Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

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

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


Sharlott Hall scan of Federal publication in their collection[edit]

I want to apply an abundance of caution in my uploads.

I want to upload two higher-resolution crops of the USDA Forest Service's 1976 Kaibab National Forest road map. The Sharlot Hall Museum possesses a copy of this map in their map archive, which they catalog as Map #175, and provides a low-resolution scan of the map for public view.

I purchased the right to access the Sharlot Hall high-resolution scan of the map from which I made two clips for intended use on Wikipedia. The museum staff recognized that the map is public domain and that they are not permitted to charge for U.S. government publications, and I recognize that the museum has rights to their scan of the map.

I submitted a Sharlot Hall Museum Permission to Use Material application to upload the two clips to "Wikimedia Commons file space per Creative Commons license" the "cropped sections of map #175". The specific crops are identified in the application.

The Sharlot Hall Museum has approved this application. I wish to know for certain from the Village Pump if it is indeed safe for me to upload these images. (I think so because intent for Creative Commons license is stated.)

Files to upload:

  • Kaibab National Forest Map 1976 Ash Fork-CJ-Williams.jpg
  • Kaibab National Forest Map 1976 Cucamonga Junction.jpg
  • Kaibab National Forest Map 1976 Sharlot Hall PTO 2023-01.pdf

IveGoneAway (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can tell, while you may recognize that the museum has rights to their scan of the map, Commons generally considers faithful reproduction insufficient to attract new copyright (cf. PD-Scan). If you want to keep a record of the Creative Commons license too, you could use Licensed-PD-Art, which enables you to specify a separate license for the reproduction. Felix QW (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the response, but I am having trouble parsing a yay or nay. "faithful reproduction insufficient to attract new copyright" I think this is telling me that the museum may not claim rights to control the use of their scans.
However. my recollection was, perhaps mistaken and/or out-dated, that the scanner has certain rights to the scan. In initial discussions, the museum assumed that all of the maps were Arizona government and could not let me use it "for free". But, they in the end saw that is was US Government PD.
How do I use those templates with PD U.S. government documents?
The scanner acknowleges that the original work is PD. The scanner states that they aggree to CC as far as the two clips of their scan are concerned. My original question was is whether the PTO (I can upload) with that statement indeed confers CC to the clips.
IveGoneAway (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Supposed I upload just the PTO, would I be able to get a yes or no then? IveGoneAway (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clipped scans of 1976 PD US government maps uploaded. IveGoneAway (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sweden photo copyright template issue[edit]

(I originally posted the same text in the main Village pump, not realizing that there's a separate board for copyright)

The copyright template for Swedish photographs (Template:PD-Sweden-photo) is in need of a clarification, since a few years back. Right now it has two sections.

  • Terms and conditions for copyright expiration, with auto-updating years that increment for every year that passes.
  • A long text which is technically correct but not very useful.

How about replacing the entire second part, with something like this?


Photos also need to comply with {{PD-1996}} to be legal in the United States. This limits the practical use of the template to photos created up until 1968.


This clarification exists in an obscure place on the template's page, but it would be more clear if it was presented directly.

Here's a good example with how Romania's old copyright terms are shown to the reader of a file page: Template:PD-RO-photo

- Anonimski (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is one bullet for photographic images, although called "non-artistic works" in the English version, and a second bullet for photographic works. Then there is an addition on PD-old and two in small print: on USA and on other countries.
The "non-artistic works" is definitely misleading, as photos that are regarded works are not covered by that bullet. I don't remember the cut-off years, and thus not whether a work being artistic is significant, but where it is, the question is whether it has "artistic or scientific value", not whether it is artistic.
Of the three additions only the one on USA can be covered by the suggested text. Mentioning PD-1996 would be good, but there may be other reasons, such as simultaneous publication without notice. I would have added PD-1996 to the template, but I don't see where the real text is (it is included in the call of the template; I don't know how it is called).
LPfi (talk)
Ah okay, thanks for the answer User:LPfi. I see that it's a complicated macro behind the template. But I think that Template:PD-Sweden-photo/en is the place to edit.
As for the years, you mentioned in the discussion page the year 1926 for artistic works. However, shouldn't they follow Template:PD-US-expired (1928 with auto-update) instead? Anonimski (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anonimski: The year 1926 is because of {{PD-1996}}. The new law with the 70 pma term went into effect before 1996 (I think 1995) so 1926 is the cut-off year for PD-1996 of works.
PD-1996 is irrelevant for works that are PD in the USA anyway, and this includes PD-US-expired works. However, the cut-off year of 1928 (as of now) is about year of publication. If the work was published posthumously (or some years after creation for anonymous works), PD-1996 may still be relevant, and thus the year 1926.
LPfi (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I guess all of the US limits (with their specific conditions) are known then? Could they be added as an extra explanation in their own section at Template:PD-Sweden-photo/en? - Anonimski (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that the duration for anonymous works is based on the publication year (according to COM:Sweden, I should of course check the law), and for non-anonymous works 2023-1996 > 95-75, so you are right, 1926 is no more relevant for this template, at least not for common cases. I am editing the English text right now, hopefully making it clear (and not doing any mistakes). –LPfi (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. And yes, it was after publication. –LPfi (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr photo crop and de minimis[edit]

File:Dr Gaositwe Chiepe (cropped).jpg is a crop and enlargement taken from File:Samantha Budd with Dr Gaositwe Chiepe.jpg. The uncropped photo is sourced to Flickr and is released under an acceptable license. I guess it could be argued that the photo of Chiepe being held by Budd in the uncropped Flickr photo might be a case of de minimis or incidental, but that personally that seems a bit of a stretch. However, I also think that any kind of de minimis or incidental claim for the Chiepe photo becomes invalid for any crop on only the Chiepe photo unless it can be clearly shown that Flickr account holder took both photos. If they didn't, then the crop woould seem to need to be treated as a COM:DW and the Flickr license for the uncropped photo can't be applied to it. For such reasons, tagging the crop with {{Dw-nsd}} or starting a COM:DR for the crop might be warranted, but I'm interested in what others may have to say before doing either. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly: I think we need permission from the original photographer for the crop.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Jeff G. and I agree with you. Are we missing something here Carl? It does seem that any attempt to claim de minimis for the original photo uploaded to Flickr wouldn't apply to the cropped image of Chiepe, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No chance on the crop. It's a straight copy of the original photograph, with nothing of the larger photo left. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree with your argument. BUT and However, the photo and the "photo in the photo" are both owned by Bristol University. They understand copyright and I was given the explicit permission by the university to use it and a series they were publishing. Of course you may decide that we should overrule their permission as you understand the law better than the university, but let us be clear that there is a valid rationale that many (including a leading UK university) would consider entirely reasonable. Victuallers (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there's any way for anyone to verify the provenance of the Chiepe photo based on what's posted above. If the university posted the full photo of Chiepe on their Flickr account and released it under an acceptable license, then that would be one way their intent could be verified. If they sent a COM:CONSENT email to VRT for verification, then that would be another. By licensing the file the way they did, the university isn't only giving you permission, and it's not only giving permission to use the photo only on Wikipedia; it's giving everyone in the world permission to use the photo pretty much any way they want as long as they comply with the terms of the CC license. It is because of this that I think the university intent for the "photo in the photo" needs some sort of formal verification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they gave us a license on the outer photo, and they have rights on the internal one too, then they only gave us a license for the internal photo as it is shown in the outer one. The crop is a straight copy of the internal photo, and unless we have a license for that photo, and that photo only, we should not keep it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Di minimis isnt relevant here. This is not a photo that has been found per chance hanging in the top corner of a room that has now been enlarged to become a new photo. This photo WAS the focus of the published image. The text is all about the photo being in the image. The point made above, that if only the donator had realised that they needed to send an email to confirm that they were Bristol University (not in doubt), that they knew that there was a photo in the photo (not in doubt), that they understand copyright law (not in doubt) so that they could anticipate that Wiki commons would start a debate to find reasons why they could reject the gift (they may have thought this unlikely, but we exceed nearly everyones expectations on this one). Can you please look at all the images in this set. They were released by Bristol University to help our cause. They made a mistake and gave them a restrictive license. One of our volunteers (me) took the time to intercede with the University. Amazingly!! they understood our mission and they changed the license so that we could achieve our aims. It is depressing to see that the project now wants to sacrifice that gift during the start of BlackHistoryMonth but you have your priorities I guess. I have been trying for years to get a university to release commons compliant images. The closest I have ever got to achieving this was getting the Bristol Uni management to agree to this change. Its depressing how tenacious you/we are in looking for reasons to override the few people of those who understand the law in this area and are/were trying to help. We could ask for further proof but why would they/I bother. We appear to be the project who wont take yes for an answer. Victuallers (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Of course you may decide that we should overrule their permission as you understand the law better than the university, but let us be clear that there is a valid rationale that many (including a leading UK university) would consider entirely reasonable. part of your first post wasn't really a very subtle attempt at sarcasm, but it also wasn't really something worth commenting on. However, I'm not sure what the It is depressing to see that the project now wants to sacrifice that gift during the start of BlackHistoryMonth but you have your priorities I guess. of your second post is trying to imply and how it's relevant to anything being discussed above. I don't think that any of the comments made above have anything to do with the skin color of Budd and Chiepe. All the comments so far, as far as I can tell, are strictly related to copyright matters. Are you implying that the copyright status of the cropped photo is only being questioned because both Budd and Chiepe are black? Are you implying that the copyright status if the cropped photo is only being question because February is celebrated as "Black History Month" in the United States, even though the University of Bristol is located in the UK and October appears to be when Black History Month is celebrated in the UK. Anyway, the only person so far to mention their skin color has been you; so, if their skin color is relevant to the copyright status of the cropped photo, please clarify how. If not, then perhaps you have your priorities for introducing their skin color into the discussion I guess. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just as an aside, wouldn't it seem unlikely that the university even have the rights on the inner photo, as it is explicitly credited to Jessica Augarde Photography? If the university had actually claimed to have authored the portrait, then I think the release argument would be much more reasonable. Felix QW (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both files under PCP. We do not know who took the internal picture. Gaositwe Chiepe attended Bristol in 1959, and she is clearly older than a typical student. The information at https://www.flickr.com/photos/bristoluniversity/45949489252/ says nothing about rights for the internal photo. It does say "Portrait by Jessica Augarde Photography." Perhaps Augarde Photography is unintentionally Flickr washing. Perhaps the Gaositwe Chiepe photo is a free photo from the Botswana government, but we do not know that. We do not know anything about the internal photograph, so we should not assume it is free. Glrx (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly: Sigh. Given the above, I nominated both files for deletion.
Glrx (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photographs of artwork in public domain, relicensed to Creative Commons[edit]

Hi, I discussed copyright issues with this user last May. They have taken and uploaded numerous photographs of artwork in European locales, typically with a public domain status, give or take local FOP regulations. Unfortunately this user has claimed authorship and copyright for themselves. They have attempted to relicense each photograph as Creative Commons, despite having no standing to do so, and if the original works are already PD, then they cannot be encumbered with more-restrictive licenses. This editor has only taken photographs, and I don't know what credit can be conferred as an author of a digital reproduction, but I have ensured that none of these photographs are claiming spurious Creative Commons licensing, which is patently impossible. The user denied wrongdoing and refused to fix any problems. I am unsure anyone else was unaware of the issues, but a recent mass-nomination for deletion seems to have culled a few of the photos, but unfortunately did not bring scrutiny on the poor licensing and authorship claims. I've repaired them as best I could. Elizium23 (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Couldn't this have been resolved with {{Licensed-PD-Art}}? We include both the PD licence for the depicted object and the Creative Commons licence for the photograph. For legal jurisdictions that only need the PD tag, they have that available. For legal jurisdictions that protect the copyright of the photographer, we have that too. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My uploads are better licensed than the uploads I was inspired to upload. At least my uploads have a license, others often not. I'd also like to point out this really fabulous rant by Elizium which in no way is anything constructive. If such behavior is not addressed and warned for, what do you support?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While your diff clearly indicates that I removed that message nearly immediately, I stand by what I said: you've claimed authorship and copyright control for works you didn't create. That's wrong and dishonest, and probably illegal. Elizium23 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To most of my uploads I add (work) ... by (painter/sculptor)... many do it the same way as for example EinDao or Roland ZhCourtesy pings to EinDao and Roland zh. Mine of the same sculpture has a FOP license his not. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two more files here and here with now FOP license but mine has. Another one here and mine has. If it is forbidden, it should be forbidden for all. Here even author, own work and attribution goes all to the editor with no FOP license, mine had. Either rules go for all, or else we need to expect that others follow their example. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here again. Same sculptor, same rail station. Editor mentions own work, but no FOP license. Mine of another statue at the same railway station has a FOP license but also mention own work as many many other editors as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here and here works that were nominated for deletion having a license. One a FOP and another in public domain created somewhere in 1780. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We have in the past here deleted photographs of old PD works on the basis that the photographer hadn't also released or licensed their copyright. This is wrong under most jurisdictions (for a "mechanical reproduction of 2D art", at least) and is not required under any Commons policy or practice that I know of. And yet, still there are attempts at deletion.
We have a large ongoing DR regarding old photos in modern books, on much the same basis.
So I'm not going to criticise any photographer who tries to clear that up by also relinquishing their own rights to an image. Even if there had been nothing there that was under their rights in the first place! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine if Paradise Chronicle elects to dedicate their photographs to the public domain. But they've attempted to: claim authorship of the entire work, and then restrict the rights of reuse by attaching a Creative Commons license that is, by definition, more restrictive than the Public Domain designation on the original work.
I can see cases where a photographer, claiming authorship of the reproductive/derivative work, wishes to restrict usage of that photograph, but it'd need to be clearly articulated who is the author of what, and what rights attach to what work. Elizium23 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elizium23: I have taken a quick look through Paradise Chronicle's recent uploads and they are all correctly licensed using {{Licensed-PD-Art}}. Now it is possible that there are older uploads I haven't seen that are problematic, but I can't see any evidence that they are deliberately making false claims. In this scenario it is best to assume good faith and work with the uploader to improve any historic problems rather than come to a public forum and take a confrontational tone. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just spotted this "fix" which is clearly wrong.[1] While it is arguable that the author field could have been clearer, we have gone from a validly licensed file to an invalid file that could be deleted at any time. @Elizium23: I would strongly encourage you not to make such edits. You are not improving the situation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photograph itself has a copyright, where the author (photographer) must be credited, and they can license that part of the copyright however they like. A photo of a statue does mean that the statue's copyright must also be satisfied, either via a FoP provision in the location's copyright law, or if it has expired. You can certainly make a copyrighted photo of a public domain statue -- at that point there is no derivative rights, so the photograph is the only copyright to be credited. I restored the author claim in the photo mentioned above, because it's completely accurate. There was already FoP tag which explained why the derivative copyright was not an issue here. It's only straight-on photos of paintings or other 2D works (which basically amounts to a copy) where {{PD-Art}} is used, and we have {{Licensed-PD-Art}} for when the uploader wants to give a free license for the photo in case it helps in certain jurisdictions. Photos of 3D works however have a new photographic copyright which must be licensed just like normal photos (before we get to the derivative aspect). They have every right to claim authorship of the photographic copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg and @From Hill To Shore, I acknowledge that I was hasty and uninformed in my edits and pursuit of this dispute. I see that there are finer distinctions made. I am still skeptical about the "authorship" of a work depicted being erased, in favor of the author of a photo. Surely there is a way for them both to receive proper credit.
Perhaps I am still unclear on the boundary of when a photograph may be licensed by its author and when it is forced into the public domain by virtue of its being a faithful copy of a 2D work of art. But I'm withdrawing my accusations at this point and recusing myself from further dispute. Apologies to @Paradise Chronicle for my misunderstandings. Elizium23 (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elizium23 and Paradise Chronicle: The ideal way to describe the author in these situations is, "Paradise Chronicle (photographer), after [insert name of creator of PD work]." Note that this is best practice, where possible, but we don't penalise uploaders who don't include both names in the author field. As Paradise Chronicle seems to know the name of the original creator in the cases I have looked at, perhaps adding the second name (where known) in the author field will help resolve this dispute? From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have {{Photo}}, which should be used as best practice. The template is translated to many languages, while "photographer" may not be universally understood. Of course the author of the original work should also be told where possible. I agree that you don't need to know best practices as uploader, or not know how to implement them in a specific case, and that that shouldn't hinder an upload. –LPfi (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The primary work being licensed is the photograph, so that is the "author" of the work in question. In these cases there is also some expression from a different author, so yes they should be named as well (though doesn't necessarily need to be in the Author field). The photographic copyright has to do with angle chosen, framing, and that sort of thing. By all means add the author of the underlying work to the description, and if there is no license tag satisfying that part of the copyright, there is a keep/delete issue. But the "author" field is often more the "copyright holder", and the photographic copyright is what comes first, so it's find if that part is the photographer only. But sure, both authors can also be mentioned in there. Taking out the photographer is 100% wrong though, and far worse than the original problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I don't see much issue with Paradise Chronicle's uploads, but a small technical mistake: {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-auto|{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}|deathyear=1879}} produces an error. The correct license is {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-auto|cc-by-sa-4.0|deathyear=1879}}. Yann (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the correct license @Yann. Also noticed mine produces some more script and thought it was a bug. It was a (a mishap) copy-paste of a license I found somewhere else. To be able to add the death year is really good so I kept it. Will go around and fix the license from time to time. Thanks for the many other replies as well. I actually assumed that my uploads were in order (not perfect, I know others do it better) and was supportive of Elizium23 reporting me. I hope that in the future I'll give you less concern or reason that someone does report me.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Fielder, billed as “Colorado’s most famous nature photographer,” has donated more than 5,000 photographs to public domain[edit]

I'm not sure if your images should be uploaded as CC0, but citing his website: "THIS SPRING HISTORY COLORADO WILL MAKE ALL OF MY PHOTOGRAPHS AVAILABLE FOR FREE DIGITAL SEARCHES, FOR PERSONAL AND COMMERCIAL USE BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AS WELL AS HOST ONGOING EXHIBITIONS FEATURING MY WORK." It look like CC0, but public domain actually is not a license. https://www.johnfielder.com/ Wilfredor (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is also another discussion about this at Commons:Village pump#FYI: Celebrated Nature Photographer Donates Life’s Work to Public Domain. User:Koavf has apparently been in contact with the organisation digitising the files "to see if there's some way to collaborate on showcasing the work." From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not anything like CC0, unless there is more info. There is nothing saying derivative works are allowed or that the author doesn't need to be attributed. –LPfi (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not CC0 unless actually labeled as CC0. I see different claims, one that he is giving up his rights, and others that he is donating his rights to the "people of Colorado", which may in effect just be transferring the copyright to Historic Colorado to license as they please. There is a mention of commercial use, so there is quite a bit of hope that the actual eventual license will be free, but we should wait to see what the license text specifically says. They may well not go full-blown PD (so that he's still credited), and at worst maybe they go CC-BY-ND to preserve some ability for Historic Colorado to recoup some expenses (by giving out other licenses to paying customers). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sent to https://www.johnfielder.com/contact/


Hello from Wikipedia!

We Wikipedia editors saw your photo donation notice because we watch around the world for such donations to happen. Thanks for what you are doing!

Wikipedia is a free and open project which has specific legal rules for what images we can archive, show, and share. We have been discussing your notice in discussions including

and

We observe you using the term "public domain", which is a legal concept in the United States but not everywhere, and also lacking some clarity in the United States. I am writing to ask if you would be willing to apply a "Creative Commons Zero" license, explained here - https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Any lawyer, curator, or archivist will be familiar with this license.

If not that license, but you or anyone at History Colorado would like to discuss some extent of archiving and mirroring in Wikipedia, then I and others would discuss further. There are other license options.

Thanks for your consideration. From our perspective, Wikipedia is a major archiving and distribution platform for media, and we want to get the best images distributed as broadly as possible through the Internet.

Thanks for your consideration - feel free to forward this to the History Colorado team.


Bluerasberry (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little confused at this point. News reports have used the term "Public Domain" but I don't see where Fielding himself has invoked it.
History Colorado's only license/copyright verbiage is here, which hasn't been updated since 2021, and says, in part: Publication or reproduction of photographs or other materials from our collections requires written permission from History Colorado and may entail use or reproduction fees.
I could discern no way to discover alternative licensing for individual items in the collection, which has a rudimentary web interface and seems only capable of displaying an enlarged photo of the item along with basic classifying information.
If Fielding truly wishes to attach permissive licenses to all his photos, it looks like HC will need to update their website... Elizium23 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since neither Fielding's statement nor HC's statement said anything about PD or any other licensing terms, I fear that all news sources are uncritically parroting the original scoop on this which may have prematurely or overzealously assumed a PD designation. Elizium23 (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Super Bowl Rings[edit]

I have just come across Category:Super Bowl rings, after first seeing File:Super Bowl LIV Ring - NFL Draft Experience 2021.jpg. I opened up a deletion request on the Kansas City ring, since the image prominently features a copyrighted logo and jewelry seems to me like it could be copyrightable. I see there have been multiple discussions on it in the past, and COM:CB#Jewelry seems to be in agreement. However, since there have been multiple discussions on jewelry before, I am hoping for other opinions on this: Are NFL Super Rings, including but not limited to the ones which feature the team's logo, a piece of art that therefore falls under copyright and COM:FOP? Elisfkc (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the jewelry is original enough for a copyright, it can be registered. The U.S. Copyright Office appeals rulings have several related to jewelry where they show what is on the borderline. I would suspect most Super Bowl rings (if not all) would be copyrightable. I'm not sure any have actually been registered for copyright, as fake rings tend to get seized on trademark violation grounds by customs agents (easier to prove) rather than copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since older images of Super Bowl rings have not been flagged for this reason, would it be safe to say that we can keep status-quo? Cards84664 (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The arguments about formalities such as registration would only matter for pre-1989 rings though, so those after that date would certainly be questionable on threshold of originality grounds. Felix QW (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Treshold of originality[edit]

Do you think this book cover meets the treshold of originality? It’s the cover of a book published in Portugal, if that matters. The photograph of that face is already in the public domain. Maybe this template can somehow be useful. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMHO there is nothing copyrightable in this book cover (expect the photo). Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Item in a 1941 US newspaper[edit]

Assuming that it would be copyright, I uploaded this image to en:Wikipedia, pleading "fair use" in a single article there. But now I'm starting to wonder if it's copyright after all. Perhaps I could upload a bigger version here, under {{PD-US-no notice}}. Or could I?

If you have Wikipedia Library access to the Newspaper Archive, you should find the source newspaper page here. If not, well, it's on the first page of the "City Section", of the 1 January 1941 issue (vol 53, no 132) of The Bakersfield Californian. It's on page 33 (which the Newspaper Archive numbers "74"). Of course there's no mention there of copyright. However, I wondered if there was an assertion of copyright for the entire newspaper. When I tried to find out, I quickly became confused....

On the page of the same newspaper that the Newspaper Archive numbers "39", there's a formal, legalistic sort of statement of who does what, etc. I'd expect it to say something about copyright. It does not use the word (or "©"); but it does perhaps imply copyright. I quote:

Member of the Associated Press / The Associated Press is exclusively entitled to the use for publication of all news dispatches credited to it or not otherwise credited in this paper, and also the local news published therein.

I find this oddly opaque. In one interpretation: "Anything not credited elsewhere is AP." And although in my view this illustration isn't local news, I suppose that it could be argued that what, in a local newspaper, is both local and brand new is thereby local news. So possibly the paper is asserting the AP's copyright over this illustration. Or am I paranoid? -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, the header texts at Category:Photographs distributed by Associated Press and Category:Associated Press articles assert that none of the articles and images distributed by the Associated Press until 1963 had their copyright renewed and are therefore in the public domain. So regardless of notice status, if it is an Associated Press illustration it would be eligible for PD-US-not-renewed. Felix QW (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Felix QW. I'll wait a little longer, and then, if nobody has discouraged me from doing to, will upload the thing here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That AP statement is not a copyright notice. In terms of legal effect, it's an assertion of rights under the hot news doctrine, which isn't relevant here since content from 80 years ago isn't exactly "hot". The requirements for a valid copyright notice are fairly strict, it would have to contain the word "Copyright" or an abbreviation or very similar wording, or a copyright symbol. I checked the newspaper on Newspapers.com and found no copyright notice for the whole issue, so you should be good with {{PD-US-no notice}} and/or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. BTW, the illustration seems to be created by the newspaper itself, not by the AP. Toohool (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Toohool, for the education (and for the good news). Every time I think I've more or less got a grip on copyright matters, I read a little more about these matters and am reminded that no I do not. -- Hoary (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done: File:Past 1940, future 1941, and present Georgie Starbuck Galbraith, on 1 January 1941.jpg. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

legal question[edit]

In cases where the license for an image on Flickr was changed (to Commons-incompatible) on Flickr after it was uploaded to Commons, would a manual record of the license-review (LR) at time-of-upload by admin or license-reviewer be given the same legal value as a bot-generated (FlickrReview-bot) one?
The case at hand are these 2010-uploads from the same Flickr-account, which were now found to have been changed from CC-BY to ARR on Flickr:

While I didn’t hesitate to replace the speedy-tag by a {{Flickr-change-of-license}} for the latter file, I wonder whether in case of conflict at court the human-created LR-record would be sufficient as proof that the image was indeed freely-licensed at time of upload to Commons. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to throw it out there the reason this came up is because I nominated the first image in the series for speedy deletion as copyrighted. Túrelio then reverted it because the bot had cleared the image as being licensed under the CC-BY. The problem as I see it though is that the Flickr user seems to have gone back and forth between CC-BY and "all rights reserved" multiple times and then eventually settled on "all rights reserved." Which makes me think they didn't understand the copyrights or mean to choose to CC-BY. IMO the bot shouldn't override common sense or the context. In this case, I don't think we can reasonably say the user wanted the images to be licensed under CC-BY and I don't think "well, the bot said they did" would hold up in court if it ever went there either. Although, I admit it's a grey area. But one where it would be helpful to clarify things. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flickr's licence history shows File:Vanessa 2.jpg was all rights reserved in 2006, changed to CC-BY 2.0 in 2009 and reverted to all rights reserved in 2016. That isn't an example of a short term mistake where it was under the wrong licence for a few minutes as the author played with the settings. We need to preserve the image here under the genuine CC licence to protect people who have reused this file from potential prosecution. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was mainly talking about File:Vanessa 1.jpg since that's the image I originally nominated for deletion and looked at. Unless I'm reading it wrong Flickr shows that the license for it was changed four times within a minute on March 24, 2009. So at least in that case the author was clearly playing with the settings. It appears to be the same way with File:Vanessa W..jpg. Again, unless I'm miss-reading the license history. I don't really see why them settling on CC-BY 2.0 for a few years in the interim really matters. Maybe they just gave up since they clearly didn't know what they were doing. The fact that they eventually changed it back to all rights reserved and left it that way clearly indicates they didn't want the images to be licensed under CC-BY 2.0 though. I don't see how it's our job to protect people who have reused the files from potential prosecution either. We aren't an intermediary legal defense team here. Whatever legal issues someone might get into from using the images is between them and the Flickr user. I'm pretty sure the guidelines/policy even say as much. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't see the licence history for File:Vanessa 1.jpg on my mobile, so I can't comment there. However, File:Vanessa W..jpg was also under a CC-BY 2.0 licence for 7 years. If the author came to us with a complaint about the file, then we could consider the case (though I have the strong suspicion that we would have consensus to Keep). I don't see any grounds for deletion on the argument of an unrelated user's suspicions about the potential motivations of the author. Whatever their intentions, the files were left licensed under CC-BY 2.0 for 7 years; that is a statement of fact. If you disagree, start a deletion discussion so we can gain a formal consensus. This is certainly too complex for the speedy deletion process. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm perfectly fine with Túrelio removing the speedy deletion requests. That's not what the discussion is about. Although it probably would have been good if you had of at least waited until other people commented on this before you removed the rest of them. Otherwise, it kind of comes off like a single person doing bad faithed POV edits. The disagreement isn't magically or instantly resolved just because you gave your opinion and reverted the deletion requests. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy deletion templates are dangerous in that an admin can delete the image at any moment. As long as they remain, there is a chance that an admin acting in good faith could mistakenly delete the files. Any user can contest a speedy deletion tag. If you think the issue remains, you can take this to a formal deletion discussion; I will be happy to start the discussion myself later today when I get access to a computer. The automated tools to start the deletion discussion aren't readily available on mobile. I would appreciate it if you avoid accusing me of acting in bad faith. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll quote Túrelio's original question "I wonder whether in case of conflict at court the human-created LR-record would be sufficient as proof that the image was indeed freely-licensed at time of upload to Commons." The reason I'm accusing you of acting in bad faith to the small degree that I am is because your making this about deletion discussions when that's clearly not what Túrelio started the conversation for. Also, your continuing to talk about starting formal deletion requests when I've already told I don't care that the files weren't deleted. If I tell you I'm fine with the speedy deletions being removed and your response is to continuing harping on me about it then I don't know else to think except that your being bad faithed. Otherwise, why not just drop it and let other people give their opinions about the actual thing this discussion is about instead of making it about something literally no cares about or mentioned? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You stated above that my removal of the speedy deletion tags as "bad faithed POV edits." I then explained the process that anyone can contest a speedy deletion request. If you have a problem with removal of a speedy deletion tag then the normal process is to start a deletion discussion. If, as you say, you don't have a problem with removal of the speedy deletion tags, why did you accuse me of acting in bad faith and then accuse me of acting in bad faith when I explained the normal process? If you want this to stop, please desist from accusing me of acting in bad faith. I am not sure how I can "drop it" when I am not the one making accusations; all that is required is for you to stop making the accusation and the conversation will move on. Your edit to reduce your accusation of me acting in bad faith to a "small" accusation of bad faith[2] is still not particularly helpful. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I said it comes off as "bad faithed POV edits" if a single person comments on a discussion in a general talk page and then reverts the edits being talked about before other people can say what they think about it. "Comes off as bad faithed" isn't the same "is bad faithed faith" though. I'm sure you get the difference. Regardless, I told you I don't care that the speedy deletion requests were reverted and I didn't need the normal process explained to me. Especially after I had already told I could literally give a crap about it. In the meantime, the only reason this discussion hasn't moved on is because you won't allow it to. Your nitpicking about me changing my comment to say "small" is a perfect example of that. People can edit their comments after they post them. The only reason it's an issue is because your making it one. Just like the only reason the whole deletion thing matters is because your making it matter. This discussion isn't about your apparent need to be the center of of it. Seriously, get over it. Just stop beating the dead horse and move on. I'm not going to ask you to drop it again. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to ask you a final time to stop repeating that I am acting in bad faith. It doesn't matter if you tried to mask it behind weasel words like "seems," "comes off as" or "small," the accusation should never be made. Twice now I have asked you politely to stop making the accusation and yet you continue to repeat it. If you repeat it again, I will have to escalate this as a breach of our civility guidelines. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Short answer on the court question -- we don't know unless it actually comes up in court and we find out. The entire reason we have license reviewers though is for that situation, so policy is that is enough to keep -- there is someone, other than the uploader, who verifies that the license was that way at that time on the source website. By policy that is enough evidence for us to keep. If a re-user is not comfortable with that, then don't use it. But if it's not OK, the entire Commons:License review scheme is useless, and changes in source websites can force deletions here, so it brings into question how "free" such works would be. The reviewer evidence would certainly be brought up at court; I can't imagine it being entirely useless or ignored. In Flickr's case, the license history (which did not exist for outsiders until recently, but courts could probably find out) would be far more relevant.
In this case, File:Vanessa 1.jpg looks like it was changed to CC-BY in March 2009 (the same change made twice one second apart; probably a double click or something in the web interface), then changed to All rights reserved seven years later in April 2016. The other two have the exact same history, so the license changes were probably made account-wide at that time. They were marked CC-BY on Flickr for seven years; no reason for deletion.
Speedy deletion should never, ever happen with change-of-license situations. They are never obvious copyvios. Agreed that if a user was changing the license within minutes and we somehow noticed the license and uploaded in that meantime, we should delete. So sometimes regular DRs are appropriate. However that does not happen regularly -- we do not have bots looking to auto-upload Flickr photos as soon as they are posted (there once was one long ago, FlickLickr, but it wasn't polling for uploads even then I don't think). A user would have to notice the free license, want the photo, then upload it. While that can happen, it would be relatively rare, and was uploaded on good faith, so there needs to be a much better review of that situation than a speedy. Nobody likes their good-faith edits reverted without reason, but in speedy deletion's case, those are very very dangerous to leave in place. If you see experienced users reverting those, it is far more likely that you made a mistake. In this case, I think you did misread the Flickr license history. By all means try to figure out the reason why via discussion, but it was likely more important to revert inappropriate speedy tags before discussing. If you want to bring something up in a DR so it can be discussed (or better yet bring it to this forum before going the DR route to make sure the policy is understood), that is fine. But not speedy -- those are for when you are 99.99% sure that they are blatantly copied here without permission, and that other editors here would agree.
CC licenses are irrevocable; the user has a right to stop distributing under that license but they cannot change the rights of copies already distributed. If they used Flickr for seven years, seen the license they chose, and did not read what they are licensing -- they bear responsibility for that. We do tend to accept changes of mind if they happen relatively quickly (even for direct uploads here), but not years later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I think you did misread the Flickr license history." That's totally possible. I said as much early. I'm not the one who started this discussion thread and I don't think Túrelio removing the speedy deletion requests or having someone manually review them was necessarily wrong either. I'm not here to re-litigate his decision. I'm mainly interested in the legal aspects of having a bot decide if something is CC-BY 2.0 or not. Maybe it would be worth having some kind of review process since no bot is 100% accurate. I'd hate to see someone sue the Wikimedia Foundation just because the bot wasn't working 100% accurately one day and miss-licensed a file or something. That said, I appreciate that you semi-answered the legal question though. Obviously this isn't a super simple thing. There's lots of un-tested legal grey areas with some of this stuff and I'm not claiming I know what the best way to handle every situation is. Túrelio dealt with it perfectly fine though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bots are 100% accurate -- better than humans, that way, unless there were bugs in the code (and that is pretty easy to test). Confirmed by the license history at Flickr (another bot). All they show though is that the file was in fact licensed that way on Flickr, at that time. There can always be mitigating circumstances -- if the Flickr account is just license laundering, it's meaningless and not a valid license. If the photo is a derivative work, it needs more investigation. If the file description makes clear the someone other than the Flickr user was the author, the account default license may not be valid. If a user ever puts that license however on their own work though, it's not meaningless -- you may regret it down the road but that does not change the fact it was licensed. If there were unanticipated consequences of it fairly quickly, or they change their mind quickly, we tend to respect that and delete it. Even if a judge rules that it was an accidental license and not fully valid, anyone who used the work under the license is likely an innocent infringer. You can't revoke an irrevocable license -- those words do have real meaning. It's part of why we have users use the email templates in the COM:VRT process when they are giving a license; really make sure they are aware what is in the license. But just like ignorance of the law is generally not an excuse if you break it, ignorance of what a license entails doesn't mean it's not valid. If it was unintended, that may be material -- but seven years is too long for it not to matter, as they certainly would have noticed their photos had that license along the way, so it'd be hard to argue anyways. Per Commons:License review however, it is policy that is all we need. If there are other mitigating circumstances, it could be worthy of discussion, but if it's just doubting the license review, you are really just arguing for a change of policy (well unless the review text was added by a non-reviewer; that should be apparent by the edit history). A DR should have additional information which demonstrates the fact of the license tag as not meaning what it seemingly does. Really, these files were relicensed CC-BY in 2009 (there was no back and forth), and changed back seven years later. If they were the Flickr user's own photos, there's not much to argue that I see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I trust the bot, i remember early days they had issues and admins shut it off meaning Images were piling up and Licence Reviewers could not handle it, lets not go down that hole again..if possible, run a new bot which checks images and current licences on flickr and if licences have been changed, adds the "Flickr-change-of-license" template to it as well as a LR/Admin 're-check' category for LR and admins to review those images just incase there maybe a need to delete them or fix them as they may be used on a lot of projects across wikimedia.. I know a lot of Flickr users left or "angry" re-licenced their images to ARR when Flickr became greedy and did not allow non-paying users to upload more than 1000 images, so we could see a lot of images no longer hosted on Flickr or licensed changed, would be a good idea for us to run a script/bot to find those images and ensure if we want to keep most of those (if they are not in use or in a category)... Stemoc 22:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You know since we are on the topic, I seem to remember reading somewhere that CC-BY allows for the license of a work to be changed or updated. If no one minds me asking, what would be the point in someone changing the license of a work if it's then still licensed as CC-BY 2.0 or whatever? Like I obviously can't license something as both CC-BY 2.0 and all rights reserved at the same time. Otherwise, what would be the point and how would that work in court if someone who changed the license sued for copyright infringement? I don't see how we could reasonable say legally that a CC-BY license can be changed or updated, but the work is still covered by CC-BY regardless. It's just nonsensical. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is all too abstract for a VP discussion. We have issues regarding licenses, changing of licenses, and whether to trust the veracity of the person or the bot who reviewed the licenses all in a single discussion. There will be no simple answer and all of this would have been better served with a DR rather than starting with a speedy template. We have a Flickr user who had an license on an account, someone else who uploaded here, (someone/something else) who 'verified' the claim, and now a current review of the page shows a different license so we don't know if the upload or the verification was/is correct. None of this can be determined in a single, simple analysis. If the bot was screwing up, that's an issue. If the person was messing around, that's an issue. If the person had a bad day, that's an issue. Otherwise, I presume we go with the fact that our verification system indicates that this was licensed with a compatible license at that time it was posted on Flickr based on numerous separate individuals (the uploader and verifying entity) confirming it but I could also see a DR going the other way if the image isn't important or has other criteria that makes this all questionable. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing in CC-BY allows you to change the license. You can't even add additional conditions to it. You can add additional rights of use, i.e. you can add as many other licenses as you want (the copyright owner is still the copyright owner). Other people may only use it under given licenses. You may be thinking of a clause when you are using a CC-BY-SA work in derivative works, the derivative can be licensed with a later version of CC-BY-SA (or another compatible license, which they list at their website). I.e. you can use a CC-BY-SA 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0 work together in a single derivative, and license the result CC-BY-SA 4.0 or CC-BY-SA 3.0. You could not license it CC-BY-SA-2.0 though due to the second work. "All rights reserved" by itself is not a license -- it's just a declaration that copyright exists (from the old Buenos Aires Convention; where it was their version of the copyright symbol). So something can be "all rights reserved", or have a copyright notice, and yet still licensed in some way. But once you license with an irrevocable license, that can't be taken back. You can add other licenses like GFDL or Free Art License, or say change CC-BY-SA to CC-BY (the CC-BY-SA is still technically valid but pretty much subsumed by CC-BY). The "irrevocable" part is quite important though; without that you can revoke licenses. There are probably some aspects of free licenses which have not been tested in court, but some have, and so far they have worked as intended. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I Change the License Terms or Conditions "Yes — but if you change the terms and conditions of any Creative Commons license, you must no longer call, label, or describe the license as a “Creative Commons” or “CC” license." There's also Can I Waive license Terms or Conditions "Yes. You may always choose to waive some license terms or conditions." Nothing about that indicates that a CC license can't be changed or waived if the creator wants to change or waive it. Just that they can't keep saying the work is licensed under the CC or use the CC branding if they do. That doesn't have anything to do with derivative works either. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the first point I think you may be confusing, "Can I licence under a CC licence and later change to another licence?" with, "Can I alter the terms of the CC licence before I publish my work with that licence?" The text you point to is talking about the latter; you can copy the CC terms, change them into a custom-made licence and release your work under that new licence, but you must not claim your new custom-licence is a CC licence.
On the second point, you can always make your CC licence less restrictive than the original terms. For example, you could release a work under CC-BY-NC so the default position is no commercial use. If a commercial organisation wants to use that image, you can accept their payment and waive the NC clause for that one organisation. The licence hasn't changed, so it is still NC for the rest of the world but you have waived that restriction for a specific organisation you choose to work with. Personally, if I was in that situation, I would just issue the work under a new licence that names the specific organisation and the permissible uses alongside the unchanged CC-BY-NC licence. That way the commercial organisation has a suitable licence for their use and there is no later confusion about which users a proposed waiver of the CC terms was meant to cover. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it has anything to do with what the person does before they publish the work with the license. The text in the FAQ says "If you change the terms and conditions of any Creative Commons license, you must no longer call, label, or describe the license as a “Creative Commons” or “CC” license." To me "no longer" implies the work was already published and they were advertising it as CC before they changed the license to something else. That's why it says "call, label, or describe." Obviously no one is going to be calling, labeling, or describing a work as CC licensed before they have published it. Otherwise, why would anyone even care? Like if I'm sitting alone on my couch at home with a work I created but haven't published yet why would it matter how I use the CC-BY-NC logo, button, or other trademarks? It only Matters once the work has been publicly released, because then it would miss-lead costumers to use the CC-BY-NC logo, button, or other trademarks if the work isn't licensed under those terms. No one gives a crap if I slap a CC logo on my self-published zine that I'm never going to share with anyone or post anywhere though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 yeah but the point is, if I release a work as CC-BY-NC first, and it's published that way originally, then I try to revise the license to include special terms and conditions, now I've got a dual-licensed work with a secondary license that's not CC and can't be called CC because of CC's inherent terms. In fact my work is still indeed licensed CC-BY-NC and I can still assert that, because I first released under a bona fide CC license, but due to the dual licensing it's also licensed by something that I can't call CC... Elizium23 (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"my work is still indeed licensed CC-BY-NC and I can still assert that" According to the FAQ you can't. Otherwise there'd be literally zero cases where the whole "you can't use the CC-BY-NC logo, button, or other trademarks if you change the license" thing would apply. The fact that you can't use the CC-BY-NC logo, button, or other trademarks if you change the license implies the work isn't CC-BY-NC licensed anymore if you change the license. Otherwise the clause is completely pointless and doesn't apply to anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You aren't distributing it under CC-BY-NC anymore, in that case. Anyone who had already copied it can continue to use it under CC-BY-NC terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 I believe we're talking past each other because we're using the same term to mean two different things.
  1. "Change the license" as in modify the terms of a license with custom legalese.
  2. "Change the license" as in replace one set of license terms with another differing set with different rights and responsibilities. This is more accurately known as "relicensing" because of the irrevocability of most licenses such as CC.
If I modify a CC license, then it stops being a CC license, and I can't call it such. If I relicense a work, then it does not stop being licensed under the original.
You can certainly modify a CC license before publication, and slap it onto your work as you initially upload it. Then it's a modified non-CC licensed work! No ambiguity here.
If you upload a work as CC-BY-ND and then modify its license terms after some period, then you have "changed the license" in both senses of the term, but what you've actually done is relicensed a work, under a dual-license, one of which you can call CC, because it is bona fide CC, and the other you can't, because you modified the terms. Elizium23 (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are protecting their trademarks, in that you can't alter the license text and still call it "Creative Commons". The result may be a free license, or it may not. If it's licensed CC-BY, then the unaltered text is the license, and the only terms allowed. If you change the license text, you are basically stopping distributing the work under the old license, and have changed to a new license. That is allowed, of course. You can not revoke the rights for people who already copied the work under its old license, since that license is irrevocable. From the very same FAQ that you found: What if I change my mind about using a CC license? CC licenses are not revocable. Once something has been published under a CC license, licensees may continue using it according to the license terms for the duration of applicable copyright and similar rights. As a licensor, you may stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license terms. While you cannot revoke the license, CC licenses do provide a mechanism for licensors to ask that others using their material remove the attribution information. You should think carefully before choosing a Creative Commons license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but I think it's a little different with digital files since they can be infinitely copied and there's no reliable way to tell which copy is the original, let alone which copy was created before or after a licensed was changed. Realistically there is only one image and one license. Sure there might millions of copies of it out there, but no one is going to sort through them to figure out which are licensed under what terms. They are just going to look at the current license and assume that it applies to whatever copy they have at the time. I assume that would go for the court system to. There's no 100% reliable, fool proof way to tell when an image was created. EXIF information can be edited. Checking the file properties to see when the image was created, modified, or accessed isn't reliable either. So we can spend all day debating the minutia, but the whole thing about the licensed can't be revoked is a distinction without a purpose since there's zero way to tell if an image was copied when the original was CC licensed or all rights reserved. Except maybe in this case the fact that the bot checked it, but not every image with a changed license was checked by a bot beforehand and I still don't think the whole "but the bot said it was fine" thing would hold up in court anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's no different with digital files. You just have to show the license was in fact valid. So you are correct, the fact you stop distributing it under a license does not matter a whole lot, because someone who copied it can continue to distribute it to others under that old license. You are merely reducing the number of people who might find it under the CC license; you are not substantially changing the rights that others have because those have been given out already. It might be a more interesting question if someone can copy an "All rights reserved" file off of Flickr, and claim they copied it earlier, and so were licensed (or claim that once licensed for a reasonable amount of time, it's still OK to copy off Flickr) -- that could get a bit more "interesting" in court. Primarily, you have to prove that the user licensed the work with a CC license (and that you have not violated the terms of that license), and not much else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg, woah, "You [the end-user] have to prove... in court" that a given license was valid and abided by the terms? That seems a high burden of proof for someone who innocently used a file under a given license!!! Are you sure about that legally, and in what jurisdictions would that apply? I would think that the plaintiff and copyright owner would need to disprove that the license was present and valid at time of usage. I would think that the copyright owner would need to prove misuse that violates license terms. I'm not sure, though. A legal system that placed all onus upon the end-user would be endlessly litigious, because any sufficiently large publishing house could endlessly pursue anyone they pleased. Elizium23 (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's someone else's copyright, it's always up to you to prove you were within rights using it (or argue on fair use grounds, etc.). Simply showing that the license existed on the photo should be enough most of the time, which is why we have the license review process (and put the tags on for Flickr uploads). You can't just claim a license existed, you have to show it. Of course, if the Flickr account was not the actual copyright owner, the license is bogus, and while you may have been misled, it's still infringement. But yes, the other party would have to prove misuse of the license if it comes to that, once it's established the license was valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg, it's no surprise that copyleft trolls have emerged, and it's easy to conceive of many, many ways in which a licensee could fall foul of the simple Creative Commons terms. All the time I see works used with insufficient attribution (or none at all.) So I suppose I believe you. This sort of structure would make me too afraid to distribute or display anything but works which are unquestionably, unimpeachably in the Public Domain. There's no way the average Joe could sustain liability if a sufficiently heavy gorilla came after us. Elizium23 (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elizium23, you can really believe Clindberg; he is one of our top-experts in legal things. --Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, this has been an extremely educational conversation if nothing else. @Elizium23 I totally agree with your last comment. If it were me I wouldn't screw with anything that isn't obviously PD-OLD. Otherwise it seems like you could get into some dicey legal territory pretty easily. Especially as an end user or smaller website. Although it's easy to image a large website getting completely screwed over to. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elizium23: Yes, the copyright trolls are rather frustrating, as there are ways the license can be gamed in practice (it would require them registering the work in most cases). Of course, if someone sues for copyright infringement it is up to them to prove they own a valid copyright, and that the defendant used its expression. However if you admit to using the work in question but under a CC license, then that aspect pretty much is not a topic for debate. You would have to show why you thought it was licensed, and the plaintiff would have to show why it was not (if you can't present any evidence of the license being given at all, then their argument gets easy). The license being on Flickr for seven years should be ample evidence of that, but you would have to respond to the particular argument of the plaintiff on why it was not licensed. If the license was valid (and "irrevocable" should mean that any plaintiff argument that they no longer give out that license should not affect that validity), then it comes down to if your actions followed the letter of the written license. There are certainly some possible pitfalls there. Of course, most people won't bother to sue in the first place, even for blatant infringement. I have seen arguments that the copyright system mostly works only because most people don't :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about beer labels etc.[edit]

Hello,

I have a question about the files contained in the Category:Beer labels and hope I'm in the right place. Is this kind of images really compatible with the "commons rules"? Are most of the illustrations really nothing more than "simple design"? Is there any (other) justification why these files are OK? I have considered possibly contributing similar files, but am not sure if I should actually upload them.... Similarly, Category:Beer caps Examples:

N8eule78 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@5snake5: as uploader.
The dubious claim of "own work" and lack of dates for when these designs were originally done don't help to resolve the question. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Pan krzyżówka as uploader for the fourth one, and Pinging @Godewind for the fifth. That fifth one is at least mostly good (only a few of those are likely even to approach the threshold of originality). - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly PD-US-notice[edit]

This photo is lacking a copyright notice and, therefore, can be uploaded to Commons under a {{PD-US-no notice}} license, right? Is there a notice that I'm not seeing? The image is watermarked, but that appears to be because someone is trying to sell it and not because it was added by whomever took the photo or first published it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appears that way. There is no notice on the back, which is where the bulk of the text is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do smiley face emoticons have no original authorship?[edit]

An earlier discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asd.gif appeared to conclude that the Asd.gif smiley face emoticon is a {{Pd-shape}} as "common property and contains no original authorship". Looking through Category:Animated smilies, many other icons like Kopfschuettel.gif and Hase-0037.gif have been marked the same way.

Is this correct? Is it fair to say that because these kinds of icons have probably been around since the early days of the internet and copied from site to site without credit, they are now effectively "common property"? I'd have thought that COM:PRP's "it can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained" would suggest otherwise. Belbury (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are clearly complex enough to have a copyright. The claimed license is therefore wrong. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Animated smilies Yann (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I understand Unicode emojis are in the public domain. Otherwise, they are copyrighted. That said, I'm not sure pd-shape would be the right copyright license regardless, but at least Unicode emojis don't have copyrights. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think representations of Unicode are automatically public domain: Commons doesn't host the Apple Color or Microsoft Segoe UI emoji sets, and Category:Noto Color Emoji smilies are explicitly Apache licenced. Belbury (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I explained that in the DR. Essentially what it comes down is that the Unicode Consortium assigns a shape outline and short description to the Unicode characters' corresponding emojis. The shape outlines and short descriptions are PD. So any emojis based on them will be to. The question then becomes is whatever emoji we are talking about close enough to the original outlines/descriptions. I assume Apple Color or Microsoft Segoe UI emoji sets aren't, which is why Commons doesn't host them. Regardless though, it would be completely ridiculous to say "X isn't hosted on Commons so Y shouldn't be hosted on Commons either." That's not a valid delete reason. Also, emojis obviously aren't a monolith. So the fact that the Apple Color or Microsoft Segoe UI emoji sets aren't hosted on Commons is completely irrelevant. We just need to figure out how close the emoji is to the original design. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Belbury, Yann, and Adamant1: perhaps this WIPO Magazine article by Professor Eric Goldman (of Santa Clara University School of Law, California) and IP Attorney Gabriella E. Ziccarelli (from Washington, DC, USA) may be of help. Also ping the respondent @Itu: from the deletion request mentioned; best all discussion is made here and I'll put the DR on hold. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure we should be drawing any connection to Unicode here. Many of these emoticons are from old web forums which wouldn't have been created with strict Unicode adherence in mind (and may even pre-date the Unicode emoji block?). It seems more like a case-by-case question of whether the geometry is simple enough to be considered {{Pd-shape}}; whether a web artist creating a pixel art smiley face in 1998 was being significantly creative in doing so, or was drawing something so simple that it couldn't have been copyrighted even if they'd wanted to. Belbury (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The shape outlines are not normative, and explicitly aren't PD. Unicode explicitly says the code charts are made with commercial fonts that may not be extracted. Treat the Unicode charts the same way as any other commercial font; glyphs may or may not be PD-Text in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unicode explicitly says the code charts are made with commercial fonts There's obviously a difference between the fonts being used for the corresponding Unicode characters (I.E. the numbers and letters that triggers the emoji) in the charts and the emojis that are based on the shapes and designs created by the Unicode Consortium. The fact that they happen to use commercial fonts for the letters/numbers in their charts has nothing to do with if the emojis are PD or not and This has nothing to do with fonts. No one nominated fonts for deletion and/or thinks Commons should host images of the fonts. In the meantime, I agree that it's a a case-by-case question. But one that should be based on if the emojis are different enough from the Unicode Consortiums original designs to be original works. Not if they qualify for PD-shape or not. In no other instance where there is an image derived from another one that's public domain would that fact be ignored in favor of judging if the image is a basic shape or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I.E. the numbers and letters that triggers the emoji) That (-: may map to an emoji has nothing to do with Unicode. Unicode emoji are just characters; like F is U+0046 and अ is U+0905 and 𐀱 is U+10031, 🫢 is U+1FAE2. The glyphs in the standard, be they Latin, Devanagari, Linear-B or emoji, are all from commercial fonts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UUnicode emoji are just characters; like F is U+0046Unicode So the Unicode Consortium designs a shape outline and description for the letter F? Sure dude. What they do is provide a basic shape and description for what the emoji for the unicode characters U+1F600 should look like, which in that case would be a round yellow smiley face with a closed mouth, and then people either adapt it or they don't. What they aren't doing is creating shapes and descriptions for basic font lettering. Which is exactly why the whole thing about the fonts being commercial fonts exists, because they aren't designing them. Not to be rude, but I don't think you understand what's being discussed here. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are being rude. I've been on the Unicode list for 20 years, and I wrote the first proposal for U+1DF5 COMBINING UP TACK ABOVE, so I'm a bit familiar with how Unicode works. F is defined in https://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf and U+1F600 is defined in https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F600.pdf in a quite similar fashion. Note that U+1F600 neither has to be yellow or round; it is merely defined as "GRINNING FACE".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah sure, but what you linked to is just an excerpt from the table and the basic shapes and descriptions still aren't for the letter F. They are for the "GRINNING FACE" or whatever emoji it is. Obviously the letter F isn't a "GRINNING FACE." So what's your point? I'm not even saying your wrong necessarily wrong about the font thing, just that are two separate things here, the fonts and the emojis. Whereas your treating it like the only thing they do is define the fonts and have nothing to at all to do with the emojis. Which is clearly wrong. BTW, that's not to claim I know more then you do about this either, but I assume the person who the Forbes article and the professor of Santa Clara University School of Law who wrote the one for WIPO Magazine would know what they were talking about when they say the emojis are public domain. I haven't seen any evidence that they are wrong either. Nothing personal, but if it's between some rando user on Commons who says they know something because they signed up for a list 20 years ago or a professor of law, I'm going with the professor of law. Sorry. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, there is nothing special about being inside a font. If an icon is copyrightable outside of a font, it will be copyrightable inside of a font, I'm pretty sure. Anything based on actual letters has a pretty high hurdle to avoid being considered typeface in the U.S., but pictorial icons I don't think would be treated specially. (Well, there was a case where made-up alphabet for a game was considered uncopyrightable, since it was a "system of communication", but I tend to doubt that applies for these. Apple did try to register copyrights on several Apple Watch animated emojis here; the ruling was mixed in that some were allowed and some rejected as being too simple. The analysis seems to be based on standard pictorial/graphic work threshold of originality analysis; they did not bring up anything about fonts or typeface really. It's possible that if the Unicode spec has drawings in it, those may be considered free use, but each font or platform often defines those icons themselves, and much of the time those specific icons probably add enough expression to be copyrightable. I'm not sure if Unicode provides any drawings; their web examples shows how they look on various platforms so those are not Unicode-drawn. It's possible such icons will become commonplace enough that they are considered uncopyrightable standard shapes, but not sure we are there yet. If they fail {{PD-shape}}, they should probably be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1FA70.pdf is one of the sections of Unicode that have emoji. The first page says "The shapes of the reference glyphs used in these code charts are not prescriptive. Considerable variation is to be expected in actual fonts. The particular fonts used in these charts were provided to the Unicode Consortium by a number of different font designers, who own the rights to the fonts. ... The fonts and font data used in production of these code charts may NOT be extracted, or used in any other way in any product or publication, without permission or license granted by the typeface owner(s)." I think the Unicode Consortium would rather dodge any question about whether or in what way fonts are copyrightable. From that file, I'd say the image for e.g. 1FA86 NESTING DOLLS is copyrightable even if several others aren't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, clearly those aren't usable, unless PD-ineligible. Just not sure how Unicode defines new code points -- when they define one, there wouldn't be a commercial font to extract them from :-) I don't know if that sheet is the only specification that vendors get, or if there truly is something actually Unicode-authored somewhere, intended for font vendors to use as a basis (which would mean some sort of implied license, if not explicit). But I'm not sure one of those has been identified yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-emoji generally require the proposer to have a font available, with most scripts having a non-Unicode font available and Evertype and SIL being generally willing to create a font for a few specialized Latin characters or whatever. For emoji, I looked it up, and they demand images from the proposer and a license from them (or a free license) (https://www.unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#image_licenses and https://www.unicode.org/emoji/emoji-proposal-agreement.pdf ), but nothing that makes it clear that we can copy their version of the symbol.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thanks. That first link also says:
The Consortium licenses its standards openly and freely under various open-source licenses found here and here. Under these licenses, vendors implement encoded emoji into their products to be used all over the world. Therefore, once an emoji is encoded, it can never be removed. For this reason, the Consortium requires a broad perpetual license in any rights you or others may have in your proposed emoji.
So your first step in this process is to read the Emoji Proposal Agreement & License that you will be required to agree to as part of your Submission. This is an important legal agreement in which you (1) warrant that your proposed emoji is available for free and open licensing, and (2) grant to the Consortium broad rights, specifically a non-exclusive irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license to encode your proposed emoji and to sublicense it under the Consortium’s various open-source licenses.
So yes, it would appear their data files are likely offered under a free license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third-party Website Licensed Picture transfer[edit]

If i want to transfer a picture from a third partty website that says Content is available under License CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. How can i do it please? Jtyccoonn (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Download the picture, upload the picture using Commons:Upload, add license info in file description. Borysk5 (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, Thank YoU. Jtyccoonn (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo Jtyccoonn uploaded seems to originate from the subjects Twitter Trade (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already made respective clarification and proof at the nomination. Happy weekend, Peace and LoveJtyccoonn (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FoP status of Northern Cyprus[edit]

Cyprus island has two countries: Cyprus and Northern Cyprus.

Cyprus has freedom of panorama(See also: {{FoP-Cyprus}}, but FoP status of Northern Cyprus is unclear.

How about FoP status of Northern Cyprus? Ox1997cow (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1911 U.K. copyright law still applies in Northern Cyprus (source: [3]) which allows Freedom of Panorama. Borysk5 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: Cross-wiki upload filter[edit]

I get this message while trying to upload a picture. What does this mean? Rob de Greeuw (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When uploading directly through a wikipedia like you tried, there are some restrictions regarding file dimensions and file size (files have to be above those to be accepted). This was introduced because too many of these files had to be deleted because of copyright problems (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 58#AbuseFilter for cross-wiki uploads). Uploading the file directly here should work. --Rosenzweig τ 01:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rob de Greeuw: I encourage you to upload your photo directly here instead of cross-wiki platform, since it is more reassuring that your file does not meet problems. You can choose among the uploading methods listed at Commons:Upload, whichever you prefer. As Rosenzweig pointed out (and in my personal experience of nominating many files for deletions), majority of cross-wiki uploads are problematic in terms of copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But by the way Rob de Greeuw, is the image you're going to upload your own self-made or self-photographed image or not? If not, you still need to contact the copyright holder of the image you are going to upload and ask them to release a commercial license through COM:VRTS correspondence. If it is an old photo, then things get more tricky, and involve U.S. copyright law as well as the copyright law of the country where the old image was first published or first made public. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rob de Greeuw: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a png image as a new user. Such uploads of png images are not allowed at all. You indicated it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a png image, it's a copyright violation taken from the web. Please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including any metadata, but it may be judged too complex to be under TOO in the country of origin, so you may need to license it on your official website or social media or send permission via VRT. Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload an svg or jpg version, too. If you can't get a compliant license, the image may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F (but sadly not Norwegian Wikipedia) because we don't allow Fair Use here. If you use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does a museum with opening hours count as "permanently located in a public place or in premises open to the public"?/FOP-UK[edit]

I'd say not as when a museum is closed it is not accessible to the public, therefore not permanently accessible to the public. But I see many files of artwork in the Tate Modern licensed with a FoP-UK. I'd say FOP relates to squares and parks but not the interior of museums and buildings with opening hours which count with limited access for the public.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is true for many countries, but current guidance in COM:FOP UK says museums are included. The "permanent" relates to the placement of the work of art itself; a temporary exhibition in a museum (with a scheduled termination date) would not be permanent, but a work displayed indefinitely would be. (Same for a work in a public square; if there just temporarily it's not OK to photograph.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Carl says, the current FOP guidance for the UK says that museums are included in "premises open to the public". Commons:Deletion requests/File:'The Visitation' by Jacob Epstein, Tate Britain.JPG states that it has been a long-running Commons practice that FOP in the UK counts in places that aren't open 24/7 and that charge admission. Abzeronow (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the copyright status of an anonymous German photography from 1923[edit]

Is it possible that File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R1215-506, Berlin, Reichsbank, Geldauflieferungsstelle.jpg is in the public domain in Germany already? I don't see a credited author, and from what I could read in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany it looks like it is in the public domain, but I'm still a bit confused by it. It's obviously in the PD in the US as per {{PD-anon-expired}} or {{PD-US-expired}} (and probably {{PD-1996}} too). Lugamo94 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't really know when and how the photograph was first published. The German Federal Archive says it's from the Allgemeiner Deutscher Nachrichtendienst - Zentralbild image pool, and since it's from 1923, per [4], it should be one of the photos of the old Scherl news agency originally founded by de:August Scherl. So it might have been published in a newspaper or magazine in 1923 (naming a photographer or not), or it might be a photo that was part of the archive and unpublished until the 2000s. Without knowing any further details, we can't really determine the copyright status. Since we have the file under a CC license from the Federal Archive though, it should still be ok to use. --Rosenzweig τ 01:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Lugamo94 (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyrighted liveries[edit]

Is it fine to upload images of aircraft with complex liveries, which are definitely copyrighted?

And the second question is whether it is important from the POV of FoP, in which particular country such an aircraft would be photographed. -- AIpjanov (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, these are OK. See Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet for the discussion. Yann (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. A similar picture of the Tiger plane was a picture of the day, but it was deleted as DW because the tiger was not de minimus. Glrx (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Glrx: Please be more specific about the filename or subpage name. BTW, on the subject of airplane nose liveries, I like the shark in Category:Antonov An-26 from The Expendables 3.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.:
Glrx (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO these were deleted by mistake. One can be seen at [5] and the other at [6]. Yann (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Please see COM:UDR#Photos of Transaero (Siberian Tiger livery), EI-XLN, Boeing 747-412 by Leukhin Fedor (IRONHIDE).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should have been "incidental", i.e. unavoidable when photographing the plane, a larger subject. Photos which focus on the livery get more problematic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Just to feel for the threshold: is this close enough to be considered as focused on the livery? --AIpjanov (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possibly. Stuff like that can be a harder thing to define, for sure. There aren't a ton of cases on the subject, but it's harder to identify the larger subject in that one. That photo, however, was taken in Australia which has freedom of panorama. That can also enter the conversation. Whether that counts as "two dimensional" or not is another interesting question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template to record residual copyright issues on simultaneous publication cases[edit]

I have recently been dealing with some cases of simultaneous publication in the U.S. and other countries where an editor in good faith nominated the files for speedy deletion. Normal practice on Commons is that we treat cases of simultaneous publication in the U.S. and elsewhere as if the U.S. is the source country. This means we record a PD licence tag for the U.S. and ignore the status in every other source country. The good faith user who nominated the cases for deletion has asked if we can make this simultaneous copyright issue more visible on files to prevent mistaken nominations,[7] which I think makes sense. I asked at Commons:Help desk#Base template for indicating simultaneous publication if there were any existing templates for this but it looks like we don't have anything at the moment.


Red copyright.svg This work was simultaneously published in the United States and
  • United Kingdom

Wikimedia Commons normally treats works published simultaneously in the U.S. and elsewhere in the same way as works first published in the U.S.
While the U.S. copyright has been shown to have expired, the copyright in one or more of the other source countries remains. Reusers of this file outside of the U.S. should take care that restrictions on usage may remain in their country.
This work was previously discussed by the Wikimedia Commons community and a decision was taken to keep the file here. The previous discussion can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Works by Ernest Howard Shepard

I have therefore drafted up a template in my sandbox at User:From Hill To Shore/sandbox 2 and User:From Hill To Shore/sandbox 3 with example usage shown in User:From Hill To Shore/sandbox 4 to explain the situation. A copy of the template is transcluded above for reference. Does anyone have any views on this before I copy it to the template namespace? From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urheberrecht[edit]

Ich besitze eine große Zahl Bilder, die ich gerne unter der Lizenz CC0 veröffentlichen möchte. Überwiegend sind es selbst geschossene Bilder von Museumsstücken aus dem Vatikan, dem Louvre, dem Musée d´Orsay, dem British Museum, der Staatlichen Antikensammlung zu München und der Berliner Museumsinsel. Außerdem besitze ich zahlreiche Bilder von Sehenswürdigkeiten europäischer Städte. Was muss ich beim Hochladen beachten. Ist es möglich die Bilder unter dieser Lizenz zu veröffentlichen oder haben die Museen dafür spezielle Regelungen? -- Blidfried (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Blidfried,
prinzipiell sind Fragen auf Deutsch besser im Commons:Forum aufgehoben, da lesen mehr Sprachkundige mit, auch Urheberrechtskundige. CC0 ist prinzipiell ok, siehe Commons:Licensing/de, wenn du keinen sonderlichen Wert darauf legst, als Urheber genannt zu werden. Falls doch, ist evtl. CC-BY-SA-4.0 oder so was besser. Bzgl. Museumsfotos: Unabhängig vom Urheberrecht gibt es da evtl. noch Hausrecht, das das Fotografieren womöglich ausschließt. Das tangiert wie gesagt das Urheberrecht nicht, aber es haben schon Museen (konkret: die Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen in Mannheim) Benutzer verklagt, die dort aufgenommene eigene Bilder unter ihrem tatsächlichen bürgerlichen Namen (und daher für das Museum greifbar) hier hochgeladen hatten. Die fotografierten Museumsstücke als solche sollten nicht mehr von Urheberrechten geschützt sein (also bspw. keine Gemälde von Picasso), es sei denn, es gilt auch in Museen die Panoramafreiheit (in Großbritannien ist das bspw. für Skulpturen der Fall, nicht aber für Gemälde). Die besagten Sehenswürdigkeiten (außerhalb geschlossener Museumsräume, also von der Straße aus fotografiert) sind u. U. auch noch urheberrechtlich geschützt (bspw. neuere Skulpturen oder auch Gebäude von Architekten, die noch keine 70 Jahre tot sind). Hier gilt in manchen Ländern die Panoramafreiheit, in anderen aber nicht oder nur so, dass sie hier nicht akzeptiert wird. Frankreich, Italien, Island und einige andere sind da problematisch. Commons:Urheberrechtsregeln nach Gebiet bietet einen Überblick und verlinkt Unterseiten zu den einzelnen Staaten. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 18:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illustrations based on photographs[edit]

An ongoing DR which could probably use additional eyes: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Waltercolor. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also relevant: Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#French_law_on_drawings_based_on_photographs (courtesy ping, Belbury). — Rhododendrites talk |  19:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permission given via Instagram link[edit]

Someone put an Instagram link as proof of permission for File:Chinese surveillance balloon over Billings, MT.jpg. But the link cannot be accessed without an Instagram account, and the link cannot be archived via archive.org or archive.is. Would the uploader have to submit other forms of verification? FunnyMath (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FunnyMath: Typically this would be handled by adding {{LicenseReview}} so an administrator can review and confirm the license. That seems to have been done already. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, if {{LicenseReview}} is good enough for people, then that's fine by me. I remember you used to be able to access Instagram links without an account, as well as archive the links. I used archive.org for an Instagram link to confirm the license for this file: File:Headshot_of_Esmé_Weijun_Wang.jpg.
Another point is that I'm worried that license reviewers could make mistakes when checking the license. For example, yesterday someone mistakenly confirmed the license for a file as CC-BY-SA 4.0 instead of CC-BY 4.0, which is the correct license. [8] If the Twitter link wasn't accessible without a Twitter account, then I wouldn't have been able to correct their mistake as easily. FunnyMath (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, these mistakes can happen. We're only human after all. :-)
However, they are usually quickly spotted due to the sharp eyes of our editors. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ckdoak: Thanks for photographing and uploading it, and confirming the license on Instagram! @Bobamnertiopsis: Thanks for reviewing the license! @FunnyMath: Yes, that was possible! @BMacZero: Thank you for your answer! English Wikipedia editors and Admins: Thanks for documenting the incident at en:2023 China balloon incident and putting it on your Main Page!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ToO[edit]

Does this picture exceed the Threshold of Originality or is it public domain? Utfor (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Utfor: For me, that image is in the grey area for TOO in the United States. Why do you ask, since it has a CC license? – BMacZero (🗩) 05:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License cleanup and duplicate files[edit]

Any ideas as to what's the best way to clean up the licenses of File:CyrusIrvingDitty.jpg and File:00000DITTY.jpg. They're certainly not the uploader's own work and they are duplicates; they also seem to be crops of File:C. Irving Ditty (1838 - 1887).jpg. Two pretty much identical crops aren't needed, but not sure which should be deleted. Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to Bobamnertiopsis and Túrelio for helping to sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Hello! Is it possible to download images from pinterest to Wikimedia Commons? The site itself uploads pictures from other sites. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Пётр Тарасьев: Most of the time, no. Exceptional cases are when the images in Pinterest are in the public domain due to age (probably anything after 1927 is under a copyright). Pinterest is not a reliable source anyway, so it is best to avoid it when another source is available. Yann (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann Thanks a lot for the clarification! Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

90125 album cover - threshold of originality[edit]

I was surprised to see the Yes 90125 album cover on Commons. The design seems more complex than any of the other album covers in Category:SVG covers of music albums. I am hesitant to nominate it for deletion in case my interpretation of the threshold of originality is incorrect, but I would be interested in some feedback from those more familiar with that threshold. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure why the date of the given in the file's description is "1975" since that album came out in late 1983. The company that released the album is en:Atco Records (based in the US) and there's some content related to the cover art in en:90125#Sleeve design, but nothing to indicate the imagery was based on someone else's work from 1975. I think this would really be too close to call "PD-logo" per COM:TOO US. Moreover, all of the notifications on the uploader's user talk page and the fact they were previously blocked twice for "uploading non-free files after warnings", the last time for a month in June 2022, don't inspire confidence in their understanding of COM:TOO. On the uploader's behalf, though, this file was uploaded prior to their last block and perhaps just went unnoticed until you decided to take a closer look at it. This probably could be tagged with {{Copyvio}}, but maybe a DR would be good if there are users other than the uploader who feel it's PD. FWIW, the uploader doesn't seem to be the type that ever responds to talk page posts; so, I'm not sure there will be much to gain by asking them for clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say a DR might be reasonable, but not {{Copyvio}}. Threshold of originality in the U.S. is pretty high. I don't think I'd be able to say confidently whether this design reaches it. - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, after some further consideration, a DR is probably the best idea since the uploader is unlikely to respond to any tagging of the file and also because of COM:US#Algorithmic and AI-created works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos of signs[edit]

It would seem that File:2022 - West Park - 7 - Allentown PA.jpg and File:2022 - Lehigh Parkway - Disc Golf Course - Allentown PA.jpg might be derivative works per COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs. Since there's automatic no FOP for 2D graphic works (even publically displayed ones) in the US per COM:FOP US (at least not for works installed after 1 Janaury 1978), this could mean that the imagery and text of the signs themselves would be subject to copyright protection of their own accord and this copyright would be independent of the copyright of the photos owned by the photographer/uploader. Would this be a correct assessment or are these files OK as licensed? Could it be argued that signs are de minimis if these are derivative works? I don't think that would be the case since the central focus of each photo is the photographed sign, but perhaps others feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly: in my opinion, only File:2022 - West Park - 7 - Allentown PA.jpg passes triviality test (US de minimis is based on triviality, not incidental or not-the-main-subject bases like those in European and Asian countries). But even if it passes US DM, the text at File:2022 - West Park - 7 - Allentown PA.jpg seems substantial enough, but it may be just below US TOO in literary works. File:2022 - Lehigh Parkway - Disc Golf Course - Allentown PA.jpg fails spectacularly: the image in the sign isn' trivial. COM:US#US States section does not list Pennsylvania as among states that default to copyright-free licenses for all categories of works made and owned by state governments (unlike California, Florida, and Massachusetts). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos of yearbook covers[edit]

Category:Yearbooks of William Allen High School and Category:Yearbooks of Louis E Dieruff High School contain lots of photos of yearbook covers that are either {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} licensed as COM:Own work or licensed as {{PD-US-no notice}}. I don't see how any of the "own work" claims could be valid since basically they are photos of yearbook covers created most likely created by others, with no new copyright be created by the photographer/uploader per COM:2D copying. In some cases, a {{Licensed-PD-Art}} wrapper could be used for the photos, but the copyright status of the cover itself would seem to be what needs to be assessed. Perhaps some are so simple, they could be treated as {{PD-textlogo}}, but quite a few seem too complex for that to be the case. For the ones licensed as "PD-US-no notice", it seems that some form of verification of that would be needed since any copyright notices would most likely be located on one of the inner pages of the yearbooks, wouldn't they? That would seem to be the common practice when it comes to stuff like this and that notice would cover all of the contents of the yearbook (including the cover art). So, I'm not sure it's sufficent to claim there's no notice simply because one isn't visible on the cover itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is kind of tangential, but I've wondering myself if yearbooks from California, Florida, Massachusetts, and Puerto Rico qualify as PD or not since they are government works. At least I assume they are. I guess the reason I'm bringing it up to note that whatever the answer to your question turns out to be it would probably be dependent on the state, or maybe not. I'm not really sure, but I think it would. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They aren't government works, except in the thinnest way. The photographs are all copyright by private photographers, and student work isn't government work. Anything by a teacher might be, but the stuff that's clearly the work of solely the teacher will be a small part of the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scan of 1969 newspaper front page[edit]

Would some others mind taking a look at File:1969 - Moon Landing - 20 Jul MC - Allentown PA.jpg? It's licensed as {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I'm not sure that's correct. First of all, most of the content on that page appears to be stuff the paper received received from various wire services; in other words, it's not content that was originally created by the paper's employees themselves. So, it's not clear whether the paper would have any claim of copyright ownership over such content to begin with. Next, I'm not sure where copyright notices for newspaper typically required to be placed. Were they required to be on the front page somewhere (perhaos in the masthead)? Could they be located on an inner page along with other information about the publisher? So, even if the paper was able to claim copyright over the content found on it's front page in addition to the layout of the page, it's not clear from this photo that it would absolutely be a case of "no notice". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These materials don't need to be owned by newspaper. It is only required that they were published with consent of copyright owners without notice to be in public domain. Borysk5 (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... and for it to be more than a relatively small number of copies. If the articles were sent out to hordes of newspapers, not sure that one newspaper without notice would qualify to lose the copyright. Especially if the contract with AP or whatever said to have one. However, we'd need to see the entire paper to see if there was a copyright notice anywhere. It did not need to be on the front page itself. Fișier:1972 - Boulevard Drive-In Ad - 16 Jun MC - Allentown PA.jpg is {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}, since specific copyright notices were needed on ads, but the front page was different. To me, there is not enough evidence. The photos are fine (they are PD-USGov) but I'm not sure even a lack of copyright notice on the entire paper would serve to inject the AP stories into the public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does British or American copyright law apply?[edit]

Hello, so this image is probably public domain (made in 1786). However, I'm not sure if British or American copyright applies. If British copyright law applies, the 2039 rule may apply. This file was made after the Declaration of Independence, but before the Constitution. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 13:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The U.S. would be the country of origin regardless if it was before or after the revolution -- colonies always have a separate legal history. It's more what the modern country is for the territory where published, though of course British law is part of that history (Statute of Anne until 1790). You would follow any U.S. law developments thereafter to determine current status. At any rate, this is not eligible for copyright in the first place (blank form). The text from the government would be published, and the rest is just information, even if it was copyrightable under the Statute of Anne (doubtful, as that was mainly just for books; Crown Copyright did not really exist until 1911 even in the UK other than for specific works where they claimed privilege). The U.S. copyright law of 1790 replaced the terms of the Statue of Anne, and so on, so you'd trace the copyright status through those laws, to see if it ever expired, or even existed in the first place (or was since restored, though the U.S. never has for their own works). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is PD-old-100-expired and PD-ineligible, so country of origin doesn't matter. Yann (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status of UK Government images on Flickr[edit]

Today, the UK Government uploaded four images of two newly appointed cabinet ministers to Flickr: [9], [10], [11] and [12]. These were originally uploaded to Flickr with a CC BY 2.0 licence but are now licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. It is to my understanding that the rights given by the original licence cannot legally be revoked and therefore still applies, though I may be mistaken. Furthermore, in the EXIF data for all four files a copyright notice is given that states "Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence"; this is repeated under "Rights". Another part of the data gives instructions and usage terms which state "This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". This appears to be contradictory, as the OGL v3.0 allows people to "copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information; adapt the Information; exploit the Information commercially and non-commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application", which I understand allows the images to be used for both advertising and commercial use. I notice that the same discrepancies apply to many other UK Government images on Flickr ([13], [14] and [15] for example).

What is the copyright status of these images and if they are free what licence can they be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under? ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]