Commons:Village pump/Copyright: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Older edit Newer edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:31, 26 September 2020

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.

Please note

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.
Have you read the FAQ?
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).
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.
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.

File:Hello World Brian Kernighan 1978.jpg

This image of an item from an arts auction, straight from the web page of the auction, had been uploaded by User:TadejM as {{PD-text}}, asserting that "there is nothing copyrightable (the text is generic computer code)".

In my opinion, the fact that it was traded as a work of art implies that it is copyrightable; a similar case is en:File:Iris Clert Portrait Rauschenberg.jpg -- another text-only work of art, but tagged as copyrighted fair use.

Q1: is Kernighan's text-only work of art copyrightable or not?

To be extra sure, I've emailed Kernighan himself for permission to use his work of art on Commons, and got the following response:

I personally am happy to grant permission to Wikipedia

for the Hello World printout, as CC-BY-SA. I don't know who

really has the right, since I created it originally, then

donated it to Artsy, who then auctioned it to someone (not

known to me). But you have my permission insofar as it is

mine to give.

Brian Kernighan

Q2: is it possible for him to grant a CC-BY-SA license for his work of art after it had been donated to the auction house and sold on?

--Crash48 (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash48: Hi, and welcome. I would answer yes to both, but we need a specific CC-BY-SA version number. Please have him send it via OTRS with a carbon copy to you. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being a work of art has no connection to being copyrightable, at least in the US. The page is indeed PD-text, IMO. (I'd say the same about the similar case, at least in the US.) Generally, the copyright does not follow the physical work, so Kernighan would have the copyright, if there were any copyright to have.

I'm worried about the 3-D effect of the frame, though. It needs to be cropped to clearly a 2-D piece.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another relevant example is File:Secret painting mel ramsden art language.jpg -- deemed copyrightable, and licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} via OTRS. --Crash48 (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deemed copyrightable by whom? That's the problem with comparing Wikipedia and Commons files; just because someone uploaded it under that license doesn't make any sort of consensus. I'm not sure what just what's going on in that photograph or what exactly is being photographed. It's got both an illustration and 23 words of text. In comparison, Kernighan's work has 13 tokens and four words, six if you're counting the signature. https://www.johnlangdon.net/works/earth-air-fire-water/ was ruled to be uncopyrightable by the copyright office, as was a shirt that said "My daddy says I couldn't date until I'm 35" even combined with some stock art. It's so minimal I can't see any way it would be copyrightable in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deemed copyrightable by whom? -- obviously by the OTRS team which approved the application to have that file licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Can you point me to the cases of the ambigram and the shirt? A simple web search didn't bring up anything relevant. --Crash48 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between COM:FOP Spain and {{FoP-Spain}}

COM:FOP Spain says: "Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places ..." But {{FoP-Spain}} says: "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares ..." It seems to me, that church is a public place, but not a thoroughfare. What do you think, is there freedom of panorama in Spanish churches? Taivo (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LPI, copyright law in Spain, art. 35.2 [1]

Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales. Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.

Court case Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Sección 15ª) 147/2006 [2]

El artículo 35.2 de la LPI (RCL1996,1382) se conceptúa como un límite al derecho de autor pero dicho límite no ampara en modo alguno ni la transformación del exterior ni incluye en su protección al interior del edificio.[...] El interior de un templo, considerado éste como obra arquitectónica susceptible de tutela por la LPI como hemos señalado anteriormente, no puede considerarse, a los efectos del precepto, cualquier otra vía pública. Article 35.2 of the LPI (RCL1996,1382) is conceptualized as a limit to copyright, but this limit does not in any way protect the transformation of the exterior or include the interior of the building in its protection. [...] The interior of a church, which is considered an architectural work subject to protection by the LPI as we have previously indicated, cannot be considered, for the purposes of the precept, any other public thoroughfare.

No, there is no freedom of panorama in Spanish churches. LMLM (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the interiors of the Sagrada Familia of Barcelona (and by the way the interiors of all churches in Spain, modern or not) are copyrighted as User:LMLM defends basing on the PDF document, why are the following images on wikimedia?: File:Barcelona - Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Família (16).jpg or File:Retrat d'Antoni Gaudí.jpg (the last one is an artwork from 1989 located inside the Sagrada Familia). In addition, there are many photos of interiors of spanish churches (with antique and modern sculptures as the one I mentioned) that are posted on wikimedia, like this one: File:Iglesia de Iesu-Donostia-R. Moneo (39).JPG (located in Spain and dated from 2011); or these: File:Madrid - Iglesia de Nuestra Señora del Rosario de Filipinas 06.jpg and File:Madrid - Iglesia de Nuestra Señora del Rosario de Filipinas 05.jpg (these two from a church dated from 1967-1970 and located in Madrid). Are all of them copyrighted and suitable for deletion considering the arguments defended by LMLM? Of course not, there IS freedom of panorama in Spanish churches. On case contrary, there will be no images from the interior of spanish churches (modern or not) on wikimedia, and wikimedia is full of these type of photos. Spanish churches are public places and can be accessed by the general public. Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Enciclopedia1993: Please use internal links. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 10:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Enciclopedia1993: there are numerous photographs on Commons that should not be here, images on Commons are not evidence that FOP applies in churches. There was a related discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Collections of the Museum of FC Barcelona which concluded that a museum in Spain did not qualify for FOP. We should not allow the implications of a decision to influence our interpretation of copyright laws. Even if FOP does not apply to Spanish church interiors, that would not prevent us hosting images of churches that are sufficiently old. Incidental modern objects in an image can be disregarded as de minimis. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the final decision in this particular case with this image Verbcatcher: File:Nuevo Templo Sanxenxo San Ginés.jpg?Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to me to make final decisions. If LMLM's analysis of the legal position is correct then the file should be deleted (as the sculpture appears to be too modern to be public domain), and COM:FOP Spain should be updated. However, it is possible that LMLM has overlooked something. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the PDF document appears fundación Junta Constructora del Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Familia as the owner of the copyright of the church, but the most part of the churches in Spain are not property of a foundation, so the case explained in the precedent document can only be applied to the Sagrada Familia, not to the rest of the churches of the country which not depend from a foundation that owns the copyright of the buildings. The most part of the churches of Spain (modern or not) are public places and not depend from any foundation, like the one where the sculpture of San Ginés is located.Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a change at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#Freedom of panorama translation. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"My images must not be made part of another image"

We have a number of nice photos with a proper license but also with such a strange and nasty statement... I wonder what should be done. Perhaps somebody could contact the copyright holder and ask for clarification. Or then we could just remove the additional restrictions mentions but that might be illegal. --Palosirkka (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most or all of these images come from the Andy Morffew Flickr account. Those I have looked at are licenced CC BY 2.0, and the "not made part of another image without permission" restriction conflicts with the 'Adapt' clause of CC BY 2.0. We could treat this as a non-copyright restriction or we could conclude that the photographer did not understand the license. You could try to contact the photographer on Flickr and ask him to remove the restriction from the Flickr pages. If the photographer does not withdraw the restriction then should we delete these images, or delete or strike through the restriction (as in File:Yawn (16250948685).jpg), or leave them as they are? Verbcatcher (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Palosirkka and Verbcatcher: Without clarification, the images should be the subjects of a DR for having a restriction on derivative works incompatible with COM:L. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 10:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you contact the photographer, I suggest that you ask him to compare this image which I adapted from this image (See gallery below). Most of the work in producing the final image was done by the producer of the first image, but the value of the second image relation to the first relies on two curved lines, a bit of text and little else. Clearly the credit should be shared between the producer of the first image (NASA) and myself.

Legal adaptation of one image to give another
Original image (image of the earth - drawn by NASA artists)
Final image (definition of kilometre - original adapted by me)

Martinvl (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody be willing to ask him? I would do it myself but I don't run non-free software, like the JavaScript required to operate Flickr. I can do it if somebody manages to dredge up some reasonable contact info, like an email addy. --Palosirkka (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are good chances that he will agree. His website does not have the restriction [3]. It has an attribution requirement, not a CC license. The restriction appears on some flickr photos only. But not on his newer flickr photos. And not on his flickr profile [4]. You could use the contact form on his website. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sent him FlickrMail. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jeff! --Palosirkka (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Palosirkka: You're welcome! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notice now does not appear on the Flickr pages that I have looked at, so it seems that Jeff G.'s FlickrMail has done the trick. I assume that the phrase should now be deleted from the file pages. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: That would be a fair assumption. Thanks for checking and removing that phrase. I completed the removal process. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Palosirkka as OP. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy days! Good detective work and saved us a bunch of cute pix. In this time we need all the good news we can get. Thank you to Verbcatcher, Jeff G., Martinvl and Asclepias! --Palosirkka (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Palosirkka: You're welcome! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Where should this link point to?

I'm talking about the Non-US copyrights link at Template:URAA_artist/doc. Currently it's 404. --Palosirkka (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. Sorry for the noise. --Palosirkka (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Betania in Fjellstrand, Norway.jpg

Came across the file File:Betania in Fjellstrand, Norway.jpg today which seems to have been tagged with "missing source information" since it was uploaded 12 years ago. I'm unsure what to do about it, so hoping there's someone here who can sort it out one way or the other. TommyG (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "missing source information" notice does not appear to be generated by a tag and is presumably generated automatically. The original uploader to English Wikipedia (User talk:Sindre) appears to have declared themself as the author, and I see no good reason to question this. {{Own assumed}} might be appropriate, but the template description is discouraging and adding this to the Source field does not make the "missing source information" notice go away. How do we fix this? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed it correctly, here. The file had both {{PD-author}} and {{PD-self}}, which looked wrong. {{PD-author}} is for images released by people outside Wikimedia projects, so I have removed this. I have also added {{Own work by original uploader}} to 'Source'. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great job. TommyG (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second Life images

Should all Category:Second Life images be deleted? Then engine itself is free, but uploaders rarely provide the source of models & textures used.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion would not be appropriate. Deleting an otherwise free image, because some textures are used minimally in the shot, would fall under derivative works. If someone is using something like TV screen shots, and these are significantly present in the image, then that may be grounds for deletion. In comparison, someone not declaring where they got a rough brick surface texture from, when the shot is of the house they made, that's way below "significant doubt". --Fæ (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Symphony No.1.jpg

Are picture like this ore this File:Dae-Ho Eom Symphony No.2.jpg a copyvio? Oesterreicher12 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be the cover artwork of musical scores. They probably originate from here, which is cited as a ref in the Korean Wikipedia page where one of them is used.

File:Symphony No.1.jpg contains simple text and a logo, so the issue is whether the logo exceeds the threshold of originality, see COM:TOO South Korea. The test to apply here appears to be "has own characteristics as a product of mental efforts". In my view this does, so this is a copyvio (unless permission can be established).
File:Dae-Ho Eom Symphony No.2.jpg is a clearer copyvio because it includes a photograph.

These should both be nominated for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both are now nominated. Oesterreicher12 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures given to me by the owner

Hello, I have received some historical (1940s to 70s) images of a Lebanese association football player (who is now deceased) by the player's daughter. The photos she sent me are digital photos of physical photographs (she didn't scan the actual photos, she just photographed them and sent them to me). Am I free to upload them on Wikipedia? She is a woman in her 60s, and I don't feel like asking her to go through the whole procedure to upload the pictures herself. Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did the player's daughter take the original photographs? We need permission from the original photographer (or their heirs). If she took the photographs then she should either upload them herself or send an acceptable email to the COM:OTRS system to validate the licenses. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, most of the photos aren't taken by her (obviously, the 1940s ones). Only one or two are contemporary (2000s, 2010s). If the photographer is unknown, what can be done (for example, for a 1940 or 1960 photo)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rules to apply are in COM:LEBANON. Some of the older photos might be allowable under this clause:

In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection shall expire 50 years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public.^{[75/1999 Article 52]}

However, its unclear how you can establish that they are truly anonymous, rather than you not knowing who the photographer is, and when they were 'lawfully made available to the public'. If they were published in a newspaper before 1970 you would satisfy the publication test, but this would make the anonymity test more doubtful. I suspect that you will not be able to establish that these are allowed. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can one establish that the photographer is anonymous? I don't know who he is, the daughter doesn't know who he is, and surely the player didn't know who he was (they are line-up photos before the match, or photos of that nature, not personal photos for example). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how Lebanese law would interpret 'anonymous', but we are cautious in these matters, see COM:PRP. If they are team line-up photos then they were probably taken either by a photographer engaged by the football club or by a press photographer. In both cases the photographer unlikely to be anonymous. Is anything helpful written on the backs of the photos? If they were published before 1949 and you knew the photographer's name then you could apply {{PD-Lebanon-Photo}}, but this appears unlikely. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes as an anonymous photographer? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually if the actual publication had the photographer's name. They of course could be on the back, etc. Photos published before 1949 in Lebanon should be OK, anonymous or not ({{PD-Lebanon-Photo}}). Anonymous photos published before 1970 should also be OK, but when there is a named author, 1950 and later photos are that person's lifetime, and 50 more years. "Anonymous" isn't quite the same thing as "unknown" -- if the author's name was known but has been lost by later publishings which neglected to mention the name, it's not really anonymous. Works known to be under copyright but with no way to determine or contact an owner are called "orphan works" and are an uncomfortable topic for copyright -- most countries do not have special provisions for them, and there is often resistance when they try. These might be close enough to be considered anonymous though, if we are looking at the initial publications which were distributed, and no author is mentioned. We do tend to be conservative on such things (e.g. no orphan works), and if the photos are of an entirely unknown provenance it's hard to allow them, but at some point anonymous does become a reasonable assumption to make -- it helps a lot if we know we are looking at the original publications, where the author was most likely to be mentioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. The woman has also sent me the back of the pictures (if there is text): in all cases there is just hand-written text by the (deceased) footballer explaining the year and/or location, context, etc. of what is represented. There is no author name of something of that sort. These pictures are mostly of football tours abroad, line-ups, group photos, etc. I am unsure how the footballer got these pictures; however they all seem to be "personal" pictures, not extracts from newspapers or other publications. On a similar note: let's say I have a physical picture of a relative which was taken by a professional photographer. My relative paid for it, and is in their (or my) possession. Am I (or they) able to publish it? Is that picture mine? Or does the photographer have to publish it himself on Wikipedia (which, let's say, isn't possible because the photographer is untraceable)? How do these "possession" issues work? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to 'on a similar note', professional photographers rarely transfer the copyright of their work to their retail customers. The physical picture may be yours, but you are unlikely to own the copyright and you should not add it to Commons. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright ownership of commissioned works can depend on the law in each country. In older UK law, the person paying for a commissioned portrait was often the owner. I think they eliminated that in 1989, such that photographers etc. nowadays always own the copyright unless transferred via contract. Australia still has a form of the older UK law, though, and maybe some more of their former colonies still do. In the U.S., the law did not specify, and cases were decided each way for decades. In 1978, U.S. law changed such that the photographer owns the copyright, again unless specified in the contract. I don't think French copyright law (which might have been in the history for Lebanese law) had such a provision, though I could be wrong. I don't see anything like it in the Lebanon's old law either. So for example the copyright for wedding photographs typically remains with the photographer, unless there was an explicit contract otherwise. The law would allow you to make copies for yourself, and personal use and that kind of thing, but more widespread or commercial use could be more of a problem. Of course, if the author never sees them or doesn't care (often the case), then no real problem either. Commons will wait until the copyright expires though, unless the author can be found and a license given. (The publisher can give licenses for anonymous works, if they are named.)

As for these in particular, that older law did say they anything in printed form was considered published, and it sounds like the player got prints of photographs -- presumably original from the author. So if there was no name on them, I would say they would qualify for the anonymous term, and count as published at the time. For the ones from after 1949 then, and until 1970, {{PD-Lebanon}} should work. Any of the ones after 1970 would need a license from someone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks for the extensive clarification! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Army Barracks, Portoviejo photo deletion

I cut and pasted the conversation below. Hope someone can help me out.

Thank you, FitIndia Talk ✉. I am slowly reading through the various links you have posted. I would like to clarify that the picture in question is from 1911 and that I have credited the publisher and photographer in the footnote which accompanied the photo: Manabí a la Vista, Obispo Juan B. Ceriola. Guayaquil, Talleres gráficos de F. E. Rodenas, 1911. Fotografía Francisco Gámez Fernández. 185 pages. Since the subject of my draft has handwritten "This is where I was held prisoner.." on the top of the photo, I consider it most valuable for the article. I am suffering from Wikipedia link/tutorial overload, so it will take me a while to understand what I must do to make my upload conform to regulation. Can you help me out? Very sincerely yours, Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea if you post a message here. Thank you. --- FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 15:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FitIndia Talk ✉. I'll cut and paste. I hope I get some bites. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, FitIndia Talk ✉. No one has answered my query. I was wondering if you could help me. My question basically is if I can use a photo that was taken almost 120 years ago. And, if not, who do I go to to obtain permission. Thank you. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to be give an opinion without more context. Is this Guayaquil in Ecuador? If so then see COM:ECUADOR, which says that copyright in Ecuador runs for 70 years after the author's death. Do you know when Francisco Gámez Fernández died? If not, then 1911 is not long enough ago to be confident that he has been dead for more than 70 years ago. (If he was 21 in 1911 then he would only have been 60 in 1950.) If the photograph is protected by copyright then it must be licensed by the copyright owner: in the absence of other information we would assume that this is the heirs of the photographer. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Verbcatcher (talk). Yes, Guayaquil is in Ecuador, but I don't know when he died. In my research I have found out that he was a Colombian architect of renown. I've written to Santa Marta, Colombia, City Council to see if indeed the architect and the photographer are one and the same and information about the public use of his photos. [5] Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine buildings (and possibly, other structural works) 1951–72 again

Good day. As the last discussion about the copyright status of Philippine buildings from 1951 to 1972 here went into an impasse, I might raise this again, but this time through a new input shared at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City). Setting this renewed Philippine FoP matter aside (since the steps being taken by some Wikipedians here as suggested in that forum might take some time), here is an input by @Howhontanozaz: :

At the time the monument was designed (1930s), the copyright law in force was Act No. 3134 (1924) which required registration and a notice for a work to be copyright-protected. As per Section 11 and 12 of the Act, copyright may be secured either by the "registration of the claim" and "by publication thereof with the required notice of copyright" or "by the deposit, with claim of copyright, of one complete copy of such work or of a photographic print or of a photograph or other identifying reproduction thereof" to the National Library. It is also clearly stated in Sec. 11 that "No copyright in any work is considered as existing until the provisions of this Act with respect to the deposit of copies and registration of claim to copyright shall have been complied with." Presidential Decree No. 49 s. 1972 which removed the requirements was not retroactive thus work published before 1972 had to comply with the requirements of Act 3134 to be eligible for copyright protection.

I might interpret that the copyright law prevailing before November 1972 was the American colonial era-Act No. 3134 of 1924, even if the country joined the Berne Convention of 1951. Some might say that the 1924-era law is identical to the United States copyright law at that time, but with in-depth analysis by Howhontanozaz I can assume that somehow there's some difference between the two. I also doubt that a presidential proclamation during that time (before Marcos) had the power to enforce an international treaty - without a relevant law crafted in the country (which would emerge as the Marcos-era Presidential Decree No. 49 s. 1972). I might also add an input from Exec8 at the aforementioned forum:

Another ruling, on G.R No. 161295, dated June 29, 2005, it states that Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and copyrightability. By originality is meant that the material was not copied, and evidences at least minimal creativity; that it was independently created by the author and that it possesses at least same minimal degree of creativity. Copying is shown by proof of access to copyrighted material and substantial similarity between the two works. The applicant must thus demonstrate the existence and the validity of his copyright because in the absence of copyright protection, even original creation may be freely copied.
To discharge his burden, the applicant may present the certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence. A copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is one element of copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership and the validity of the facts stated in the certificate. The presumption of validity to a certificate of copyright registration merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant should not ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that underline the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively challenging them, shifts the burden of doing so to the applicant.

Examples of 1951–72-era buildings include:

Antipolo Cathedral - 1954, Jose L. de Ocampo (d. 1995) (a DR by certain Mrcl lxmna failed)
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Center - 1968, Carlos Arguelles (d. 2008) (their DR failed too)
Iglesia Filipina Independiente National Cathedral - 1964, Carlos Arguelles (my undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files in Category:Exterior of the Cathedral of the Holy Child (Aglipayan), Manila is being debated over this matter)
Cultural Center of the Philippines main building - 1969, Leandro Locsin (d. 1994) (DR by that same troll pending)
University of the Philippines Parish of the Holy Sacrifice - 1955, Leandro Locsin (DR by that same troll pending)
Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in Dumaguete - 1966 (according to https://m.facebook.com/pages/category/Religious-Organization/omphdumaguete/about/) (my undeletion request for a photo of this is still pending)

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up update Putting this discussion On hold as per update from Howhontanozaz at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. To quote How's update: "Everyone, I just received a very welcome reply from the Intellectual Property Office's Bureau of Copyright. According to them, "The inclusion of a freedom of panorama provision is among the amendments being explored in the ongoing review of the present copyright law. No assurances however of its inclusion in the final bill. Rest assured however that this is in our radar." The Wikimedia community should lobby for this amendment." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michael Joseph Owens.ogg - CC0 1.0 Universal?

This audio file File:Michael_Joseph_Owens.ogg has been released as CC0 1.0 Universal by the user JohnAnkerBow based on content from a permanent link of the English Wikipedia article about Michael Joseph Owens. Is this proper? Can I do the same and release audio files of me reading Wikipedia articles as CC0 1.0 Universal so that others don't have to attribute the authors or me by using my audio file? Datariumrex (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Datariumrex: No, that's not proper, it should have a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License or higher. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @JohnAnkerBow as uploader. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. With this search I see there are in total 59 files marked as CC0. Hereby pinging all/most who have released spoken Wikipedia article audio files that were at some point claimed to be waived/licensed as CC0 1.0 Universal:

Already pinged JohnAnkerBow(more than 1 work of the same type)
Pinging @Monocletophat123
Pinging @Matthewdgonzalez (more than 1 work of the same type)
Pinging @Funnyman12346789
Pinging @Baconpork
Pinging @Lord ding dong
Pinging @Back ache
Pinging @OGG Reader 99
Pinging @SaluteVII

Datariumrex (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Datariumrex: You're welcome, but you could have pinged all at once per Template:Pinging/doc. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Datariumrex: It is not obvious how to find my non-compliant recording nor how to change them :-( Back ache (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Back ache: If you have more than one audio recording of spoken Wikipedia articles which do not have a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License or higher, please give it/them such a license. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Datariumrex: I don't know how to customise the search so as to bring up just mine https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=incategory%3ACC-Zero+incategory%3ASpoken_Wikipedia_-_English&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Back ache (talk • contribs) 14:28, 21 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Back ache: File:DigitalPlanet.ogg was tough to find because it has no {{Information}}, please fix that too. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 06:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sununu photos

An account named csusunu some photos photos of en:Chris Susunu to Commons as "own work" over a two-day period in March 2016. The photos are File:Chris Sununu on the Appalachian Trail.tiff, File:Christopher T Sununu.jpg and File:Chris Sununu.jpg. Susunu became the en:Governor of New Hampshire in 2017 and is still serving in that capacity. All of the photos are of Susunu and at least one appears to be professionally taken; so, if it's assumed that Susunu uploaded the photos himself, they don't appear to be selfies, but rather photos taken by someone else.

All of the photos have EXIF data, but the EXIF data for the one taken in 2012 (File:Chris Sununu.jpg) lists someone other than the uploader as the copyright holder and author. Since the photos were uploaded back in 2016, they seem to be being used on quite a number of different websites other than Wikipedia. While I guess it's possible that Susunu uploaded the photos himself, the claim of "own work" does seem a bit questionable. It also seems possible that someone (perhaps representing Susunu) uploaded the photos and just used Susunu's name as their username either because they thought that's what they needed to do or just didn't realize it might create confusion. Again, even in that case, it seems that the claim of "own work" would at least need to be OTRS verified. Are these OK as licensed or should they be tagged with {{Npd}} or discussed at COM:DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A {{Copyvio}} tag had been improperly deleted from File:Christopher T Sununu.jpg, so I have raised a deletion request for this file. There are reasons to suspect that this is a copyvio. The metadata of File:Chris Sununu.jpg includes "Author Jeremy Gasowski" and "Copyright holder © WVBBTS/SEF". Jeremy Gasowski may be this freelance photographer and WVBBTS/SEF is an educational foundation.[6] This should be tagged with ~~{{Npd}}~~ {{Copyvio}}. The position with File:Chris Sununu on the Appalachian Trail.tiff is less clear-cut, but in view of the problems with the other files a deletion request is appropriate. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at these Verbcatcher. The "Appalachian Trail" file seems to be scan of a personal photo; doesn't look like a selfie per se, but perhaps a timer was used. Most likely it was simply taken by someone who accompanied Sununu on the trip. The other photos seem less unlikely to be the "own work" of the uploader for the reasons you've given in the DR and above. Do you think it would be better to discuss the two of them in the DR since I can't actually find the photos anywhere else online prior to their upload to Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was too hasty to nominate one of these three photos on its own, however the issues with each of the pictures are significantly different and it is reasonable for them to be considered individually. I am unsure about the conventions about adding other photos to an existing deletion nomination. I think the evidence in File:Chris Sununu.jpg is clear-cut and merits a COM:SPEEDY speedy nomination as an 'apparent copyright violation' – I have not yet done this to allow for a discussion here. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canada OGL

Looking for a template to upload several thousand Open Government works under https://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada, and there does not appear to be one created. This will act as the default license for Government publications after 1969 which are not on a more specific license (Category:Government of Canada publications).

If a form of OGL-Canada does not exist, can someone create it? --Fæ (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, {{OGL-C}}. So not obvious. We could do with a template navigator tool. --Fæ (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Category: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International missing SDC copyright license - why that?

Two files (own work, licensed under Cc-by-sa-4.0) I had transferred from de:wp to Commons with the help of https://commonshelper.toolforge.org are now listed in hidden Category:Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International missing SDC copyright license:

Not sure what exactly is missing, images are IMO properly licensed, the license template is in place and the license text appears on the file description page. What exactly is the purpose of this cat?

N.B.: Initally assumed that only transferred images might land in this category. Now I notice that images uploaded directly to Commons are affected as well: File:Ultrasound-PreAmp-Breadboard.jpg. --Burkhard (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread Commons:Forum#Creative_Commons_Attribution-Share_Alike_4.0_International_missing_SDC_copyright_license (in German). --Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for pointing to above discussions. Guess I will follow the advice from Fæ and ignore them. Well, maybe I'll leave a comment on the cat's discussion page that a bit more context could help avoid user confusion. --Burkhard (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

en:File:SouthCanara1861.jpg

I would like to import this file from enwiki. This map was taken from a book published in 1861. This should be PD, right? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a scanned copy of this book on Google Books,[7], which has this map on page 40. The opening pages show that the book was published in Madras in 1861. I assume we should apply COM:INDIA, even though this pre-dates Indian independence. This is clearly public domain in India. We also need to check that it is public domain in the US, which it clearly is.

The Wikipedia file uses {{PD-India}} and {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. {{PD-India}} looks correct for Commons, but {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} is a compatibility-only template on Commons; I suggest replacing this with {{PD-US-expired}}, with the appropriate parameter values. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

false Source

What can I do if "own works" is indicated in a file as a source, but it cannot be a own work? e.g. (File:Emery-Map-WhitestoneMalbaSta-150thSt5-1959.jpg) Oesterreicher12 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put {{Unknown|source}} instead of Own, and {{Unknown|author}} instead of BigshotFoil9267. Then, change the licence (if it indeed is free to use). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've filled in the information. I have no idea what licence would be appropriate for this image though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map is claimed to be the work of Robert M. Emery (1925–1995), and is probably from the Robert M. Emery Long Island Rail Road Collection at Stony Brook University, which they purchased in 1976.[8][9] Nehme1499 has assigned a creation date of 1932 to this map. The copyright status depends on when the map was first published, see COM:US. As these were Emery's private papers the publication date is probably when the university made them available to researchers. The university may have spent a significant time cataloging the archive, so the publication date may be after they acquired the papers in 1976. There is no copyright notice on this map; could the university have attached a notice to the entire archive? Is it reasonable to assert that this was published before 1978 without a copyright notice, in which case {{PD-US-no notice}} would apply? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abigail, (IA abigail00sper).pdf

I've marked this as No renewal as I couldn't find any record in the relevant renewal years... However I'd appreciate a second opinion.

I'd also appreciate some assistance in getting items in some related categories fully licensed review so there is no ambiguity. :)

Category:FEDLINK_-_United_States_Federal_Collection

Category:Books in the Library of Congress

Thanks in advance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright for assistance

If I assist another person in creating a scientific graphic (with creative aspects, not just a simple diagram) by providing data, making design decisions, finding errors, etc., but only the other person does the graphic work, am I also a copyright holder of this work, or not? --Markus Prokott (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It probably depends on the country. If we are talking about the States, then it is fixation of a creative decision in a tangible medium that generates copyright. If you are the one who is making creative decisions and you are the one recording these somewhere (so you don't just say "make this blue" but you are the one who makes it blue), and also there is no transfer of the copyright, then you are the author. Datasets cannot be copyrighted, unless we are talking about something like sweat of a brow country, where a person can get copyright for something that wasn't creative, but was difficult. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think, then I'm not the author. I'm the one just saying: "Make this blue." And I'm talking about the States and Germany. But this is (more or less) the same in that case, I think, as there is no transfer of copyright. --Markus Prokott (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another set of eyes is requested (Congressional Dish)

Yesterday I have uploaded videos from Congressional Dish YouTube channel that dealt with the USPS issue in the States. The files are marked as CC-BY, and they are videos of officials in the course of their duties (so some may even be PD), but today I am not so sure, something looks strange, and I would like a second set of eyes to look at them here. Thank you. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these are unsafe. The Congressional Dish YouTube account does not appear be be an official account of the US Congress or of an organization that is likely to hold the copyright of these videos. Some of the videos have overlays of TV networks: File:USPS overtime not limited by USPS leadership.webm (CNBC), File:USPS Post Office staff didn't increase along with workload since 1991.webm (CSPAN-2). C-SPAN's licence restricts commercial use.[10] Several videos have an overlay of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but the videos on the CPC YouTube channel (linked from the CPC homepage) do not have free licences. Is there a general rule that applies to meetings and hearings in the US Congress? Verbcatcher (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have now gone and nominated my files for deletion. Please feel free to comment there if you so wish. It is quite sad that it ended up being so, I was very happy when I found that channel. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kein Grad weiter - Klimademo von Fridays For Future, Berlin.jpg

The image "Kein Grad weiter - Klimademo von Fridays For Future, Berlin.jpg" was made today at the Global Climate Strike in Berlin by a member of the Scientists for Future and posted on Flickr as cc-by-sa-4.0 (IPTC data). It was imported by user:TheAmerikaner and is on the german wikipedia main page. It shows not only the demonstration but also prominently the sculpture "Der Rufer". The artists (Marcks), who created the sculpture died in 1981. The foto was taken far above ground level. It is my understanding that therefore FoPgermany does not apply and neither is it de minimis, as the sculpture is not only in the center and the foreground of the image, it is also as if "Der Rufer" (the shouter) actually came to join this demonstration with its slogans "We are here, we are loud" etc. --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the main focus is on the demonstration, not on the sculpture or the buildings in the background. It is a secondary aspect that the sculpture is shown. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I see that differently and you on the other side would not have imported the file, if you hadn't assessed it in the way you described. The file is protected for being a part of the german main page, I cannot start a DR. --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from all the other pictures of the same statue in Category:Der Rufer, Großer Tiergarten (Gerhard Marcks)? TommyG (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would {{FoP-Germany}} not apply? It and COM:FOP Germany seem to say this is okay. I understand there's a caveat that modifications to the work depicted are not permitted, but that doesn't appear to be the case here, and if that caveat makes FoP-Germany unsuitable for Commons, then there should be a wider discussion about it. clpo13_(talk) 19:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, that you need to be on public ground for FoP to apply in Germany, not on a platform in more than 3 meters heights errected for making a live stream. It is not a public place. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference from the other photos of this sculpture is that this was photographed from an elevated position. Google StreetView indicates that there is no publicly-accessible structure from which this could have been taken. I initially assumed that this was taken from a drone, but the metadata shows the camera as a Nikon D5 which is a relatively heavy, so a temporary platform or a cherrypicker is more likely. COM:FOP Germany says that to qualify for freedom of panorama a photograph must have been taken from a publicly-accessible position, and not using a special tool such as a ladder. We cannot disregard the sculpture under de minimis for two reasons (see COM:DM Germany). Firstly because it is a significant part of the composition that average observer would notice. The second reason is that the sculpture portrays a person who is calling loudly and trying to be heard: this has clear parallel with the Global Climate Strike, and it is reasonable to think that the photographer deliberately included the sculpture for this reason. There is therefore a 'contextual relationship' between the sculpture and the subject of the photograph and it 'noticeably impacts the style or mood conveyed' (these are tests in COM:DM Germany). Therefore we cannot apply de minimis. The solutions appear to be to obtain the permission from the heirs of the sculptor or to blur or otherwise hide the sculpture. However, this is a valuable image so we should seek the opinion of a license reviewer who is familiar with the German rules. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Oh, I get what you mean now. As COM:FOP Germany says, "Despite the somewhat ambiguous wording, a work is located 'in' a public place if it can be observed from a public place. In other words, what needs to be public is the place from where the photograph is taken; it does not matter if the work itself is accessible to the public." (emphasis mine). That's pretty confusing and not made at all clear in the template. As that's a very different situation than most other countries with FoP, it should be noted prominently. clpo13_(talk) 20:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FoP-Germany certainly should apply -- their provision makes it fine even if the statue is the primary subject of the photo. For countries without FoP, works where it's incidental to the photo (or inherently, unavoidably there) should still be allowed -- just ones focusing on the copyrighted work would be a problem. A FoP provision takes that question away completely, so that doesn't seem to be an issue for Germany. They do have the requirement that a photo be taken from a public place. A platform built on a public place... not completely sure if that qualifies, but seems odd to disallow it. If that is not a public place, then the live stream itself would be a copyright violation in many instances then. Are you allowed to take photos sitting on someone else's shoulders? A private apartment has been ruled to not be a public place, which makes sense. But to me, given that it's not focusing on the statue in the first place (it's just part of the scene), it may be OK even without a FoP provision, i.e. even if it is not from a public place. And Germany's provision makes it even more likely to be OK, so it's not something I would start a DR over. 2604:6000:1506:405A:41C2:BC8E:ED24:65E2 20:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree with the topic opener. The View on this sculpture is not available from a public place is therefore does not fall under the Freedom of panorama. But I disagree, that there is a contextual relationship as this sculpture is about torture and neither about climate change nor freedom of speech.--JTCEPB (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:38, 25 September 2020 edit 2604:6000:1506:405a:41c2:bc8e:ed24:65e2 (talk) →File:Kein Grad weiter - Klimademo von Fridays For Future, Berlin.jpg ← Older edit		Revision as of 00:31, 26 September 2020 edit undo JTCEPB (talk \| contribs) 203 edits →File:Kein Grad weiter - Klimademo von Fridays For Future, Berlin.jpg Newer edit →
Line 264:		Line 264:

	: FoP-Germany certainly should apply -- their provision makes it fine even if the statue is the primary subject of the photo. For countries without FoP, works where it's incidental to the photo (or inherently, unavoidably there) should still be allowed -- just ones focusing on the copyrighted work would be a problem. A FoP provision takes that question away completely, so that doesn't seem to be an issue for Germany. They do have the requirement that a photo be taken from a public place. A platform built on a public place... not completely sure if that qualifies, but seems odd to disallow it. If that is not a public place, then the live stream itself would be a copyright violation in many instances then. Are you allowed to take photos sitting on someone else's shoulders? A private apartment has been ruled to not be a public place, which makes sense. But to me, given that it's not focusing on the statue in the first place (it's just part of the scene), it may be OK even without a FoP provision, i.e. even if it is not from a public place. And Germany's provision makes it even more likely to be OK, so it's not something I would start a DR over. [[Special:Contributions/2604:6000:1506:405A:41C2:BC8E:ED24:65E2\|2604:6000:1506:405A:41C2:BC8E:ED24:65E2]] 20:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)		: FoP-Germany certainly should apply -- their provision makes it fine even if the statue is the primary subject of the photo. For countries without FoP, works where it's incidental to the photo (or inherently, unavoidably there) should still be allowed -- just ones focusing on the copyrighted work would be a problem. A FoP provision takes that question away completely, so that doesn't seem to be an issue for Germany. They do have the requirement that a photo be taken from a public place. A platform built on a public place... not completely sure if that qualifies, but seems odd to disallow it. If that is not a public place, then the live stream itself would be a copyright violation in many instances then. Are you allowed to take photos sitting on someone else's shoulders? A private apartment has been ruled to not be a public place, which makes sense. But to me, given that it's not focusing on the statue in the first place (it's just part of the scene), it may be OK even without a FoP provision, i.e. even if it is not from a public place. And Germany's provision makes it even more likely to be OK, so it's not something I would start a DR over. [[Special:Contributions/2604:6000:1506:405A:41C2:BC8E:ED24:65E2\|2604:6000:1506:405A:41C2:BC8E:ED24:65E2]] 20:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

			I partly agree with the topic opener. The View on this sculpture is not available from a public place is therefore does not fall under the Freedom of panorama. But I disagree, that there is a contextual relationship as this sculpture is about torture and neither about climate change nor freedom of speech.--[[User:JTCEPB\|JTCEPB]] ([[User talk:JTCEPB\|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)