Commons talk:Licensing

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 60 days may be archived.

Other archives

Seven 2006/2007 discussions organized as subpages, ~~ignoring~~incl. comments added in 2014:

What is the proper licence for File:Dr Wacław Kraszewski, Zakopane 1925.jpg ?

Isn't the proper licence in this case CC0 ? - All photographs (from 1920-1930) of the described collection do not have individual licence restrictions and the author is unknown. The source page is sponsored by the Polish Ministry of Culture. Regards Henry39 (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry39, these type of questions can be better answered at COM:VPC. This page is not for such issues. Ratekreel (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you. Henry39 (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But a side remark that is more for this page. They cannot possibly be CC-0. The only way for a file to be CC-0 is that someone hold/held full copyright and overtly licensed it as CC-0, allowing it to be treated as if it were in the public domain. Nothing ever becomes CC-0 without that overt dedication. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henry39: Per COM:Poland, Poland joined the Berne Convention 28 January 1920, so all photos created there since that day were copyrighted the moment they were fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Many of those photos acquired US copyright 1 January 1996 due to the URAA. This photo published in 1925 would have the copyright expire that same day at 12:01am local time in Poland (hours before URAA took effect in the US) if it was anonymous, but later if the date of death of the photographer became known, acquiring US copyright in the process. So, it is important to find the date of death of the photographer. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.@Jmabel I moved my question to COM:VPC as advised. The answer/advice on COM:VPC from Yann was to use {{PD-Poland}} - what I expected. Jmabel participated on COM:VPC. The full discussion on COM:VPC has now been archived but can be read here. Thank you. Regards Henry39 (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification about additional licencing terms

I encountered a couple of situations this year where images had had additional, and apparently ignorable, licencing terms applied to them in the description field or nearby templates:

This DR, where a spammer said in the description of their images that a clickable hyperlink to their shopping website was "required" when reusing the pictures
This discussion, where a user's uploads had official-looking templates saying that reusers must contact the author via email for approval for print publication, and that users are also NOT ALLOWED TO UPLOAD THIS FILE TO ALL SOCIAL NETWORKS

In both cases there was some consensus that these requests were unenforceable (because the base CC licence says that is "constitutes the entire agreement") and could safely be ignored. The uploaders are unwittingly Commons:Multi-licensing their files under the base CC licence and their arbitrary restrictive version, so Commons can host them under the former and end users are free to choose which licence to use.

But it's not at all clear to the end user that this is the case. The average Commons visitor seeing a box that says they "must contact the author via email for approval" will assume that this is part of the licence.

Should Commons be marking these files with a clear {{Multi-license}} template that explains the situation and gives the user a choice between "CC-BY with no restrictions" and "CC-BY but contact the author and don't upload to social media"? Or can we step in and rephrase these strict imperatives to clarify that they are actually completely optional?

I'm still seeing "no Facebook" templates on uploads to this day, so it would be useful if this or another page had some agreed guidance on how to handle these cases. Belbury (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another related issue I've seen in some personal licenses is added terms which attempt to interfere with management of the files on Commons, such as The file name is part of the mandatory information of the license and should therefore not be changed or Do not upload new revisions without expressing written permission. I can't imagine that any of these have any weight; an explicit statement that "no, you cannot make your own rules about what we can do to your files" might be needed, though. Omphalographer (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s keep this discussion going. Just a couple of quick comments to start with:

Just within the last few days, I warned two uploaders who had ‘no social media’-type notices on their uploads. One did not respond and the other simply acknowledged my advice. I intend to follow up on them. Agree with Belbury that we should have some advice on handling this ― do we just keep opening DRs for such templates?
The file name is part of the mandatory information of the license and should therefore not be changed might be a reference to the Creative Commons requirement to attribute the work in any reasonable manner specified by the licensor, assuming the files are under such a licence.

Brianjd (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant jurisdictions

This policy’s explanation of which jurisdictions are relevant is a mess.

It starts with:

Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work.

That doesn’t seem so bad. Most importantly, it is actually consistent with common practice on this project. (But why does it say normally? Isn’t this rule strictly applied to all uploads?)

But then it says:

When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply.

This introduces a third jurisdiction, the country from which the file is uploaded. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people also claims that that jurisdiction is relevant. As I wrote at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#Text added during 2013 rewrite and not changed since then:

Also, the page claims that photos must be legal in the jurisdiction from which they are uploaded, but I think no one knows or cares about that, and it is completely unenforceable. So why is that rule there?

That question also applies here.

This policy continues:

If material that has been saved from a third-party website is uploaded to Commons, the copyright laws of the U.S., the country of residence of the uploader, and the country of location of the web servers of the website apply.

The country of residence of the uploader may be different to the country where the uploader is at the time of upload. That gives us a fourth jurisdiction, and the country of location of the web servers of the website apply would be a fifth jurisdiction. My earlier question also applies here.

Also, nothing in this explanation makes it clear that there are five jurisdictions that could apply.

Finally, we have this bizarre example:

For example, if a person in the UK uploads a picture that has been saved off a French website to the Commons server, the uploader must be covered by UK, French and US copyright law.

The example does not mention the person’s country of residence and, astoundingly, it does not mention country of origin of the picture.

Let’s test my understanding here. If the picture is non-free in France, then uploading it to Commons is forbidden. But if the person finds the same picture on a UK website, then uploading it to Commons is suddenly OK. It may happen that the UK website actually just copied it from the French website, but we don’t worry about that. Did I understand all this correctly? Am I the only one who finds these conclusions absurd? Brianjd (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]