Commons talk:Licensing

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Shortcut

• 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 30 days may be archived.

Other archives

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

• ADRM
• Review of license templates
• U.S. patents
• Ecoport copyleft
• Museums Bilder (in German)
• Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed
• Which countries' copyright laws determine copyright status?

image from VectorStock.com

This appears to be a commercial image website, and I don't see anything there that would allow us to use their images. I came across File:Airplane-line-path-air-plane-flight-route-vector-30110244.jpg which appears to be a simple grab from their site. Should I submit a COM:DR for this or is there a reason this is okay? Josh (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: Uploaded by someone with a grand total of 6 edits to Commons, and who most likely did not understand how licensing works. - Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Joshbaumgartner: I tried to report it, but ended up hitting the spam blacklist, causing this edit. I then found another method of reporting it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G., @Jmabel, thanks for your responses. Licensing and DRs aren't something I do much with, so I appreciate the feedback, and thanks for adding the copyvio tag. If I see other similar ones, I'll follow that example. Josh (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Rules for AI created content

Policies need to be updated and have to take content into account, that has been created by an, or with the assistance of an AI. The problem came up on the Village pump on 7 December 23 [1] and the following days, additionally, people who are really into AI and often seem to advocate for handling AI content like other media, have their special place under Commons:AI-generated media. Alexpl (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alexpl: Well, they have their AI-generated uploads there. If you want to make a proposal, please post a new section to COM:VPP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Logo of National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic

Hi, I am new to commons and i am writing an article on the National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic in dewiki. I want to use the logo as an image in the article. Is it copyrighted or anything? (de:Nationale Statistikbehörde Kirgisistans) Logo MarcelloIV (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@MarcelloIV: That looks like it would be eligible for copyright, and they say "All right reserved". Sadly de-wiki has no allowance for non-free use, so I don't think there's any way you can use it. - Jmabel ! talk 10:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Forbidden licenses

i suggest this section be separated, so that there's 1 section for acceptable ones and 1 for unacceptable. now it's confusing to have Forbidden under acceptable.--RZuo (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably better to change the higher-level section name to "acceptable and unacceptable licenses" since other subsections also discuss unacceptable licenses. But if we do this, make sure to keep an anchor for "Acceptable licenses" because many things link here.

Any objections to my making that change? I'd like to allow at least three days for comment. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - sound and useful. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

maybe we can simply make the current paragraphs between "Acceptable licenses" and "1.1 Multi-licensing" the new 1st subsection. and add a new section title "types of licenses" or "acceptance" or "validity" or something like that? RZuo (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Licensing&diff=prev&oldid=838399355

if you all agree.

then i would suggest moving the subsection forbidden up to follow the subsection acceptable or Multi-licensing. RZuo (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@RZuo: So while we are in the middle of discussing this, and I specifically allowed three days for comment before making any change to this section, you unilaterally make an edit that takes this in a different direction. I am going to take the liberty to revert that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

We apparently have at least two different directions this could go

• RZuo wants to add a section header "Types of licenses" and demote "Acceptable licenses" a level. (See this edit, which I reverted to allow discussion to reach a consensus.)
  • RZuo, if you think that in any way mischaracterizes what you propose, please feel free to correct it here and below, but please do leave some sort of link that shows your version.
• I (Jmabel) want to keep the prior structure, but change "Acceptable licenses" to "Acceptable and unacceptable licenses".

I'd like to hear from others which they'd prefer. And of course you can add other possibilities. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I notified about this discussion at Commons:Village pump#Licensing (permalink) - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Remark: I genuinely don't see why people want a section to be titled "Acceptable licenses" where, even if we rearrange to get the subsections out from under there, half of the section will still be about what is not' acceptable. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Poll

• Add a section header "Types of licenses" and demote "Acceptable licenses" a level.
  1. and add "Unacceptable licenses" (currently "Forbidden licenses") at the same level as "Acceptable licenses" to clearly delineate which are acceptable and which are unacceptable. This could save heartache down the road at COM:HD and COM:VP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Leave structure as it is, but change "Acceptable licenses" to "Acceptable and unacceptable licenses".
  1. Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Third alternative: Add a section header "Types of licenses", demote "Acceptable licenses" a level and change its name to "Acceptable and unacceptable licenses".
  1. I'd be OK with this (as my second choice) but I still find the word "types" terribly vague. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)