Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Community Portal

Village Pump (copyright & proposals)

Help Desk (Upload help)

Administrators' Noticeboard (vandalism, user problems, blocks and protections)

Graphics Lab

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓

This project page in other languages: English | +/− Shortcuts COM:VPCOPY COM:VPC COM:CQ 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. For old discussions, see the Archive section below. Recent sections with no replies for 3 days may be archived. Please note If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. 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. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.   Start a new discussion

Help promote VPC

Please help make sure that this venue for discussing copyright issues is appropriately linked from other Wikimedia wikis. Examples include en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and its equivalents. However in linking here please make it clear that the primary venue for copyright discussions should be that wiki. Users should come here only for discussing copyright issues relevant to Commons - most commonly files which could potentially be moved to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally.

Mozilla Public License 2.0 and templates

Hello. Template changes are needed because of Mozilla Public License 2.0. Please see Template:MTL/doc.

Templates affected (at least by the need to mention that 2.0 exists):

• {{MPL}} — 1.1;
• {{MTL}} — “Mozilla tri-license”, i.e. MPL 1.1 / GPL 2+ / LGPL 2.1+; MPL 2.0 is not a tri-license; it can be compatible with the “secondary licenses” (GPL 2+, LGPL 2.1+, AGPL 3+) or incompatible with them;
• {{FirefoxWiki}} — uses MTL; Firefox is now licensed under MPL 2.0;
• {{MPL2}} and {{MPL-2.0}} — first MPL 2.0 templates, not mentioning the “secondary license” conditions.

--AVRS (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Proper format for accreditation?

What are the proper formats for accreditation on photos at Wikimedia commons? Is "(c) AUTHOR" enough?

That depends on the license in question; with Creative Commons licenses the author can specify any string to be used as attribution, and if there is none, just use what's in the field "Author" (but don't forget to also link to the license!). Other licenses may have different requirements. darkweasel94 10:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Gots one!

File:ACMI 14.jpg is most likely w:Cate Blanchett's Oscar for w:The Aviator (2004 film) and a costume from w:Elizabeth (film). It is out of focus and my eyes aren't so good. File:ACMI 13.jpg was taken at the same time. I think I can read Cate Blan... and Actress on the next line down. Any way to confirm that this is on permanent display in Australia? Template:FoP-Australia states "...a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily...". If we can host it then we could replace all the fair use images of Oscar that are in articles now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Link showing she donated her Oscar and link that it is permanent.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Grammatica Grandonica Ernst Hanxleden.pdf

Dear All,

Could you please help with this file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grammatica_Grandonica_Ernst_Hanxleden.pdf. It is a manuscript that belonged to 1730s, but recovered only recently (http://belgianindology.blogs.lalibre.be/archive/2010/06/14/hanxleden.html). Some scholars took the image of it and published a paper/book based on it. That book is available here http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2013/6321/pdf/hanxleden_grammatica.pdf. I extracted the Commons version from this file. Since the original manuscript is in public domain I suppose I am not violating any copyright laws. Kindly advice.--Shijualex (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Was this manuscript published previously? The link you give says "The manuscript was lost for several decades", so there might have been a publication before it was lost? If it was never published, it's probably protected by publication right in the European Union for 25 years from publication, which protection works like copyright. Then it couldn't stay on Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's only protected by publication right if it were published with the permission of his heirs; is there any evidence he has any?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not correct, I think. en:Publication right doesn't say anything regarding the heirs. After all, publication right is for the first publication of work with expired copyright, so it doesn't matter who the heirs are. Publication right is granted to those who "discover" and publish a work first. More details in German Wikipedia at de:editio princeps (Urheberrecht), a fictional example is given there: A family keeps the photo of the "Titanic" iceberg made by a sailor. If the photo is published first after the copyright term has expired (70 years after the death of the sailor), the person who publishes it gets the publication right. The photo, which was in the public domain as long as unpublished, gets a new protection. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I remember now a fairly recent real case involving a famous author, see http://xrefer.blogspot.de/2012/04/irelands-national-library-publish-james.html : A scholar who first published some manuscripts by James Joyce "has claimed he is now the copyright holder in the EU of these manuscripts". Of course it wouldn't be really "copyright" but "publication right", but for practical matters, it's the same. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The work appears to have circulated and been copied in manuscript, was that publication? Dankarl (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that might be a debatable point. The National Library of Ireland itself seems also to claim rights on the Joyce material (see http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000194606 : "We also remind you that the National Library of Ireland owns these materials and makes them available for the purposes of research and private study only. Any other use is strictly prohibited without prior written permission from the National Library of Ireland"). I don't know what exactly became of the scholar's publication right claim... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If a work was distributed by copying without limitations, that's publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The more specific w:Copyright Duration Directive does, at least in some countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure about the publish rights. As far as publication is concerned this is the first time that this manuscript is ever published. The reason is, it is only recently that this manuscript is recovered, even though references to this manuscript is made in the several books published by various people (for example, Paulinus padiri) Even though references to this manuscript are made several times till late 1850s it was lost during that time and recovered only on 2010 by these scholars. As far as heirs are concerned I do not think there are any. The manuscript was written in 1730. The study based on this book is published in CC-BY-NC license. So we cannot use the study as a whole in Commons. I extracted the photos of manuscript considering the fact that it belonged to 1730s (so naturally in public domain). But I am not sure about the copy right regarding the first publication of public domain or ancient documents. --Shijualex (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly how does the German 25-year rule work? In Sweden, this would probably only be subject to the 50-year rule for photos but not to the 25-year rule for unpublished works, as the 25-year term expires not 25 years after the first publication, but 25 years after the work was first made available to the public. If the work was available for people between the 18th century and 1850, then it was made available to the public in the 18th century, which was more than 25 years ago. At least in Swedish law, "publishing" something means selling the work on the market or distributing copies to the public in some other way, whereas "making something available to the public" means that the public can see or read the work in any way, for example by viewing it at a museum. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And why Germany necessarily? The work was most likely completed in Kerala, India, was found in Italy, and was published or republished in Belgium. Dankarl (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

People mentioned German Wikipedia above, so I thought that it was from Germany. If it is unpublished, then the source country is as far as I can tell either the country of citizenship of the author or the country of residence of the author (not sure which). Is India the source country? India doesn't seem to have the EU-style publication right, but on the other hand, India doesn't seem to allow works to enter the public domain at all if they weren't ever published with the consent of the author or the author's heirs. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned German Wikipedia because it has a more detailed article regarding publication right than English Wikipedia. - However, as the focus there is indeed on Germany (and Austria; the non EU member Switzerland doesn't have publication right), it may not be very helpful for the discussion here, yes. For what it's worth, it doesn't seem to be too clear-cut when something counts as "published" for publication right in Germany. One example is the Nebra sky disk. Although it was argued that the sky disk must have been made for public cultic use in the Bronze Age and was therefore made available to the public thousands of years ago, the Magdeburg court ruled that it wasn't "published" in the sense of the law and granted publication right to the state of Saxony-Anhalt. On the other hand, in the "Motezuma" decision, a Düsseldorf court ruled that the burden of proof lies with those who claim publication right, they have to prove that the work wasn't published before (which might often be hard, I think). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The history of this book is like this. Arnos (Ernst Hanxleden) wrote this book while he was in Kerala, India. He died on 1732 in Kerala iteself. The book was in Kerala until 1790 till Paulios carried it to Italy along with some other works of Arnos. Few works of Paulios are referring this book. The book was available for reference till 1850s. Then it was lost until it was rediscovered on 2010 from an Italian Monastery. --Shijualex (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that the 25-year EU rule isn't a problem here as the book was made available to the public in the 17th or 18th century, which was more than 25 years ago. The question is whether we need to look into whether it was published more than 60 years ago with consent from the author or his heirs as COM:CRT#India seems to require. "Posthumous works: 60 years after publication". --Stefan4 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In India, "making available to the public" is the same thing as "publication". For the purposes of this Act, "publication" means making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public.; and "communication to the public" means making any work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public directly or by any means of display or diffusion other than by issuing copies of such work regardless of whether any member of the public actually sees, hears or otherwise enjoys the work so made available. Sounds like it would not be under U.S. copyright either; it was either published long ago or if not it gets a term of 70pma which has long passed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

FoP in Qatar

From COM:FOP#Qatar, there is no freedom of panorama in Qatar. Since the copyright term in Qatar is life + 50 years, does it mean that we should theoretically delete every photo of every building in Category:Doha whose architect is still alive or died after 1963? Has it been discussed before?--Underlying lk (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I created a deletion request for a few files, mostly to see what happens to them.--Underlying lk (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Models (plane, boat, ....) - self built & pictured

Are they candidates for Commons or not? e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USAirwaysA330.jpg, which is probably self built and painted and substantially differ from incoming materials from manufacturers like Revel, Monogram. Brg.--ModriDirkac (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

See w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 June 14#File:USAirwaysA330.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin may wish to go through Category:Toys and delete all the ones that aren't de min.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't hink that every model is the same. Schuco models are bought as on the picture, models I am talking about, are sold substantially different: http://www.britmodeller.com/reviews/revell/flak3672/sprue1.jpg. You have to assemble, modify, paint it... --ModriDirkac (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I just found User:Elcobbola/Models that may shed some light on it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

German banknotes overprinted in Persia during WWI

Does anyone know the copyright position on banknotes overprinted German banknotes issue din Persia in WWI? Leutha (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's the usual situation as with any artwork -- is there a known author for the artwork on the banknotes? If so, then copyright lasts 70pma (i.e. 70 years after that person dies), otherwise probably 70 years from publication as an anonymous work. There might be multiple authors, e.g. an engraving made of an earlier painting or something, in which cause both authors can come into play. I doubt the overprint adds anything though. Just from doing a Google search, it sounds like most (or virtually all) such examples are probably forgeries though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)