Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/December

Images of Roy Campbell (poet) in the public domain?

Looking for a better, public domain image of Roy Campbell and would like your input.

• This image is at the Carnegie Museum of Art and by Augustus John from 1925. Would it be public domain?
• This image is at the National Portrait Gallery UK by photographer Howard Coster from 1936 "Transferred from Central Office of Information, 1974"). Would it be public domain?

Both sites seem to imply no, but would someone else smarter on this know? And submit them to Wikimedia/Wikipedia if they are public domain? TuckerResearch (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch: It's the artist's death date that really counts, unless published in the US before 1927 which does not appear to be the case for Augustus John who died in 1961 and Howard Coster died in 1959, neither of which are 70 years pma. So unfortunately no. ww2censor (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Thank you for your swift reply!

Another question: The one at the National Portrait Gallery UK can be downloaded with a CC license, see https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image/?mkey=mw43675, but it can only be downloaded, it seems, with this CC license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/, which doesn't seem to be supported if you try to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. So, can it be uploaded to Wikimedia or not? TuckerResearch (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia licensing must allow for the commercial use and for the creation of derivative works. NC means non-commercial which is unacceptable, and ND means no derivatives which is also unacceptable. This is not sufficiently free to upload to the Wikipedia or Commons. Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses provides a list of free licenses. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That NPG photo was taken for the Central Office of Information ie the UK Govt, no doubt as "work for hire", & I'd think the NPG's claim to copyright on their print is very dubious. Whether it is covered by the UK govt's later release of such copyrights I don't know. These things get very tangled. I'd be tempted to upload it & use as "fair use" on en:wp, leaving Commons out. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The applicable policy is non-free content and not "fair use". There is already a freely licensed image of Campbell so using a non-free image would not meet WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Whpq: I rather think that the already existing image of Campbell you mentioned, File:Roy & Mary Campbell (left), Jacob Kramer & Dolores.jpg, was probably uploaded improperly ("Book scan from Virginia Nicholson Among the Bohemians"! "Unknown author"!) and is really under copyright as well.... TuckerResearch (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That's quite possible, and you would need to initiate a deletion request on Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Question about Wisconsin license plate design copyrights?

So last year a lot of images were deleted off of various license plate related pages, including the Wisconsin one, which I work on a lot. Now, I've done some digging into this whole discussion (it happened when I wasn't active on Wikipedia, so I didn't know about it until after they'd been deleted) and for many plates, like the specialty plates, I understand why they were deleted based on copyright grounds. However, there were several images that were deleted, which, according to discussions for other plate image deletion nominations, shouldn't have been deleted at all. According to Magog the Ogre, who's apparently an administrator, pre-1989 license plates with complex art are fine to upload since copyright laws were different back then (source). However, since Wisconsin has used essentially the same design since 1987, with some tweaks here and there, I have the question of exactly when a plate would be copyrightable, as Wisconsin passenger plate designs stayed essentially the same from 1988 to 2000 (except for some font changes on the serial, and some caption changes which aren't really part of the plate art), and even after 2000 the current design of Wisconsin plates is essentially a facelift of the old design. I'm not an expert on copyright, but would this be considered a derivative of the old design and inherit the copyright status of the old design, or is it considered a whole new design that is copyrightable? Is it fine to upload images of plates that were issued in 1988 but were validated to 2015, since the plate design is what's causing the copyright issues and the design is from 1988, before the 1989 change? What about plates that were issued after 1988 but retained the exact same design as before? Are plates that only have minor tweaks to the design (such as an embossed caption on motorhome plates as opposed to a screened caption from before, or a new font for the serial but having the reflective sheeting design otherwise unchanged) considered substantially different enough to warrant a new copyright status on it? And why were simple plates without art deleted, like the 2011 Wisconsin dealer image which is a bare aluminum plate with black text on it?

I'd like to reupload my images but I don't want to upload anything that breaks the rules, and I'm not an expert on copyright so I'd like to get a better opinion on this. Which of my plate images would be fine to upload, and which ones wouldn't? GDog 0 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you link to images of the plates in question on the web? Derivative works of public domain art are copyrighted, but the changes need to have some creative component in order for the derivative work to gain that copyright. Without knowing the extent of the facelift, its difficult to provide guidance. I realize you were probably hoping for a simple yes or no answer, but as with all things copyright, the real answer is "it's complicated". -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

For the basic progression of the main baseplate design, this covers the minor changes well and explains when these changes were made. As for the very minor design changes, like a change from a screened caption to an embossed one, this covers several examples, particularly the motor home plates. GDog 0 (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The images aren't very clear but from what I can see, there has been no change in the artwork itself, so it should be okay. Perhaps @Magog the Ogre: or others may want to offer an opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Using photo from a local government agency

Hi there, I recently was attempting to create an article and wanted to use an image provided by a county government, I'm sure this of public domain but was unsure of what tag to use TheScout18 (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

TheScout18: Exactly which image are you asking about? ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EverettSmelterSnohomishHD.jpg

Apologies, this is the image in question. TheScout18 (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you sure the image you want to use is public domain? Under US copyright law, content created by local government employees as part of their official duties isn't automatically considered to be within the public domain simply because it's publicly viewable and was created by a local government employee. US copyright law treats works created by local governments and works created by the federal government differently per WP:PD#US government works. In addition, copyright laws vary quite a bit from country to country. Although there are sometimes some similarities, there can also be some big differences. Is the image you're asking about File:EverettSmelterSnohomishHD.jpg? If it is, then I would assume that it's protected by copyright and then try to work from there. It's not public domain just because it was posted on a Snohomish County government website and there's no information provided about the image's provenance by the website. There could be other reasons why the image might be public domain, but without knowing who took the photo, when it was taken and when it was first published, it's very hard to make such an assessment. I doubt anyone who created that government website had anything to do with the creation of that image, which means they got it from somewhere else. If you can find out where they got it from, then perhaps that will help in sorting things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Dallas, Texas, 22 November 1963

Hi, After reviewing images about that event, it appears that some have an uncertain copyright status, and may be deleted. Notably images in c:Category:Warren Commission and c:Category:Dealey Plaza on November 22 1963. c:File:Lee Harvey Oswald arrested at the Texas Theatre, Dallas, Texas, 22 November 1963.jpg and c:File:Warren Commission exhibit 697 (JFK motorcade).jpg have already been deleted. It may be useful to copy these files here under a fair use rationale. Opinions? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Using an image from archeological information article from University Museum, Bergen, Norway

Hello, I have added a new section to Heathen_hof about a new important archeological find in Norway two years ago. It is the remains of a Viking Hof (temple). I'm pretty surprised no one have added this already, as it seems central for norwegian history in this field.

I'm not experienced at all using images not from me illustrating wikipedia articles. The image I have used is File:Rekonstruksjon_Ose.jpg. This image was made by the University Museum in Bergen when presenting their new fairly sensational find to the general public two years ago. The image have been used by central newsmedia in Norway like NRK, the number one news channel and national broadcaster, on the net. It seems obvious to me that the university would have an interest in promoting further this story and have a high interest in it also appearing on Wikipedia articles. An illustration of a reconstructed building from their production seems then natural to present in this connection.

I have been looking through Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/All for a suitable tag, but as there is none from goverment institutions in Norway, there seems none to select. So I'm obviously stranded here, what to do ? The image will be deleted after tomorrow December 6, so a solution to this problem is quite needed.. Astrogeo (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Images are copyright by default. I assume the University Museum is the copyright holder based on the information you provided. Has the museum released this image under a free license? By default, most images are copyrighted and I would expect this one would be. Unless the copyright holder has released it under a free license, then the image cannot be used as a freely licensed image. Given its use in the heathen hof article, I don't think it would qualify for use as non-free content. Do you have a link to the source for the image? If it is under a free license, there should be a statement to that effect on the source page. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The image was used by the public broadcaster NRK, but signifying its origin by "Foto: Universitetsmuseet i Bergen". Since I believe all parties are interested in having a section about this find presented through Wikipedia, it's a paradox that it is such a hassle to use it here. Shouldn't there be an easier way to use govermental institutions material when they themselves are interested in promoting the story, just here at Wikipedia through an other channel ? As it stands now it will be deleted in about 24 hrs. Astrogeo (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Astrogeo. Your question Shouldn't there be an easier way to use govermental institutions material when they themselves are interested in promoting the story, just here at Wikipedia through an other channel ? is a good one, but it's one you really need to be asking the govermental institutions who create such content to answer. There is in fact already a widely used and globally recognized way called Creative Commons for doing exactly such a thing that many copyright holders (individuals and organizations) use to make their creative content easier to use by others who want to use it. In addition, some governments at both the national and sub-national levels have even gone as far to pass laws or establish statutes stating that works created by their employees as part of their official duties are to be treated as being within the public domain. However, these are steps that need to be taken by the copyright holders themselves; there's nothing that anyone editing Wikipedia can do about such a thing except perhaps to ask that they do so per WP:PERMISSION. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Where to find DMCA requests

In 2011, someone removed technical details from GS1 DataBar Coupon, claiming it was due to a DMCA takedown request. This is odd, because I assumed that DMCA requests are handled by the Wikipedia:OFFICE procedure and not by someone removing the information themselves. How can I find out if there was indeed a formal request filed with WMF or if the edits can be considered vandalism and some the information added again (many of the details are still missing today). I don't see how the information they removed would be susceptible to copyright anyway, but I want to check first. The details are just dealing with simple numerical encoding rules for bar codes. --188.22.149.214 (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Good question. I know where they are held on Commons but not here. You want to email cawikimedia.org and ask if there ever was a takedown notice for the article in question. Nthep (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Public domain and/or extraction

Hello all, the HelpDesk said you might be able to help me with this question.

http://pw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/County_Abstracts/7288779.pdf

1. Is this California court case perchance in the public domain because California government product?

2. If yes, what tech can anyone recommend that might help me extract the Annexation maps that start on page 11? I edit almost exclusively on an iPhone but I could borrow my kid’s iMac 2019 if that would help. I can also just screen grab them but would love higher-res if possible.

Thanks in advance! jengod (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

OK I’m going with PD-US-no notice and if anyone complains we will address. Cheers. 21:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jengod: the exhibits in the court document look like they are from LA County, which would be covered by {{PD-CAGov}}. As for extracting the image, I have no idea but perhaps you might get some help at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Multiple logos in the Bolt (website) article

The article for Bolt (website) contains multiple logos. One of the logos is specified as being licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license though I am not sure as to whether that is accurate. The other logos are being treated as non-free content. The inclusion of multiple non-free logos in the article may not be justified. A thought that comes up is whether any of the logos are below the US threshold of originality. --Elegie (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, all three logos on that page are below the US threshold of originality. They are essentially typeface, a star and a simple 2D ribbon which I would still consider a simple geometric shape. Felix QW (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Felix QW that these should be relicensed as PD -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services logo

We have c:File:HMICFRS new logo.jpg which is claimed to be free-use, and also the non-free image File:His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services logo.svg. The latter has replaced the former in His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. Although similar, they are not identical; but the differences are, to my mind, not significant enough to change the copyright status. Which of the two images is the valid one? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The OGL does not cover departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset - I don't think that free license is applicable. Whpq (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The PD-Old-70 template

Currently, Template:PD-old-70 categorises images into a public domain category; however, it is frequently the case that files with this template are not actually in the public domain in the US, which does not use a "years after death" calculation for publications before a certain date. In such cases, the file still needs a fair use license, but the FastilyBot tags the file with an "incorrect license" tag. An example can be seen at File:Bartok - Music mov. I fugue subject diatonic.png. I am not sure whether the issue lies with the bot, the template or the categorisation schema, so that is why I am bringing it up here rather than a more specific page. Felix QW (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Felix QW I think I've taken care of it. Nthep (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

But is the categorisation appropriate if the material is not actually PD? -- Whpq (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, subject to the stated limitation that it is only PD in certain jurisdictions. The US is the world's great oddity basing copyright duration on first publication rather than basing duration on pma as a majority of countries do. Hence the insistence that non-text materials are also licenced appropriately with regard to US copyright. Nthep (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Copying the abstract of a journal article

I'm unsure if copying the abstract of an article, even double-quoted and within a citation, is considered fair use or not. In a series of good faith edits at Lusitanian language, Melroross (talk · contribs) copied the abstract of Lujan (2019) into a reference at the article. I recommended at their talk page that they summarize instead, but I wasn't actually %100 sure if quoting an entire abstract could be a copyvio or not. Seems to me that it's definitely creative content, but it's maybe a bit much to grab the whole thing? Feedback appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. This noticeboard tends to deal more with media related copyright stuff than text related copyright stuff; so, you might want to try asking at WP:CP instead. In general short quotations are generally OK per MOS:QUOTE, but the meaning of short depends may depend upon who you ask. WP:LONGQUOTEs tend to be considered excessive and often end up deleted as a copyright violation per WP:COPYQUOTE. From an non-free content viewpoint, short quotes are almost always OK and don't really require a non-free use rationale per se per WP:NFC#Text, but excessively long quoted text probably wouldn't comply with WP:FREER since there would almost certainly be an alternative way to present the same content without using so much quoted text. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I would think the abstract is too much for a short quotation. In this case, one click on the doi link helpfully provided with the reference takes the reader to an Oxford UP page with precisely this abstract, so not much would be lost by just including the footnote reference. Felix QW (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Abstracts are usually long enough that quoting them in their entirety isn't OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Anwara Taimur

I wish to add File:Anwara Taimur.jpeg to List of chief ministers of Assam. I have added a non-free use rationale. Is this enough for me to revert this? Chaipau (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sadly no, see WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#8. You really have to justify the contextual significance of including the image in the list article if contextual significance is already in use in the linked biographical article i.e. justify using the image twice for the same purpose. The list article is likely to be deemed as decorative only. You're welcome to try and make the case but it's come up lots of times before and mostly fails. Nthep (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

As Nthep points out above, using a non-free image to illustrate a single entry in a list article like this is almost always considered WP:DECORATIVE and not acceptable per WP:FREER, WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFC#CS. Adding a non-free use for the use is required per WP:NFCC#10c, but that is WP:JUSTONE of the non-free content crtieria that need to be satisfied. For list articles such as this, simply adding a WP:WIKILINK to the main article about the individual entry is considered to more than a sufficient alternative to using a non-free image per FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I am glad I asked before reverting! I see that only WP:NFLISTS#3 might marginally apply, since she is the only female chief minister of Assam. I think arguments can be made to support all in WP:NFCC. But my interest is filling up all the empty picture slots in List of chief ministers of Assam and it looks like an uphill task. I leave this for another day. Thanks for this info and showing me the path. Chaipau (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Everyday Chemistry (solo beatles remix album) cover?

I was going to upload the cover for Everyday Chemistry, however I'm not sure if I can. (for reference it's this image: link)

Quantum684 (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Your google search link doesn't work for me. -- Whpq (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

oh, huh. didn't work. just search "everyday chemistry" and click the first image, that's the one.

Quantum684 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Google does not return the same results in the same order for everybody so that's not a good way to identify what you want to upload. In any case, was there any actual album cover for this? As far as I can tell, it's just a bunch of fan made art. -- Whpq (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What is needed is some kind of "official" source which shows that (1) this was the official cover art for the album and (2) it was published by it's original copyright holder. A Google search could come up with anything associated with the album, including fan-art or other user-generated content that isn't really "official" so to speak. Most album cover art needs to be uploaded and treated as non-free content and there are ten criteria that each use of non-free content needs to meet. Criterion #4 requires that non-free content be previously published by its original copyright holder so that it's copyright status can be assessed. Unless you can provide such a source for the cover art, it's going to be hard to justify any non-free use of it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay. There was no official art besides a picture of a tape, unless that's counted. -Quantum684 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Images from Gallica

I want to upload some pictures from Gallica (especially ancient coins), but according to what I was told in Hebrew Wikipedia, uploading images from this site as free content is not allowed, even though there are hundreds of thousands of those. How can I do it and under what license? Can I upload, for example, Images like this? פעמי-עליון (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

See Conditions d’utilisation des contenus de Gallica. If I am reading it correctly, they only permit non-commercial use, and Wikipedia counts as commercial. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you are reading correctly. Wikipedia counts as commercial? really? So how are there so many pictures from Gallica in commons? פעמי-עליון (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't count as commercial reuse per se, but Wikipedia and Commons only accepts CC licenses that place no restriction on commercial reuse or derivative reuse; so, NC, ND and NC-ND licenses are not OK. The reason for this is that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) wants, in principle, to make the content it hosts on its websites as free possible so that third-parties may reuse said content as easily as possible. Very few restrictions are applied to the resuse of content found on Wikipedia and Commons, which means that people can reuse said content pretty much any way they want (including for commerical and derivative purposes) as long as they comply with the terms of the license the content is released under. The copyright of the content (text and images) found on any of the local Wikipedias and Commons is, for the most part, not owned by the WMF; it's own by the persons who created the content. So, trying to apply the WMF's general licensing for images and media to someone else's copyrighted photo would essentially be license laundering unless the original copyright holder has given their WP:CONSENT or has already released their work under such a license. As for your question about the Commons file, you probably need to ask about that over at Commons; however, it's important to remember that files are almost never vetted by a third-party before being uploaded to Commons. There's no advance checking of file licenseing by Commons admins or license reviewers before it can be uploaded. Basically, it's just assumed that the uploader understand copyright matters sufficiently enough to assess whether what they want to upload is OK for Commons. The entire burdern of this falls upon the uploader per c:COM:EVID. Files with incorrect or otherwise quesionable licensing tend to be only found after-the-fact and some files may last years before someone notices them and takes a closer look at them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

User:פעמי-עליון I see a confusing issue that may require contacting them to resolve. Although they seem to prohibit commercial use, they state prior to that:

Content accessible on the Gallica website is mostly digital reproductions of works from the BnF collections that are in the public domain.

The coin image you linked has rights specified in the "About" section on the left; it is listed as:

Rights  : Public domain

If that image is in the public domain, then I don't see how any prohibitions apply, even on commercial use. The two statements (public domain, no commercial use) appear to me to be in conflict. Or maybe they just meant, no commercial use on items *not* in the public domain; it's just not clear. If I were you, I'd write to them at utilisation.commercialebnf.fr and link that image (or whatever it is you want to use), mention that it's listed as "public domain", and link the WP article you want to place it in, and just ask them for clarification of their ToU regarding publication in Commons. Mathglot (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to for the OP to add a link to a Wikipedia article or even mention Wikipedia unless the OP wants to try and get them to change to licensing per WP:PERMISSION. Simply asking them whether the images on their website are PD should suffice. The OP should be aware that some organizations have been known to try and claim PD content as something they own the copyright on; sometimes this is done by mistake, but other times its quite intentional. In some cases, an organization might think that creating a slavish reproduction of PD domain content somehow generates a new copyright for their version, but that doesn't seem to be an interpretation shared by the copyright laws of many countries and rather simply is considered to be c:COM:2D copying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

In that case, make sure to list which specific image you're inquiring about, since they appear to state that not all of them are in the PD. At least, that's my read of their French original; you could actually make a case that the French is ambiguous; my translation (first quotation) reflects that. Both are a copula, with the skeleton: "Items [contenus] ... are[sont] ... reproductions" and the ambiguity is, what does "mostly [pour le plupart='for the most part']" modify? I read it like this:

(Items (accessible at Gallica)) ((are) (for (the most part))) ((digital) reproductions (of (works (in the public domain) (coming (from BnF collections)))))

which has the "mostly" modifying the verb, which leaves it vague whether they are mostly reproductions, mostly digital, mostly in the pubic domain, or mostly from BnF collections. Very uncharacteristic for the "language of diplomacy", and you'd think their lawyers wrote the ToU, but who knows. Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyright claims by Gallica are mostly nonsense. This is copyfraud as they are usually in the public domain, and they can't claim a copyright when they are not the author anyway. Most images from Gallica are OK, but some are not. They should be evaluated on case by case basis, i.e. from author, date of publication, etc.. Yann (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• I parse the sentence slightly differently than Mathglot does. Here’s my translation of the relevant part of [1]:

Les contenus accessibles sur le site Gallica sont pour la plupart des reproductions numériques d'œuvres tombées dans le domaine public provenant des collections de la BnF. Ces contenus sont considérés, en vertu du code des relations entre le public et l’administration, comme étant des informations publiques et leur réutilisation s'inscrit dans le cadre des dispositions prévues aux articles L. 321-1 à L. 327-1 de ce code.

Items accessed from the Gallica site are for most of them numeric reproductions of works from the BnF collections that have fallen in the public domain. That content is considered as "public information" under the Code des relations entre le public et l’administration and reusing them must be done in accordance to articles L. 321-1 to L. 327-1 of this code.

Translation note: "les contenus" is best translated as "content", but that poses a problem in the context of the first sentence, because "les contenus" is a (plural) countable noun, but "content" is uncountable.

It cites the Code des relations entre le public et l’administration ("code of relations between the general public and the administration"). The relevant parts can be found here. Basically, it creates a category of "public information" that the producing administrations can make you pay for reuse (L. 324-1). A smart lawyer could maybe argue that the "public information" category does not cover art, or that any "public information" protection is subject to the time limits and originality thresholds of copyright law, or other stuff, but on its face there is copyright-adjacent restriction that applies.

possibly-interesting, definitely-rant-y history of "public information" restrictions in France

Recent changes in that area of law/politics/culture start with the 2012 Mission Lescure. It basically laid the foundations for the current law (passed in 2016). It was heavily criticized by Commons-loving types - for instance La Quadrature du Net (roughly the French equivalent of the American Electronic Frontier Foundation) declined to participate when it became clear the report was more or less already written by lobbyists from the "culture" sector (private entertainment industries but also public actors such as museums). The result is that public structures have the ability to license the "public information" they produce. That ability turned into a budgetary constraint (oh, your museum managed to make $X from license sales? Good, your state grant for next year is $X lower.) It more or less killed the "commons movement" in the French administration - the incentive for each museum / other admin is to put a paywall on their data, even if the collective gain from openness would be better. For instance, weather data from Météo France or maps from IGN are incredibly restricted. Yes, France in 2016 took a more private-property-restrictive view of government-generated intellectual property than the US did in 1976.

Now, my understanding is that the WMF ultimately only cares about US copyrights, and takes the position that faithful photographs do not create additional copyright - in which case one can just ignore the BnF’s claims of copyright and reuse the photographs. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, on Commons, we don't care about Gallica claims. Yann (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Tigraan, I respect your work, but as a non-native speaker, your translation is at best awkward; I'm sorry. There are some very basic errors ("numeric" reproductions? c'mon! That's a rube mistake) and there are other problems. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument, but I'm not sure you understand the subtleties of the English rendering. On the other hand, you hit the nail on the head with your "Translation note" about content vs. items. I don't know how much further we want to go down this French-parsing rabbit hole as it's starting to get away from the core function of the page, but I'd be curious about your impression about what the antecedent is in the French original for the modifier pour le plupart, because that is central to this entire discussion.

Also, I don't think it's true that WMF only cares about U.S. copyright, but I'm no expert in that domain. Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yes, that's true. Then each project can define its own rules. Par example, Commons has decided that US and country of origin copyrights must be respected. But English Wikipedia and English Wikisource only care about US copyright. Yann (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Expired copyright on British ad from November 1952

This file shows an ad that was published in the November 1952 issue of Authentic Science Fiction. I think that means it's now out of copyright, per option 1 listed here. Can someone confirm before I upload it at Commons and have someone delete it there? And is there a licence template for this situation? None of these seem to fit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie The file is free in the UK, but is not free in the United States thanks to the c:COM:URAA. It will become free in the US in 2048 (1952 + 95 + 1). — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

It'll be out of copyright in the UK next Sunday (1 Jan 2023). Was ASF ever published in the US? If so, it may be out of copyright there - if it was published in the US before 1977 with a copyright notice but the notice was not subsequently renewed. Nthep (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it was never published in the US. Thanks for replies; looks like there's nothing I need to do in that case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

How to get a request looked at

I tried to upload Steve Winter's famous 2013 copyrighted photo of P-22, on the basis that it's fair use because it's irreplaceable and important cause it's what made P-22 famous. I was told I needed to by User:Hammersoft that I needed to provide some citations to support this claim that it's iconic and made him famous. So I did. I found 8 sources claiming that, and added them to the image page. However, the page has since been deleted, and as far as I can tell there was never any discussion about the sources and why they weren't good enough. How do I get someone to actually review that? Eievie (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Eievie. The file was deleted by an administrator named Explicit for WP:F7 reasons. Generally before a file is deleted for such a reason, it's reviewed by administrator who checks the file's page and its corresponding file's talk page to see whether the reasons the file was tagged for deletion are being disputed. If the administrator feels a compelling case has been made to keep the image, they may decline the speedy deletion and suggest further discussion; if not, they usually simply delete the file. So, almost certainly whatever you posted was reviewed by Explicit and determined to not be sufficient to outweigh the F7 concerns that led to the file being tagged for speedy deletion. Both Hammersoft and Explicit are administrators who are very experienced in dealing with non-free content related stuff (please understand that fair use and non-free content are not the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia); so, while it's possible that the two of them got things totally wrong, it seems unlikely that they both did. You can of course seek further clarification from Explicit on his user talk page, but at least at first glance there appear to be a number of free equivalent images of the cat be used in P-22 that would make a non-free one seemingly quite hard to justify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If they don't say anything about it, don't explain the reasoning, then I cannot address those complains and try again. "Someone more important than you thought it should be deleted, so it was, and you can't do anything about it, or even known why" is a... frustrating sentiment to come away with. First I was told it needed citations, so I found a bunch! But then that was all for nothing I guess, and I wasn't even told what was wrong with them? Eievie (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

As I posted above, you can ask for more clarification on the deleting administrator's user talk page. The reasons why a file are deleted are usually given in the edit summary left when an administrator deletes a file. The deleting administrator pretty isn't required to leave a personal message explaining why on the uploader's page explaining why. You can also ask ask for a deletion review per WP:DRV, but generally it's a good idea to seek clarification from the deleting administrator first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Eievie: I could see a case where the image could have been used in a section of the article on P-22, but usually iconic photos have an article of their own. To have such an article, it will need substantial reliable, secondary sources supporting the prose of the article which would be discussing the image and its impact. That can happen. I would recommend you begin a draft article (which can't include the image due to WP:NFCC policy) and see if you can get an article approved. Once it's approved into mainspace, then you can upload the image again, with an appropriate fair use rationale, and include it on the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Eievie, we already have an outstanding, high-resolution photo of P-22. There are two other public domain photos of the mountain lion in the article. There needs to be a compelling case to add a non-free image, and personally, I just don't see that, given the other three photos. Cullen328 (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I found 6 citations agreeing that is the photo that made him famous. I don't think the photo needs to be his infobox pic of anything, but that photo is certainly part of his story as a famous figure. Eievie (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

But, Eievie, we only use non-free images when no equivalent freely licensed or public domain image is available. And in this case, there are three such images already in the article. It is not possible for a reader to come away from that article thinking "I have no idea what that mountain lion looks like." Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, the purpose of this image isn't "this is what P-22 looks like." The purpose of this imagine is that it was key in making him famous, and P-22's fame is major topic of the page. Eievie (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Eievie: Nobody...nobody...is telling you "Someone more important than you thought it should be deleted, so it was, and you can't do anything about it, or even known why". What I have told you is how you can go about including the image again. As others have noted, you need a compelling reason why we need to have the image. You found some citations that you feel support that. Great! So, include the image, and wrap prose around that specific image along with citations, that prove why the image is notable and important to P-22's fame. I suspect we're experiencing a communication gap and we're failing to explain to you how this is done in the Wikipedia way. If there's clarifying questions you might have, please certainly ask! --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I added the reason and citations to the file's page. Then the page was deleted, with the explanation: F7: Violates non-free content criterion #1. That explanation does not respond to the reason or citations I gave. So where can I put my reason and citations where they will get looked at? Eievie (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, I think there's a communication gap. I've given you two ways in which to do this in my recent posts here on this thread. I'm not sure how I could make it clearer. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC

Eievie, your rationale was deeply flawed. A simple Google search shows that there were several photos (not just one), that were used in connection with prose to establish the notability of this individual animal. Please explain why you believe that this specific photo as opposed to other early non-free photos, is so important that it needs to be included in the body of this article, instead of as an external link, especially when we have at least three public domain photos of this animal Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have a citation that specifically calls any other picture of him a famous picture, I would like to see it. Eievie (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)