Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
Please note
  1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
  5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.


Need pass the licence review?

I'd sent message to Explicit via e-mail directly at once, but no luck to response after five days. Now here, can somebody please pass the licence review for these pending media files?

 HarvettFox  96   11:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC), edited on 13:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem that I noticed is that the doll shown in the movie may be copyrighted and a permission may be needed for its reproduction. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look, and have no issue with the second, or with the doll in the first (I'm fairly sure the doll was made for the video). I do have an issue with not being certain that the YouTube account for the first is the owner of the video. Opening Day won an award at DragonCon 2012, which says it was made by Caitlin Shirts.[1] The YouTube user is ces9044, which ... I guess could be Caitlin Shirts ... but isn't clear, since it doesn't say, and especially since there is a different YouTube user called Caitlin Shirts, also uploading one of the two videos that ces9044 did! This all worries me. Would Caitlin Shirts make two YouTube accounts? I'd feel more confident if there were at least some reasonable claim by ces9044 that they were Caitlin Shirts, or otherwise owned the rights to the video.--GRuban (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I've no idea but maybe should nominate or something at the first one.  HarvettFox  96   10:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC), edited on 10:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emma McClarkin MEP at Vista.jpg

This image is on Flickr with only a "public Domain Mark". However the "UploadWizard Extension" has effectively approved it with a big green tick, and states 'Its license was verified as "Public Domain Mark"' - a PDM is not a license. Surely something is amiss here. Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronhjones: I agree. I marked both this image and the crop derived from it as copyvios. Flickr uploader did not shoot this photo, and did not release it with a license or explain why it would be PD. See also COM:PDM.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G. Thanks. But should the "UploadWizard Extension" be calling a PDM a "license" - it will add yet more confusion about PDM, maybe that system needs fixing Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear there are 623 like this - here. I see a batch of tagging coming on... Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here User:RonBot/PDMSource is all the ones that do not have a PD template. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronhjones: Thanks, they should be deleted.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Busy tagging with Flickr-public domain mark. They might be able to ask the Flickr owner to change the mark to something more useful. Ronhjones  (Talk) 03:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronhjones: "no license since" is seriously not funny. I've spotted several for which a valid tag is available and PDM is correct, and had these been listed in a DR than this could be dealt with properly. Now they will just automatically vanish after 7 days if the uploader is on vacation or retired. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello commons. Thankyou very much for helping me with all of my images. If you go through my edit history you'll see that I stopped contributing to Wiki projects some years ago because I was terrified of the "copyright patrol". I respect all the copyright editors and thankyou for pointing it out when I breach copyright.

However I note that consensus on Russia in 2015 was wrong and thats why I quit.

I also note that current consensus in Palestine/Israel/West Bank is bizarre in my opinion.

If you go through my edits on the other wikis as well you'll see that alleged copyright violation caused a copyright editor to revert English wiki and this caused a lot of discussion and eventuated in the banning of another editor this December.

I am a doctor, I speak perfect English, and I have very good copyright knowledge. I am still however terrified of the wiki projects copyright patrol.

As we know, there are billions of images out there. Many are in the hands of people who don't speak one of the big languages, many are quality, many are featured image candidates. Many are in the hands of some of the poorer people in the world who would like to contribute, in my opinion.

I contend that the tone, nature and format of alleged copyright violations needs to change to a significant extent, otherwise the parts of the world that need imaging the most, just won't get imaged.

What do we think? E.3 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After getting away from wiki and going for a walk in the park just now, I decided that my opinion is that the main problem is the title "Nominate for deletion". Most people including myself only read the title and give up.

I propose that it be renamed "Thankyou. Request for speedy legal discussion that includes you, about this image." with an ORANGE traffic light. E.3 (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.3: you admitted that doesn’t understand Russian or Ukrainian. This makes very unlikely that you know anything of Cyrillic alphabet. Where did the name of File:Табиист.jpg come from, indeed? It is allegedly your own work. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't, I employ many translators across the world though in my external projects. I do not like the word "allegedly". It is quite clear that it is my work. Sometimes I don't remember where I have taken my tens of thousand of pictures that I have. This one is in Kenya. I name many of my pictures in different languages and different alphabets in order to try to make them accessible to speakers of other languages. E.3 (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not persuasive IMHO. Moving this branch to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Табиист.jpg. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have not persuaded there. I respectfully request that you stick to the topic at hand under this heading and create other headings elsewhere. Also I request that you are more than able to discuss with any senior editor my alleged copyright violations or just refer to the evidence quite literally anywhere you look that unless I make an unintended mistake, I really do understand copyright, and I try to understand other languages. E.3 (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/poptech2006/2967406444/

E.3 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Obvious possible copyvio but i think it is very illustrative E.3 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also whats the line with logos? When is https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemacmarketing/36212534755/

that OK? E.3 (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this latter one is not OK because of the non-trivial Instagram logo. The others would be fine because they are too simple to quality for copyright and obviously the picture itself is CC-BY. --Palosirkka (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou that is most helpful. E.3 (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I don't think the first image is OK as it is: it is a derivative work of the screen, which is under a copyright. A crop of the person might be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Graham Matthews of Imperial College London (email can be supplied), asked me to upload these on his behalf - what should I have done?

  • Red Bollworm larva in a boll. - Diparopsis castanea by Prof. GA Matthews
    Red Bollworm larva in a boll. - Diparopsis castanea by Prof. GA Matthews
  • Red bollworm moth - Diparopsis castanea by Prof. GA Matthews
    Red bollworm moth - Diparopsis castanea by Prof. GA Matthews
  • First instar RBW on cotton bud - Diparopsis castanea by Prof. GA Matthews
    First instar RBW on cotton bud - Diparopsis castanea by Prof. GA Matthews

Roy Bateman (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. — Racconish 💬 10:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paying public domain

See Commons:Paying public domain. Is it accurate to describe this as a Commons:non-copyright restriction? When a work enters the public domain in a country such as Bolivia it may be used without permission, but a fee is payable to the state if it is used for commercial purposes. Presumably in any other Berne/UCC/WTO country it is completely free. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a copyright restriction. It is a tax. Ruslik (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a tax, but is that a Commons:non-copyright restriction? I.e. "you can't use this file commercially in Bolivia if you have not paid the tax." Should there be some sort of warning template? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A warning template where? Doesn't this apply to all public domain works from anywhere in Bolivia? It seems like this is something Bolivians should know as part of their law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that many contributors or users are experts in their local copyright law. There are more than 30 countries with some variant of Commons:Paying public domain. Some of them just require a fee for commercial use of "traditional cultural expressions" or "folk art". In the case of Bolivia, perhaps a note on {{PD-Bolivia}} would be useful. But maybe it is a non-issue. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qmusiclogo2015red.jpg

This seems to be licensed incorrectly and the claim of "own work" seem questionable per qmusic.nl. I'm pretty sure this would be {{PD-text logo}} in the United States, but not too sure about COM:TOO Netherlands. Can this just be changed to {{PD-logo}} with {{Trademark}} added as well, or does it need OTRS verification? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: {{subst:tmlogo}}. COM:TOO Netherlands requires that a work bears "the personal mark of the maker". The "music" part is just a font. The "Q" doodle, really, doesn't bear "the personal mark of the maker". Anyone could have drawn that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write an essay about what I'm talking about

Hi I would like to write an essay about "networks of complicated rules" and how it specifically relates to photography, internet addiction, and the commons. It basically just explains why I keep going on about languages and words, indigenous cultures, memory, and why I cant understand policies. Its because have a different ways of thinking to most people genetically, which is now diagnosed as "Right Brain Dominance".

I can do ridiculous projects that are taken seriously but I can't drive a car and i lose my wallet like five times a year. Its natural.

It's not a mental illness, it was just previously treated as such. Other such people included in many experts opinion were Descartes, Edison, Einstein, Van Gough. I'm not comparing myself to them. Its just in this day and age these kinds of genetics, which are more common in lower income countries, cause many problems with midunderstanding rules, and words that I've mentioned. They also are very artistic and philosophical and often think their art / photography is worthless. They often end up very unwell, or addicted to quite literally anything. Commons can help by understanding new editors, and these artist types might engage more with this amazing project, giving them a better outlet for their art than social media. Am I allowed to do this? E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). Suggestor of the project Wikiwide on MetaWiki [2]. Suggestor of avoiding particular English words in the Commons 12:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

E.3: This sounds like something that might be acceptable as a user space essay (e.g. User:E.3/Networks of complicated rules). See Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories for the relevant policy.
On an unrelated note, could I please ask you to trim your signature? Signatures exist for the benefit of readers, to help them understand who said what and when. They do not exist as a platform for advertising one's opinions. There are 150 characters between your username and the date, which makes it hard to visually separate your signature from your comment and to spot your actual username. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 13:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will trim my signature. It did take about an hour to work out and I got told off by the bot about 12 times. But i made it because people prior to me having it kept questioning my motives, my identity, and misunderstanding me. Is it really that inappropriate? Thanks I'll write the essay there. -- E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). Suggestor of the project Wikiwide on MetaWiki [3]. Suggestor of avoiding particular English words in the Commons 14:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


I wrote the essay here please let me know if it breaks any rules. And I'll fix the signature another day. Too many guidelines can be too much for me. Thanks for your help. User:E.3/Networks of complicated rules E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). Suggestor of the project Wikiwide on MetaWiki [4]. Suggestor of avoiding particular English words in the Commons 15:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio on Altdeutscher Hütehund

Hi,

This addition is a copy of http://www.wooly-lamahof.at/Rassevorstellung.22.0.html — where no license compatible with Wikimedia Commons can be found, only a notice about who is the "Medieninhaber" (owner) — with "Violation Suspected 91.6% confidence". I didn't revert because I'm already accused of harassment by this contributor.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale 17:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A description like that does not belong to Commons or a Commons Gallery page anyway. See Commons:Projektumfang#Der Rahmen von Commons. Reverted the edit. --Martin H. (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you. Martin H.
Shouldn't I ask for a revision deletion? And where could I ask?
--Lacrymocéphale (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lacrymocéphale: I suppose on the general administrators’ noticeboard. If you hadn’t already drawn attention to it here, a more discreet approach to revdel-worthy material would be to contact an active admin by talk-page or e-mail. (Not that the content in this case is particularly sensitive!)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you. Odysseus1479.
Lets continue with Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Copyvio on Altdeutscher Hütehund.
--Lacrymocéphale (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain to me why in certain pictures taken by me for years I am considered to breach Russian FOP but others of exactly the same object are not? Is anyone able to advise me why one editor chooses to nominate my pictures for deletion and does not point out the others which are of the same object? I don't want to be offended but it seems hard when these kind of things are not explained. E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). Suggestor of the project Wikiwide on MetaWiki [5]. Suggestor of avoiding particular English words in the Commons 01:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

FOP means Freedom of Panorama, which means that you can freely use an image of artwork or architecture without having to get permission from the creator or their heirs. Russia has no FOP for sculptures but they do have it for buildings. Generally for artwork in Russia, you're in the clear if it was published before 1917 or if its creator died before 1944 and was not posthumously rehabilitated. Abzeronow (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes thanks for that. Can you explain specifically though why there are many pictures of Monument to the Conquerors of Space allowed to be on many wiki projects, but mine have been nominated for deletion or deleted? I really can't work it out, i've tried quite hard, including asking the nominators several times and following their links. E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). Suggestor of the project Wikiwide on MetaWiki [6]. Suggestor of avoiding particular English words in the Commons 04:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
meta:Non-free content, wikis have different policies about allowing Fair Use/Fair Dealing/non-free files. Commons doesn't allow Fair Use COM:Fair Use. It could be that simple. Abzeronow (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure it's that simple, because many of them are on the commons. There seems to have been some kind of large deletion circa early 2012s when sorting out Russian FOP, but sometimes with this monument they are deleted and sometimes they're not. I'm just very confused because I'd like my photo to be on the commons, as I think it is probably free. But I don't know, i think there should be a proper consensus because it currently involves hundreds of possibly unfree images. --E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). I sometimes don't understand rules, and I think abstractly. [7] 07:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the description at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Monument to the Conquerors of Space says "images of the monument have to be deleted", per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Monument to the Conquerors of Space. But it seems they haven't been deleted for a while and the category has filled up again in the meantime. --ghouston (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.3: The law is quite clear, but its application is far to be so easy. And in many cases, including Commons, it is not the priority to look for this kind of issue. The result is that many images which are not acceptable as per the reading of the law remain available, but it doesn't mean in that they are OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven: In light of Yann's statement of 09:17 immediately above, would you be open to reconsidering the closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dnipro Metro Station - statue.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Statue of Peace, Metro Bridge as "kept"? Pinging @Yann too.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect thanks for the explanation. I'll let senior editors decide when to delete them all, my pics included. cheers --E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). I sometimes don't understand rules, and I think abstractly. [8] 14:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion above, I've filed a new mass DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monument to the Conquerors of Space. Abzeronow (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that this subject is officially listed as a cultural-heritage monument, and that some of the images were uploaded as WLM entries. The instructions for those contests in countries without architectural or public-art FOP may not be making it clear enough that photos of recent works are ineligible for upload here. (Not that having perfectly clear instructions would prevent all such uploads, of course: I’ve seen quite a few WLM-tagged files of subjects that are ineligible for other reasons.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Max Beckmann

Hi, I would like more opinions about the copyright of Max Beckmann's works. He is a German artist who emigrated to the USA "after the war" (dixit Wikipedia, but not mentioning the date, which may be important), so I suppose that fate of works from the time he was in Europe should decided according to German or Dutch law, and according to US law after that. Is that right? But 1. we need to know the date of each work of art, 2. we need to know the exact date of emigration. Some of his works are under {{PD-US-no notice}}, see list below. @Racconish: , as DR creator. Files should be moved to the English Wikipedia if deleted here. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beckmann emigrated to the USA in 1948. The works nominated for DR are respectively 1916, 1918 and 1939. And Dix work is also in copyright. — Racconish 💬 13:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb and Racconish: Yes, but were these files copied to English Wikipedia? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not by me, I just answered your question. — Racconish 💬 12:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I normally do not do such transfers, but if anybody needs a temporary restore for doing so, please feel free to drop me a note. Jcb (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gouvernement.fr images

Are these images from the French government OK to transfer to Commons? Site mentions "Sauf mention contraire, tous les textes de ce site sont sous licence Creative Commons." Does "textes" in this French sentence cover images? The photo captions state "Photo: Florian David/Matignon" which would have to be included if trasnferred to Commons under a CC license.

Also, there is an existing Category:Media from gouvernement.fr with 20 files and a gouvernement.fr license template. // sikander { talk } 00:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Texts" don't include images. The website specified, between March and circa 23 September 2014, that "videos, texts and infographics" were under CC BY 3.0 FR, which is why template:gouvernement.fr can apply to images from videos that were available there and validly copied somewhere during that period. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Releasing images into public domain

I'm a touch confused about uploading images released into public domain onto the commons. I've uploaded an image in the past from this user and had it deleted because... I can't recall exactly, they aren't the government or something. They appear to be the photographer of the image in question (I can't find any evidence they aren't) so why does them choosing to release an image into public domain as opposed to a CC mean we can't use it? TLDR: I'd like to upload image, what's stopping me? Sabine's Sunbird (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the dreaded Public Domain Mark, which isn't considered a proper public domain release, according to Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images and various subsequent discussions. If they want to release it into the public domain, they should choose CC-zero instead. --ghouston (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it is the dreaded "you are doing it wrong, and we won't let you play in our sandbox, until you license images the way we want." seems like a good faith nature photographer trying to release to Public domain. any camera data to suggest flickr washing? if not then they should stay. and over 1000 so maybe some will get deleted there. but given the assumption of bad faith here, you should not expect undeletion any time soon. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, reading the closing comment on the rfc, if I ask the guy to confirm that he releases it on PD it's good? I second Slowking4's comment about telling people they've released it wrong for reasons that are esoteric in the extreme. Sabine's Sunbird (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wave Video purchased license for commercial use, appears to be an important video I'd like on commons

HI I have purchased the full commercial license of the music and the video and the last image is already mine on the commons for the following video available at www.change.news - it is being engaged by thousands and thousands in just a few hours, growing as we speak. I'd like it on the commons, is anyone able to help me with whether the relevant licenses are OK? --E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). I sometimes don't understand rules, and I think abstractly. [9]

So wave video states that my license is : Unlimited usage of 500,000 videos, images and sounds included in your plan

30+ video publishing formats Unlimited video projects Library of over 200,000,000 premium assets available for purchase Upload original video footage Custom watermark Custom brand presets 1 brand 25 brands 150 brands Max video duration 5 min 15 min 15 min 3rd party resale rights I then purchased the 5 premium videos for the video in question. I used my text and the music is under the follwing license which I have a certificate for: License: Standard License description: Online use: Youtube, Facebook, Twitch, advertising, podcast, product presentation, crowdfunding, corporate, personal, student project, charity... Includes on-hold melody for phones and answering machines Duration: unlimited since 10/11/2018 Territory: International & Internet Title: A new hope (Cinematic | Epic Music) Artist: Nico Maximilian / Composer

I'll proceed to upload as I would like it hear, please inform me via a standard deletion request if there are any problems. I will share it under CC BY 4.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC) --E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). I sometimes don't understand rules, and I think abstractly. [10] 10:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have bought a license to use, correct? That is not the same as having the right to change the license of the material itself. Changing something from standard license to CC-license is something only the copyright-owner can do. //Vätte (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 undeletion issues

Hi, I am encountering some issues while undeleting files. The following were mentioned in Category:Undelete in 2019:

Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the BnF nor VIAF has a death date for Barneaud Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I changed the date in WP, as I found 2 references with 1948. Thanks for looking. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Safety Last (1923).webm

What license should be used here Clin ? — Racconish 💬 15:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment {{PD-US-expired}} looks fine. Yann (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, — Racconish 💬 16:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=333067697"