Commons talk:Licensing

Commons discussion pages (index)

Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion Copyright Proposals Graphics and photography discussion Image improvement Photography critiques Categories for discussion Deletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests #wikimedia-commons webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Shortcut CT:L This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Licensing. This is not a forum for general discussion of the page's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers. For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Licensing may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|Commons talk:Licensing}}. For old discussions, see the Archives. Recent sections with no replies for 14 days may be archived.

Archived discussions

Seven 2006/2007 discussions organized as subpages, ignoringincl. comments added in 2014:

• ADRM
• Review of license templates
• U.S. patents
• Ecoport copyleft
• Museums Bilder (in German)
• Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed
• Which countries' copyright laws determine copyright status?

Template protection after review

There are many country specific copyright templates on commons that need review and should be protected thereafter. Many images on commons use these templates and changing something in the template like accidentally adding a hot cat category would affect all of these and would require mass purging for all images. We should have a review department reviewing each available template and after discussion protecting it. We should discuss the layout of PD templates: Should they include why they are PD in the USA or should this be handled in another template like {{PD-Egypt}} and {{PD-Egypt-1996}}. With the URAA laws the copyright laws of a country doesn't mean that much without an explanation on why they are PD in USA. Something like {{PD-China}} doesn't work for commons because it doesn't specify why it's PD USA. And should there be templates for country specific templates for each case like found in Category:Egypt-related tags? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2009 April 23 (UTC)

நான் சொந்தமாக எடுத்து இணைக்கும் படங்கள் எந்த வகையில் Copyright violations ஆகிறது?

நான் சொந்தமாக எடுத்து இணைக்கும் படங்களை ஏன் நீங்கள் நீக்குகிறீர்கள். அவை எந்த வகையில் Copyright violations ஆகிறது. புதிதாக யாரும் கட்டுரையோ படங்களையோ இணைக்கூடாது என்று நினைக்கிறீர்களா? எங்களுக்கு வேறு வேலை வெட்டி இல்லை என்றா நினைத்துக்கொண்டு இருக்கிறீர்கள்.... நீங்கள் அனுப்பிய இந்த செய்திக்கு என்ன பொருள். எதற்க்காக last warning. உடன் பதிலை சொல்லுங்கள் திரு. ஆலன்O.

"Hello Velu66. It has come to our attention that you have uploaded several files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful.

This is your last warning. Continuing to upload copyright violations will result in your account being blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions."

Cartoon does not explain why Commons does not accept "noncommercial" licenses.

The cartoon does not explain why Commons does not accept "noncommercial" licenses. It merely argues that you should consider not releasing material under a "noncommercial" license because "by forbidding commercial applications you are forbidding your photographs from being used on inexpensive DVDs and books published by Wikipedia". It doesn't even mention Commons, and it doesn't explain why this is the case. (Possibly because it is not the case?) I suggest that the caption be revised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Why what is the case?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

ASFAIK, the decision not to accept material licensed only under a non-commercial license on Commons was taken in the very early beginning of Commons and likely by our "founding fathers". Already in 2004, our policy-page COM:L mentioned that non-commercial licences are "incompatible with other Wikimedia projects"[1]. Every now and then this decision is debated, as it excludes us from a lot of high-quality content by professional photographers. On the other hand, the seemingly clear definition of "non-commercial" actually isn't that clear in court, as a number of verdicts have shown. --Túrelio (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The goal of the Wikimedia movement was from the very fist steps not to collect "high quality" content but free content (what doesn't exlude high quality indeed). Free not in the meaning of "no money" but free in the meaning of freedom. Basically the same idea as with free software (Linux etc.) in the IT world. -- 193.187.235.17 12:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about Swedish Copyright

From what I think I know already, are there two separate laws regarding images. 1. "Photographic art" - with a long time of copyright - which isn't my problem - but 2. "Journalistic images" , pictures from newspapers which in principle could have been taken by anyone else at the time. (Or pretty much inline with that). I'm not certain but I think there is what's known as an "agreement", that stipulates pictures published (in newspapers and journalistic magazines) before 1967 now are free to use. But I have later noticed that the year now is changed to 1969. Here's the external link to the image I have learned this from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landskrona_BoIS#/media/File:HassePersson.jpg

As the year has been changed, at least once, I wonder if this isn't about a fixed year at all - but 45 years ? And if so, would pictures from 1971 (or 1972 ?) now be free to use. But I'm not at all certain. I would very much appreciate help about this matter. Boeing720 (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Before 1994, "simple" photographs were protected 25 years from creation. This meant that photographs created before 1969 were in the public domain in 1994. Then the term was extended to 50 years after creation (49 a § URL), but it was not applied retroactively to photographs already in the public domain. Since 1969 is less than 50 years ago, that is and always has been the relevant date since the law was changed. More recent photographs will start to fall into the public domain each year from 2020 onwards, starting with photos taken during 1969, unless the law is changed again. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hugh thanks for this excellent explanation. So a picture taken (and published in a newspaper) in 1971, is Public Domain by 2022 !? Extra thanks for that external link! Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, (after some counting on fingers and toes) I reckon 2022 should be the year. :o) —LX (talk, contribs) 06:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that post-1969 images will have their U.S. copyright for 95 years from publication (or 70pma for non-corporate photos published 1978 or later), as they would have all been restored by the URAA (unless also published in the U.S. within 30 days of their publication in Sweden). So the "and free in the U.S" part of policy would not be satisfied. But since all the current pre-1969 photos were also PD in Sweden in 1996, none of those were restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)