Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ 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.

w:en:File:Nanking19371220c.jpg ok for transfer to Commons?

I raised the issue at the file's talk page on en:wiki 4 months ago, but there was no input, so I'm copying said talk entry of mine here, in hopes that someone could offer some guidance:

This image [mentioned in the header] was published in the "Japanese pictorial magazine about the Sino-Japanese War Asahi-ban Shina-jihen Gaho published on Jan. 27, 1938." according to the information provided in the information box. The page w:en:Talk:Nanjing Massacre denial/Disputed material has further images from that source and those other images have been uploaded to Wiki Commons. So, I'm a bit surprised to see the current license warning for this image. Is the source information for this image incorrect? Is it ok to transfer it to Commons? Or were the other images from this source uploaded to Wiki Commons despite not being in the public domain?

Just to add a list:

This file from the same source is tagged as eligible for upload to Commons: w:en:File:Nanking19371227.jpg
This file is from a somewhat different but seemingly similar source, and it has been uploaded to Commons: File:Nanking19371220b.jpg

Nakonana (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the photo should be fine. If first published in Japan, it could be uploaded here as {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. If for some reason or other its first publication turns out to have been in China, then {{PD-PRC}} will also ensure that it is in the public domain in both the source country and the US. Felix QW (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a copyright-related concern, but we can't take the file description at face value and may need a disclaimer on Commons. We don't want to inadvertently repeat Japanese-nationalist revisionist propaganda. Bremps... 02:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, something like a bias tag? Nakonana (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Wirttembergia 1856.jpg

Siehe hier: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wappen_Wirttembergia_1856.jpg Meiner Meinung nach (schon wieder) eine fragwürdige Behaltensentscheidung von user:Billinghurst mit seltsamer Begründung. Ob die Zeichnung eigenhändig erstellt wurde oder ob die Zeichnung einer anderen Person abfotografiert (oder gescannt) wurde, ist weiter ungeklärt. Der LD-Entscheider meint wohl, man müsse Copyright-Bedenken beweisen? Ich dachte immer, umgekehrt wird ein Schuh draus? Was ist mit com:PCP? GerritR (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GerritR: Gibt es denn irgendwelche Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass diese Zeichnung kein eigenes Werk des Benutzers User:Mattatja ist? Ist die Zeichnung, bevor sie als Datei hier hochgeladen wurde, schon anderswo gedruckt oder im Internet veröffentlicht worden? --Rosenzweig τ 14:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nein, nicht dass ich wüsste. Trotzdem habe ich Zweifel, ob Zeichner und Hochlader die gleiche Person sind. Das Bild könnte zum Beispiel in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt sein.--GerritR (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Hochlader User:Mattatja hat übrigens auch historische Fotos, die eindeutig nicht von ihm sein können, als "eigenes Werk´" hochgeladen. Dies spricht nicht gerade für urheberrechtliche Sorgfalt bei der Zeichnung.--GerritR (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

siehe https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mattatja --GerritR (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GerritR Wer würde denn bei einem vermeintlichen Werk aus dem Jahre 1856 das Copyright haben? Laut Wappenrecht scheint es beim Heraldiker zu liegen, der das Wappen entworfen hat, aber dieser ist bei einem Wappen aus dem Jahre 1856 doch sicherlich schon lange tot, wodurch das Wappen wohl gemeinfrei wäre. Nakonana (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Wappen an sich schon, nicht aber eine eigenhändige Zeichnung eines Wappens.--GerritR (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Da wäre zum einen COM:Assume good faith zu nennen. Es gibt keinen Grund, anzunehmen, dass dieses Wappen keine eigenhändige Zeichnung ist. Das Wappen hat keine sonderlich schwierigen Elemente, besteht zum Teil aus geometrischen (Teil-)Figuren und man braucht entsprechend kein großes künstlerisches Talent, um es selbst nachzuzeichnen. Es gibt also zahlreiche Leute, die so eine Nachzeichnung, wie man sie hier sieht, problemlos anfertigen könnten. Wenn du annimmst, dass das Bild in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt wird, so bedeutet dies, dass Mattatja scheinbar Zugang zu besagten Archiven hat oder besagtes Mitglied sein müsste; denn anders käme man an keine Kopie des Bildes. Du könntest die Verbindung also bei Bedarf kontaktieren und auf diese potentielle Urheberrechtsverletzung aufmerksam machen. Aber, wenn du mich fragst, ist das Wappen wirklich nicht schwierig nachzuzeichnen, also sehe ich da keinen Grund zur Annahme einer Urheberrechtsverletzung, es sei denn, es gibt konkrete Hinweise dafür. Nakonana (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ich sehe mich keineswegs in der Pflicht, hier irgendwelche Nachforschungen zu betreiben. Hab ich etwa die Beweislast? Was die Annahme, die Zeichnung sei eigenhändig, absolut nicht stützt, ist die Hochladehistorie des Benutzers. Dem unterstelle ich übrigens keinen schlechten Willen (COM:Assume good faith), sondern nur Unachtsamkeit bzw. Bedenkenlosigkeit beim Copyright. Und hier gilt nach wie vor com:pcp.--GerritR (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ich würde das Copyright bei der Zeichnung aber in diesem Fall trotzdem nicht anzweifeln, weil dieses Wappen wirklich nicht schwer ist nachzuzeichnen. Ich habe es mal mit dem Kugelschreiber (also ohne Möglichkeit Fehler auszuradieren) ausprobiert und habe in knapp 5 Minuten folgendes Ergebnis zustande bekommen: File:Wappen Wirttembergia 1856 by Nakonana on 20240623 191803.jpg. Mein allererstes eigenhändig gezeichnetes Wappen. Wenn du also Zweifel an dem anderen hast, können wir stattdessen meine Kreation verwenden, die, denke ich, eindeutig und zweifelsfrei als mein Werk identifizierbar ist :) Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Du argumentierst nicht zum Thema "einenes Werk", sondern zum Thema Com:too. Eine Handzeichnung eines Werks ohne eigene Schöpfungshöhe ist aber wie das Foto eines Grashalms: Irgendjemand muss es machen.--GerritR (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Und selbst wenn es jemand macht, wenn es unter COM:TOO fällt, wäre die Urheberrechtsfrage unbedeutend, weil es bei dem Werk gemäß COM:TOO nichts urheberrechtlich zu schützen gäbe.

Es gibt bei dem Wappen einfach keinen Grund, die Eigenständigkeit des Werkes anzuzweifeln, weil es selbst einem ungeübten Menschen mit Leichtigkeit gelingt, eine passable Nachzeichnung anzufertigen. Nakonana (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bloss weil es vermutlich recht simpel ist, das Wappen nachzumalen, heißt das noch lange nicht, dass der Hochlader sich auch tatsächlich selbst die Mühe gemacht hat. und was die sonstigen Beiträge des Hochladers anbelangt, siehe oben. GerritR (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The job of the administrator to determine consensus is to review the evidence provided. You provided the shortest of context and no evidence. No indications of anything else. On the basis of the evidence provided there was not a consensus to delete. PCP says "significant doubt" and the case presented did not reach that standard. Quick Google Lens and TinEye searches presented nothing. It was "in use" so personal artwork isn't ours to determine, and there are so many COA on site, and this is one with an old date. Kept. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GerritR: Letztlich war der Löschantrag ja ziemlich wortkarg, ein bisschen mehr solltest du den schon begründen. Was hier übrig bleibt, ist, dass du die Angabe "eigenes Werk" anzweifelst, weil derselbe Benutzer auch andere Dateien als "eigene Werke" hochgeladen har, obwohl sie offensichtlich keine sind. Das ist durchaus ein nachvollziehbarer Gedankengang, und der sollte auch im Löschantrag stehen und nicht erst in einer späteren Diskussion. Ohne weitere Anhaltspunkte, dass es sich tatsächlich so verhält, kann der abarbeitende Admin aber durchaus entscheiden, dass er die Angabe "eigenes Werk" akzeptiert, weil er eben keinen erheblichen Zweifel (Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle/de) hat. So wie in diesem Fall. --Rosenzweig τ 07:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn noch jemand diese meine Zweifel an der Autorenschaft für nicht ganz abwegig hält, dann könnte man ja über eine Erneuerung des LA nachdenken, mit Verweis auf diese Diskussion. Ich selbst lass es lieber. GerritR (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of 1850 painting that may have never been publicly displayed until recently

When I searched for advice, it seemed to differ depending on the country and whether the painting had been publicly displayed, which left me confused.

I am in the US, the painter was in the US, and the people who have uploaded a photograph are in the US. There is a photo here: https://fineartsouth.com/pages/art-inventory/artdetail/115/1386

The painting was in an exhibit in New Orleans a few years ago.[1] I don't know if it was ever publicly shown before that.

Every page on the site hosting the photo has "©2024 Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom which for sure applies to all their text and design work, but is the photo in the public domain? Rjjiii (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer but based on Commons:Hirtle chart, if the artist died in 1853 and the work was not published before 2003, then it passed into the public domain on January 1, 2003 on the basis that the author had been dead over 70 years. (This change in status was due to a change in U.S. copyright law effective on that date.) There is no way that copyright could be regained; faithful reproduction of the work does not create a new copyright; it is almost impossible to imagine what intellectual property right Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc. is claiming, or how they think they came by that right. Perhaps they are over two decades out of date in their knowledge of copyright law; perhaps they are just bluffing. Your guess is as good a mine. - Jmabel ! talk 06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The painting predates US copyright protection for paintings anyway (it came in 1897 I believe) so I think it's fine, Hirtle chart or not. Bremps... 01:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sued for using image from Wikimedia Commons

I uploaded an image - an eye posted by Hercules_hippo - which apparently has been removed by Wikimedia - and am now being sued by Pixsy for $1750. The image was apparently posted on Flickr by Tom Tolkien but it ended up in Wikimedia Commons.

I run a patient supported chronic illness website and fees like this are egregious for a website like ours.

Any ideas? Pixys is willing to come down to $1550 - an amazing amount of money for a one-time use of an image I uploaded from Wikimedia Commons.

I have argued that because the image was used for educational purposes - the website does not sell anything or have paid memberships - that it should be exempt but they're discarding that. 2600:1011:B192:E6BC:4911:8FAC:8B9:A2CD 15:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May File:Eye I.jpg be the image you are talking about? Or perhaps File:Eye2thomastolkien (16599025801).jpg? Felix QW (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed a party to ongoing litigation ("[I] am now being sued by Pixsy"), which you may be conflating with a mere demand/cease and desist, it is extremely unwise to be making public comments, and potentially soliciting legal advise ("Any ideas?") You alone are responsible for your use, if any, of copyrighted works and for verifying the accuracy and limitations of purported licenses. We cannot offer you assistance. Consider retaining competent representation promptly. Эlcobbola _talk 15:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the two images pointed out by Felix QW were uploaded to Thomas Tolkien's Flickr account as CC-BY ([2] [3]). Anyone reusing these images needs to properly attribute the photographer, according to the terms of the CC-BY license. Tolkien states on his profile page that he uses Pixsy to enforce his copyrights. (Not that this automatically means you should pay what they're asking. There is a lot of information and advice out there about Pixsy.) Toohool (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't pay what they ask. US$1750 for a single use is extortion. You may have to pay something, but you should be able to negotiate a much smaller amount. Yann (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US$17.50 would be more appropriate. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single dime would be appropriate. The file was licensed as CC-BY. The problem apparently comes because the re-user did not give proper attribution, so they can ask whatever they want, but ultimately it'd be up to the judiciary... Bedivere (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered where the line is legally with someone reusing a file without attribution that's licensed as CC-BY. As attribution really kind of seems like a secondary requirement that runs counter to the nature of the thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the author didn't want attribution, they should have used a CC-0. The nature of the thing is that a CC-BY work can be used if attribution is properly given. I don't know how to communicate that better.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is convoluted. Especially for something that's suppose to simplify the licensing process. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, quite disagree. Someone making minor mistakes (misspelling the attribution, or failing to name the license overtly) may constitute a good-faith effort to conform to the free license, but use without any attribution at all when the license requires attribution is just as clear a copyright violation as if the free license had never been offered. - Jmabel ! talk 04:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of money requested is absurd, though. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 likely a major requirement. At least as per a 2008 U.S. court ruling mentioned in this article of Encyclopædia Britannica: "In 2008 a U.S. federal appeals court ruled that, although they are commonly viewed as contracts, free licenses—which grant freedom to use copyrighted materials in exchange for adherence to certain terms of usage, distribution, and modification—are nonetheless enforceable under copyright law because they "set conditions on the use of copyrighted work." In the event that the conditions are violated, the license disappears, resulting in copyright infringement as opposed to the lesser violation of breach of contract." We might have overlooked a single court ruling that seems to legitimize free licenses as valid enforcements under copyright law. The amount of money requested may be too drastic, though. US$1550 is equivalent to more than ₱91,000 (in our currency), which is higher than the local prices of some of high-end models of appliances from Fujidenzo/Asahi/Hanabishi et cetera! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly we don't know the exact circumstances in this case, but I assume the whole "failure to allow a good faith re-user the opportunity to correct errors is against the intent of the license" thing would apply. It seems like Pixsy didn't and doesn't follow it on there end though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has Pixsy or one of their customers ever sued? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should report Thomas Tolkien to Flickr for violating their Community Guidelines. Flickr has a strict policy prohibiting copyleft trolling: "Failure to allow a good faith reuser the opportunity to correct errors is against the intent of the license and not in line with the values of our community, and can result in your account being removed." To report Tolkien, you can either go to https://www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-us/requests/new and select "Trust and Safety" for "What can we help you with today?" or you can just email help

flickr.com. As far as Pixsy is concerned, I would completely ignore them if it were me, but I'm not a lawyer and you shouldn't take any legal suggestions from me. Nosferattus (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Thomas Tolkien doing the trolling or is Pixsy doing the trolling, though? Maybe Tolkien wasn't actively engaged in the current demand and Pixsy is just patrolling on his behalf without informing him of each and every case. If it's the latter, Pixsy might not be aware of Flickr's site rules, but that doesn't mean that they can just ignore them. I'm just wondering whether one should go straight to getting Tolkien banned or whether one should assume good faith on Tolkien's end and lack of knowledge and Pixsy's end and therefore send a message to Pixsy to inform them they go against site rules, and also send Tolkien a message that Pixsy is acting in a way that might get him banned from Flickr. Nakonana (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Just read a little bit on it and it looks like the copyright holder is always involved in the process and that this is a systematic problem. Nakonana (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to threads at https://copyrightaid.co.uk/, one person offered Pixsy 1/10th of the original amount demanded and Pixsy accepted the offer. Another person offered half, which Pixsy did not accept, and since then has just been ignoring the demands for almost a year and still has not actually been sued (as of their most recent update a month ago). I imagine it is ultimately up to the photographer whether they accept a counter-offer or pursue actual legal action (instead of just extorting you with threats). Nosferattus (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading about someone who got a bill from them for like $500, offered them $150, and then got ghosted. So I'm kind if or to what degree they are willing to sue people who won't pay the full amount. It seems like they are more into bullying and attempting to extort people then they are actually going to court over an infringement claim. Which I guess makes sense. It probably wouldn't be a sustainable business if they took everyone who didn't immediately pay up to court over a $500 bill. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Venezuela's National Assembly session

Hi. I've thought about uploading to Commons this session from a 2002 session of the National Assembly of Venezuela ([4]), but I wanted to ask about the copyright first.

The logo in the upper left suggests that the author is the state television station Venezolana de Televisión, but being an official act I was wondering if this could be under the public domain per {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}. The YouTube uploader says he received the recording in a VHS from a friend, although I don't know if this is relevant. Cheers. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus;Buenas según el último párrafo de la licencia en Venezuela ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) dice claramente que fueron creados por el sector público o financiado por ellos se considerará del dominio público (osea VTV forma parte del gobierno entonces si puede publicar a Wikimedia los logos qué fueron creados por el sector público) AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation (as the person who originally asked speaks English): According to the last paragraph of the license in Venezuela (PD-VenezuelaGov), it clearly states that works created by the public sector or financed by them will be considered public domain (meaning VTV is part of the government, so it can publish to Wikimedia the logos that were created by the public sector). Bremps... 00:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere:Buenas, cuales tu opinión, es posible publicar?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of "restored" or "complete" works

I recently got in a row with a couple of other users over some DRs having to do with "restored" or "completed" stained glass windows, which IMO were different enough from the originals to warrant a new copyright. Although it was the opinion of other people in the deletion requests that restoration work on something or completing it (whatever that might mean) doesn't create a new copyright. I can understand that position in cases where the restoration is minor, but it seems like there should be a line there were if the artist doing the restoration takes artistic liberties in the process or otherwise alters the original to add modern elements to it that those parts of the window (or whatever) would then be copyrighted by said person. I'm wondering where the line is though or for that matter if my opinion about it is completely wrong. Adamant1 (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to vary from country to country and (within most countries) on the amount of creativity required. For example, only the few countries with "sweat of the brow" rules (which Commons usually ignores) could even possibly grant copyright for a faithful restoration of a known prior state of the work, but probably even some color decisions would be enough to get copyright in many countries, if not all. - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the U.S., the Compendium states:

The Office often receives applications to register preexisting works that have been restored to their original quality and character. Merely restoring a damaged or aged photograph to its original state without adding a sufficient amount of original, creative authorship does not warrant copyright protection.

The registration specialist will analyze on a case-by-case basis all claims in which the author used digital editing software to produce a derivative photograph or artwork. Typical technical alterations that do not warrant registration include aligning pages and columns; repairing faded print and visual content; and sharpening and balancing colors, tint, tone, and the like, even though the alterations may be highly skilled and may produce a valuable product. If an applicant asserts a claim in a restoration of or touchups to a preexisting work, the registration specialist generally will ask the applicant for details concerning the nature of changes that have been made. The specialist will refuse all claims where the author merely restored the source work to its original or previous content or quality without adding substantial new authorship that was not present in the original.

The specialist may register a claim in a restored or retouched photograph if the author added a substantial amount of new content, such as recreating missing parts of the photograph or using airbrushing techniques to change the image.

This general guidance can change by country, along with their threshold of originality. In general, restoring something to its original state seems unlikely to generate a copyright unless maybe there is sweat of the brow (and not sure the old UK law qualifies, as something must "originate" with the author there, which is harder to argue in cases like that). Adding new elements would be based a country's threshold of originality, which is somewhat variable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanuatu flag

Per w:en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/May#Vanuatu Government Copyright, the flag was found to be claimed under Vanuatuan government's copyright. Impacts: File:Flag of Vanuatu.svg. Should the government's copyright claim is valid, then this is a death sentence for the flag and a major break to Vanuatu-related templates across Wikipedias and even Wikivoyage and all other Wikimedia platforms. Ping @Marchjuly and Matrix: who started/participated the copyright thread there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised something. Doesn't a flag count as applied art? Looking at the COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS ACT NO. 42 OF 2000, applied art is defined as "an artistic creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article". A flag clearly fits that description: it is "a usually rectangular piece of fabric of distinctive design that is used as a symbol ..., as a signaling device, or as a decoration" (MW). Flying a symbol of a nation is clearly a utilitarian function. Since applied arts only have a 25-year copyright span, that means the copyright expired in 2006, which is even before the URAA date for Vanuatu. @JWilz12345, thoughts? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix I would rather wait for Marchjuly's thoughts if they will agree to your assessment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too simple anyway to be copyrighted. Bedivere (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That maybe so, but a similar case was the Australian Aboriginal flag which was copyrighted in Australia until recently (which meant it couldn’t be uploaded to Commons). Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the SVG is the one who drew it. Whether that could be considered a derivative work of another drawing, not sure. As far as U.S. law goes, it would appear the original drawing is PD-EdictGov since it was included as part of their law. They do have an explicit copyright claim in their law, but not sure that can hold for third-party drawings like this. As an aside, a flag drawing is not utilitarian. The cloth itself may be, but the design is entirely separable. In most cases, the design is an idea, and each specific drawing of that idea is a separate expression with an independent copyright (if it's complex enough to be copyrightable in the first place). See Commons:Coats of arms. So, taking drawings of flags from other websites can be a bad idea if not licensed. If an actual drawing is included in the law, you get into PD-EdictGov territory. The main thing which is copyrightable is the drawing of the fern leaves, and that does not appear to be derivative of the drawing in the law -- that appears to be original, or maybe the vector was copied from some other PD source. The drawing of the tusk is likewise not the same copyright-wise as the drawing in the law, if the one I'm looking at is correct.[5] It's similar, but a different expression of the same idea. You can't use copyright to prevent someone from drawing something similar; you can only protect the actual expression (the very specific lines drawn). If you are trying to prevent commercial use as a symbol, that is a trademark-like restriction. While you cannot explicitly trademark national flags or seals, you can certainly make {{Insignia}} type laws, and Vanuatu definitely has done that -- but those are non-copyright restrictions. That seems to be what their government means by "commercial use", more in the trademark area. Getting into deletion of self-drawn versions of national flags is probably not a good idea. If the specific drawing was taken from another website, that is another matter, but deeming a national flag as inherently unable to be on Commons, we may need some better precedent as I'm not sure that is possible, from a copyright perspective. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Iceland50

Iceland, like many European countries, does not grant regular copyright to non-artistic photography but a much more limited exclusive right valid for 50 years after creation. This term was 25 years until 2006 so at that time, such works created on or before 1980 were in the public domain in Iceland. However, because of the URAA, such works are probably only in the public domain in the US if they were already in the public domain in Iceland on 1 Januar 1996. This would mean that only non-artistic photographs created in Iceland on or before the calendar year of 1970 qualify as being in the public domain in both the US and Iceland and thus eligible to be uploaded to the Commons. This would then also mean that Template:PD-Iceland50 was only relevant up to 2020 and will probably never be relevant again because the assumed copyright protection in the US under URAA is always much longer than 50 years. This template should probably change to PD-Iceland 1970 to reflect that later works will not be in the Public Domain in the US until 2065 at the earliest. Is my thinking correct here? Bjarki S (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many tags here are country-specific, ignoring the U.S. status. However, in that case it should also have the standard note that this tag does not represent the status for the U.S., and a separate U.S. tag is required. A combined tag which has the 1970 date may be useful, or maybe editing this tag similar to {{PD-Sweden-photo}} to note dates where PD-1996 would apply. But if this clause remains in current law, it could still be useful in some cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Majulah Singapura Orchestra.ogg

File:Majulah Singapura Orchestra.ogg is sourced to YouTube, but there's no indication its been released under an acceptable free license. Even if it was, there's nothing to indicate that YouTube channel is the copyright holder of this particular rendition of the anthem. Is there any way this can be kept per COM:Singapore? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't imagine any chance. I can't see any license at the source, nor on archived versions from late 2022, which was before upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it as lacking evidence of permission. Felix QW (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malcolm McDowell Clockwork Orange (cropped).png

Any thoughts? UK-filmed film that was also released in US. Unclear if image originates from US or UK trailer. Movie itself almost certainly still copyrighted. Bremps... 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the trailer on the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/vm982760352 & also on Commons here. There is no notice and is credited to being published by Warner Bros; the American distributor. I would imagine it was the American film company that would have handled the distribution of the trailer and would likely have been first published there. PascalHD (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files on Commons need to be public domain in their home country and in the United States (excepting free licenses, of course, but that's not happening here). Would this be free in the UK? Or does this not count as UK-made at all? Bremps... 02:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the trailer was first published in the US, that would be the country of origin - not where it was created. PascalHD (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And is there a distinction between us hosting the U.S. trailer in its entirety (U.S.-made, PD in U.S.) and taking a frame from it, when that frame is clearly of UK origin? - Jmabel ! talk 05:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel @PascalHD @Bremps - If the trailer was first published in the United States, or published within the United States within 30 days of its publication in the UK (availability within 30 days is called simultaneous publication in the law), then its country of origin for the purposes of US law is the United States. In other words, it is treated as a US work under US law (and so, for instance, failure to include notice means it is in the public domain, whereas if it were a foreign work it would be copyrighted due to the URAA).

The work might also be considered a domestic work under UK law for any number of reasons. However, when a work is simultaneously published in the US and some other country, it is a US work (under US law) and we allow for it to be hosted here — if, of course, it is in the public domain in the US. We have a template for this: Template:Simultaneous US publication.

Remember that "country of origin" under copyright law is not the same as "country where something was made." In fact, they have very little to do with one another for published works. Many films were shot in one country but first published in another country. The country of origin is the country in which the film was first published. The original Star Wars was largely shot in Tunisia but first published in the United States — and is a US work under US law.

Even if the trailer was edited in the UK, this isn't relevant. Only publication is. In order to be treated as a work of UK origin under US law, a frame of the video would have to have been first published in the UK, and then not published in the US within 30 days.

Everything in a US trailer published in 1971 without a copyright notice is in the public domain if the trailer is published before the film. Publication of the trailer without a notice is divestive publication, because the copyright holder lost common law copyright by publishing the work. Since no statutory copyright was claimed (because no notice was included), all the published material entered the public domain. All of those frames are in the public domain, too — even taken out of the context of the trailer. (The same frames are still in the public domain if found in and extracted from a print of the larger film, but, of course, they are only a very small minority of the frames included in the full movie. Sometimes, trailers were made only from outtakes, rather than including any of the actual frames used in the released movie — but I know nothing about this particular trailer.)

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: isn't that dependent on the trailer having been made by the (prior) copyright holder? Would the distributor have owned that prior copyright?

If that first is not the case, does that mean that every time an "underground paper" that didn't bother with copyright used an AP or UPI photo, that photo passed into the public domain? - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The trailer maker/publisher did not need to be the same entity as the prior copyright holder. It did need to be acting with the authorization of that copyright holder, though. If, say, someone stole the print and released a copy without a notice, that wouldn't be a lawful publication and there would be no divestment.

Needless to say, the makers of these trailers were universally acting under the authority of the copyright holders for the film.

Your other case is rather different anyway, but an unauthorized newspaper printing pirated AP photos without a notice didn't put those photos in the public domain. But it should also be noted that stock photos were already published when offered by the wire service for distribution to newspapers, and not only when the newspapers printed them; the photos normally (if copyrighted) included a notice as distributed by the wire service. Still, though, many press photos were published without a notice (although this was not so much for wire photos as it was for publicity shots and the like). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikimedia, don't know how to determine copyright status

I want to upload the picture of Hardeep Singh Nijjar brandishing a rifle in this article-[6]. This is a commonly circulated picture that has used by various media outlets, including the Globe and Mail. As I have zero experience in Wikimedia, I don't know what license/Creative Commons license the image falls under. I would appreciate any help in determining the copyright status of it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry to bear bad news, but probably don't upload it. If a photo is copyright-ambiguous, it is likely to be copyrighted. Then it would not be suitable for Commons (or allowed at all). Don't get discouraged, ask for more help here if it is needed. Cheers, atque supra! Bremps... 01:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to learn more about Copyright before uploading anything. Start here at COM:Licensing. The photo you linked is by default copyrighted to whomever the photographer/creator is. In order to use that photo here, the photographer would have to license the photo under a Creative Commons license themselves. Otherwise, cannot be uploaded until it becomes Public Domain due to expiry. PascalHD (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least 95% of what is on the web, probably more, is copyrighted and not free-licensed. Without a good basic understanding of copyright, you are very likely to stumble upon an image online that we can use on Commons, unless you stick to stuff that is 19th-century and older (and even late 19th century has some pitfalls). But if you are taking pictures yourself -- especially of people rather than of other people's creations -- most of that should be OK. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are the works of Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo in the public domain?

Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo died in 1937. Could unaltered texts authored by him be uploaded to Commons or Wikisource? Zanahary (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary: Certainly seems likely. The only thing that might get tricky is if something was initially or simultaneously published in the U.S., but given that he wrote in French that seems very unlikely. Translations would typically not be OK, because the translator would probably have lived until less than 70 years ago. - Jmabel ! talk 05:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, why? I think everything which was published in 1929 and later hit the URAA in 1996 and is still copyrighted in the US? Or there is something I am missing here? Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ymblanter here. It seems like Madagascar already had 70 year pma copyright periods in 1996, so that all post-1928 works will still be copyrighted in the US.

Do I understand correctly that even French simultaneous publication wouldn't help, since although France had 50 years pma in 1996, the 8 year 120 days wartime copyright extension made it copyrighted until April 1996? Felix QW (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the 8 years and 120 days from the actual date of death, and ignore the end-of-year expirations (which did not happen until after those extensions were given), it may have expired at the end of 1995. I'm not sure there is any guidance on that, but does not make much sense to me to extend to the end of the year first -- I would probably add the 8 years and 120 days to the date of death, then go to the end of that resulting year. So, it might. Madagascar is also interesting... before late 1995 when the new law was in place, they apparently used France's law from 1957 -- but that version did not yet include the wartime extensions, it seems, so they were a straight 50pma.[7] The 1995 law has no mention of repealing the earlier law nor any transitional provisions, so I can't tell if it was retroactive. It has no mention of treatment of works which were public domain at the time of the new law, which is a usual feature of laws which bring back works from the public domain. If it was not retroactive, then this author's works may have also expired in Madagascar, as of 1988. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About France, was this not discussed many years ago? Although the prorogation for WW2 had been added in 1951, it seems logical that the copyright owners could benefit of the copyright computation according to the 1957 law, first going to the end of the year of death, plus fifty years. And then the war extension, being an extension, would still be added at the end. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the case, but the intent of the end-of-year stuff was to have stuff expire on January 1, not in April. Secondly, the wording of the law is specific that the extensions extend the rights in the earlier 1866 law, not the end-of-year terms which only started in the 1957 law. The wartime extensions were not in the 1957 law (though were inherited from earlier laws and not repealed); I'm not sure they were part of the law which was applied to Madagascar (given that territory would have had different impacts from the wars, and the "died for France" extension may not make much sense there.). It could well be our policy is to take the most conservative possibility, though it makes little sense to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So... yes, in the public domain? :) What about manuscripts scanned and never published? Zanahary (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary: In France, old unpublished works get a new 25 years term. So anything published before 1999 (in 2024) is OK. Or if you have the unpublished manuscript, scan and publish it yourself, you get an exclusive 25 years copyright. Yann (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a website with scans of his old papers. They're not published per se—it's just a bunch of scans. For instance: https://eman-archives.org/francophone/items/show/3743 Zanahary (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, putting anything on a website is publication. But may be they are willing to publish them under a free license. It usually depends on the commercial value of the documents. Yann (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous works get a protection period of 70 years from publication, per Madagascar law. Looks like there is infinite protection for unpublished works there, still. If publication happened after the 70pma period, then that right is owned by the publishers. So, you would need to find publication dates for anything he did, to start with. Works published during his lifetime have a decent argument, afterwards gets a lot less likely. I think the former French law was similar, though with a term of 50 years instead of 70. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW: Yes, according to URAA artist and France wartime extensions URAA, for URAA, 1936 is ok, 1937 is not ok. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet music

File:O Arise, All You Sons Sheet music.jpg seems like it might be incorrectly licensed. The file's description states that the author is "unknown", but then the uploader used a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license. The source for the file is given as some forum on national anthems, which seems questionable at best per COM:PRS#Forums and blogs. The same uploader also uploaded File:Nigeria national anthem Nigeria, We hail thee midi.mid under a CC license, but that file's description also states "author of the file is unknown", and the file's source also seems sketchy. Are these files OK for Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to a brief prior discussion on the relevant English Wikipedia noticeboard about the latter. I suspect that will have to be deleted anyway as derived from still copyrighted music. The Nigerian government explicitly asserts copyright on the music of its national anthem, and it was created only in 1960, less than 70 years ago. Felix QW (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of Parlophone Records logos

Is one of the Parlophone Records logos seen in the File:Excerpt from "A Teenage Opera" by Keith West UK vinyl single.png in the public domain in the UK? What about the other logo version (File:Parlophone logo.svg)? George Ho (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it is necessarily under TOO UK. The interesting thing is, though, that this advertisement suggests that the logo may have been in use already in 1927, in Germany. It does not seem to me to be above TOO Germany, and if it was used before 1928, its American copyright would have lapsed on the design in either case. This is separate to issues with the specific svg and potential vectorisation copyright. Felix QW (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated by images from discogs, history of singles, and an image from archive.org, the use of the "L" (which almost resembles the pound sterling sign £) goes back in 1910s, so I figured it must've been a German work rather than British. Furthermore, Parlophon(e) started out as a German record company in 1890s and established its British asset in 1920s. Right? George Ho (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right! Felix QW (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the "45" logo in the 1960s singles? George Ho (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in the British threshold of originality, but to me that could already be beyond it. My comment was directed at the logo itself rather than this concrete image of the record. Felix QW (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian FOP and heavy retouching

The English version of {{FoP-Belgium}} it states «[...] provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there [...]» and if I'm not mistaken it restricts the modification that one can make on a photo. So, my question is if File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png is an allowed DW of File:Comic wall Asterix & Obelix, Goscinny and Uderzo. Brussels.jpg. My intuition suggest it is not as the DW doesn't look like a photo taken on a mural and part of the DW is interpolating the gaps after removing the surrounding characters, but maybe the experts on the Belgian copyright have a different opinion. Günther Frager (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Günther Frager I can't speak on the condition imposed by the Belgian FoP that was lobbied by the Wikimedians there way back 2016 (ping @Romaine: who actively lobbied for introduction of FoP there). My understanding tells me that the FoP of Belgium seems aligning to its peers (Dutch FoP, German FoP), in which excessive modification to the point that the integrity of the depicted work is affected is already a breach of the FoP rules. Cropping out all surrounding elements (like the sky, ground or grass et cetera) so that the image consists of an exact reproduction of a building, sculpture et cetera is one of such excessive modifications. Germany, where FoP originated, does not allow radical forms of digital editing, such as changing the colors of their public monuments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: How do you think rules like that are compatible with the whole "for any purpose" thing in the guidelines? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 I cannot comment on the possible conflict of the German FoP to both commercial-type CC licenses (like {{CC-zero}} and {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} and the FreedomDefined.org position that some German Wikimedians claimed as "extremist" and unrealistic, in the context of images of buildings and public monuments of Germany. It was debated on FoP talk page (see Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 1#Germany). Let's ping again the participants on that late-2000s discussion that have still contributed/made edits on Commons from 2022 up to this day: @H-stt, Historiograf, Wuselig, Jeff G., Micheletb, and ALE!: . At worst, meta:Creative Commons Foundation should have a public and solid statement regarding the nuances of Freedom of Panorama even in countries that we consider as having suitable FoP for Commons, like Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Malaysia, Hong Kong, mainland China, Singapore, India, Australia, and New Zealand. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Definition of Free Cultural Works is a good tool for identifying free licenses — that is, for defining what permissions a copyright holder must give in order for a work to be considered a free cultural work. While the Definition incidentally encompasses works whose copyright has expired, defining the bounds of the public domain was never its main purpose. This background should be taken into account especially with respect to the boundaries of exceptions to the rights of copyright holders and the boundaries of what kinds of works are subject to copyright in the first place. I think that some of the interpretations given on the page you link are too literal, and, by applying the Definition in a context where it was not meant to apply, sort of miss the forest for the trees.

I hope to make this make sense by addressing the US' FoP for architecture that @Clindberg discusses below. When the US joined the Berne Convention, it had to apply some form of copyright to architectural works per se, which it had never done before. In many (though not all) Berne parties (including those which joined before the US), there have long been exceptions to copyright which allow for pictures of buildings to be used freely. While Berne does not have a provision singling out this specific exception, it seems to easily fall within the freedom of member states to legislate exceptions to the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, as long as each exception "does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author."

In particular, this sort of exception makes perfect sense for architecture. The "normal exploitation" of architectural plans is done by constructing the building. The core interest of an architect is in the construction of buildings, not their depiction. Even in those (relatively few) countries which, like France, provide for the compensation of architects whenever a building they have designed is depicted in other art, the interest in the actual construction is necessarily more crucial, since those depictions cannot be made in the first place if the building is not actually constructed and placed somewhere where it may be photographed. The design of fantasy buildings — those one might see in a cartoon or video game — does not require actual architectural work, further emphasizing that the central interest of an architect is in the construction of actual buildings, rather than the depiction of mere appearances of buildings.

If we interpret the "for any purpose" clause entirely literally, then, presumably, any photo would be non-free which has, for instance:

Some de minimis copyrighted poster in the background... because the photo could be cropped to highlight that copyrighted element
Some copyrighted building... because someone could perhaps attempt to design and construct a new building based on its appearance in the photo

I think this ultra-strict interpretation of the Definition of Free Cultural Works is totally implausible, especially in light of the fact that it says that a free work remains a free work even when it (for instance) includes some limited quotes from non-free sources (with the caveat that those quotes themselves don't become free by incorporation) — not to mention the other exceptions in the Definition.

In terms of freedom, though, I think we can distinguish between architectural and non-architectural works by drawing the distinction I give above based on the purpose and use of a work type (i.e., the central interests). It is impossible to actually build a building just by manipulating a photo; transformation of a pictural representation back into an actual work of architecture which can be exploited is essentially impossible (it requires, in essence, doing the architecture all over again). In a country where there is architectural FoP, the normal re-use of a photo of a building is highly unlikely to interfere with the central aspects of normal exploitation of the architectural work per se.

Sculptures are easier to reproduce from a reference photo than buildings, and photos of sculptures are far closer to the sculpture's core normal exploitation than photos of an architect's building. So, even in a country where FoP for sculptures exists (I discuss the distinct matter of jurisdictional issues below) a photo that primarily depicts a sculpture is arguably "mostly non-free" because of how close to the central aspects of normal exploitation the reproduction gets. (Where you draw a line is a different question.) Still, though, the free aspects of the photograph — the positioning and lighting — can be worth something; the creation of a photo of a 3D work can normally create a new copyright, and so the licensing of the photo as a free work is still potentially relevant. Relatedly, casting the work from a 3D sculpture into a 2D image is transformative rather than being completely literal copying.

For flat images, though, matters are quite different. If the image is copyrighted, then the reproduction of the flat image is the main way in which the work is normally exploited, and the work can trivially (and perhaps carelessly) reused in exactly the same way the work itself would normally be exploited. Even if the image is off-axis in the photograph, restoring it to its proper alignment is a technical and mechanical adjustment, not a creative one; in most countries, it is unlikely that a simple photograph of a mural would even quality as an original work. Extracting the original 2D image from a (even potentially off-axis) photo of a mural is the reproduction of the original creative work in its actual form, with no transformation whatever. This is akin to scanning a 3D sculpture or getting the architectural plans of a building. Even where FoP does apply to 2D works, it is almost always primarily intended to allow for the capture of entire scenes, not for the duplication of the 2D artwork itself, just as the freedom of panorama in a sculpture garden would not permit the 3D scanning and duplication of the copyrighted sculptures.

To whatever extent the Definition of Free Cultural Works (as opposed to jurisdictional issues/legal requirements, which are entirely distinct) is an important factor, I think this test can be used to roughly estimate the prominence of the non-free portion of the work in comparison with the free portion. Taking this info account:

Photos of buildings — Highly unlikely to interfere with core exploitation of architectural work (construction). Photograph itself is generally copyrightable (positioning, selection, angles, etc.) and its licensing as a free cultural work is valuable. Free work with small non-free component.
Landscape with de minimis inclusion of non-free elements — Difficulty of interference by a user who wants to interfere with core exploitation depends (on kind of work, how it's depicted, what quality is even left in its context, etc). Nevertheless, the non-free component is necessarily small in comparison to the free work itself.
Photos of sculptures/3D art — Transformative, but has significant potential to interfere with core exploitation (both because sculptures can be made AND because derivative photographs are more key to exploitation of sculptures than to that of buildings). Photograph itself is usually copyrightable (positioning, selection, angles, etc.) and its licensing as a free cultural work is valuable. Free work with potentially significant non-free component.
Photos of 2D art — Interferes almost trivially with core exploitation. To the extent that it is a faithful reproduction of the image, almost always uncopyrightable (compare PD-Art). Status as an actual "work" is debatable to begin with, and if the real work depicted is non-free, this is at best a fundamentally non-free work with a thin "free" wrapping.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Günther Frager, The example File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png is modified, shows only a part of the image and no longer the situation as it is on the location. FoP in Belgium states that objects photographed are allowed as long as they are depicted as on location. As that is no longer the case here, this image is copyrighted and not allowed on Commons. (PS: I lobbied in the Belgian parliament for FoP and FoP came officially in force in 2016.) Romaine (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Berne Convention allows FoP type of limitations to copyright, but they also say that any such allowed uses cannot go to the point they prejudice the normal exploitation of the work -- I've always taken that to mean you can't make a sculpture of a sculpture, or make an effective copy of a 2-D work by cropping to just that work and exclude its public context, etc. I think once you remove the public context, you are also going outside any FoP permissions, and are a direct usage of the original work (i.e. the photographic expression, the work using FoP, is gone). It is a direct usage/derivative of the original, without the photographic expression being present. So, I would say this is a problem. We have always accepted that as an OK limitation to host FoP works -- you can make a derivative work of the photograph, but not to the point there is no photograph left. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg the Berne Convention does not mention anything resembling FoP. It only states that member states can make a list of exceptions/limitations to copyright, as long as normal exploitation of the work is not prejudiced. FoP may be one of these limitations, but there are also limitations on educational, research, and other uses. At least, there was an attempt in the past to have an architectural FoP be explicitly-mentioned in the treaty, from the meetings between WIPO and UNESCO in 1986 (see meta:Freedom of Panorama#A close call: 1986 WIPO-UNESCO proposal for global architectural FoP). For some reason, though, no such architectural FoP provision is present in the treaty. In fact, a few scholars and architects, like Architect Clark Thiel (1990), argued that the American FoP (Section 120(a) of U.S. Copyright Act) is a violation of the treaty, since the treaty "requires that copyright protection extend to the exclusive right of adaptation for all protected works, including architectural works." Unsure if there is anti-FoP sentiment among a few American architects and scholars today. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Berne does not mention FoP, but does restrict limitations such that the normal exploitation is not prejudiced. Effectively making a copy of the work on display is pretty much squarely in direct competition with the original, and I think would violate that Berne clause. FoP clauses are typically in the list of limitation clauses that laws have, pursuant to that Berne article. So I don't think FoP provisions can go that far. Interesting that a Berne clause specifically about architecture was discussed. I don't think the U.S. law violates Berne -- another architect making a derivative work of a building is a problem without permission; architecture has derivative work protection. The law simply states that the specific case of photographs of buildings (located in public places) are not derivative works basically (it's not within the scope of the architectural copyright). It's in line with FoP clauses elsewhere. Photographs of buildings are not part of the "normal exploitation" of a building. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg I think that the minority group of U.S. architects who opposed AWCPA's Sec. 120(a) way back in early 1990s based their arguments on the French copyright rules, that unambiguously does not allow commercial uses of images of architecture. Still, at least in a small circle within the scholarly and architectural community, the Section 120(a)'s compliance with the Berne has been put into question. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was from when the law was first going in, and architecture (beyond the drawing copyright of plans) was getting protection for the first time. The U.S. law also plainly stated that the text of the Berne Convention is not legally binding in the U.S.; only the text of the incorporating law. They could file a complaint with the WTO these days I guess but that type of limitation seems clearly in line with what Berne allows. (The U.S. did try to avoid restoring copyright; countries did complain about that, which eventually led to the URAA restorations as that was the compromise.) What France chooses to allow has no effect in the U.S. I don't think there is any serious challenge to it; the lawmakers clearly did not want to change the ability to take photos of buildings which had been fine forever in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The picture being in Bruxelles, Belgian law applies. It states two conditions :

«the reproduction [...] is as it is found there», which implies that the picture cannot be edited and modified.
«this reproduction [...] does not cause unreasonable harm to the legitimate interests of the author», which means that it cannot be used comercially without limits (as explicited by the legistative discussion).

Tipically, File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png cannot be printed on a T-shirt to be commercialized, which is equivalent in effect to a CC-NC licence, not accepted on Commons (even though its presence in Wikipedia pages would be legal with respect to that point of view). But in the first place, its being cropped and edited infringes the first condition, which is equivalent in effect to a CC-ND clause in that case. The picture therefore cannot be uploaded on Commons and must be deleted.

Freedom of panorama in Belgium allows for instance pictures of the atomium, because such pictures can be reproduced without authorization or payment, and their reproduction cannot cause an unreasonable harm to the author's rights. This is why it is acceptable on Commons. It does allow for pictures like File:Comic wall Asterix & Obelix, Goscinny and Uderzo. Brussels.jpg, because the wall is reproduced as-is, and that reproduction does no harm to Uderzo's interests. But {{FoP-Belgium}} is definitively not equivalent to a CC-BY-SA, so derivative works should be considered with caution. This is why it is in Category:Restriction tags. It is the same problem as with the de minimis clause : a picture may be acceptable on commons even though an excerpt of it would not, it is the responsibility of the editor to remain within the legal limits.

Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My (very limited) understanding of the Belgian law is that while cropping of the mural is permitted, isolating elements is not, as they don't appear as shown on the public wall. Here both the individual figures have to go as copyvios. h-stt !? 18:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion highlights the legal and practical absurdity of the Commons community's position on the freedom of panorama.

First and foremost, Wikimedia Commons is based and hosted in the United States. Much as a work falling into the public domain in its country of origin does not mean it enters the public domain in the United States, some exception or limitation to copyright law in a foreign country does not mean that limitation or exception applies in the United States. Under United States copyright law, photographs of buildings don't infringe a copyright in the architecture depicted. However, photographs of artwork do reproduce that artwork, and, where that artwork is not in the public domain in the US, such photographs can be infringing.

The basic argument here boils down to:

Claim: This work is displayed in a public place in Belgium.
- This much I think we can all acknowledge.
Claim: There is a "freedom of panorama" exception in Belgium that allows for the free reproduction of this work.
- This much is not exactly true. There is an exception, but it is highly limited. I have consulted the source, which is available in its official and authoritative form on WIPO-Lex in both Dutch and French. Here is my translation (from the French), for those who do not understand French or Dutch:
  Art. XI.190. When a work has been lawfully disseminated, the author cannot prohibit: [...]
  2/1. the reproduction and communication to the public of works of plastic, graphical or architectural art designed to be placed permanently in public places, so long as such reproduction or communication is of the work as it is found [in that public space] and neither interferes with the normal exploitation of the work nor unjustly prejudices the legitimate interests of the author.
- There are two key problems here, which mean that this "freedom of panorama" is actually quite limited, and clearly does not allow the kind of use we see here.
  1. The reproduction must depict the work as it is found in the place where it is displayed (telle qu'elle s'y trouve). There are two potential readings of this clause, both of which cause problems.
    1. The work must be displayed within the context of the place where it is found, and cannot be separated from that context — since it would then be reproduced in a way other than that in which it is actually found on display. In other words, isolation of the work and its separation from the situation in which it is displayed would be outside of the scope of the exception.
    2. The work can only be reproduced in the form in which it is displayed, and the exception only applies if no changes are made. In this case, retouching of the work would be outside of the scope of the exception.
  2. The reproduction of the work cannot interfere with the normal exploitation of the work or prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
    - The reuse of the isolated work within many contexts would interfere with the normal exploitation of the underlying copyrighted work. For instance, if these drawings of Astérix and Obélix were used as the basis for new derivative works (comic books featuring these character designs), that would clearly interfere with the legitimate interests of the author — or otherwise copyrights would become worthless in Belgium for any work permanently exhibited in a public place.
- My real question is this. What was the meaning of the law? Which of the following was intended?
  1. (As some propose) That any work permanently displayed in a public place is, for most intents and purposes, fair game to be reproduced and reused, including in derivative works? That is, that the display of comic book characters in an authorized poster or mural would mean that these characters could be freely reproduced in other contexts (e.g., in a collage) as long as the user could point back to this public display?
  2. (Or, as I propose) That the exception is intended only as a limited one, allowing for the reproduction of images of public spaces, even where copyrighted artwork is displayed within that public space — as long as the purpose behind the reproduction was not to interfere with the interests of the copyright holder of the artwork? I think the intended meaning is that, say, a picture of the unmodified mural could be included as a prominent part of a depiction of the public place in which it is displayed, but that most depictions of the mural itself, or of its constituent elements, would not fall within the exception. The purpose of the law was clearly not to make any item on public display freely reusable — only to allow for easier photography of public places themselves, with strict limits on reuse of those work outside of the depiction of how they are publicly displayed (telles qu'elles s'y trouvent).
- The mural itself is a comic book illustration recontextualized by its display on a public wall. I cannot understand any sensible explanation for how undoing that recontextualization by isolating the illustration and placing it back in the essential form of the illustration itself (whether in print or on a computer screen) would be any different from taking the image from an original comic book page direction. I'll acknowledge that within a certain new context, use of an image of the character Astérix might fall under the other more general exceptions in Belgian law (which, though narrower, are the rough conceptual equivalent of fair use in US law). Whether the illustration is sourced from a wall or a printed page, the effect on the interests of the author are the same. The depiction of a work's public display is another specific context in which a limited reuse can be made (similar to other reproductions which do not affect the core interests of the author), not a free pass for general reuse.
Separate Claim: It is OK to reuse this work freely on Wikimedia Commons (based in the United States) on the theory that exceptions in foreign copyright law can be applied within the US context.
- I find this claim extremely implausible. It is true that there is a lack of US case law on the specific issue of foreign freedom of panorama laws. However, the notion that foreign exceptions to copyright are intended to apply in the United States is without any real justification. It is clear, for instance, that US law, not foreign law, determines a work's term of copyright in the United States; this term may be longer or shorter than that in other countries. While in certain cases (e.g., determining the ownership of a copyright), foreign law may be relevant, there are specific reasons why, and those are the exception, not the rule.
  - In particular, the TRIPS Agreement's provision on National Treatment (TRIPS, Part I, Article 3) requires that each country grant IP protections to foreign nationals no less favorable than that accorded to its own nationals, subject to the exceptions provided for in existing conventions. The Berne Convention allows for both exceptions based on use (which can be used to carve out exceptions such as fair use, as the US does). But the exception allowing for fair use is not an exception to the national treatment rule, unlike the rule of the shorter term (which is allowed but not required under the Berne Convention, and which the US does not apply, except for determining URAA restoration eligibility). The US allowing for fair use on an equal basis for works (independent of the nation of origin) is OK; allowing for the application of exceptions from foreign law specifically in order to weaken protections based on the source country of a work is a clear violation of the National Treatment principle.
  - Similarly, the Berne Convention says (in Article 5), "[A]part from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed." No provision provides for the application of foreign exceptions appears in the Berne Convention.
  - Some editors point to the Oldenburg DMCA claim, where a DMCA takedown notice issued for pictures of a statue located in Germany was complied with by WMF Legal, as a sign that the WMF "endorses" lex loci protectionis (i.e., the application of US law, despite whatever exceptions may exist in a foreign law) to Commons. While I think this "endorsement" is correct, it is really not important whether or not the WMF "endorses" the principle; it is important what the principle is.
  - This is a more general issue — one for a separate and larger conversation — but one which WMF Legal really needs to address. Right now, Commons users generally feel free to reproduce objects found in public spaces, so long as the country in which the item is displayed (or from which the picture is taken, but that's the same country 99.9999% of the time) has some sort of freedom of panorama-type exception allowing for such reproduction.
    - US law says this is fine for buildings — but not for copyrighted sculptures or murals. So there is a ton of content which is non-free in the US, even if free in its country of display. (As we see in this case, though, the freedom of panorama exception is not necessarily a free-for-all permission to reuse the work. In many cases, the exceptions are limited in scope and rather context-dependent — much like other exceptions, such as fair use.)
    - While some uses of depictions of publicly displayed (non-architectural) art might be acceptable under US law's fair use provisions, this depends on the actual use made; such images are not free to use for any purpose. (Nor, in many cases, are they free to use for many purposes in the country of display.) These works are not free in the sense required by the Definition of Free Cultural Works, which is the sense incorporated into the Wikimedia Licensing Policy. And Wikimedia Commons has never adopted an Exemption Doctrine Policy defining the context in which non-free works may be used on the project.
Implied Claim: Belgium is the relevant source country for this work.
- Even if we accept the application of foreign copyright exceptions under US law (which, as I detail above, we shouldn't), I don't think this is really plausible. This is, as discussed, either a direct reproduction or close derivative of artwork from the Astérix comic books. The Astérix characters were designed and first drawn by the French artist Albert Uderzo, and the original works were published in France. The fact that artwork from Astérix was later displayed in Belgium doesn't make this a "Belgian" work — why should the Belgian exceptions apply just because a French work happened to be displayed in Belgium.
  - What this rule amounts to — and this is one that is commonly naively applied in Commons FoP cases — is the application of whichever country's exceptions can be seen as the most relaxed. When the same work is displayed in multiple countries, where some have an exception which can plausibly used to justify reproduction, while others do not, the de facto Commons community position is that whichever exception is the most liberal can be used to justify the (worldwide/US) reproduction of the work.
  - Taking this rule seriously, reproduction of a work first published in the US by an American author can be justified on Commons if a copy of this work can be found on public display in a country whose FoP exception is interpreted by the Commons community as allowing such reproduction. There are many such cases relating to US-origin cartoon characters on Commons. (While this mural is authorized by the Astérix copyright holders, the Commons community seems to apply FoP even to clearly unauthorized graffiti of cartoon characters, allowing for an absurd kind of FoP-laundering whereby a copyrighted image can be uploaded to Commons as long as it is a photo of a pirated copy put on a wall in a public place in the right country.)
- This relates to a more general problems with the "country of origin" principle. The "country of origin" of a copyrighted work is not necessarily the country where it is displayed, nor the country with which it is popularly associated, nor the country in which it was created or even just a single country (as various countries could consider a work to be a domestic work under their own law, e.g., based on publication or the nationality of the author).
- The country of origin principle is problematic for works displayed in multiple countries, or which are derivative of works from another country. The display in Belgium comes long after initial publication of Astérix, but it is undeniably the display (either directly or as a derivative work) of the original Astérix illustrations and/or characters. Was the original Astérix comic even simultaneously published in Belgium and France? It's plausible, but, for all the previously given reasons, that's highly unlikely to have any relevance.
- Under the Berne Convention, simultaneous publication means that one image can have multiple countries of origin; a foreign work is considered . Depending on how this is interpreted, this image could be considered a domestic work by many countries (those which recognize it as "published" because it is, through Commons, accessible in that country), in the US (because Commons is based in and serves files from the US) and so on.
- The US incorporates its own "source country" test into the URAA. Under that test (Copyright Office explainer), the (single) source country for non-US works simultaneously published in multiple countries is determined based on which country has the strongest connection to the work. Being exclusively created by French authors in France, and without any potential ties to Belgium other than (let's hypothesize, for the sake of argument) simultaneous publication there, the underlying work here is a French one, not a Belgian one. (And France infamously does not have any FoP exception that could plausibly support reproducing murals in this context.)

TL;DR: These images are not eligible for Commons.

There are significant restrictions on Belgian FoP, meaning these images are non-free (by any sensible reading of the Definition of Free Cultural Works) even upon applying the most liberal reading of the Belgian exception
- This is especially true for elements of murals. While the same exception (textually) applies to works of architecture in the Belgian law, there is little practical chance that a photo of a building can be easily transformed back into an actual building design (compare the US law's allowance for photos of buildings but prohibition on building a new building based on a copyrighted design); these drawings have already been transformed into (essesntially) the best form for infringing upon the author's (still protected) interests.
It's highly implausible that foreign copyright exceptions ever apply directly in the US — and Commons is based in the US.
- US copyright exceptions might sometimes apply in the same circumstances where Belgian ones do, but this is totally different from Belgian exceptions applying in the US.
Even if foreign copyright exceptions did apply under US law, this is either a French-origin work which happens to also be displayed in Belgium or derived from a French-origin work.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller @Micheletb the current version of the Belgian law excludes the final part, being confined up to the condition that the work must be depicted as it is found there. See COM:FOP Belgium note on the latest amendment which I added a long time ago. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. You're right that this isn't the latest version, but you're wrong to think that the condition was removed. The version in WIPO-Lex is apparently a few months older than the current version of the law. The current version does omit the "normal exploitation" condition from that clause. But that's only because it was moved to another clause. This restriction still fully applies (it's part of how Belgium implements the Berne three-step test); it's just put in one place rather than repeated in different sections.

In the current version of the law, we find the following article, added in the 2022 amendment:

Art. XI.192/3 The exceptions provided for in articles XI.189, XI.190, XI.191, XI.191/1, XI.191/2, XI/192 (Section 1, Paragraph 2), XI.192/1 and XI.192/2 are only applicable insofar as much as they do not affect the normal exploitation of the work or database and so not unjustly prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholder.

As this exception falls under Art. XI.190, this restriction on its application still applies. Accordingly, I am going to edit the COM:FOP Belgium page in order to reflect what the law actually says. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "normal exploitation" wording is part of the Berne Convention, so any country where that is self-executing (a good many of them) that limitation is in the law even if not explicitly mentioned. Even where countries have 2-D FoP, I don't think you can crop to just the work (since that would compete directly in the marketplace with a copy or print from the original copyright owner). A 3-D sculpture is usually fine, if there are FoP provisions, but particularly for 2-D, it really should almost aways show the public context. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Studio Harcourt

Can someone check User:Studio Harcourt ticket #2010061710041251 to see what images it covers, just the ones loaded, the entire historical archive, or those images taken after 1991. RAN (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way it was stated on the page of User:Studio Harcourt by the OTRS member who processed the ticket in 2010, and consequently the way we, ordinary users, have understood the situation since then, the ticket #2010061710041251 is essentially a confirmation that the Commons account User:Studio Harcourt officially represented the Studio Harcourt. Consequently, we can conclude that the license (which is CC BY 3.0), placed by that account on the photos uploaded by that account, is valid. The matter is also referenced in the press reports listed on the page Commons:Studio Harcourt. The reply that you obtained yesterday from a VRT member at Commons:VRT/Noticeborad likely means the same thing. Given that the ticket is essentially related to that Commons account, it covers the photos uploaded by that account, nothing else. Other photos from after 1991 are assumed to be not free, unless there is evidence of a release by the copyright owner. That was also the essence of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roland Copé.jpg last year. Photos from before 1992 are covered by the VRT ticket #2020112910005534 from Studio Harcourt in 2020. For a more detailed recapitulaton of the whole situation and of the different possible cases, please see the page Commons:Bistro/archives/2023/09#Studio Harcourt (2) (in French). -- Asclepias (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to use a wikipedia image in another article wikipedia

How to use a wikipedia image in another wikipedia article I am editing a wikipedia article and in this other article there is this image and I don't know if I can use it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War_Saga:_Troy Marius F (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Commons has no involvement in this, but I'm answering here because I happen to know the answer.) @Marius F: en:File:Total War Saga Troy cover art.jpg is in the English-language Wikipedia under a non-free use rationale, explained on that file page by a use of en:Template:Non-free use rationale 2. To use that image in a different en-wiki article, you would need an acceptable rationale for that second use, which would also have to be stated on that file page (presumably also using a template). You'll probably want to read en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to see if what you have in mind is acceptable there. If you have further questions after reading that, you should certainly ask them on en-wiki rather than Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a public domain image to Commons for use at en:Frognall, Melbourne

Hello, I am seeking to upload the image located at https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C292398 to Commons so it can be used at en:Frognall, Melbourne on en-wiki. The image, created in 1944, is in the public domain in Australia (its country of origin) and is marked as such on the source website, but I am unsure of its copyright status in the United States. Specifically, it appears that copyright in Australia expired on 19 January 2014 (70 years after the photograph's creation; photograph has no identifiable author), which is after the COM:URAA cutoff date of 1 January 1996. Is the image in the public domain in the United States or would it still be in copyright there? Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also linking to a discussion at en-wiki regarding this image, in which I was told to ask about the image here, for reference: en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Use of a non-free public domain image at Frognall, Melbourne. Redtree21 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the 1944 photograph's copyright expired in 1995 as copyright law was creation plus 50 years. Australia extended their copyright law to 70 years in 2005, but it was not retroactive. Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of map I would like to upload

I want to upload a svg map of assembly constituencies of Odisha. Boundaries I mostly took from https://gisodisha.nic.in/Statem/AC.pdf (with me making small corrections to AC boundaries near Bhubaneshwar), while I resized the work and merged boundary paths to make it into a usable file. I also changed the colour scheme to match other AC maps. GIS Odisha is run by the National Informatics Centre, a government source, so copyright belongs to Govt of India. Can I still upload this map to Commons as I did modify it substantially? Or could someone contact NIC on my behalf to get their permission to use it? Thank you. C1MM (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-changes of licences for maps?

User Kashmiri appears to have recently changed the licences of a few dozen maps, such as this one and this one, without prior notice. I am not sure if that is allowed, and even if so, I think such a move should have been discussed first. See also: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/12#Mass-changes of licences for typeface samples?. --Minoa (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look entirely wise to me. I'd say it is not clear that would be PD in all countries, and I certainly would not have removed the license that is clearly valid anywhere, even if I added a comment that it is presumably PD. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: I think I need help again in reversing the undiscussed licence changes by Kashmiri. I still don't have the tools or the time to mass-revert them all. Thanks in advance. --Minoa (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fond of our {{Licensed-plus-PD}} for this very purpose. Maybe it should be advertised somewhere more prominent as a tagging option? Note that I haven't checked at all whether in this particular case the PD claims are appropriate or not in the first place. Felix QW (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, when is it okay to use a picture of a sculpture?

Dear people of the Pump,

I'd like to add some images of contemporary sculpture, mostly from near where I live in Canberra, starting with the sculpture that lives on top of the Parliament, a treatment of our coat of arms.

There's one available here which looks to be Creative Commons 4.0.

But I understand there's an extra sensitivity here - that even if you have the creative commons permission from the photographer, that the artist behind the sculpture may have some kind of claim too? Or is that relinquished when a sculpture is public?

Feel free to point me to the most helpful article or essay. I struggled to find one.

Matthew MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP Australia is exactly what you need to read. --Geohakkeri (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Geohakkeri MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SkyNet Sarl Lebanon

Buenas, este logo (https://www.skynet-lb.net/) es simple (too simple) o complejo?? Se puede publicar a Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tove Jansson by Eemu Myntti.jpg

What to do with the file? I’m still a bit confused about the Commons URAA policy. It is stated that a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion; yet the template I added to the file page warns that unless a valid US PD tag is applied, the file will be deleted. Baffling, to say the least. --Geohakkeri (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geohakkeri you are missing the previous sentence on that paragraph: files nominated for deletion due to URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under U.S. and local laws. The "mere allegation" means, you should not open a DR or an admin should not close a DR under the suspicion the image had its copyright restored by URAA without giving clear evidence. Many works had not their copyright restored. For example, a movie may be simultaneously published in the US, or the country of origin had different copyright duration in the past, etc. Also, some works are protected by copyright in the US, but not in its country of origin. Günther Frager (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the files tagged with {{Unclear-PD-US-old-70}} are indeed deleted only after a careful evaluation and strictly on a case-by-case basis. Specifically, COM:PRP doesn’t really apply: an “unclear” file can quite well be kept unless proven to have its copyright restored. Right? --Geohakkeri (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it’s spelt quite clearly in Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act: If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle. So even though each case must be examined thoroughly, it’s still not necessary to go extreme lengths in order to tell that a file should be deleted. --Geohakkeri (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It usually takes a good knowledge of what the source country's law was on the URAA date, and whether copyright term increases were retroactive, etc. You can't necessarily assume that a current 70pma term was the same at that time, or that an increase was retroactive, so it can often involve looking back at historical versions of laws to find out what terms applied to the file in question. Finland did update their law shortly before the URAA date, as they had just become EU members, so it was likely a retroactive increase to 70pma, but that should be verified. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnish copyright extension took effect on January 1, 1996 and was indeed a retroactive increase to 70pma. [8] --Geohakkeri (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical images

What is the legal situation with medical images like ultrasound images? Just like the legal situation would be with any other photo in whatever country we are talking about? Like, copyright with the photographer (in that case, the doctor)? Or possibly the hospital that owns the machine may also claim rights? And what about the patient, does the image subject have personality rights that need to be respected when their insides are being photographed?

It's this image that just made me wonder. --2003:C0:8F0A:BD00:618A:90C3:E786:9E39 07:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see this about medical imaging but not specifically about ultrasound images:

Template:PD-medical
Template:PD-US-Medical imaging
Meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Medical Imaging (mostly about x-ray images)
Commons:Patient images

Some oldish discussions about ultrasound images:

However, most ultrasound images on Commons seem to have a claim of copyright and a license by their uploaders.

-- Asclepias (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Contents

w:en:File:Nanking19371220c.jpg ok for transfer to Commons?

File:Wappen Wirttembergia 1856.jpg

Photograph of 1850 painting that may have never been publicly displayed until recently

Sued for using image from Wikimedia Commons

2002 Venezuela's National Assembly session

Copyright status of "restored" or "complete" works

Vanuatu flag

PD-Iceland50

File:Majulah Singapura Orchestra.ogg

File:Malcolm McDowell Clockwork Orange (cropped).png

New to Wikimedia, don't know how to determine copyright status

Are the works of Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo in the public domain?

Sheet music

One of Parlophone Records logos

Belgian FOP and heavy retouching

User:Studio Harcourt

How to use a wikipedia image in another article wikipedia

Uploading a public domain image to Commons for use at en:Frognall, Melbourne

Copyright status of map I would like to upload

Mass-changes of licences for maps?

So, when is it okay to use a picture of a sculpture?

SkyNet Sarl Lebanon

File:Tove Jansson by Eemu Myntti.jpg

Medical images

Navigation menu

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

w:en:File:Nanking19371220c.jpg ok for transfer to Commons?

File:Wappen Wirttembergia 1856.jpg

Photograph of 1850 painting that may have never been publicly displayed until recently

Sued for using image from Wikimedia Commons

2002 Venezuela's National Assembly session

Copyright status of "restored" or "complete" works

Vanuatu flag

PD-Iceland50

File:Majulah Singapura Orchestra.ogg

File:Malcolm McDowell Clockwork Orange (cropped).png

New to Wikimedia, don't know how to determine copyright status

Are the works of Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo in the public domain?

Sheet music

One of Parlophone Records logos

Belgian FOP and heavy retouching

User:Studio Harcourt

How to use a wikipedia image in another article wikipedia

Uploading a public domain image to Commons for use at en:Frognall, Melbourne

Copyright status of map I would like to upload

Mass-changes of licences for maps?

So, when is it okay to use a picture of a sculpture?

SkyNet Sarl Lebanon

File:Tove Jansson by Eemu Myntti.jpg

Medical images

Navigation menu

Search