Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • @TonyTheTiger: That would be cool.

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

• On my RF10-20mm F4 L IS STM, RF14-35mm F4 L IS USM, RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM, I end up having to deal with distortion on the edges in the 20something range and below. I don't know if that is true with the Primes and I put my order in for the 50/1.2. I wish I had seen this first, because I know I won't be able to use it for another article I am working on. I should have gotten one of the 20somethings to see if primes have less edge distortion. I may have to get another loaner from Canon and go back again before Caillebotte ends on October 5. Maybe I can change the order.-2601:240:C481:5B0:D471:7C29:A3A:2445 05:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  • There are distortion issues, but they are very "regular" and pretty easily fixed in GIMP. See File:Nicolae Vermont - Femei jucând cărți - 1911.jpg (initial upload vs. current fixed version) for a good example. - Jmabel ! talk 05:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• • 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)

    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)

• • For a painting that is less than 4 ft wide, 50mm will be O.K. However, I am thinking that I probably also want to get an image for another one that is much wider. I'll see if it is too late to change my loaner request.-2601:240:C481:5B0:D471:7C29:A3A:2445 05:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• It is going to be 24mm/1.4.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

User:b_jonas, Thx-TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

    @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)

    • Yes. With film, when in doubt, overexpose and underdevelop. With digital, you don't have that as two distinct processes, so you underexpose. - Jmabel ! talk 01:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    I sent a link. TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

    @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)

    I got your email. I am having trouble with WeTransfer.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

    I emailed a Google Drive link. TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    Are you having better luck with the R5M2 shots or the R6? TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    @TonyTheTiger: done, you've got the mail. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

    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)

    @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.

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    • Fixing 10° off should be easy. That's less than I had to deal with at File:Still life painting by Theodor Aman 01.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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:

• File:Boating Party by Gustave Caillebotte pictured on August 7, 2025 at the Art Institute of Chicago.jpg

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

• File:Boating Party by Gustave Caillebotte pictured on August 7, 2025 at the Art Institute of Chicago - R6 ALT1.jpg

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

• File:Boating Party by Gustave Caillebotte pictured on August 7, 2025 at the Art Institute of Chicago - R6 ALT2.jpg

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)

• Well I have done some cropping of more of User:Grand-Duc's edits. User:Jmabel did some editing of the first version. I like the third one the best of these three. When I zoom in, I am not sure where we stand in comparison to the preexisting hi resolution version. Feedback appreciated.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@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).jpg

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)

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)

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)

• • • • 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)

        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)

        • 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)

          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)

          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)

          @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)

          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)

          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)

          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)

          

          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)

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)

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)

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)

Egyptian FoP

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

+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)

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)

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)

I have started some. Minimum of three for now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

295 files transludces the template. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

Template:Mazhilis

Can anyone kindly help me find cc-by-4.0 or any other compatible license at this website? @Kurmanbek: ? Quick1984 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Quick1984 here an archived version of the website at the time of creation of Template:Mazhilis : https://web.archive.org/web/20220805181615/www.parlam.kz/kk/mazhilis at the bottom it says "© 2022 Қазақстан Республикасының Парламенті Барлық құқығы қорғалған Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". Not sure where to look for it on the current website. Maybe on their Facebook, Instagram etc. accounts? Nakonana (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Any chance that the government site moved to a different URL? On the above website, there's a link to the "Government Website", which leads to https://primeminister.kz/. And at the bottom of https://primeminister.kz/ you can see "Сайттың барлық материалы Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 лицензиясы бойынша қолжетімді". Maybe the template needs updating? Nakonana (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I think the license of the website has changed. When I check the web archives, I can see that the old version has a CC license. I guess we need to update the template. Kurmanbek ^💬 18:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

If the website no longer works under a free license, it is necessary to find out the date this happened and set a requirement in this template that the uploader must prove that the image was on the website before this date. Or delete this template, providing old free files with the old license directly and nominating new ones (uploaded after the license change) for deletion. Quick1984 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

When I looked at a similar template, I saw that a note had been added. However, I don't know exactly which day the Mazhilis website changed. Can we use the records in the web archive as a reference? Kurmanbek ^💬 19:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Why not? (if there is no possibility to ask this question to the website management). Quick1984 (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be difficult for me to contact the site, but it may be easier to find dates from webarchive. Kurmanbek ^💬 14:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of Aegukka

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:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Aegukka
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aegukka - National Anthem of North Korea.wav
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aegukka.ogg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:National anthems of North Korea
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:North Korean Anthem Music Sheet.InstrumentalSimple.svg

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)

• 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)

Template:YouTube CC-BY

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)

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)

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)

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  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   04:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

That's certainly not enough... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Seattle Municipal Archives

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)

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)

How does one ascertain a copyright was not renewed though? OceanLoop (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Sorry, but what material facts support the conclusion a copyright notice was "never" published? OceanLoop (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Updating Company Logo

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)

@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)

Copyrighting original work that has slight AI use in South Africa for a World Audience here on wiki, or creating your own wiki?

I have an original 3 part story. What should I do? Thanks Axistenz (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Look up COM:SCOPE and the criteria for encyclopaedic notability on any relevant Wikipedia edition, perhaps? You'll see that your material is most likely not suited for any of the Wikimedia projects - these aren't self-publishing platforms. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

@Herecomestheshylock not anymore. But someone should probably add some categories to the image. Nakonana (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, its good that someone recognized their mistake. Herecomestheshylock (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

Copyright of old German currency

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)

• File:Reichsmark1avers.jpg
• File:Reichsmark1revers.jpg
• File:Reichsmark2avers.jpg (also wrong link to File:Reichsmark5revers.jpg)

@Rosenzweig: any information on who created these 1930s bills? Abzeronow (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have corrected the file names btw. Reichsmark and Rentenmark are not the same thing. --Rosenzweig τ 08:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

Model railway expositions

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)

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)

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)

Let's call it 'longstanding practice' then. Gnom (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I also see no reason why building an artificial landscape should not create a copyright. GPSLeo (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

We have deleted hundreds of files taken at Miniaturwunderland. Search for Commons:Deletion requests Wunderland. --Rosenzweig τ 08:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

Image from CRT screen

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

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)

Thank you! Just checking, also just realised it's simulated but it should still be fine. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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:

Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

All good points! —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Logos: how much copyrighted background is OK?

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

• 
  File:Abrelosojos.png
• 
  File:UnderSkin.png
• 
  File:UltiMarte.png
• 
  File:Quatermass2.png
• 
  File:Sunshinelogo.png
• 
  File:Devilspass.png
• 
  File:DuneDrifter.png
• 
  File:Jupiterasc.png
• 
  File:Logo del juego Crimson Land.png
• 
  File:WatcherrWoods.png
• 
  File:Thediscovery.png
• 
  File:Elfenland01.png
• 
  File:Kingdominologo.png
• 
  File:HarmoniesBoardgam.png

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)

Logos on objects that are over 100 years old?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• (Just to clarify, "this will be the first publication" would be a perfectly good answer.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  • @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)

Stik graffiti in UK - TOO?

Some of our many Stiks

• 
  File:Stik sculpture.jpg - 3D work, probably OK per COM:FOP UK
• 
  File:STIK.jpg - painting, not OK if it exceeds TOO
• 
  File:Stik - 4164569748.jpg

• Category:Stik (12 files)
• Category:Stik in London (112 files)

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)

Status of an American city flag

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)

Parents of Earth (Star Wars)

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

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)