Commons talk:Licensing

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Shortcut

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Licensing.

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[edit]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-TXGov[edit]

Any help in sorting out Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-TXGov would be appreciated? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

License creation[edit]

Are there procedures set in place for creating a new copyright license? Does a new license need to be vetted or discussed in some way before it can be used? I am asking about this because of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-TXGov and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-TNGov, which were two recently created US state PD licenses. Even assuming that the users who created those two did so with the best of intentions, it seems odd that they could simply create a license without it being proposed or discussed in any way. As soon as a license is created, it's likely going to start being used, which means files uploaded under it are also eventually going to need to be sorted out. This sorting out could end up taking a bit of time and multiple DRs as shown by Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (2nd nomination); so, it seems like a good idea to establish some procedures for creating a new license if they don't already exist. If they do exist and are simply not being followed, then it might also be a good idea if there was a way to find such licenses more quickly so that they can be dealt with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such licence template pages can be created and edited by anybody, like (most) other template pages. Restricting template creation in general would make for a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. It might certainly be a good idea to discuss a licence before creating a template for it, but there are obvious cases where experienced editors know the licence is uncontroversial (and how to create a good template). I don't know whether such deletion discussions are common enough to warrant any guidelines. –LPfi (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree G3nseven (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which account to use for upload?[edit]

I expect to upload some photographs I took, and for which I hold the copyright, to Commons soon. I also expect to upload the photos to an external website. If I use my "Gerry Ashton" account, it will be evident to someone who looks at the external website that the Commons editor and the photographer on the external website is the same person. But I don't usually use this account, I usually use one that is more difficult to associate with me. On Wikipedia I list the "Gerry Ashton" account as "retired".

My concern is that if I use my usual account some bot will notice the photo on Commons is the same as the photo on the external site and make a fuss. What's the best way to deal with this? Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no automatic search for copyright problems as far as I'm aware, but a number Commons editors do seem somewhat bot-like in their efficiency. The best solution would be to use the same license on the external website that you use on Commons. The upload order makes a difference too: if the file was uploaded to Commons first, it cannot have been pirated from the external website. This only works if that website shows the upload date, obviously.
As to the header question: anyone can choose an account name that implies they're somebody else, so we don't give the account name a lot of credence in copyright questions. More important is an upload and edit history - users without such history are trusted less. Because of the latter, using the old account would make things simpler. --rimshottalk 21:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could edit the photo metadata before I upload it to the external site, and set the comments field to "photo by Gerry Ashton, who edits Wikimedia Commons using that name." As for the license on the external site, all it says is "© 2022 Civil Air Patrol. All rights reserved." There are no per-photo licenses. Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerry Ashton: While taking photos for upload to that website, are you fulfilling your assigned duties as an employee of the US Federal Government? Does your contract with CAP mention copyright?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the members of the Civil Air Patrol are volunteers. There are a handful of paid employees, but they are not acting as members while they are "on the clock". There is no contract concerning copyright; CAP's permission to use member-created material on their websites is just implied. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerry Ashton: Thus, please send permission via VRT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cover einer CD[edit]

I intend to upload an image of a cover from a CD that I received from Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk for my own use. So the audio file is protected. Does this also apply to the cover? Viola sonans (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the threshold of originality (see "de:Schöpfungshöhe"). --PaulT (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
danke! Viola sonans (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ein Rembrandt im Hintergrund (>70 Jahre tot; Kopie eines 2D-Werkes) wäre ok, eine alte Orgel im Hintergrund sicher nicht (3D, da hat sicher der Fotograph noch Urheberrechte, wenn er nicht >70 Jahre tot ist)). Und dann könnte noch hinreichende Schöpfungshöhe entstehen durch eine entsprechende künstlerische Gestaltung des Covers und/oder der Schrift. --PaulT (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe das Foto hochgeladen: File:Festgottesdienst am 11.09.2005.jpg – Wikimedia Commons
Demnach ist das wohl nicht nicht zulässig. Ich war als Musiker beteiligt und habe auch fotografiert. Das Orgelbild könnte ich also durch ein eigenes Foto ersetzen. Viola sonans (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Es würde auch gehen, wenn der Urheber des Fotos die entsprechenden (sehr weit gehenden) Rechte für Commons einräumt. Ein selbst fotographiertes Bild ist natürlich ok. Für eine Freigabe über OTRS gibt es hier Anleitungs-Videos: Category:When and how to contact OTRS (video tutorial). --PaulT (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe erst einmal das Foto durch ein eigenes ersetzt. Für die Videos müsste mir wohl viel Zeit nehmen, vielleicht später einmal. Jedenfalls vielen Dank! Viola sonans (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Licensing&oldid=675731380"