Commons talk:Licensing: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
→صوره: new section |
→Revoking a license: Reply |
||
| (42 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
|archive = Commons talk:Licensing/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Commons talk:Licensing/Archive %(counter)d |
||
|algo = old(60d) |
|algo = old(60d) |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 41 |
||
|maxarchivesize = 90K |
|maxarchivesize = 90K |
||
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== False information about PD image of Jan Jeleński == |
|||
== Outdated == |
|||
Image [[:File:Jeleński1.jpg|File:Jeleński1.jpg]] seems to be attributed improperly. I find it extremely unlikely that anyone has lived so long as to make the photograph of a person that died in 1909 and upload the photo to Commons. Yet, since it's been made before 1909, it's probably PD. What do you think? [[User:Darellur|Darellur]] ([[User talk:Darellur|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: |
: Image is now deleted; as an anonymous EU work, can certainly be restored in 2030 (1909+120+1). Personally, I think that is a bit overcautious: he looks to be in his 40s or maybe early 50s in the picture, which probably means it has already passed into the public domain. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 16:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
||
::@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]]@[[User:ObserveOwl|ObserveOwl]] how about Bugs Bunny or Tom and Jerry? For sure these famous characters are still under deceased cartoonists' copyrights, even their original appearances. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 06:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: It was changed about a month ago to "Bart Simpson", which I think is well enough known, though I'd have no problem with Bugs Bunny. I'm not sure Tom and Jerry are as widely known. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 17:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Both Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry have only about a decade to go in the US; Bart Simpson has a lot more life. Also [[Tom and Jerry (Van Beuren)]] is in the public domain, and even if only animation geeks who know the cat and mouse duo have heard of them, it's a little bit ambiguous anyway.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Sort-of late reply, but I think the current example is future-proof enough to be listed (Bart was created in 1987, was given his modern appearance by 1990, and his original creator is still alive), and therefore won't be public domain until likely the 22nd century. [[User:Xeroctic|Xeroctic]] ([[User talk:Xeroctic|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Revoking a license == |
|||
== Request for comment: Assume “really old, scratchy black and white photos” are public domain == |
|||
Is it possible to revoke a GNU Free Documentation License / Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license? I released an image of people of whom I did not request permission and it has been widely used on Wikipedia and externally (without attribution) and I want to delete it. [[User:Chesdovi|Chesdovi]] ([[User talk:Chesdovi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Humor|section=yes|nocat=true}}<!-- Happy April Fools’ Day! --> |
|||
:{{ping|Chesdovi}} Hi, |
|||
{{Discussion top|This is a bad idea. However, [[User:Gabldotink]] is very cool and handsome.}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
{{Rfc|closed=true}} |
|||
::If the people never consented to publishing the photo and it was not taken at a public event they can request the deletion for privacy violation reasons. This is totally independent of licensing questions. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{ping|Chesdovi}} Seconding GPSLeo here. And if it's hard for them to make the request themselves and they are not significant public figures, this ''might'' be granted as a request on your part for a courtesy deletion on that basis. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 16:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Eons ago, in 2005, an [[:en:Uncyclopedia|Uncyclopedia]] editor uploaded a file and changed the copyright-scape forever. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | ::::@[[User:Chesdovi|Chesdovi]]: Use that as the reason, following [[COM:DR]] for the rest of the procedure. Documentation of the external uses would help. — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC) |
||
The photo of a man on a pogo stick was unassuming, but its file description page ([[uncyclopedia:File:Bigenochpowellonapogostick.jpg]]) was revolutionary: |
|||
[[File:Really_old,_scratchy_black_and_white_photo.png|400px]] |
|||
{{Quote|lang=en|It's a really old, scratchy black and white photo, so it MUST be in the Public Domain.}} |
|||
When I first saw this, like, three weeks ago, I thought it was ridiculous and almost certainly satirical; however, I later realized that this sentence, verbatim, is actually included on the back of [[:en:Magna Carta|Magna Carta]] in invisible ink. And sure, that’s probably not binding or anything, but… like… it ''should'' be, come on. |
|||
My point is, we should definitely be taking this rationale into account at Wikimedia Commons. Think about it; if we had used this logic from the start, the famous ''[[:en:Steamboat Willie|Steamboat Willie]]'' would have been public domain ''years'' ago! <span lang="en">— [[:User:Gabldotink|gabldotink]] <small>[ [[:User talk:Gabldotink|talk]] | [[:Special:Contributions/Gabldotink|contribs]] | [[m:Special:CentralAuth/Gabldotink|global account]] ]</small></span> 00:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: Does it count if you scratched them yourself? Or do you have to get someone else to make them look old? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 07:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, it depends how old. We already assume 120 years old files to be in the public domain, unless proved otherwise. I think we should have a lower level of requirement for documents between 80 to 120 years, compared to recent files. It doesn't mean we should accept anything without some minimum research. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Any GIF, JPG or PNG file that was uploaded more than 80 years ago should definitely be considered public domain. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Nothing was uploaded more than 80 years ago. Wkimedia Commons and the Internet didn't exist at that time. ;o) [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
::::''Nothing was uploaded more than 80 years ago'': this will change in 2084. We have to be proactive :-D [[User:MGeog2022|MGeog2022]] ([[User talk:MGeog2022|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{Comment}}, I recently made a mistake of assuming that an "old photograph" was old, the photograph appeared to have been taken in the 1910's and all the officials wore typical Nguyễn Dynasty mandarin dress from that period and it passed off as an "old Photograph" in basically every way other than the fact that several of the Confucian scholars in the picture were "bald chins" (men without beards), another contributor noticed this and warned me about this so I could quickly nominate it for deletion. It's not uncommon for people to make black-and-white photographs in 2024, and even many "old" black-and-white photographs from certain countries like Viet-Nam and the Philippines can be recent creations as people preferred to use the cheaper production process over colour photography. As much as I'd love to expand what we could accept here I think that we should take a lot of caution with this format and we should be able to reasonably assume that a photograph is from a certain period before accepting it. |
|||
: A lot of hints can show us when a work was produced, architecture, fashion, Etc. but we must always remain cautious with this. Unfortunately, the best course of action in this case would be to lobby governments and intergovernmental bodies to shorten copyright ©️ duration, I don't think that such a proposal could realistically be implemented for the very simple reason that a lot of "old" photographs might be more recent than they first assume to be. --<small>[[User:Donald Trung|Donald Trung 『徵國單』]] ([[User talk:Donald Trung|No Fake News 💬]]) ([[Commons:WikiProject Numismatics|WikiProject Numismatics]] 💴) ([[w:nl:Gebruiker:Donald Trung/Mijn werk 🏢|Articles 📚]])</small> 11:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::If there’s unsurety, then it’s probably old and scratchy enough. <span lang="en">— [[:User:Gabldotink|gabldotink]] <small>[ [[:User talk:Gabldotink|talk]] | [[:Special:Contributions/Gabldotink|contribs]] | [[m:Special:CentralAuth/Gabldotink|global account]] ]</small></span> 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
* {{Comment}}, photo's physical status obviously doesn't mean anything, especially if you have not treated it with due care :-). But age, or presumed age based on some evidence, is something to be taken into account. Perhaps not for 80-120 year old documents, where there's still some doubt, but, if any document more than 120 years old is automatically considered Public Domain in Commons (unless there's a very specific reason for the opposite), I think Upload Wizard could be more user friendly on that. For works published in the United States, it's very easy: there's a deadline of about 95 years, when any work is public domain. For works from other countries, if you don't know authors and their death dates, it can be difficult to know if the work will be accepted in Commons, and more so to specify the file's Public Domain rationale on upload. It would be fine to have a 120 year global deadline, similar to the US 95 year one. [[User:MGeog2022|MGeog2022]] ([[User talk:MGeog2022|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Just to note: there are a few inaccuracies in the above even when people were talking seriously, but a joke thread doesn't seem to be the place to try to drill into detail. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 13:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Discussion bottom}} |
|||
== Newspaper cover from few decades ago == |
|||
Can add magazine cover to article? |
|||
In the jungle of regulations and discussions, cannot find how to classify (or find) status of rights to old cover of newspaper presented by editorial office in the archive. |
|||
It's even hard to find precedent – there is no example on newspaper's wiki page, which is sure indication that can't... |
|||
(What if I take photo of cover myself?) |
|||
plz hlp |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
:@[[User:Konky7777|Konky7777]]: Multiple newspapers are called "Sun". Copyrights on newspaper covers as part of the newspapers generally ran more than a couple of decades, but may not have been renewed. That is less common now in countries that are members of the Berne Convention. You can ask on the particular newspaper's Wikipedia article's talk page, and you can see the default copyright status for the country where the newspaper is published under [[COM:CRT]]; for example, Poland has standard copyright 70pma and joined 28 January 1920 per [[COM:Poland]]. — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 13:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: It is extremely unlikely that any 1980 newspaper is out of copyright. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 15:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== صوره == |
|||
صوره الرجل يمني بيده سلاح ويوجه نحو اسرائيل وهي بشكل نيزك وخلف الرجل فلسطين [[User:مصطفى التويتي|مصطفى التويتي]] ([[User talk:مصطفى التويتي|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 00:07, 9 September 2024
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 60 days may be archived.
Seven 2006/2007 discussions organized as subpages, ignoringincl. comments added in 2014:
False information about PD image of Jan Jeleński
[edit]Image File:Jeleński1.jpg seems to be attributed improperly. I find it extremely unlikely that anyone has lived so long as to make the photograph of a person that died in 1909 and upload the photo to Commons. Yet, since it's been made before 1909, it's probably PD. What do you think? Darellur (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Image is now deleted; as an anonymous EU work, can certainly be restored in 2030 (1909+120+1). Personally, I think that is a bit overcautious: he looks to be in his 40s or maybe early 50s in the picture, which probably means it has already passed into the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Revoking a license
[edit]Is it possible to revoke a GNU Free Documentation License / Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license? I released an image of people of whom I did not request permission and it has been widely used on Wikipedia and externally (without attribution) and I want to delete it. Chesdovi (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Chesdovi: Hi,
- No. Free licenses are, by definition, not revocable. Yann (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the people never consented to publishing the photo and it was not taken at a public event they can request the deletion for privacy violation reasons. This is totally independent of licensing questions. GPSLeo (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Chesdovi: Seconding GPSLeo here. And if it's hard for them to make the request themselves and they are not significant public figures, this might be granted as a request on your part for a courtesy deletion on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jmabel: . How would I go about a deletion request for privacy violation? Chesdovi (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Chesdovi: Use that as the reason, following COM:DR for the rest of the procedure. Documentation of the external uses would help. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jmabel: . How would I go about a deletion request for privacy violation? Chesdovi (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)