:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: It is indeed reversion. I did not know the word in English. The problem here as I see it, is that it is not flagged to an administrator, as it is for an article. Meanwhile, I also recognize that I am not really sure, if it works like this, but I saw a R3R happen many time on the French version of the encyclopedia. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer: nothing really flags it automatically on the other Wikis, either. Bring it to COM:AN/U, it will almost always result in a prompt block. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Continuation of the Italian fop thread

Continuation of the Italian fop thread started in October (just archived, see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Italy FOP again and artwork copyrights supposedly held by city councils of Italy) at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Freedom of panorama and government works. --Rosenzweig τ 13:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Public Domain videos with restrictions

At the Archive website for the National Film Board (Canada), there are lots of old videos/films, many of which are of historical value. Ex. https://archives.nfb.ca/search/?query=1898 I found one from 1898. Ok, obviously Public Domain...
They place this disclaimer under the content, "Any reproduction and use of the content of this site, other than for private use, requires a written license from the NFB. The NFB reserves all of its rights and recourses, including injunction relief and claims for damages, against any unauthorized reproduction or use of stock shots and stills contained in this site or any part thereof."
I also reached out via email and got this response "Although we do have some footage and films that are technically in the public domain, we own master copies and therefore we have the right to charge fees for reproduction and usage. Any revenue generated goes towards the cost of preserving the collection for future generations and making it available online."
Does owning the master really hold one special conditions? PascalHD (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, This is clear copyfraud. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada doesn't say anything specific about films, but at least everything before 1927 (and 1928 next month) can be uploaded to Commons. If they are government works, everything until 1972 (1973) is OK. If films have the same copyright status as pictures, then everything until 1949 is OK. BTW great find! Please propose the best videos for media of the day. Yann (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: what's your logic on "everything before 1927 (and 1928 next month)" for Canada? Not saying you are wrong, just that I don't see why. It seems to me that with 70 years p.m.a. for Canada, a young artist could very well have made something in 1920, lived till 1990, and that would be in copyright through 2060. What amm I missing? - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Canada is 50 pma. Remember that the 20-year copyright extension in 2022 was not retroactive. So making a film in 1928, the film is in the public domain if the director died before 1973. Quite reasonable. Yann (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada, it seems pretty clear that it's not retroactive in the sense it didn't restore PD works to copyright, but it does apply to all works in copyright when it came in force, and Canada's copyright is going to be (mostly?) frozen for 20 years, like the US's was.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann Okay that's what I was thinking. Just was not sure if there was any sort of special rules. I will take a look through their site and upload the ones I find of most value to Wikipedia & the Commons. PascalHD (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Controlling access to the master copy doesn't give you any special rights, but from a practical standpoint by controlling access, if you make someone sign a contract in order to obtain a copy that contract can have restrictions. Possibly as part of creating an account, you may need to agree to something, so read the fine print. The only other thing would be claiming copyright on the digitization, which seems doubtful. For copies that are put out there though, not sure what they can claim unless you sign something. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Carl: Can they make claims internationally? Do they?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on copyright no, can't see anything. Contract law would be an entirely different area, and could vary a lot. Mostly, it sounds like an attempt to maximize their own revenues, and make it sound good. But I do see they require an account to use their site, and the terms of use you agree to may have some stuff in there, which could restrict what you can do. Not a clue how far they go to enforce those, if there are any. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Thanks. Their "Terms of use of the Websites" AKA "Conditions of use of the NFB Site" are at https://help.nfb.ca/important-notices/#use.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

They certainly do seem to be about using the films to maximize their own revenue and control :-). Maybe they do a great job actually preserving the master films, and their public purpose doesn't go any further than that, but they certainly seem to want to control every commercial use of them as if they did own the copyright, copyrighted or not. I would not upload something I download from them, if I had to agree to that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@PascalHD: As other comments noted, there are two issues: 1) the copyright status of the films and 2) the contractual requirements for using the NFB website to get practical access to them.

1) Regarding the copyright of the films, there is also another distinction:

1A) The NFB/ONF is an agent/mandataire of the federal government, as it itself states on its website. So, the films produced solely by the NFB are, or were, under Crown copyright, which in Canada expires 50 years after the first publication. A NFB film published more than 50 years ago is in the public domain in Canada.

1B) Films made by people other than government or government agents would be under ordinary (non-Crown) copyright. (A literal reading of the Copyright Act might make third-party works pass under Crown copyright just for being published by the government, but the Supreme Court nuanced that a few years ago, interpreting that the government cannot just deprive someone of the copyright on a work by merely publishing it.)

2)Regarding the contract between the NFB and a user for use of its website, stipulated unilaterally by the NFB in the terms of use of its website, I expected that that type of situation was covered in the Commons guideline about non-copyright restrictions, but apparently it is not. There is something about "house rules" contracts, for example when a Commons user wants to upload photos taken in a museum that had contractual requirements for access, but not about contracts for the use of websites. Are we implicitly supposed to apply the same rationale? Is there another official guideline about it somewhere?

-- Asclepias (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The uploader is responsible for what they upload. If they are legally responsible for following a contract, they could be liable for a breach, if uploading it here violates that contract. Not sure that anyone else would be, but an uploader could put themselves at risk (same as "house rules", though those have less legal precedent than contract stuff -- they are usually based on physical trespass). This is an adhesion contract, but they seem pretty clear about the restrictions. If a court finds the terms "unconscionable" they can be invalid (or parts of them), but they have been enforceable in many situations I'm pretty sure. From one perspective, they certainly don't want to enable anyone to download all the PD movies they have digitized, just to create a competing service (such as Wikimedia Commons). Similar with Alamy etc. with public domain photos -- they are providing a service, and can charge for that, but wouldn't surprise me if they try to put restrictions on even those photos. In the end, each uploader has to measure the risk to themselves -- we aren't lawyers here, and can't offer real legal advise, and the law in each country can be different and we wouldn't know. Only the uploaders would know what the agreements are, and what they agreed to (they could have a special agreement which supersedes the normal one). So we'd allow the uploads I guess for PD films (if PD in both Canada and the US), if the uploader wants to take that risk. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg Thanks for your response, and appreciate your insight. I have not uploaded anything just yet. Looking for a conclusion/consensus before proceeding. From the Canadian Government's website: "Public domain refers to works that belong to the public. Works in the public domain can be used free of charge and do not require written permission from the author/creator." [1]. I interpret this as, I don't need the NFB's permission to take their Public Domain videos. I find it odd that I could somehow be held liable for something they cannot legally enforce copyright on anymore, as it belongs to the public. Unless owning the master copies grants them some special rules as they claimed in their email, that I am unaware of. I did not find anything in the Copyright Act about that. I find it a shame that an Archive would go to great lengths to keep people from freely using such (PD) materials. Hiding it away from the public for profit. PascalHD (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

They cannot sue you for copyright infringement. If you signed a contract (or are bound by one by whatever legal mechanism) to not do something, and you violate that contract, that is entirely different -- there are no expirations on that. And if creating an account there means you agree to their terms of service, and Canadian and/or US courts agree that is a binding contract, then uploading here would likely violate it. There is no special right they get by owning the master copies, other than they are the gateway, and if you want access then you have to agree to a contract, meaning they can force you into that. If you don't agree, then no access. I do find it a shame as well, but the Canadian government may have set them up to primarily preserve the films, and try to self-finance (reducing costs for their taxpayers) through licensing. Taxpayers pay less, but they also get less -- the actual preservation is the only public benefit, and any users pay fees. Well I guess you can view them for private purposes (which fair use / fair dealing would have allowed anyways), so there is some access provided. But maybe their government gave them rules like that when creating the archive, in which case their hands would be tied. You'd have to go see what their charter was from the government when it was formed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Free images posted on Facebook

This image was published by a California government agency (free to re-publish), but it was posted on Facebook, which is copyright protected. Ok or not? Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I think it can stay, but the City of Vista should not be granting to Facebook rights it does not have.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. More generally, extra caution should be taken with "free" content from FB. The copyright status must be assessed independently, as the Facebook user is often not the copyright holder, so the license is not valid. Yann (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This is totally tangential, but it would be interesting to see if there would be any support for similar proposal to for webp files but with Facebook. Since files from there seem to rarely be legitimate. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Media from Facebook is already suspect here. I don't know if we have the technical means to prohibit it from users who do not have autopatrol+. Эlcobbola: what do you think?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Facebook's term 3.1 at https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms includes the following: "to provide our services we need you to give us some legal permissions (known as a "license") to use this content. This is solely for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services as described in Section 1 above.

Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as Meta Products or service providers that support those products and services. This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems." Facebook actively scrubs metadata from photos, replacing it with "FBMD" metadata and making license investigation difficult.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Facebook (Meta) also claims the right to continue to use the posters photo for 30 days past its removal. Images are saved on its CDN servers all over the world and that propagation according to them takes 30 days to clear.

Up to a few months ago Meta was scrapping images from Commons and completely refused to attribute them in any way and when asked to remove them (by yours truly) it removed the Commons based image and replaced it a short time later giving the middle finger to the attribution requirement trying to claim fair use.

At one point CC images were specifically prohibited on FB, back when Alexis Jazz was nice enough to help me create a user template and as such since that date I have posted on my image reuse page that my images are not to be posted on FB, yet Meta did not care and did so willingly and willfully despite my requests for years distributing the 17 photos in question I created to over 10,000,000 peoples Facebook pages.

Don (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@WPPilot note there is a discussion at meta:Talk:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media regarding the issue. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm evaporated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

But of course you can't just blame Facebook for having these issues. Many Facebook netizens themselves are "accomplices". Let's take the FBMD and "NoFacebook" templates out of the equation: here in the Philippines, it is very common for many netizens to not exhausting efforts to trace the images' copyright holders before posting; instead, they just invoke some lame crediting techniques like: "CTTO" (credit/s to the owner/s; sample), "Photo not mine" (sample), or even "No copyright infringement intended" (sample). Such lame crediting techniques persist even if our copyright office already explicitly stated that such actions are unacceptable. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Facebook seems to have an entitlement issue as it feels images can be used in any way it wants to, and it refuses to adhere to CC licensing. Speaking from experience you should avoid anything to do with images FROM Facebook and beware of images on Facebook. I am unable to go into more detail here, but your best bet is to find the image located on a site that you know provides clear attribution and licensing data and avoid FB images here completely. --Don (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with WPPilot. One sample case concerns an image posted on the official Facebook page of the Philippine town of w:en:Albuera, but that image happens to be from a professional photographer hired by the town for an occasion that time (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jovit Baldivino in Albuera, Leyte.jpg). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Relicensing own work from CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 to CC‑BY‑4.0

This is just a procedural question (I guess). How do I relicense my own work originally under Creative Commons CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 to the more lax Creative Commons CC‑BY‑4.0 license. The image shown, for instance. Could not see this matter covered in the copyright FAQ. Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Because you are the person doing the licensing, you may change {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} to {{self|cc-by-4.0}} in the wikitext by removing "-sa". Alternatively, to maintain the chain of licensing for copies and derivative works, you may instead just add {{self|cc-by-4.0}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I chose the former action, edited the existing template, and left a commit message stating what was changed. That should be sufficient record I think. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: You're welcome, and thanks for asking here and using the Edit Summary there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 18:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Court in Beijing China ruled AI pic copyrightable

https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1729781393369305444

法院认为，尽管该图片是使用AI工具生成，但原告进行了一定的智力投入，例如选择模型、提示词和设置相关参数等。“涉案图片是基于原告的智力投入直接产生，且体现出了原告的个性化表达，故原告是涉案图片的作者。”判决书写道。

by picking ai models, keywords and settings, the picture is created directly from the plaintiff's intelligent input, so s/he gets copyright to the pic. RZuo (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

For the convenience of non-Chinese readers here I'll put an extra SCMP article on the same case here: [2]

I'm guessing this is worth a note within COM:AI and COM:CHINA? S5A-0043^Talk 12:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@S5A-0043 Not only this, probably {{PD-algorithm}} is also affected. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Images within images

I'd like to upload a picture of a book, it was published in 2023, the problem is, while the most of the cover in white with black text, in the centre, there are about 6 images, which might be copyrighted. Again, I want to upload an image of the entire cover, not each individual image on it.

Is that permissible? Crainsaw (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If the images are still in copyright, it will come down to a judgement of de minimis. Is there a copy of the cover online you can link to so editors can comment on whether de minimis is likely to apply? From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It from a rather obscure regional journal, so no covers are available online, I could just upload the image, and then we could judge about whether de minimis would apply, if not, simply delete it. Crainsaw (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's a link from the German National Library, it also doesn't contain any cover though. Crainsaw (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please, rev del the original photo.

I cropped the media interview and cut out buildings to avoid any FOP issue. Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan: You may have to specify exactly which file you're referring to. GMG^talk 18:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo, sorry about that. Here it is File:CNBC Interviews Rafael Mariano Grossi at COP28 (cop28 9795).jpg. Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Three others here

File:CNBC Interviews Rafael Mariano Grossi at COP28 (cop28 9742).jpg and here File:CNBC Interviews Rafael Mariano Grossi at COP28 (cop28 9761).jpg File:CNBC_Interviews_Rafael_Mariano_Grossi_at_COP28_(cop28_9812).jpg. --Ooligan (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Done - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

death date unknown?

I've been fixing the licenses in Category:Nos peintres dessinés par eux-mêmes (1883) - they were labeled as 'PD-anon-expired', but each image has an identifiable artist.

Problem: this one is by "Arthur / Arturo Canela", about whom all I've been able to find is that he was born in Paris in 1847.

Given that the book in question was published in France in 1883, is it safe to assume that the image is PD by now? He could potentially have lived into the mid-1950s... DS (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as long as we don't have a death date, we can assume anything published in 1883 in France is public domain. For PD-old-assumed-expired, it just has to have been created over 120 years ago (if PMA 70). Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this transformative enough of an image?

Hello, my partner Erdabravest2001 and I wanted to know if this image would violate copyright.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CjUnDTFKW7tjz0ltBxoHlDdFlyFsrPS0/view?usp=sharing

We took the format of the image from https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015003 at figure 5 and reproduced the image for with our own equations. However, we are concerned that doing this would violate copyright. We were wondering we could get any thoughts on if this is an acceptable reproduction. My partner says that the information and format is common for quantum circuits in general, but would some further confirmation first. Many thanks. Bird flock (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bird flock: Probably the original diagram wasn't even copyrightable, but if it was certainly any copyrightable elements are exactly what you left out of your version. When you upload here, do credit the original for the ideas expressed. I'd also guess your version isn't copyrightable, and it would probably be clearest to note that and use a CC-zero license when uploading, releasing any claim on having something copyrightable here. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status of tattoos

Does anyone know what the copyright status of tattoos is or who would own the copyright if they are copyrightable? I was thinking maybe they would be treated the same as graffiti since the original artist is often anonymous and hard to prove in court, but I don't know. I guess there's only been one court case having to do with tattoos. So maybe it doesn't even matter. Although the court did ultimately side with the artist. So it's probably worth clarifying regardless. Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1 Probably NotOK due to COM:FOP US? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Good call. I hadn't thought about FOP. Probably the same would go for other countries if it's applicable. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Pre-1989 US tattoos would not be copyrighted, since that would have required notice and/or registration, which I'm sure never occurred. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

In this case, @Mykola7: 's File:Stardust_January_2015.jpg might also be a question, need inputs from COM:TOO US professors. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Certainly OK. It's a picture of a person, which inevitably captures their tattoos, just like it inevitably captures their clothing. - Jmabel ! talk 03:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"I personally created this media"

I don't get the copyright situation of this image. The photographer's name, according to metadata, is Helen Ree. The uploader is a Swiss library account which is managed by three persons, none of whom is named Helen(e) Ree (they didn't even bother to spell her name correctly in the summary). Yet, the account claims "I personally created this media" and publishes it under a CC 4.0 license. How does all that go together with Swiss copyright law? --2003:C0:8F25:6900:D5C4:E24D:490C:DC3A 19:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The template in question isn't a copyright template, it's a subject-consent template. The wording is not entirely appropriate to that photo but, really, if its an official photo within an organization I don't think there is a problem that the uploader isn't the copyright-holder. - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Does the organisation have the right to re-license? Why would a photographer sell a photo with a CC 4.0 license? --2003:C0:8F25:6900:D5C4:E24D:490C:DC3A 21:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Why do you assume that the photographer was outside the organization and that the image was sold? Why would there be anything odd about part of a sale being the granting of a license? (I've had occasion to issue CC licenses on numerous commissioned photos, and also sold licenses to use an already CC-licensed photo without the usual conditions of that CC license. I don't think either of those scenarios are unusual.)

All things being equal, we have every reason to trust ETH-Bibliothek to know what they are doing. It's not as if they are an unknown entity, or someone who is known for playing fast and loose with rights. We don't really have a template to say "This person is one of our co-workers and I know they consented to have this photo taken even though I personally wasn't the photographer," so presumably they used {{Consent}}, which is close enough, rather than write custom text. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel maybe a COM:VRTS email from the claimed licensee solves the question? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: It would certainly solve any doubt, but I don't see anything here that makes me doubt this at all. Do you? - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm usually as suspicious as anyone else about these kinds of things, but she was educated at and is employeed by the uploader. So there's no reason to doubt them about it. Although with the caviet that it probably go the other way if the image was clearly being used for promotional reasons. But I'm not really seeing any evidence of that in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

O.k., I'll give it another try to explain my point.
1. We do not know who the photographer is. These companies may use someone from within the company, or they may employ an outside photographer to do their company portraits. This image looks very much like a professional photo to me, so I would suspect the latter.
2. In the case of an outside photographer, they are going to have some sort of a contract, and the company is going to buy the usage rights from the photographer. NOT the copyright.
3. The contract for usage will include some sort of a license. But what license? Is that really a CC 4.0 license? Why would a photographer use the CC 4.0 license for their contracts? Isn't that just like giving away their photos for free?
--2003:C0:8F18:6600:281F:69D8:CFB3:DB08 08:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are assuming that using an external photographer (if that is what happened here) prevents transfer of copyright. In my own company, our contracts with external photographers transfer all rights from the photographer (except their right to be identified as the photographer, if they wish to be identified). Generally, my company wants to control if, when and how our corporate images are published outside of the organisation. Buying the rights in the initial contract with the photographer is the simplest step to achieve that. In the case of one of our company employees taking the photograph in a work context, their contract of employment automatically transfers the copyright to the company. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible incompatible license for museum boat model image

• Courtesy link: File:Model of a boat made of alabaster from Hagia Triada.jpg

The "Please note" comment about non-commercial use seems incompatible with Wikimedia's CC-BY-SA licensing. Should this File be deleted? Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Looks like a non-copyright restriction to me: the museum certainly does not own a copyright on the object in question. Possibly the uploader (Pinging @ArchaiOptix has put themself in a legally difficult place by offering a CC-BY-SA license if they took the picture on a basis that did not allow for commercial use. I'd support a courtesy deletion if the uploader requested it, but there is no copyright issue. - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• I have removed the request that re-users contact the museum for permission. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I removed the same text from around 1000 other pages, but another 4000+ remain. This needs a bot to clean up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    @Pigsonthewing: I can go through and use AutoWikiBrowser to deal with some of it if you want. Although I wonder if the whole paragraph should be deleted, not just the last sentence. Since it doesn't really matter what conditions the museum has in place for people taking photographs of their exhibits. At least it doesn't on our end. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    @Adamant1: Thank you. I shan't object if someone removes the whole paragraph. but the "please call" wording definitely needs to go. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    (after several edit conflicts) @Pigsonthewing and Adamant1: I would advise against automated removal here. The file linked above is from a Greek museum, so it may be that the other cases are also from Greek museums. The combination of the unusual warning text and the location suggests there may be some COM:FOP Greece issues lurking among them. A manual check to see if the images are of ancient relics (public domain) or modern replicas (copyrightable) would be wise before removing the text. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    Any such issues, if thy exist, are orthogonal to the issue of whether or not Commons should tell people they must contact a museum before using one of our images (in whatever circumstances). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• I had not run into this particular wrinkle of copyright before. Comments above led me to Non-copyright restriction, and COM:CSM#Museum and interior photography which it links to, so I think I understand the comments above in light of those two, and our approach of "that's between you and the museum", which seems sensible in this case.
  It did, however, lead me to a thought experiment (mostly o/t for this discussion) regarding a similar situation as we have here, except that instead of a museum being the repository with house rules, imagine it's a government. I wonder what our reaction would be to someone uploading the Pentagon papers, or an Edward Snowden uploading the NSA global surveillance documents here, instead of where they did. U.S. government publications are generally not copyrightable so I assume documents created by govt. employees and marked "secret" would fall squarely under the NCR guideline, and therefore would be "between the uploader and the [government agency]". It's interesting to note that although COM:CSM#Images released under a free license says of US govt. pubs that "most government-created works are as a matter of policy released into the public domain", and this may be true, it implies that the ones that are not released are not in the public domain. But this is at least misleading as unnecessarily restrictive, since publications created by U.S. govt. employees are not copyrightable (17 U.S.C. § 105). I wondered if the wording at NCR is either an oversight, or an intentional (and understandable) bit of intentional omission, so that we don't encourage the kind of activity that an Ellsberg, Snowden, or Assange got involved in and end up finding ourselves in their position. I'd rather see our charitable funding going into more servers and better software support, than falling into the black hole of endless litigation. At first I had thought, maybe the writer of that sentence was somebody at legal had that in mind and was quite careful and intentional about the wording we see, but given that it's been there since the initial version, it's probably just random. Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Are the Wikimedia PD rules for Afghanistan correct?

I am reading the 2008 copyright law of Afghanistan, and from what I can see, more is under public domain than the PD-Afghanistan template suggests. It would appear that the law only protects photographs (defined under "audiovisual works") that are either created for broadcast via TV or radio, or created "using an innovative mode".

Does this mean that photographs that are neither created for broadcast nor innovatively created are in the Afghan public domain? Zanahary (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but "innovatively created" is probably to ambigious of a term to read antyhing into. Especially if what your reading into it is that most or all photographs are probably PD. At least not without using legal commentary or something to back it up with. Otherwise, "innovatively created" could mean quite a lot of things depending. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: there have been quite a few countries where basic photography -- snapshots -- are not normally eligible for copyright, or have a very short term of copyright, while still extending copyright to higher-quality work. Obviously, in the current era such distinctions have become harder to make. - Jmabel ! talk 21:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware. That could very well be the case here to, but it really depends on what the law means by "innovatively created." --Adamant1 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Railway with a Heart of Gold

Railway with a Heart of Gold is an American short documentary, filmed in the UK in 1953 by American producer Carson Davidson and released in 1965. As far as I can see, it has no copyright notice. The movie can be seen here [3]. Could a copyright expert confirm it is eligible for {{PD-US-no notice}} please? Voice of Clam 16:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Murano/Venetian beads

Are my own photos of a contemporary handmade glass bead from Murano/Venice allowed to be in Commons repository? Here are the links to the photos: and . Thanks in advance for your answers. Hortensja Bukietowa (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Images with WireImgId in metadata

I've noticed that a number of images have a "Source" string in metadata like @WireImgId=12345678 which appears to indicate that an image was, at one point, distributed as a wire photo. A few examples of these images are:

• File:Workers in Plaza las Victorias (Managua).jpg
• File:General Juan Belaieff.jpg
• File:Span, Emil - Orquideas rosadas.jpg

Does anyone know what the specific meaning of this identifier is, what vendor adds it, and/or how it can be looked up on stock image sites to confirm the copyright status of these images? Omphalographer (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Photos of public domain objects (two-dimensional, printed or painted on paper)

I have found and uploaded two photos of two objects, which are now certainly in public domain. But now I have some doubts. From the one hand, these photos are simply photocopies of public domain objects (a poster, published by the unknown author in 1918, and a seal, created by Heorhiy Narbut, which died in 1920). But from the other hand, these photocopies have a clear information about photographers, who created them. So, are such photocopies of public domain objects also in public domain, or such photos should be deleted?

• Photo No. 1. File:Печатка ДС УД Нарбут 2.jpg Author of the seal — Heorhiy Narbut (1886–1920), but EXIF contains information about the photographer.
• Photo No. 2. File:Идель-Уральская Республика (провозглашение).jpg Poster, created by the unknown author in 1918, but on the website (where I have found this photo) there is also information about the photographer.

صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@صلاح الأوكراني: a faithful photographic reproduction of a 2-dimensional work does not create any new intellectual property rights. It's polite of us to credit who did the photography, if known, but they don't own a copyright on anything in this work. - Jmabel ! talk 08:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

John Steinbeck book covers

Would like some input on the copyright licenses of File:Tortilla Flat (1935 1st ed dust jacket).jpg, File:Of Mice and Men (1937 1st ed dust jacket).jpg, File:The Grapes of Wrath (1939 1st ed cover).jpg, File:Cannery Row (1945 1st ed dust jacket).jpg, File:The Pearl (1947 1st ed dust jacket).jpg and File:East of Eden (1952 1st ed dust jacket).jpg? These files were all uploaded by Blz 2049 with the same detailed justification for the {{PD-US-no notice}} licensing. While this justification does correctly reflect what is written about dust jackets requiring separate copyright notices in 2207.01(C) on page 18 of the The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices: Chapter 2200, I'm not sure that applies to these particular dust jackets because of what's written in "2201 What This Chapter Covers" of that same compendium. Section (Clause?) 2201 states the following:

This Chapter discusses the notice requirements for U.S. works published in copies and phonorecords in the United States between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, when copyright notice was required for published works. This Chapter does not cover works published before January 1, 1978 under the Copyright Act of 1909. For information on the notice requirements for works first published prior to January 1, 1978, see Chapter 2100 (Renewal Registration).

All of the file uploads are of works published prior to January 1, 1978. Moreover, the no-notice license itself only applies to works uploaded between 1928 and 1977 (inclusive) which would seem to mean that the compendium cited cannot be used to justify any such claim. Now, it's possible there was a similar "dust jacket" clause in Copyright Act of 1901, but I'm not sure about that. It's also possible that these covers might actually be {{PD-US-not renewed}} under the terms of the 1901 Act, but that's a different license with a completely different rationale. So, I'm wondering if these files are OK as licensed and what should be done about them if they're not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the six Steinbeck files mentioned above, the same "dusk jacket" rationale is also being to File:Absalom, Absalom! (1936 1st ed cover).jpg, File:The Catcher in the Rye (1951, first edition cover).jpg, File:The Catcher in the Rye (1951, first edition dust jacket).jpg, File:Invisible Man (1952 1st ed jacket cover).jpg, File:To Kill a Mockingbird (first edition cover).jpg and File:Gravity's Rainbow (1973 1st ed cover).jpg also uploaded by Blz 2049. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: does {{US book dust jacket 1909–1977}} cover your concern (so to speak)? - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: My relatively inexperienced take is that {{PD-US-no notice}} is indeed the correct license here. The long explanation by the original uploader doesn't affect the license itself; it simply points out, for those who may be unaware of the fact, that in the case of pre-1989 publications in which copyright notices were required to be present, the courts consider the copyright of the dust jacket or book cover to be a separate issue from that of the book itself. That this principle extends retroactively to pre-1978 publications is shown by the case of the Jaws cover, which is cited in the {{US book dust jacket 1909–1977}} template that Jmabel linked. That case concerned the cover of the 1974 paperback edition, which was physically attached to the book, and the arguments supporting PD-US-no-notice set out in the decision apply even more strongly to unattached dust jackets like the ones you're asking about. But if I'm wrong I'd be happy to be corrected by those who know more. Choliamb (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Jmabel and Choliamb for the additional information. The licensing seems to check out based on what you two posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Century 21 Calling and Mr. B Natural

Is it possible that Century 21 Calling and Mr. B Natural in the public domain as per {{PD-US-no notice}}? Lugamo94 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The National Film Preservation Foundation's Guide to Sponsored Films lists Mr. B Natural and Century 21 Calling as unregistered for copyright and I couldn't find any renewals at the online Copyright Office search, so they're in the public domain, and PD-US-no notice works if you don't see one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugamo94 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Mass-changes of licences for typeface samples?

User Chewzy appears to have changed the licences of a few hundred typeface samples, such as this one, without prior notice. I am not sure if that is allowed, and even if so, I think such a move should have been discussed first. --Minoa (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This should be reverted. For anything but the simplest of plain text, a CC license is stronger than PD-text because the former is a license while the latter is merely a description. So a user in the UK would not be able to use the image under PD-text, for instance, since it is probably above COM:TOO UK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I probably need help because there is like more than 400 files affected by the unauthorised licence change. I don't have the tools or the time to mass-revert them all. --Minoa (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Minoa and King of Hearts: I rolled back 448 of them for you per special:diff/829134151.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks for stepping in. --Minoa (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Minoa: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You cannot claim copyright on "abcdefghijk" or "a quick brown fox".--Chewzy (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

True, but you can claim copyright, even in the US, on computer programs that draw characters, which TTF and SVG files are. And as King of Hearts points out, this is more complex than a simple string.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chewzy: The quick brown fox jumped over a lazy dog named Chewzy, who messed with copyright tags 448 times. Don't do that again.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be news to me that we have ever tried to claim software copyright for our SVG files. It is not in line with our project goals to advocate for further copyright restrictions and undermine important copyright exceptions, especially to further the use of such dubious tricks. We want easier access to the world's knowledge and a more robust public domain, not less.--Chewzy (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"We" claim copyright on "our" SVG files? We could just change all the licenses on the files to PD on that argument. They aren't our files to claim copyright on or not, the uploaders have the right to claim copyright on them. TTF copyrights are very clearly legit, so changing the format of those vectors should change nothing. What we want is a legal repository, not one that has illegitimate licenses stuck on people's work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz (1933 animated film)

Hi, I don't see any discussion about this animated film (not the 1939 film). English WP article used to be in a "Films in the public domain" category, now removed, but without any reference. It is on IA with a "public domain" mention. Any idea? Yann (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That red link to a non-existing category was added without reference two days ago [4]. It was removed by the bot today because it's a link to a category that does not exist. The mentions at IA are notoriously unreliable to the point of being rather useless. All that does not tell any useful indication. But maybe you could ask to the user who added that red link if they have reliable information on the matter. If not, that would probably require the usual research, possibly complicated by the apparently complex colorization history. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if it was actually published in any way in 1933. Without that information, it's hard to tell whether it's actually in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. There is a copyright notice with the date 1933. Isn't that sufficient to establish the date of publication? I search for copyright renewal by Ted Eshbaugh, but I couldn't find anything. Could it be under another name? Yann (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't watch the movie; yeah, a copyright notice makes a pretty strong presumption, and I didn't see renewals in the appropriate files. I think we're safe calling this PD-US-no renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Information about this film's release seems to be spotty. I didn't find much in reliable sources, other than that there was a lawsuit by Technicolor that blocked the initial release plans. Some unreliable sources (blogs/forums) say that it was released only in Canada. If that's true, then URAA restoration likely applies and the film is still copyrighted in the U.S. until 2029. Other sources say the film was never released, in which case it may be copyrighted until 2040 (70 years pma; producer Ted Eshbaugh died in 1969). (The film was released on video compilations in the 1980's, but it's not clear that those were authorized publications.) Toohool (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Toohool: How would prints get to Canada without being released to a common carrier? Doesn't that count as publication in the US?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Co-producer J.R. Booth owned Film Laboratories of Canada, the Canadian licensee for the Technicolor process, so it certainly seems plausible that he could have printed the film there and distributed it within the country. Toohool (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of logo from civil society organization with or without seeking permission

First up, I searched this site for prior advice without much success. I would like to add a low‑resolution bitmap of a logo to this particular article on Scientist Rebellion. And it would be easier for me not to have to seek permission. I now have a reasonable screenshot, improved by zooming in on my web‑browser. That logo measures 858 × 238px. I had guessed that I should be able to upload that particular PNG file under fair use arguments. But the upload wizard does not provide for fair use as an option. I would doubt if the logo has been trademarked anywhere, but I have not yet followed up that matter. How should I proceed? Do I need to talk to the organization? In which case, I imagine I will need to ask for a suitable open license, possibly the Creative Commons CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 license would be a good option? TIA. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison:

Commons does not accept images under fair use. You may upload fair use images to en.Wiki under certain conditions. Glrx (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi RobbieIanMorrison. If the logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law and the copyright law of its country of origin/first publication, then it might be OK to upload using the license {{PD-textlogo}}. It is, however, impossible to make such an assessment without actually seeing the logo. So, if you can provide a link to it, then that would be helpful. Otherwise, as pointed out above, you will need to get the COM:CONSENT of the logo's copyright holder because Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use/fair dealing content. Now, also as pointed out above, English Wikipedia does allow copyrighted content to be uploaded as non-free content, but English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive than fair use as explained here. For example, English Wikipedia does generally allow non-free logos to be uploaded as long as they're being used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about whatever the logo represents, but it typically doesn't allow allow such logos to be used in other articles or in other ways. So, if the logo you want to upload is the main logo used by "Scientist Rebellion" for branding purposes, it should be OK to upload as non-free content as long as it's used in the main infobox of the article about the organization; otherwise, it's going to be much harder and most likely impossible to justify the non-free use of the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

My thanks to Glrx and Marchjuly. I understand most of that discussion. (In passing, I know quite a lot about intellectual property law as it relates to data, please see: forum.openmod.org/t/4399.) I think I will contact Scientist Rebellion about licensing their logo under CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0. The logo is simple: just their name set in a typewriter font and the famous "climate stripes" incorporated below. For an example, see the top‑left here: scientistrebellion.org. If that effort fails, I will work my way thru the Wikipedia EN protocols for use via branding. Your answers much appreciated. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Since we already have File:20181204 Warming stripes (global, WMO, 1850-2018) - Climate Lab Book (Ed Hawkins).png, this logo seems acceptable under {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}. Yann (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Can you upload it using {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} and/or {{PD-ineligible}} without zooming in? We have scaling capability built in, as described at en:H:PIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have contacted Scientist Rebellion to explore whether they would officially release under CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0. And I'd like to let that run a couple of days before doing something unilaterally. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Just adding the Scientist Rebellion style guide, albeit silent on licensing (except the loose terms of use for the XR hourglass symbol): scientistrebellion.org/docs/2/scientist-rebellion-design-and-style-guide.pdf RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Also the climate stripes are now being published under CC‑BY‑4.0: showyourstripes.info RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If the stripes are CC-BY 4.0 and the rest of the logo is ineligible, then that's all we need. - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have the style guide, the original font, and an SVG for the stripes, so I'll do this in Inkscape. I should add that the style guide encourages others to produce related material using their house style — although of course those sentiments are not sufficiently legal for Wikimedia. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Uploaded SVG file

I waited two days for a response from Scientist Rebellion, but nothing so far. Here is the SVG file I uploaded [depicted on right]. Thanks for everyones' help. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparent upload is File:Horizontal logo for Scientist Rebellion without fonts.svg. Glrx (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

... as displayed to the right.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Chart with data from a paywalled article

Total active mining equipment and electronic waste generation in the Bitcoin network over time.jpg uses {{PD-chart}} but I'm not sure it applies here. I asked the uploader (User_talk:JBchrch#Bitcoin_e-waste) but they're not active anymore.

My concern: two of the lines ("Total Active Mining Equipment" and "Electronic Waste Generation per Annum") may not be "information that is common property and contains no original authorship". They show data from a paywalled article (ScienceDirect) that is the result of the authors' calculation (contrary to the "Hashrate" that is public data available everywhere freely).

What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: Data generally can't be copyrighted, and I don't think there is anything copyrightable in that presentation of it. - Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Seal of the Islamic State

I have found a HQ-version of the seal, which was used on many administrative documents, issued by the Islamic State (when it was a proto-state, and controlled large parts of Iraq and Syria). And I want to upload this seal to Commons. Can this seal be uploaded using {{PD-ineligible}}?

Seal: https://web.archive.org/web/20231210232546/https://i.ibb.co/cbBLpTS/IS-seal.png
Document, from which the seal was extracted: https://archive.org/details/gld-dnr-is-descrpt
A lot of different administrative documents, which use this seal:

• https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/04/world/middleeast/isis-documents-mosul-iraq.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/04/world/middleeast/isis-documents-photos.html
• https://aymennjawad.org/2017/08/archive-of-islamic-state-administrative-documents-3

صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@صلاح الأوكراني: Who is the author? When did they author it, in what state that is a member of the Berne Convention or any other copyright treaty?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The exact author is unknown. The seal was created by some administrative bodies of the Islamic State. And this seal was created on territories, which belong to Syria and Iraq, but at that time (2013—2019) were controlled and governed by the Islamic State. صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, That would be OK if it was in English. However some countries claim a copyright on calligraphy (e.g. China). And I don't speak Arabic, so I can't say if this is complex enough to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann Given COM:TOO Morocco this looks like at least copyright-able in Morocco, but for Iraq and Syria, there seems like lack of clarification from local users. Need inputs from Arabic-speaking Commons administrators: @Aude, Dyolf77, Mhhossein, Tarawneh, and علاء: Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't speak Arabic but this calligraphic seal seems to have a level of decorativeness. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Thanks. Please adjust your babel boxes and COM:A accordingly.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: You're welcome Jeff. If you are asking me to remove 'Ar' from the babel box, then I should say that I know the basics of Arabic, as I mentioned, but I don't speak Arabic as Liuxinyu970226's comment implies. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Ok.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

UPD: I have found a book (published in 1954), which uses on its cover page exactly the same font, as on the seal. So, it seems to me, that it could be a regular font for headings. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@صلاح الأوكراني: that's the best evidence so far. I'd mention that in the "permissions" field if you are uploading as {{PD-textlogo}}. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I have uploaded it here: File:IS seal.png. Also I added in the “permissions” field some other examples of the font, used in the seal. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Emblems of the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army and Boko Haram

Are these emblems simple enough to be uploaded to Commons using {{PD-ineligible}}?
Someone had already uploaded emblem of the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army to Commons, but the file (File:Khalid Ibn Walid Army.png) has a wrong license (the uploader is not an author). — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Emblems:

• Khalid ibn al-Walid Army

https://web.archive.org/web/20231210233254/https://i.ibb.co/cbHYXgD/Jaysh-Khalid-ibn-al-Waleed-emblem.png
https://jihadintel.meforum.org/pics/symbols/764.jpg

• Boko Haram

https://web.archive.org/web/20231210234113/https://i.ibb.co/kDqtNrP/Jam-at-Ahl-as-Sunnah-lid-Da-wah-wa-l-Jih-d-emblem.png
— Preceding unsigned comment added by صلاح الأوكراني (talk • contribs)

I think that, as in the similar case above, showing precedent for very similar calligraphy would be the key. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I have decided to upload the emblem of the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army (File:Jaysh Khalid ibn al-Waleed emblem.png, File:Jaysh Khalid ibn al-Waleed emblem V.jpg), because it contains only simple sans-serif Arabic font (like Arial, for example). But the emblem of the Boko Haram is more complicated: it contains many decorative elements, which are used to fill in the blank space in the circle around the word „جماعة“. Such tradition is also common for some Arabic texts (headings), but in this case it could be above the threshold of originality. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Boko Haram logo is way too complicated to claim that it is ineligible. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

EXIF data states "All rights reserved"

Is VRT permission usually required when the EXIF data for a file clearly gives the name of the copyright holder and lists the file as being "All rights reserved", but the account uploading the file is using a different name, the file is uploaded as "own work" and the licensing chosen is not the same? Are such conflicts between EXIF data and file description of a concern? I'm asking about File:Laura Collett.jpg, File:Rupert, Earl of Onslow.jpg and File:Belvoir-Hunt-Belvoir-Castle-14Mar15-179.jpg (and its crops). All three list the same person as the copyright holder in their respective EXIF data, which also states "All rights reserved". All three were uploaded by the same user, who also uploaded File:British Equestrian Media Association Logo.png as "own work". I've tagged the logo as a copvio because of COM:TOO UK and because it comes from bema.org.uk. If, however, you scroll down to the bottom of that website, you'll find the name of webhost is the same as the copyright holder given for aforementioned three photos. Should it just be assumed in this case that the copyright holder and uploader are the same based on en:User:Indomitable or should VRT permission still be required? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It seems very likely the photos are their own, but probably they should go through COM:VRT to get the account verified, to confirm that they are the same person who took the photos. Or they could simply link or acknowledge the account from any public-facing website or page that is clearly under their control, and then link back to that acknowledgement from their user page here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I notified them of this discussion; so, perhaps they will see your post and do one of those things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not that EXIF automatically means we need VRT, but more there being access to the files on the internet first (with the EXIF as well), such that anyone could have uploaded it. That may still be an issue here though the one I looked for is not easy to find these days without a watermark, though tineye indicated it may have been available in 2010 (no longer at that site), though don't know about EXIF. It's more the conditions at COM:VRT#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_VRT? which drive the need. If they could validate their account, that would probably be easiest. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is correct @Marchjuly but thank you for raising it. I will follow the link and complete whatever is needed at COM:VRT. There are two other project invites that would benefit from my large archive of images so it would seem sensible. Indomitable (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This has now been done. Given the possible need for future use of my images by the Equine wikiproject, should I complete a more general email to the releases email addresses which connects my username with the copyright holder and allows all future use? Indomitable (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Indomitable: yes, please. Verifying your account as being yours saves a lot of grief. (Pretty much always the case for someone who uploads a good deal of photography outside of this site, unless they always indicate a free license when they post anywhere.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Concern on Australian murals

There has been some inconsistent closures of deletion requests concerning Australian murals. Some resulted to deletions (example), while others resulted to being kept (example), on the basis that as per one sole court ruling as summarized at COM:FOP Australia, the "works of artistic craftsmanship" category extends to paintings like murals.

But I do not feel comfortable at relying on this jurisprudence, especially that Australian freedom of panorama – with regards to public monuments –is being criticized by the artists' societies and communities there, for being too open to the commercial reusers. This article, with an interview to an IP specialist lawyer, does imply that street art (murals for instance) are protected by copyright and cannot be reproduced in ad campaigns or other media that do not align with artists' values. Moreover, based on what I have read at FOP-Australia page, it only concerns the definition or categorization, and I do not see anything that directly refers to the commercial exploitations of street art.

It is better if there is a court case that is not geared at the definition of "works of artistic craftsmanship", but is geared to give the definitive answer if commercial exploitations of murals of Australia without artists' permits or licensing clearances is legal, which is the real essence of freedom of panorama; that is, free uses, sharing, and distributions of images of copyrighted public artworks without artists' permissions.

A reassessment on our very loose (and risky) acceptance of Australian street art (murals) should be made.

Ping everyone who participated in all threads of Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Australia: @Kerry Raymond, Ghouston, Jeff G., Clindberg, Chris.sherlock, Aymatth2, Nick-D, Deus et lex, Gnangarra, and SCHolar44: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"[I]n ad campaigns or other media that do not align with artists' values" seems more like some sort of moral rights issue than copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 01:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel moral rights, while distinct from economic rights, is connected to the rights of artists. This is evidenced in several U.S. FOP cases in real life, like those concerning Three Soldiersand Cloud Gate sculptures (elaborated in w:en:Freedom of panorama#United States). But anyway, the issue here is on the unusually-lenient consensus of Commons community on Australian murals even if that is inviting Trojan horses to Commons – the future DMCA take down notices from muralists of murals found in Australia. Note that these can be covered by U.S. copyright courtesy of COM:URAA too, and I wouldn't be surprised if both Australian and U.S. courts side with muralists instead of Wikimedia or Australian Wikimedians, even if the Australian law is taken into consideration by either U.S. or Australian courts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: We could have a template incorporate that moral rights issue.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A mural is a two-dimensional painting, a typical work of art. It is painted on plaster rather than on canvas, board, etc. but that does not affect its copyright status. A work of artistic craftsmanship is a functional object with artistic properties, typically something like a dress, plate or chair. The decision in Burge concerns a yacht, not a mural. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If it can be described as a painting, it can't be a work of artistic craftsmanship. The Burge v Swarbrick was on the dividing line between what was a work of artistic craftsmanship, and just a work of craftsmanship -- i.e. the threshold of originality under which there is no copyright at all. The distinction between painting and a work of artistic craftsmanship is more on which type of copyright applies, and was not addressed by that court decision. The concerns about "ad campaigns or other media that do not align with artists' values" sounds like a law not yet written, or non-copyright aspects of other laws (perhaps including moral rights). I'm more concerned about what the law and courts say about the economic right itself. But as in the previous discussions, I can't see any basis in their law, or any referenced court cases, for a mural being a work of artistic craftsmanship -- it's a painting to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Since it is a matter of Australian law and there is an Australian court ruling, surely that court ruling represents the current state of Australian law. There will always be people who disagree with just about any court rulings, but unless those who disagree choose to engage in another court case, nothing changes. If they do engage in another court case, maybe there will be a different outcome and maybe there won't be. Although it may be different with graffitti (which is not commissioned and often removed), with most murals in Australia on buildings etc, these are usually commissioned works by businesses, town councils or governments, usually intended for promotional purposes (e.g. advertising, tourism) and will usually depict topics (e.g. history, local scenery) negotiated as part of that commission to serve the promotional purpose. People are encouraged to photograph such works and post them on social media etc (given the aim is to promotion). I think it unlikely that organisations would commission these murals if they believed that the Australian public could not photograph and share them. Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is commercial use, and our policy -- sharing on social media etc. would likely come under fair dealing. Which is fine for most real life situations, but is not "free" in the meaning we need to host them per policy. Paintings are not part of the Australian "freedom of panorama" law, so we can't use that as an exception. Agreed that the court ruling represents the current state of the law, and we should follow it, but I can't see anything in that ruling which would make murals "works of artistic craftsmanship" -- they are paintings, and thus not part of the FoP exception, since that is limited to works of artistic craftsmanship. Which part of the ruling do people think supports paintings being treated as works of artistic craftsmanship? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond second in motion to Clindberg. The free sharing should always include commercial and profit-making purposes. If the allowed use is only for promotion of the municipalities of Australia, and not for exploitations in postcards, calendar designs, or even for-profit websites not connected to the promotion of municipalities (by website developers), then the murals are not 100% free for eexploitation without muralists' licensing permissions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment it appears several images of Australian murals were successfully restored at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-12#File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg, despite the entire discussion heavily focused on the technical aspect of the term "work of artistic craftsmanship". The files should not have been restored and the entire discussion should have been redirected here, as I am not convinced of the applicability of the court ruling to the commercial exploitations of images of murals without permissions from muralists. SCHolar44 admitted here that Ms. Pila's article "does not really clarify the High Court judgement but only advances an argument that – convincing though it may be – asserts that the court's 'orthodox view' did not address a further factor, on which she expounds. As such, Ms Pila's article doesn't add to the factors applicable to contemporary considerations of FOP copyright, which is the subject of the section." Unfortunately, no one took notice of SCHolar44's concern. Some other user or admin should revisit her article to know the actual context of the term. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A quick browse on Ms. Pila's article seems to solve the threshold of originality of works of artistic craftsmanship. It does not address the allowance of commercial uses of murals without muralists' permissions and that if such uses can be protected under the Australian FoP, which by itself is being criticized by several Australian and aborigine artists as being too open for commercial users to exploit Australian culture and heritage. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Are these photos from this press kit public domain?

I found this 1976 press kit of Thin Lizzy here, and while it originated from the US and is pre-1978, I was wondering if it'd be okay to upload them since the backs of the photos are not shown (in case there were any markings on the backs). From what I could tell publicity photos were generally not copyrighted but I'd like to be on the safe side. Note that I am a newer user here and may be missing something. Thanks! Dantus21 (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dantus21: I suppose you could ask the buyer or seller about what's on the backs of the photos and if the whole kit was copyrighted.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The site is paywalled for buying the products themselves, so sadly I can't contact the seller. However, I did notice some other photos on Commons that came from press kits and didn't show the back sides either, so are those okay? Here's an example of one here. Dantus21 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dantus21 From my experience, older music press kit photos very rarely put any sort of copyright notices on the front or the back. Up until the mid 1980s these images were generally left without notices to be distributed and published as far and wide as possible to promote the subject(s). In the mid/late 80s, notices began to appear - but always on the front - Example. I am yet to see a music press kit photo with a notice on the back. My understanding is that it was much easier to print on one side only, then to double print something, and they wanted you to see the notice with the photo. The only photographs I tend to see with notices on the back are News/TV Broadcast press photographs, which would have been stickered on by the photographer or publisher - Example. I try to avoid such photos if I cannot see the back, but the odds of having a notice only on the back is very unlikely. Definitely do reverse searches before uploading any images. You tend to find other copies on sites such as ebay and Worthpoint which may show the back/no watermarks. Also look in older newspapers or magazines which may have also published the photo with no notice. If you wanted to upload a photo from 1978-89 you will also have to search the US copyright registration site to check if it was registered 5 years after publication. Almost nobody did this - but still check. If seen a couple that actually did. This only applies to US press kits/publications. Do at your own risk. Hope this helps. PascalHD (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This is extremely helpful! Thank you so much!! Dantus21 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Bot wrongly flagging images as copyrighted

Hello! :) I am semi new to commons so forgive me if this is a silly question, but I'm not sure how to rectify this myself. Images by other people that I have uploaded keep getting flagged as copyrighted by User:INaturalistReviewBot. This has now happened with multiple images (examples [5] [6] [7] [8]) that are under a CC0 license and I have even reached out to the original photographers directly and obtained permission to reupload them here. How can I prevent this from continuing to happen in the future?

Thanks! Mercedes-Fletcher (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

On the file page, the page you give as source, [9], states that the licence is CC BY-NC (a non-commercial licence which is not acceptable to Commons). It may be worth getting in touch with the photographer and asking why the two pages differ. Voice of Clam 22:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll have to look into that then, thanks! Mercedes-Fletcher (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mercedes-Fletcher: Although the observation data is CC0, the photographs are CC BY-NC, and thus cannot be hosted on Commons. Nosferattus (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That seems the case for observations 107130432 and 85380530. In other cases, there is also something more. The observation 175850542 includes two photos (or two versions of a photo). At the present time, the first photo 305646855 is CC0 and the second photo 305646873 is CC BY-NC. The observation 159962340 includes four photos. At the present time, the first photo is CC0 and the three other photos are CC BY-NC. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Handling contents of a Mojang repository as example

Hi!

I thought about this longer, but would like have some opinions about this. As many companies host free and Open Source software on GitHub, I stumbled over a repository by Mojang: https://github.com/Mojang/minecraft-legends-docs. The repository is copyrighted and licensed under the MIT License. The folder https://github.com/Mojang/minecraft-legends-docs/tree/main/images contains images, that are probably from the game Minecraft Legends itself (I am not a Minecraft player, so I cannot determine). Would the MIT license apply here or do we have to take something more into account?

Thanks, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Images that would go free years down the line

From what I remember, the way to preserve such images was to upload them to Commons and then instantly nominate them for deletion on copyright grounds; that way they can be undeleted when the time comes (and I'm long dead). Can you please be so kind and remind me how to do that properly? -- Wesha (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wesha: You may add Category:Undelete in 2024 for works expiring this year, or any other similarly named category, to the subpage after you nominate for deletion.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's it! -- Wesha (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wesha: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Just remember that the category has to go on the deletion request. Otherwise, it will just be deleted along with the file. - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Los Angeles government Flickr accounts

The template PD-CAGov states that "any government entity which derives its power from the State cannot enforce a copyright", which applies to the websites of city governments (such as Los Angeles), but I was wondering if that would apply to official city government accounts on Flickr. For example, the accounts of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a Los Angeles city department, and accounts for various city councilmembers like Paul Krekorian, Bob Blumenfield, and Curren Price are linked from he official websites, but all have "All rights reserved" as their license. Could they be uploaded under PD-CAGov like if they were images from the city websites? reppop^talk 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Reppop: I guess they didn't get the memo.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Or they are using the default license on Flickr (All Rights Reserved.). Abzeronow (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Reppop: I think the works of a city department could be uploaded under PD-CAGov like if they were images from the city websites if they are not on the list of "Agencies permitted to claim copyright" embedded in Template:PD-CAGov/en. I don't think the works of the LA Mayor and city councilmembers could be uploaded under PD-CAGov like if they were images from the city websites, because those people are not agencies.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

So would the Mayor and councilmembers not count as part of a government unit (since they're part of the Los Angeles government)? reppop^talk 00:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Reppop: I can't read the linked law right now, and archive.org just shows me headings. Perhaps someone else (maybe in California or with access to the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.)) can chime in here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

From https://www.oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/summary_public_records_act.pdf, "(a) “State agency” means every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and

commission or other state body or agency, except those agencies provided for in Article IV

(except Section 20 thereof) or Article VI of the California Constitution.

(b) “Local agency” includes a county; city, whether general law or chartered; city and county;

school district; municipal corporation; district; political subdivision; or any board, commission

or agency thereof; other local public agency; or entities that are legislative bodies of a local

agency pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 54952.". So the Mayor and city council members are considered part of an agency by the CPRA. Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: Thanks! Would you please update the template? So @Reppop can upload from any of the sources mentioned.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 18:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

So how would the Flickr link work with the Flickreview and upload process, since the images have the "All rights reserved" license? reppop^talk 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Reppop: It would be a manual process, unless you can convince those officials and that agency to change Flickr licenses.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 22:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! reppop^talk 23:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Reppop: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Would this also apply to images posted on Facebook or Twitter/X accounts of Los Angeles City government accounts, such as councillors? PascalHD (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it does apply to social media accounts that are official City government accounts. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Bot queries copyright status, but I can't see a problem

I've uploaded File:Admiralty Chart No 216a Mergui Archiplelago Northern Part, Published 1830, New Edition 1938.jpg which is out of copyright as it is subject to Crown Copyright which expires 50 years after publication. This was scanned from the original paper chart, and the copyright status indicated with the template PD-UKGov. AntiCompositeBot has flagged this as "copyright status is unclear". I cannot see any problem, and I have uploaded many hundreds of charts with this template. The bot does not give specific details of the problem, and I have checked that the copyright template is correct. No warning template has been added to the entry. How do I deal with this- can I simply ignore it? Thanks Kognos (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kognos: Abzeronow fixed it for you in this edit. Please apply that earlier in your upload method.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, so it had already been fixed when I checked, which is why I couldnt see a problem... Thanks Kognos (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kognos: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Website states "Images License Free"

The following website states "Images are license free with no restrictions".

Does this mean I can use the images for Commons? Wikipedia? Does it mean all personnel images and logos?

Thanks in advance. Chavmen (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, This seems OK, however I wonder how they come to this conclusion. There is no information about the photographer(s), and the source of the images. It would be better if they mention a free license, and the photographer(s)' name. Yann (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure, I would assume it is them personally in the images seeing as it's an organisation website. But I can contact to ask I guess. Chavmen (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chavmen: Photos are copyrighted by their photographers (not their subjects) automatically at the time of creation in most countries per the en:Berne Convention.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Chavmen (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd say their intent is clear, but their execution was poor. I'm sure they'd be open to granting the permissions that are needed, but they'll probably need some guidance through how to do that. Among other things, "license free" means "there is no license," which is presumably the opposite of what they meant to say. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)