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.

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.

About sharing photos on Wikishare.[edit]

I wanted to offer a new perspective on the field of "copyright in images", after all for any copyrighted image - then adding to it a caption or logo on the image, and almost any image that does not have a caption or copyright symbol are actually published for public benefit without any copyright. So I suggest that you just check if the image was edited so that the copyright symbol was removed from it and in that case do not approve the posting of an image on Wikimedia Commons, but if the image does not have a copyright symbol, you can find copies in the oldest published imeg and see that its first publication was without Copyright So in that case you will be able to publish this image because most of the FIRST PUBLICATION images currently on the net are published without publishing the photographer's name or publishing any license - which means that advertisers do not care about any license and are interested in providing a public service while giving up on the copyright. Is there anyone here who is qualified to correct a way of thinking in wiki sharing? ANAELIAZOR (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: Have you read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT yet?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes and as stated I disagree with what is said there.

Because everyone uploads an image that cares about copyright on their image - then a few things happen. 1. HE is the first publisher of the image. The oldest advertising can be found by search engines such as TINEYE.COM 2. It explicitly states that the image is copyrighted or written on the site itself or embedded in the image itself. All other advertisers who post pictures without any marking they publish knowing that the picture is available online to everyone - and so they show us that they waive copyright - most also do not leave contact information so you can not ask them permission to use the picture for educational purposes for example. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: that is simply not how copyright works. You may well be right that many of the authors who don’t make explicit copyright claims on their publications care little for such issues. However, I would expect most of those people to suddenly get much more interested in exercising their rights if they notice that their work is being used to someone else’s benefit, or in a manner of which they disapprove. At any rate, from a legal POV most countries’ laws—if not all nowadays—consider copyright to take effect with the creation of a work, whether or not it is published and without requiring any notice or registration.——Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: ANAELIAZOR (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If an image has been published without stating that it is copyrighted, i can understand why it should not be used for commercial purposes - and demand money from it. But I do not think it is right to claim that every image has copyright even if the creator of the image seems to have waived that right. In most of the images you can find their initial publication as stated and then you can see clearly whether the creator of the image is interested in preserving copyright or that he published an image to the public while giving up the copyright that he had. You see, Wikishae is meant to be a learning aid for me - and as such it should be open to receiving images that can allow us all to learn as openly and as tangibly as possible. An open mind also means understanding that most image, advertisers do it for fun to enrich the public's knowledge or give them any benefit - while in practice they do not seem to care about copyright - so they also do not add a copyright mark on the image - so they Do not even leave details like who the photographer is or through contact with him, most of them do not even write on the site that there is copyright on the image - this means that the actual situation is completely different from what they described in Wikishare - and Wikishare should be updated on this matter and not be left with wrong stigmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANAELIAZOR (talk • contribs) 03:50, 31 August 2021‎ (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: What was the source of File:עטרות בצבע זהה לעור הגוף עקב שיזוף.png? Pinging @Geagea as deleting Admin and native Hebrew speaker. What is Wikishare?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The file is a collage of women breasts (only the breasts). According to the OTRS ticket photos grabbed from the net and you can find them in many sites source. Beside the copyright issue, there is also concern about COM:IDENT. -- Geagea (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Wikishare, is the platform that allows sharing photos on Wikipedia.

By the way, they deleted the photo I uploaded, even though the publishers of the photo waived the copyright + the photographers took part in the photo and were aware that they were being photographed [this is evident from the fact that they looked at the camera during the photo shoot] ANAELIAZOR (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: How does one access Wikishare? How does one know that subjects are looking at the camera, just from their breasts? Where are the individual photos? For each of those photos, what can you tell us about the name and lifetime of the photographer and the dates and countries of photography and publication? Please read COM:EVID and COM:TALK. Noting ticket:2021082710006416 for the record.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I have the full photos including the face which clearly shows them looking at the photographer.

Also from the images I have you can do a search in a search engine such as TINETE.COM and find the first appearance of each image - so we can check if the publisher of the image claimed copyright or he published the images while giving up copyright [did not even mention in writing next to the image that Copyright and of course did not incorporate copyright text in the image].

ANAELIAZOR (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@ANAELIAZOR: Where exactly did you get "the full photos"? Why are you not providing the full answers? Why are you using three levels of indentation for one reply?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: 1. Where did I get the full photos? From sites that published the images without copyright .. You can search for the first publication of each image and see that neither the image nor the site has any copyright captions! But Wikipedia expects the image publisher to explicitly state that the image is publicly licensed - and I'm talking about that Wikipedia requires excessive and unnecessary requirement, as most image publishers post images in a way that proves they have no intention of making money from the image or copyright. And I'm not saying that everyone is like that, there are also those who expect to be rewarded for the image, and as such they embed in the image or next to the image they write that there is copyright to the image, but in the images I used there are no such captions.

2. In what matter did I not give full answers? Did you mean to ask why I did not provide the full pictures? 3. I used two levels of entry because I thought it would be more orderly in the eye, but now I just line up the last two paragraphs of the conversation - the previous paragraph goes down line, and my / your answer goes down line .. If we maintain this order that each time there will be only two paragraphs with a space interval then it will be easier for us to find the last answers in the conversation. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: Let me make it simple for you. Our policy is that we follow copyright law as it stands. Most countries in the world (179 at last count) have ratified the Berne Convention. Under that convention, a photograph attracts copyright as soon as it is taken, whether or not it is stamped as such. For each and every partial photo included in File:עטרות בצבע זהה לעור הגוף עקב שיזוף.png, we need to know exactly where to find it (which exact photo, on what exact page). I can't see that image, so if it is online elsewhere, where exactly is that? I can see, however, that your misunderstanding of copyright extended to Hebrew in Ticket:2021082710006416.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Okay, if I attach links to the full images and you see that the advertisers have not attached any text seeking copyright protection, then you will approve the image?

If not, I'm seeking to change the policy, as it is inhumane to expect any image publisher to indicate that their images are on a free license to the public.

There are full of photographers who are unaware of all this nonsense of licensing or copyright protection - so they assume that if they did not state that there is copyright + they posted the image so that it is accessible to everyone online then it proves they do not care about copyright and here ends the story !!

I understand that you have a different policy. I would like to talk to those responsible so that you can change the policy so that it is a logical policy and compatible with our time, a time when there are those who demand copyright and they do so by embedding text in the image. Do not live in illusions - do not expect to attribute copyright to the image when you have no idea who the photographer is, because he did not leave any details of himself + he published the images on sites that are available to everyone + did not incorporate copyright in the images. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: First, you must get a country to abandon the World Trade Organization, all treaties and other agreements documented in the List of parties to international copyright agreements, and domestic copyright laws, in writing. That would be a herculean task, and rather detrimental to the livelihoods of content producers in that country. Then, notify us here with evidence of that abandonment and get that list changed, and we will make appropriate change(s) to that country's entry at COM:CRT. Until then, you must comply with international copyright laws, treaties, and other agreements. You must also comply with Commons policies, guidelines, and procedures, including COM:L, COM:TALK, and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you for allowing us from you to lead change.

1. Do you have any idea who is in charge of copyright in the country? To whom in the country should I address my claims? 2. If I get approval from the relevant authorities - then the pictures I will post according to my country's laws, will these pictures be visible in all countries? ANAELIAZOR (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: In many countries with parliamentary governments, that would be the legislature. In countries with autocratic governments, that would be the autocrat. Good luck getting the US to honor a lack of copyright, and getting approval to upload to Commons servers in the US.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks, but I'm not in it, how do I contact them?

Can you give me an email address for UN copyright inquiries? Or a link to a filler for the sake of contacting those responsible for US copyright law? ANAELIAZOR (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: You are not in a country? That is rather extraordinary! Contacts for legislatures and autocrats are generally at their official websites, which can generally be found from the initial External Links on the bottoms of their English Wikipedia articles, for example en:United States Congress, en:Knesset, and en:Parliament of the United Kingdom. Do you consider "Wikishare" to be Wikimedia Commons? If not, please explain further.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Before I approached the legislature with our complaints and grievances, I thought to check the copyright issue again.

And it turns out that according to the law - it is allowed to use the images for educational or study purposes - even without obtaining permission from the creator of the image, See quote from here: "The concept is sometimes not well defined; however in Canada, private copying for personal use has been expressly permitted by statute since 1999. In Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 37, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that limited copying for educational purposes could also be justified under the fair dealing exemption. "

Therefore, it turns out that there is no problem with images on Wikishare because they are all published for educational purposes - and by the way, the same law also appears on the Hebrew page [the language I speak, that is, the law is the same in Israel], I hope this is enough to lead a change in Wikipedia - so we will reach a more collaborative and helpful world. If I open a complaint against the legislature, he will explain to me that there is no place for a complaint at all because it is not a problem to share photos for educational or educational purposes. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: Yes, that's called fair use, and it is not allowed on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Even if images are not allowed in the public domain, Wikipedia is still an educational platform and therefore in this respect it should not be a problem to publish images for the purpose of studying Wikipedia. It can be added in the text next to the image that the image is not necessarily allowed for use in the public domain but only in an educational context according to copyright law. But you should not ban the posting of images on Wikipedia just because the publisher of the image did not explicitly state that the image is freely licensed to the public, because as stated even if there is copyright to the image it is still permitted by law to be used for research or study. That is, I ask that you accept the law and update your conduct on Wikipedia. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@ANAELIAZOR: No, as this was already explained to you above. So for the last time, please read COM:L, why we can't accept such files. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: You only reinforced my claim that I said that the problem stems from Wikipedia and not from the legislature, because Wikipedia claims that they are interested in allowing everyone to reuse images and not just for educational purposes, and as can be seen from the quote here: [Paragraph 3 at the beginning of the page] "The additional restrictions imposed by our license policy are driven by our ultimate goal, which is to enable all Wikimedia site content— both media and text - to be creatively reused in a variety of contexts, in any country, without the imposition of cumbersome requirements or fees. "

"The additional restrictions imposed by our license policy are driven by our ultimate goal, which is to enable all Wikimedia site content— both media and text - to be creatively reused in a variety of contexts, in any country, without the imposition of cumbersome requirements or fees. "

But if you change your purpose - and it depends only on the openness of your thinking - you can focus on the main purpose for which people volunteer at Wikipedia - and that is to give access to educational content - and anyone who wants to publish educational content can also use Wikipedia content including images, so it should not To be a problem for Wikishare to get images which by law can be used for study or research ..

Too bad you create a situation where you pile difficulties on the volunteers and you create a problem that should not be at all - just change the direction of your thinking - instead of having a goal to contain images for use in any way - you should decide to agree to contain educational content - it will be more correct to implement, You are not a site for an image database without any purpose, but Wikimedia is an educational image database, do not try to force us into a situation where we will be very limited in presenting tangible content from the world - it is just unnecessary.

And if you can not change Wikipedia's policies because you are not the administrator - then I ask that anyone who has the ability to amend Wikipedia's policies - then he will be referred to our conversation.

Thanks. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: We can't decide the copyright laws. When you have read and understood the answers given to you by several experienced people, we can discuss. For now, bye. Yann (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Uzbek copyright extension[edit]

The Uzbek government has passed the law to amend the copyright extension for 70 years. Source: [1] -- 01:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Seems legit. Can you provide the official version gazetted for double verification? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Can someone help with updating the content on COM:Uzbekistan and {{PD-Uzbekistan}}? I don't know how to edit complex pages and templates with translation involved.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The outdated 2007/2018 amendment was replaced in 2021 to extend 70 year copyright term for Uzbek works. -- 07:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Is this retroactive, i.e. will works that are already out of copyright due to the old term but have not passed the 70 years threshold get a new protection? De728631 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Same as Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and some former Soviet countries which had protected for 70 years (in Russia, with additional three years during World War II). -- 08:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
But this law amended on July 2021, the Uzbek copyright would extend from 50 to 70 years in Article 2. -- 08:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@, De728631: From the Google translated text, it seems that there are no retrospective provisions (i.e. works published before the amendments comes into effect are protected under the new 70-year duration instead of the old 50-year duration). As the source is published on an official governmental website, perhaps we should proceed to update relevant provisions?廣九直通車 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Probable screenshots[edit]

This one and this one seem like screenshots of the live telecast of the latest Paralympics. I mean compare the first image with this one. So I guess an admin needs to press the appropriate button. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

M.nelson, thanks for the detailed comment. I have actually got hundreds of files deleted via CSDs or DRs. But the screenshots are a bit tricky matter, especially in the cases like the present one, where the uploaders present them as their "own work". Having said that, Howdy.carabao's approach seems most suitable in this case. Anyway, thanks again to both of you. - NitinMlk (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


Hello, the contributions (files) of Special:Contributions/Oasisllc (like limited liability company ?) do not seem to have their place on Commons, in compliance with COM:PACKAGING.
I'm no specialist, but packages, with the product name, logo and trademark, don't seem "insignificant" or "old enough" or "simple enough" to me. I would like some expert advice ;-) Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Files like File:Bactériophagiques russes staphylo & pyo.jpg are OK. No complex design or logo, just name and content of the product. Nothing which might be under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

UN docs copyright[edit]

According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Nations "United Nations documents issued with a UN document symbol" are in public domain. Does it meam that I can use photos that are within documents with this symbol such as in this doc: [2]? Borysk5 (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Borysk5: Yes, the UNSC document contains the official UN document symbol, and falls under {{PD-UN-doc}}. Please feel free to upload it to Commons, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Not all photos. Use in this document does not have the effet of whitewashing non-free third-party photos. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Asclepias: I know, I was asking about those non-third party (taken by the Panel). Borysk5 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

UA93 Recordings[edit]

The current featured article on the English Wikipedia is United Airlines Flight 93, which includes numerous audio recordings that have been marked with {{PD-USGov}}. These audio recordings are generally cockpit voice recordings or recordings of communications between the aircraft and Air Traffic control:

One audio recording is of a phone message:

I think it would be difficult to classify the cockpit recordings and ATC transmissions as government works because the government did not contribute anything creatively to them. For ATC transmissions, the air traffic controller's audio is possibly a federal government work, but the aircraft's audio—created by United pilots or by terrorists and recorded on United-owned equipment—is not. The cockpit recordings are unambiguously not government works. That being said, the recordings still are likely in the public domain for several reasons. Production-wise, these sorts of recordings, especially the cockpit voice recordings, are made in purely mechanical processes, so {{PD-ineligible}} probably applies. The brief utterances and informational conversation are likely not creative works, so {{PD-ineligible}} probably applies there as well. Additionally, the speech produced by terrorists and passengers on the aircraft was not fixed "by or under the authority of the author" (17 U.S. Code § 101), so it is not copyrightable. Speech made by aircraft controllers was made and fixed by federal employees, so {{PD-USGov}} may still be appropriate for File:Ua93.oga.

As for File:Lyles.ogg, I am far more skeptical that this can be in the public domain. This was a private phone message published but not created by the federal government. It may still be {{PD-ineligible}} or not fixed "by or under the authority of the author", but these arguments hold less water.  Mysterymanblue  22:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

We might want to create a green advisory tag for unfixed works (similar to {{FoP-US}}) because the situation is not quite the same as {{PD-ineligible}} (even if in this case, some of the speech would be simple enough to be ineligible anyways). The same would also apply to COM:ZOOM, where copyright is only created when a livestream is fixed and so a participant who takes a Zoom screenshot is the sole copyright holder of the image. -- King of ♥ 01:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I agree... but should it be green? Shouldn't it be the light bluish gray that regular PD tags are? My understanding is that the FOP tag is green because the buildings are protected by copyright, but that copyright protection in a piece of architecture does not give the copyright holder the exclusive right to take photographs of the architecture.  Mysterymanblue  04:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, an unfixed work by definition is not a work which can be directly uploaded to Commons, so it would never be used as the primary copyright tag. Just like how you can never upload a building directly to Commons. `-- King of ♥ 15:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Sound recordings have a copyright entirely separate from the content they are recording. Much like photographers standing side by side will have independent copyrights on the photos they take, two people with sound recorders will have independent copyrights on the recordings they make, even if they sound virtually the same. Not sure there are too many cases on the TOO of sound recordings. But anyways, it is that aspect which is PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: But in this case, the audio signal is being created on an airplane and only the data of that signal is being recorded by the government. Surely the government's role in such a situation is not that of an author.  Mysterymanblue  04:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
If the audio signal is a radio transmission, then yes whoever records it might have their own copyright. If these are from the cockpit voice recorder, I'd tend to agree with you. It's not about the content (the audio signal), it's about the actual process used to record it, and any creativity that might have. If the signal is actually recorded on the aircraft, and the recording is transmitted digitally, it might be different. Either case could be judged PD-ineligible, if there was no real human involvement in the recording, or if that involvement did not exhibit enough of a spark of creativity. While quite likely in this situation, we don't have very many good precedents for that type of thing, and we don't know the details of how this stuff was actually recorded. If PD-USGov can be used to cover it, probably best to use that. The copyright in a photograph is rarely the actual subject in a photograph -- it's the angle and framing of the photo, the timing, etc. The copyright in a sound recording can be in the placement of the recorder, any treatment they do of the sound, or other elements -- the actual content/signal being recorded is not relevant (well, you'd need permission yourself for any copyrighted content of course, but extemporaneous speech would not qualify in this case). The Copyright Office does note, Sound recordings captured by purely mechanical means without originality of any kind also lack a sufficient amount of authorship to warrant copyright protection. But the copyright, if any, would be in the actual capturing of the sound, regardless of what those sounds are. More/better info available from that Copyright Office link. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess it has always been unclear to me what exactly the rules are with sound recordings. I have read the copyright circular you cite, which reads "The author of a sound recording is the performer featured in the recording and the producer who captured and processed the sounds that appear in the final recording." This suggests to me that copyright really does protect the creative contributions of the person making the sound and those of the person making the recording - at least if they are working together. In cases where the recorder and the performer do not work together, 17 U.S. Code § 1101 protects against unauthorized recording of a live music performance, but does not protect against recording other types of sound. In this case, the placement of the microphones within the cockpit is fixed in a situation akin to static CCTV cameras, which seemed to suggest to me a minimum amount of originality in the creation of the recording. I should have also considered the processing done to that audio signal as a potential creative work, but it seems unlikely to me that processes on the plane or ground would have gone beyond purely mechanical changes meant to preserve the quality of the signal.  Mysterymanblue  08:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

DR in need of inputs[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kunwar Brajesh Singh.jpg needs imputs, especially from those who are familiar with the Indian copyrights. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Clearly copyrighted by BBC India, and certainly not in the public domain in USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. :) NitinMlk (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Which tag do I need to add when uploading these files? (Smithsonian)[edit]

Hi there, I would like to upload these files from the Smithsonian.[3]-[4] They have added a download button and right next to it it says "usage conditions apply". When you click on that it says:

"All other Content is subject to usage conditions due to copyright and/or other restrictions and may only be used for personal, educational, and other non-commercial uses consistent with the principles of fair use under Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act. All rights not expressly granted herein by the Smithsonian are reserved, unless the Content is marked with the CC0 icon. To use Content with usage conditions, you must:

  1. Cite the author and source of the Content as you would material from any printed work.
  2. Cite and link to, when possible, the Website as the source of the Content.
  3. Not remove any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices including attribution information, credits, and notices, that are placed in or near the text, images, or data.
  4. Comply with all terms or restrictions (such as copyright, trademark, publicity and privacy rights, or contractual restrictions) as may be specified in the metadata or as may otherwise apply to the Content."

It leaves me puzzled vis. which tag I need to add for such files. Does anyone have an idea? Thank you in advance! - LouisAragon (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyone? Maybe you could help me out one more time, Wdwd? :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Their "usage conditions apply" info says that those images are not free. Therefore, there is no tag. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Asclepias: So none of the 2D works from the same site (e.g.[5]) are uploadable either accompanied by "PD-Art-old-100"? Or old photographs such as this one?[6] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The original question was specifically about two images to which PD-Art does not apply. If you find something that meets PD-Art, it's different. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Edward Weston, Armco Steel, Ohio, 1922[edit]

Hi, Why this famous photograph from 1922 would still be under a copyright? See [7], [8]. I understand that all US works from before 1926 are in the public domain, isn't? Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

All works published before 1926 are in the public domain in the US. When was this published (not taken)? It seems unlikely for the 1981 copyright claim to be relevant, but there are several recent (post-1977) registrations for bunches of his photographs. Given that it was printed in 1941, it's likely it was published then, and the only renewal listed for Edward Weston before 1942 is "California and the West". Were it first published in another work, it might have been renewed with that work, but that seems unlikely for this photographer given his Wikipedia page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't realize the pages I was checking only had early art renewals, but I've looked at the art and photograph renewals on and Weston's name doesn't appear in any of them up to 1970, so if it was printed and distributed for sale or further distribution in or by 1941, it's now PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done File:Edward Weston, Armco Steel, Ohio, 1922, MoMA.jpg. Thanks for your comments, Yann (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Does it mean most (if not all his works) are in the public domain because of lack of renewal (he died in 1958)? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The work must have been published before 1964, and there must be no renewals from his heirs either. -- King of ♥ 21:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: OK, but how do you know when a photograph was first published? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
That will have to be found through research. For things like books, postcards, publicity photos, etc. it is reasonable to assume that they have been published absent evidence to the contrary. For artistic works it is a bit harder. Note that per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, any art which has been placed in a public location (including a museum) prior to 1978, unless visitors are forbidden from making copies, counts as published. -- King of ♥ 21:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Certainly not. I didn't check renewals for works first published after 1941, and any work first published in California and the West (1940) or the 1942 edition of Leaves of Grass illustrated by his photographs or The Photographs of Edward Weston (1946) or The Cats of Wildcat Hill (1947) or Fifty Photographs (1947), just to list the renewals of pre-1950 works easily checkable by me, is still in copyright, as well as quite possibly works first published in other works. There are a number of mass posthumous copyright registrations that didn't need renewal, so proving publication is key.
The Armco Steel photograph that started this discussion is something I would think twice before using personally. Part of that is because of possible lawsuits that don't come into play with Commons, but when push comes to shove, I don't know enough to be certain about the publication status of the work. The three new ones I'm really uncertain about; Plaster Works certainly could have been first published in California and the West, for example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have uploaded more pre-1926 photographs with the generic {{PD-US}} license. I hope that's OK. Yann (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright question on the Michael Evans Portrait Project[edit]

One of the many portraits

I've found a great resource of potentially thousands of images at the Michael Evans Portrait Project Photograph Collection, archived at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum, but am seeing conflicting information regarding copyright / public domain status. I've uploaded some already to Category:Michael Evans Portrait Project, but want to hold off pending better clarity. The collection's main page states the collection is in the public domain, although this notice does not seem to be found on the over 1,000 negative sheets. Michael Evans was official White House photographer in the Reagan Administration, but it looks like much of the Portrait Project was done on his "off hours" (see here), with copyrights to the portraits and negatives held by a nonprofit set up for the project ("The Portrait Project, Inc.), even though the prints and negatives were planned to be deposited in federal repositories (which doesn't necessarily negate copyright). A collection of documents (here) gives more info on the background and articles of incorporation. The portraits were published in book form in 1985, in People and Power: Portraits from the Federal Village, which states on its copyright page "© The Portrait Project, Inc.... All rights reserved." This conflicts with the Reagan Library's claim of public domain. It is possible that copyright was relinquished upon donation to National Archives/Reagan Library, or that some of the portraits were taken on official time as a federal employee (i.e. the portraits featured on the main page), or that the Reagan Library is in error. Some portraits have apparently been gifted to the Smithsonian (e.g. [9], [10]). Some additional press coverage of the Portrait Project is at Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and American Photographer magazine. Any insight or sleuthing from experts would be greatly appreciated, otherwise the images already uploaded may need to be deleted. Thanks, --Animalparty (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like a question to ask to the Library or other people who might know the facts. The missing piece to your puzzle is not a legal analysis but information about facts. Specifically, what happened of the corp The Portrait Project, Inc.? If it was dissolved, which is likely, to what other organization were its assets (in particular its copyrights) turned over? And then what did that organization do with the copyrights. Given that the Library seems confident to tell the copyright status of the collection, it seems a good organization to which ask factual details. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Company car photo (UK)[edit]

I been involved in some FoP copyright issues in Ireland/UK over the past while .... and have recalled when speaking just now about a company in the same service field that I have taken this image of a company car File:Caremark-motor-Chi.jpg a while ago. Is anyone about to confirm it some not fall foul of UK copyright law due to the logo? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not a COM:FOP issue, but a COM:DM issue. Consensus has been relatively mixed regarding cars with paint jobs. -- King of ♥ 20:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Thanks for pointing the relevance of the DM. Faily obviously per caption the the care was snapped due to it representing the company and because it may an impacting image that I used on their website .. I think I worked over 4 care brands(national franchicees) at the same time. My initial reaction was I have fallen foul of DM because of the Logo centre .... but on hard thinking about it the words stand out far more than the logo and the logo it actually incidental. I have decided not to test case it for deletion but not objecting to anyone else doing that. I may or may not tag Template:De minimus. Thinking about modern UK railway locomotives, as I sometimes do, where there might be the occasional similar issue, tagging one of those for deletion on a similar basis might invoke a lynch mob! Its a consideration for me ... I'm also thinking o a lorry I took recently and (may or may not have uploaded) and if that had an issue. Anyway thankyou for the response as it may influence the my choices for further images or sometimes how I compose a shot. Thankyou. 22:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)~

Screenshots of TV shows[edit]

This editor has added multiple images of screenshots from TV shows that are covered by copyright. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I warned them, please tag the old ones, final warn them, or report them, as appropriate.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I've nuked all but one of the speedies, but File:Danielle Trotta Larry McReynolds.jpg is giving me an internal database error, if someone else could try it. Huntster (t @ c) 12:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: COM:VPC is mostly for discussions on tricky copyright issues, not obvious copyvios. In the future, serial copyright violators may be reported to COM:ANBP or COM:ANU. -- King of ♥ 23:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about EXIF copyright statement and Flickr copyright statement discrepancies.[edit]

If there is a conflict between an EXIF copyright statement (too restrictive for Commons, though not "all rights reserved") and that image's Flickr page (which licences it as CC-BY), which takes precedence? Would it be the Flickr licence (because it was necessarily made later and is not revocable)? Assume there is no suspicion of Flickrwashing. Interested to hear your thoughts. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Those cases must always be evaluated individually, taking into account all the particular facts. There is no single answer to an unspecific context. In many cases, after verification, it turned out that the photos were not free. An approximation to a general advice could be exercise caution unless it's obvious that the copyright owner issued a free license with the intention to supersede anything to the contrary. In doubt, verify. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Assuming that the Flickr account's authorship of the photos is not in question, I actually feel better about an "All Rights Reserved" than a CC-BY-NC. The former might just be something automatically applied by their editing software, and besides, "All Rights Reserved" isn't strictly false even if a CC license has been applied. For the latter we may wish to clarify their intentions with them. -- King of ♥ 14:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the image: File:Jorge Lorenzo, Joan Mir, Hafizh Syahrin and Karel Abraham 2019 Termas de Río Hondo (cropped).jpg. I verified that it is indeed cropped from the source (which is probably why the automatic Flickr licence check didn't work). I am relying on the mechanical translation of the Spanish, but the EXIF statement seems to lean closer to the noncommercial licence. It's definitely not a standard camera setting. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
With corporate entities, I'm more willing to say "you have a team of lawyers who should have looked at this, CC licenses are irrevocable, too bad/suck it up." One thing you'll want to check is whether it is a reasonable assumption that REPSOL is the copyright holder (as opposed to the actual photographer). If you are convinced of that, then I have no qualms accepting the CC license. -- King of ♥ 15:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
IMHO, the image would usually go into the category "not obvious" and not to be uploaded and kept without confirmation. It sure looks like one of those cases where the person who used the flickr account didn't seem to have a clear idea of what they were doing when they tagged the images. The exif notice sounds like you may use this photo but only if you are a press entity and not for publicity. There's a contact email adress. The photographer also has a social media presence through which he could be contacted, for example his twitter account. It should be possible to obtain a clarification. A quick search on Commons shows that there is a large number of files from that flickr account. That may suggest that there's no problem and either that it has already been checked or that nobody bothered. Anyway, it would be good to obtain an official clarification if it has not been done already. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


Hi, I needed an image of the American Sign Language finger alphabet with no Latin letters, so I snipped the letters out of File:ABC pict.png and re-uploaded it in case anyone else needs the same thing. I'm not sure if I got all the steps right... please let me know if I messed up. None Shall Revert (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Voice of America screenshot[edit]

I'm not sure File:Cai Xia.jpg has been uploaded under an acceptable license, but I'd like to get some feedback on that before starting a DR. The photo can be found used in a video (1:27 mark) on the en:Voice of America's Chinese language YouTube channel, but it doesn't appear to be original VOA content. I don't understand Chinese, but it seem that en:Cai Xia (the subject of the photo?) is either being interviewed or discussed by others and a photo was used to represent her likeness. There's no attribution given for the photo and there's no other indication that I can see which indicates where the photo came from; so, there's no way to be sure the VOA just wasn't using a photo it got from somewhere else. There seem to be quite a number of similar photos found online with a different background like this; so, it kind of looks like the VOA took one of these and photoshopped it onto a generic background for use on their channel. Can Commons keep this as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup 2019 Final[edit]

I want to know how can I copyright the image in which England is holding the Cricket World Cup? Please write in simple words. RIDHVAN SHARMA (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The image is not allowed on Commons. Getty Images holds the copyright. It will be many years before their copyright expires. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's talk about South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks.[edit]

I talked about South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks last time, but I didn't get a clear answer.

I found two cases related to South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks.

First case: Seoul High Court judged the seagull pattern and the figure of Ebisu of EVISU Japan is not copyrighted because they cannot be recognized for originality. (Reference)

Second case: Supreme Court of South Korea judged the logo of Fox Racing is copyrighted. (Reference)

How about South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks?

It would be appreciated if someone who can speak Korean could read the case law and give an answer. (If you don't know Korean, you can use Google Translate.)

Ox1997cow (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid but nobody will give you a clear answer. There is no any clear definition of ToO in Korea or anywhere in the world. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Still, it is possible to make some inferences from precedents. What do you think? Ox1997cow (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Precedents are often contradictory. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure which image public domain template to use[edit]

I recently found a document which I plan to use photos from for an article I am working on editing, specifically Flare, specifically photos from Chapter 5. The document which I found the photos in says it is in the public domain (at the bottom of the document), yet it doesn't match up with any of the public domain file copyright tags that I have looked through. The document specifically says the following:

"Publications and training materials produced by NWCG are in the public domain. Use of public domain information, including copying, is permitted. Use of NWCG information within another document is permitted if NWCG information is accurately credited to NWCG. The NWCG logo may not be used except on NWCG authorized information. “National Wildfire Coordinating Group,” “NWCG,” and the NWCG logo are trademarks of NWCG."

I was wondering if anyone knows which copyright tag it matches up with and possibly if the photo is or isn't permitted to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Thank You So Much!



Rafaelmanman (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rafaelmanman: By NWCG, do you mean the en:National Wildfire Coordinating Group? If so, then since it is a United States government office then the generic Template:PD-USGov should be okay. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Howdy.carabao: Hello, Indeed I do, I also recently asked about this same subject in the Wikipedia Teahouse. They recommended I ask here but also said "Well, for starters, we're told that '[PD-USGov] should not be used if the department or part of the federal government which produced the work is known'." If you believe that I should use Template:PD-USGov, please let me know. Thank You! Rafaelmanman (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
We don't have a more specific template for NWCG in Category:PD-USGov license tags, and it doesn't appear to be under the purview of any other department or agency that we do have a tag for (being made up of representatives from various agencies), so the generic PD-USGov template seems fine, unless someone wants to try their hand at making a specific one. clpo13(talk) 17:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for the answers, I think I will just use Template:PD-USGov. Thanks Again!

Sincerely, Rafaelmanman (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright notice on collective work[edit]

The year is 1970, and Person A is publishing a book in the United States. Person B submits a photo they took and consents for it to appear in the book uncredited. The book is published with the only copyright notice in the entire book being "© 1970 Person A". Which of the following best describes the current copyright status of B's photo?

  1. It is {{PD-US-no notice}}, because each component of a collective work must have its own copyright notice.
  2. It is {{PD-US-defective notice}}, because while the copyright notice covers the entire book, it fails to correctly name B as the copyright holder of the photo.
  3. A is the copyright holder of the entire book, including B's photo, and is authorized to release the rights to B's photo.
  4. B is still the copyright holder of the photo.

P.S. Would the answer change if B is credited but not explicitly listed in any copyright notice? -- King of ♥ 03:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's a proper collective work, the overall copyright notice covers everything. If it's not, if Person A is the licensor or proprietor of the work, then it's probably still fine. The Jaws Copyright Office ruling would have allowed a lot of covers to be out of copyright, and if a publisher contracted for interior art on a John Doe's work, it looks like that art would need its own notice, but from reading that, if John Doe contracted for art and put © 1970 John Doe, it should be fine, and that's backed up by a good amount of case law. That ruling is basically all I looked at for this answer, but I don't recall anything in US law that would say otherwise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: What do you mean by "proper collective work"? What about a book written by A that uses an illustration by B? -- King of ♥ 05:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Instead of copying the page, I'll just link it: --Prosfilaes (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Carl Lindberg's link below (17 USC 406) makes no mention of collective works, so how do you square the Jaws ruling with that? -- King of ♥ 06:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Unless there was a written transfer, B still owns the copyright. A collective work's notice covered every component work, other than advertisements. The missing separate notice would create an "error in name" scenario, which did not affect the copyright status. 17 USC 406: With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, where the person named in the copyright notice on copies or phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner is not the owner of copyright, the validity and ownership of the copyright are not affected. It goes on to say that if you ask permission from A, thinking they are the copyright owner and A gives you permission, then you likely have a complete defense against infringement (as long as B did not register the work separately). But B still owns the copyright, and A might be liable in that situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess I should clarify that the above law is only part of the 1976 act; publications prior to 1978 were not explicitly covered by that, and the older law did specify that the name of the "proprietor" should be in the notice. However, there were a couple of court cases along those lines -- such as Goodis v. United Artists (We unanimously conclude that where a magazine has purchased the right of first publication under circumstances which show that the author has no intention to donate his work to the public, copyright notice in the magazine's name is sufficient to obtain a valid copyright on behalf of the beneficial owner, the author or proprietor), and Fantastic Fakes v. Pickwick (courts have generally avoided technical forfeitures for failure to strictly comply with the provision, focusing instead on whether the purpose of the notice requirement was served despite the defect in the notice provided [...] The claim of copyright placed on Fantastic's material, although defective, clearly notified the public of the existence of a claim of copyright.). So, the 1976 law was probably codifying that understanding. (The second decision came after that law actually, and was influenced by it.). As Prosfilaes showed though, items outside the collective work probably could not be covered -- there likely had to be some sort of licensing relationship between the two parties. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

São Tomé and Príncipe FOP revisited[edit]

The relevant page states that FOP there is not OK as it only mentions use and not reproduction. I actually revisited their copyright law and read Article 75(p). The clause states (using the translation at the right):

"p) The use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be kept permanently in public places."

IMO, the term "use" encompasses exploitations (like depictions or representations), which IMO may be "OK". There are no restrictions like "for occasion of current reporting purposes", "for personal use", "for non-profit use" or any other restrictions on FOP. Thus IMO, São Tomé and Príncipe FOP is "OK" for Commons.

However, I may need other users' opinions regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Photos from TK KBS[edit]

Hi! I need a reflection from someone skilled of you! I would like to upload some photos from this page: I asked them if they would provide some photos to Wikimedia and I was adressed to this page with words : These are photos for free use, but you have to state the complete copyright string: e.g. in the case of the visit of Pope Frantisek in Slovakia, Man and Faith / TK KBS / Name and Surname of photographer. Is this compatible with the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence [or with Wikimedia Commons licences at all]? Thanks a lot!----ScholastikosSVK (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a CC-BY license. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Brooklyn Museum and CC BY 3.0[edit]

Good evening! I found out that Brooklyn Museum has materials that it's licensed under CC BY 3.0 and I would like to upload some of them (about Javanese culture) to Wikimedia Commons. I need contributor to confirm whether the material is actually safe to upload, as I'm not sure whether the copyright holder is by museum or author that gave the rights to museum or copyright rules are applied to these material so that I can avoid copyright infringement. Thanks. AnsyahF (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That collection should be fine. I wouldn't rely on a boilerplate statement from a museum on anything, so only upload images that have an individual CC statement. -- King of ♥ 14:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)