Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Community portal
Help desk
Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Shortcut: 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.

FoP in a French amusement park[edit]

Hello everyone! Today, Elisfkc requested the deletion of many pictures from the Parc Astérix (a theme park in France) because there is no freedom of panorama in this country. Since the park is not a public area, I was wondering if there is a possibility to make pictures of the park allowed here on Commons if I get in touch with the park staff and they give a permission. I think that they own the copyright of all the structures within the park, so they probably will be ok.
So I want to know if there is a document or something that they can give me to officially allow pictures of their park on Commons.
I also know that I can upload my building photos on Wikipedia, but pictures made by the other people will be lost.
Thank you in advance for your help!

Obélus (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

From what one understands, if a copyrighted work is prominently depicted in a photo (beyond what would be de minimis) and freedom of panorama does not apply, then the copyright holder of the work has to license the depicted work under a free content license in order for the photo to be accepted on Commons. A license that allows the work to be used on Commons but not anywhere else is not sufficient. (As a side note, it can happen where the owner of a physical work (such as a sculpture) is not the copyright holder.) Assuming that a copyright holder is willing to license a work under a free license, one method is to have them send a declaration of consent to OTRS. More information is here. --Gazebo (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! You explained everything very clearly! Obélus (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I need help. Valencian Museum of Ethnology WiR.[edit]

Hi. I', the WiR in the Valencian Museum of Ethnology. They have a great interest in releasing images of their collection, made by their personnel. They have a huge image where they illustrate the wide type of objects that can be used in an ethnological collection. The infography is shown in two sides, divided by a diagonal. In the right side are the "classical" objects of an Ethnological collection, while at the left side are represented "modern" ethnological objects. About the right side I find no mayor problem, the open request of opinions is about the left-inferior side of the diagonal. In this side are depicted a lot of industrial objects from the early 1900 until this date, with some publicity images from this dates. There some some images that will be obviously deleted (Massiel's screenshot in tv, being a derivate-work of the Eurovision broadcasting; also the Naranjito and Pumby characters) but there are some questions for me: shall We delete any other objects from this picture?

  • I believe that the Macintosh 128K and other industrials objects are ok. If We can have photos in Commons, We can have drawings.
  • I believe that other derivative works (Cola cao can with drawings, the Pong cartridge in the SNES, ...) are de minimins. Couldn't be?

All sugestions are welcome. The uploaded file could have the very same resolution as the pinterest image or could have a better resolution.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Some countries protect industrial design / applied art through copyright; Spain does not appear to be one of them, so those should be fine. Stefan2 did recently mention a case U2009.875Ø in a Danish court, which ruled a photo of a statue which was part of a collage did not result in the collage being a derivative work. Not entirely sure the same is true in Spain (and I haven't seen the ruling either), but it's possible -- if so, all of it should be OK. It's hard to rule that anything is "incidental" (the wording in the EU copyright directive) since they were all intentionally included by the artist, but they could still be de minimis. The Eurovision one is likely the most problematic if not, and the characters you mention. Perhaps the old photos if they are still under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. We'll check it out.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Fancyakitas's uploads[edit]

Fancyakitas has uploaded a bunch of files with the claim that they are their own work, but the EXIF data for them says this "Great Circle Mapper - Copyright (C) 1996-2016, Karl L. Swartz". Karl Swartz, the creator of a program that generated the images seems to have released the images under some kind of possibly free license. I don't see an license mentioned on that website, but it does give some MediaWiki markup that it says "would meet [the given] requirements" to "use maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper on Wikipedia". Is that enough for Commons to use them, or does the copyright holder have to explicitly release the images under a particular license? In any case, unless Fancyakitas is Karl Swartz, the "own work" claim is incorrect. What should be done about that? KSFT (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Libyan national anthem[edit]

Is the official recording of the old anthem broadcasted by the state TV sometime in the 1990s in public domain? Al-Douri (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Review of Pier Angeli photo[edit]

I came across an "original press photo" of Pier Angeli that I'd like someone to review for PD status. It is dated 1964, taken by MGM, lacks a copyright notice front or back, and includes an original typed description.

Some factors to consider:

  • From the explanation of how to identify original press photos from reproductions, which can be read here, it appears to meet all stated indications that this was original;
  • The sellers are professional dealers in mostly press photos with a 100% positive feedback rating from nearly 5,000 buyers that their photos were as described;
  • As noted here, with a source, according to the Library of Congress, only a few press photos were ever registered for copyright;
  • Based on U.S. requirements for copyright, described by Cornell Univ., it would be PD;
  • It should meet the basics of the Precautionary principle, and would not indicate there is "significant doubt" that it's a free image.

Thanks for any feedback. --Light show (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Responding to the "factors to consider"
  1. Those instructions require examination of the physical copy, which we can't do, so that doesn't help.
  2. It may well not be a modern fake, but doesn't mean it's not an old wire photo, or old copy made by someone other than the copyright owner, etc. Not relevant to the copyright determination.
  3. Registration is only required for copyright renewals, which were only required for pre-1964 publications. So 1), that fact is irrelevant for a claim of PD-US-no_notice, which is what you claiming, and 2) we don't simply hope on that basis anyways. So, that factor is not relevant.
  4. PD status is the question you are trying to answer. Under what criteria do you believe this became PD, using that chart? Please list out what facts lead to that conclusion. Simply stating "this is PD" is not evidence.
  5. If you don't think there are any doubts, you aren't playing devil's advocate very hard. Whether they rise to significant doubts... probably borderline and subject to debate. You should list the doubts which do exist and explain why you think they aren't significant.
You are claiming that this particular copy was distributed from the author (with permission) to another entity (thus qualifying the work for general publication) and had no copyright notice on it at the time. So, you need to present evidence of those factors. The best evidence is when it is obvious we are looking at the entire original, and that there are dated markings from two unrelated, named companies, one of which is the copyright owner, to demonstrate that this copy in particular was distributed. This one doesn't have all that, but has some. So, ask other questions:
Are we looking at the entire original? If not, someone may have cropped out the part with the copyright notice. In this case... it's hard to say for sure.
Do we know this copy was distributed by the copyright owner? If this was a private copy made by MGM, and stored there for many years, then lack of notice on this copy is meaningless. Likewise if it was a wire photo or something printed locally at a news organization, and kept by them privately, then again lack of notice on this copy does not mean anything as it pertains to the copyright status. The front does have written mention of MGM, and the back has a date and a marking which might indicate it was a news service, but it is not named. I think it would be rare that the handwritten note would be on a regular, distributed publicity photo -- normally that would be cropped. It could have been distributed to news organizations possibly, but there is no record of where this photo came from, from what I can see. We have to guess. It would seem to indicate that the copyright owner was MGM, and if you assume the stuff on the back was from someone other than MGM, then that might be enough evidence to show distribution. But if a news organization made a copy from another source, which had a copyright notice, under the defense of fair use -- again, it would not necessarily be PD.
Given the date on the back (1964), it would seem to indicate that the photo was at least published. It would also seem, though without slam-dunk evidence, that someone other than MGM did have this copy back then. But it's also possible we are looking at a crop, and it's possible it was a private copy. Secondly, as a 1964 work, we can't claim lack of copyright renewal if we are wrong about the copyright notice (as registration/renewal was never required for this photo to keep its copyright). If uploaded, it's the type of image I wouldn't mark for deletion myself, but also the type where I wouldn't argue to keep it either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It's likely this is just one of the many hundreds of headshot publicity photos of her, this one by MGM, and that the added typed description on the back was used to tie it to some published story somewhere. Your comment that "it would seem to indicate that the copyright owner was MGM" would go against the generally accepted legal opinion about publicity photos, namely that they "have traditionally not been copyrighted." And for obvious reasons, copyrighting a publicity photo would defeat their intended purpose: "to remain free for publications to use wherever possible."
Your focus on proving who, what, where, when, or how it was distributed seems unnecessary, since publication is the only thing required, and you agree it was published. I can't reply to the "what if" cropping questions for a listed "original" photo, as the seller implies it is a complete image. The chart says that if it was published between 1923 and 1977 w/o a notice, it's PD. In addition, registration was required by any claimed owner before they could claim infringement for damages. The notice simply acts as a "notice" of intent to copyright, which only gave 5-year common law protection. --Light show (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
There was a copyright owner at one point -- it may be that the copyright has been lost, but there was still a copyright owner. A copy illegally published by a third party without notice would not affect the copyright, which is why it's important -- you have to show that the copyright owner abandoned the copyright via lack of notice (or licensed it to someone who did). As for the rest, no, publication alone is not enough. You are trying to prove publication without notice. A copy that was never distributed does not prove that -- you can only show that on the actual copies which were published that there was no notice. Was this particular copy published (which usually means distributed)? If you can't show that, then you haven't shown that publication without notice happened, since this copy is the only "no notice" evidence you have. If some copies were published with notice, and other copies without notice were never published, then copyright still exists. You need to show both aspects in the same copy. Copyright does not defeat publicity photos at all -- you just grant a license for them for editorial purposes, which would be implied for publicity photos (and still works today, when copyright is never lost). All the CC-BY etc. images we have here are still copyrighted. Yes, registration was required in order to file a lawsuit, but you are claiming that copyright was flat-out lost. Lack of registration has nothing to do with that. You can still commit infringement; the owner can then register the copyright and then sue -- you're still guilty (though damages would be less). For your last sentence, no, that is completely wrong. Common-law copyright ended upon publication; if there was a copyright notice on all (or at least most) of your copies you then got copyright for 28 years, renewable to 56 and eventually 75. The notice serviced to preserve copyright -- it was all you needed for 28 years. And for 1964+ works, it's all you have ever needed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Fabyan17 uploads[edit]

File:VicenteSantos-Vanguard5.jpg, File:VicenteSantos-Vanguard6.jpg, File:VicenteSantos2.jpg, File:VicenteSantos1.jpg and File:South Crest School Batch 2001 - Fabian Santos.jpg are all licensed as own work of the uploader Fabyan17. Some of these photos seem much older than their metadata indiates, and the class photo seems to have a watermark on it. It's possible that the older photos are family photos which were just simply rephotographed. Is OTRS verification needed for photos such as these? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Per COM:PRP, I tagged all their files as "no permission". Those 1966 photos may be copyrighted until 2017, but we don't know because the month is not given. And the 2001 photo, is clearly copyrighted until 2052, so we need OTRS permission from the photographer (not Fabyan17). The same too with the 2015 photo. Poké95 02:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Vicente Santos has a son named Fabian T. Santos -- and that is the name on the class photo. A couple of the others are obvious family photos that only a family member would have access to. That same user seems to have created a lot of the content on the Wiki article. Given that the photos were not on the internet to begin with, I don't think they qualify for speedy deletion. Seems overwhelmingly likely it is a family member, and probably the son. I am a bit suspicious of the class photo, and the public speaking one, but... not sure they are on the internet either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Photography of live screens at events[edit]

Could people who know more about this please weigh in at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lily Allen gig Nottingham 2009 MMB 33.jpg. I was under the impression that taking photos of a screen at a concert/event which was showing an unadulterated live image was not a copyright violation per our rules. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • As well as for live television I don't think it is exempted of copyright, just because the screen is placed near the event. Some broadcast live regarding sport are also displayed on giant screen near/in sport venues, I don't think they are free too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ping for ‎~riley at their request. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In some cases where the screen is only a minor background part, Commons:De minimis might apply. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ephemeral works don't get copyright, at least in the US. But this is the 21st century; if that screen wasn't being stored on a hard drive or some other permanent media, I'll eat my hat. I think we have to assume that all such screens are being recorded and are copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Flickr images from the Latvian parliament[edit]

There are over 9,000 images on Wikimedia commons that were transferred from the Flickr account of the Latvian Saeima (parliament) that are indicated on Flickr as having a CC BY-SA 2.0 license. However, at some point in the last few years, this account started including a link to in their image descriptions and updated their profile to include similar text to that page. When translated, that page says (in part) "Pictures and video material which are . . . uploaded on the official picture account of the Saeima on . . . are the property of the Saeima Chancellery and are subject to the Copyright Law." "Audiovisual material can be copied, reproduced, published, stored, archived, and distributed without consent of the right-holder if it is done for informative, educational or research purposes, for analytical reviews or for news releases . . . the material cannot be used for commercial advertising purposes." "Disregarding these regulations will be considered a violation of copyright and property rights." That last sentence seems to indicate that this isn't a non-copyright restriction.

Clearly, despite being uploaded to Flickr as CC BY-SA 2.0, the inclusion of this link in the description indicates a clear intent to license the image under something like CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 instead. I understand that legally, if the content is dual-licensed, the less restrictive license usually prevails, and that once these images were released under CC BY-SA 2.0 that license is irrevocable. However, in this case, where the file description made the intent clear, should we give the Latvian Saeima the benefit of the doubt honor the intent of the license and not host these images? There are approximately 2,200 images affected by this.

Perhaps someone with a better grasp of the Latvian language can contact the email address at that link for clarification (and/or arrange for an OTRS ticket). --Ahecht (TALK
) 14:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I would not give any benefit of doubt to official uploads from a government owned account. As they are the government they have access to the professional legal advise and have a responsibility to ask for it if necessary. They are not a clueless person who inadvertently has released their images. Ruslik (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of works by US citizens that are anonymous?[edit]

And which template to use? I.e. what is the US equivalent of Template:PD-anon-70-EU? If you respond here please ping me back. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: U.S. copyright before 1978 was based on publication date, not lives of authors, so the distinction didn't matter. However, copyright would have also required a copyright renewal, so it was more difficult to remain anonymous (though an agent could renew on behalf of a pseudonymous author). In short though, no real difference for anonymous works, so {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, etc., as normal. For works published since 2003, the anonymous term is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first. {{PD-US-unpublished}} can apply to a few works. See Commons:Hirtle chart. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

A guide to Korean copyright[edit]

I created User:Piotrus/KoreaCopyright to try to explain which tags to use for images that may be in public domain. I also concluded that "Works by identified South Korean authors who died before 1957". I am however somewhat confused by Template:PD-South Korea which contains dates 1963 and 1976. The 1963 seems to be a restriction, but to what? And the 1976 seems to be an exception. What are their sources? If someone knows how to interpret those dates better, please feel free to adjust my guide. Also, I couldn't find anything about the status of anonymous works, i.e. ones where the author cannot be identified. This is covered by Template:PD-anon-70-EU for EU.

The above guide, in addition to being helpful to wikimedians, is also intended to answer a question posed by my Korean students: "can I upload this historical image to Commons?" I am currently convinced I can tell them "if the author died before 1957, you can". Do let me know if I should modify my lesson.

PS. If you reply here, please do ping me back. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Piotrus Is Poland a typo? Random86 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Random86 Yes, I based this on my User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright and I guess I missed that one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like Korea extended copyright from 30 to 50 years in 1986 or 1987, non-retroactively. Is that where the 1957 date came from? Then, in a 2011 law, they non-retroactively extended from 50 to 70 years. That law said it went into effect when the US-South Korea Free Trade Agreement went into effect, which was March 2012, though a wipolex document has certain sections being effective from various dates in 2013. If it was 2013, then the 1963 date makes sense -- anything which had expired by then, which would be death before 1963, would remain PD. It possibly should be 1962, if the effective date of the changes was 2012, but there are some specific term-related articles which do have an effective date in 2013 instead.
As for 1976... it looks like the 1957 law, article 35(1), said "Copyright in a photograph shall last for ten years". So... if the law which went into effect in 1987 was not retroactive, that means that photographs from 1976 and earlier (i.e. before 1977) expired and have never been restored. So, for photographs, that is one area where the 1957 law can still have some effect. I think that is what the tag is trying to say (though of course if the photos are derivative of a sculpture or something, the sculpture's copyright would last longer). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, there. I agree with the opinion of Carl Lindberg. At first, I made some fix at "Template:PD-South Korea" based on Copyright law 1957 of South Korea. HappyMidnight (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I will also ping people involved in the discussions on the PD-Korea template: User:Adam Cuerden, User:トトト, User:HappyMidnight, User:Martin H., User:Hyolee2, User:84user and User:-revi. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, (ps. link is in Korean)

  • Copyright act (No. 432, 1957-01-28) article 30 says "Published works' copyright remains for copyright owner's life and 30 years after death". (If multiple author, 30 years after last author's death.)
    • However, article 35 says "Copyright of photography remains for 10 years from the next year of the photography's publish." (article 36 gives an exception for article 35 — if the photography's sole purpose is artistic or scholastic it is 30 years not 10 years.)
  • Copyright act (No. 3916, 1987-07-01) article 36 says "Published works' copyright remains for copyright owner's life and 50 years after death". (Same here)
  • Copyright act (No. 10807, 2013-07-01) article 39 says "Published works' copyright remains for copyright owner's life and 70 years after death". (ditto.)

Hope this clears everything. — regards, Revi 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I do see that Article 36 (in the Google Books source I found) says Copyright in a photograph inserted in a work of literature or science, and which is produced or is ordered to be made especially for such work, shall belong to the author of the work of literature or science in question and last for the same period as the copyright in the latter. So it sounds like photographs made specifically for books or scientific articles would last much longer, using the pma-based terms. It's possible that Article 36 was changed at some point, as well as Article 35, as the Google Books source does not mention publication. It is an English translation, so maybe something was lost, but the Article 36 texts do seem very different between the sources, suggesting an amendment at some point. This was a compilation of laws from 1998, which I think listed both the 1986 and 1957 laws, so it may have been a version "up to" a particular, later date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No amendment was made during 1957 and 1987. That clause (photograph's copyright retains for 10 years) was removed with 1987 amendment. — regards, Revi 04:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. The Google Translate of the links you gave is pretty rough, but I can see where the official or semi-official English translation I found matches up to those links, so it looks like the English source is accurate. Article 35 seems ambiguous if it was 10 years from publication or creation. Article 36 does seem to say that photos made specially for a larger work like a book or scientific article are basically part of that work and get that work's protection (which was 30pma). It does seem like unpublished works kept their copyright indefinitely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Basically all protection starts with publication. — regards, Revi 14:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, but what about anonymous works? And related groups? Works which were never published? Etc.? --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous work - 30 years after publish. Unpublished - there is no mention about it. (1957)
Anonymous work - 50 years after publish. (If real identity is known during anon work protection, it would be protected as natural human. Unpublished - no mention about it either.
I don't get what 'related group' means. — regards, Revi 04:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, by other groups I meant primarily the "never published" (or "never made public"). In other words, if the law says "Published works' copyright remains", what about "unpublished works"? For example, if someone had some photos in the family archive that are pre-1977, but that were never published anywhere, and puts them on the Internet (thus making it available to the public for the first time), does that mean they got published then? Are they PD or are they copyrighted? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I'm contacting lawyers to clarify that. — regards, Revi 14:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

PS. So [1] this presumably anonymous-author picture from 1931, republished in the 1995 Korean newspaper, is PD and can be migrated to Commons, yes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sureshpandey tagging scanned photos as "own work"[edit]

User:Sureshpandey has uploaded a number of images of Indian politicians from the same family (list of uploads); at en.wikipedia the user states that he is working on behalf of the family and has been given access to photo albums. The photo uploads are scans of the photos in those albums, according to what he says here.

I know that Commons has a different ruleset from, but I'm reasonably convinced that he cannot tag the images as "own", which he has continued to do. He also cannot claim to be the copyright holder, unless I'm completely mistaken. However, what I don't know is whether the images need to be deleted or if there is an applicable licence for them. For the most part I think they are of people who are no longer living, so it might not be possible to get a free equivalent of e.g. - but the fact remains that there is a photographer who is not credited and who owns the copyright (that particular image is tagged as being from 2001 so it's certainly not out of copyright, and it looks like an official portrait type photo).

The user is not very communicative and did not take the advice they got in February seriously (per the talk page link above), and since I am not sure of what the Commons copyright/licencing policies are when it comes to photos scanned from an album I wanted to raise the discussion here. Thanks, --Bonadea (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I tagged all the files they uploaded (except two which are taken with a Nikon camera) with "no permission". They need to ask the copyright holder (not Sureshpandey) to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, the copyright holder irrevocably agree to release their files under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Poké95 08:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply and action! --Bonadea (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Tre mason 2014.jpg[edit]

So, File:Tre mason 2014.jpg is sourced from Flickr. On Flickr, it is licensed as All Rights Reserved. However, the Flickr account seems to be the account of a US Army base, which, if the image "is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties" would make it PD-USArmy. However, I cannot find the image in the DVIDS database, which usually would have such media. So, is the image a copyright violation, or is it public domain? Elisfkc (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I see you marked the file as All Rights Reserved. Just wanted to make sure you saw this first. Elisfkc (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not that clear if those images are part of "official duties" - there no text anywhere on that Flickr account to confirm/deny it. Probably best to err on the side of caution, as the Flickr page has an explicit "All Rights Reserved". Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Educational logos[edit]

Just wanted to know if educational (Over 150 years) logos are public domain. Because when trying to upload the logo of mi high school the page haunts me with "Did you create the image entirely yourself?" which I have obviously not. So my doubt is, is it Creative Commons? Juanksape (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Any image, which is over 150 years old, is likely to be in public domain. Can you be more specific? Ruslik (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Эта карта свободна?[edit] - какая лицензия у карт на основе этого видео из статьи? В чате админов пишут, что вроде работы НАСА под свободной лицензией, но в этой карте могут быть работы других ученых. Что думают участники форума? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The credit line begins with NASA/... , which means that it is a NASA work and is in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
A license which write? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
{{PD-NASA}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Himachal Pradesh University Logo.png[edit]

This file is freely licensed and is sourced to Photoshop, but it can be seen used at, and Does using Photoshop to create a version of what looks to be a non-free logo equate to some sort of transfer of copyright? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: 99% sure that, yes, copyright does apply, because it is a derivative work at best, and at worst, is a simple recreation of the copyrighted material, which is also a copyright violation. --Elisfkc (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the repsonse Elisfkc. Do you have any suggestions as to what should be done in a case like this? Tag with {{No permission since}} or {{Copyvio}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer {{Logo}}. Elisfkc (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I forgot about that template. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:World of Disney (5310011053).jpg & de minimis[edit]

Does File:World of Disney (5310011053).jpg qualify as de minimis because of Stitch being a larger part of the World Of Disney store entrance, or is this a copyright violation? --Elisfkc (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Eva Marie Saint publicity photo[edit]

Would this publicity photo of Eva Marie Saint be acceptable as PD? It's an obvious publicity photo created by her agency for distribution to studios and fans, and used for giving autographs. The reverse is blank. It would appear to meet the Precautionary principle. A similarly autographed photo is this one, which is clearer and preferred. --Light show (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

When and where was this photo published? Ruslik (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Publication of publicity photos takes place when they are first made available to the public. "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first distributed to the public.”definition. See also film still. --Light show (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
That definition is for 1978 and later. The question is when did it occur. What PD license are you claiming? {{PD-US-no notice}} requires publication before 1978. The only other tag is {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Which one applies, and why? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
To be safe, the 2nd image would be clearer, since it was likely taken in the mid 1950s. The listing actually shows the entire front margin but it's hard to make out. I could get the seller to show the reverse. The seller, a professional dealer, states it is an "authentic hand signed vintage glossy photo. --Light show (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Was it signed in the 1950s? Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not dated. From "film still" article: "Beyond basic publicity purposes, film stills were given to the actors themselves to send, signed or unsigned, to their fans and fan clubs. At various special events, stars might bring along a stack of these studio photos to sign in the presence of admirers, much like book signings by authors today." --Light show (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Is it a virtual certainty this was signed before 1989? Or could it have been manufactured and signed later? That is your real question. Without evidence of this copy being distributed before 1989, then there is no way to prove the lack of copyright notice affected the copyright. The fact it was signed, OK, it was published at least at that point, but we need to demonstrate that copies were published without notice before 1989. If this was a modern reproduction of an old photo and signed only recently, lack of notice on this copy would not be meaningful. At least some of her publicity photos have been copyrighted, like here (and that one is still under copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Inheritance of copyright[edit]

I'm way out of my depth at this DR. Could somebody who understands the law of inheritance as it relates to copyright pitch in there? We have a good photo but whether the deceased photographer's sister has the authority to license his work under the particular circumstances is not a question I am competent to answer. BethNaught (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I replied there, but I'll add it here too. Copyrights can be inherited yes like any other property -- and they would be subject to terms in wills, etc. Personally, it's an area I don't like to wade into much -- if one of the co-owner heirs wants to license a photo here, I'd be inclined to just accept it, unless another family member opposes it. Part of U.S. copyright law is that any co-owner can license a work non-exclusively without the permission of other co-owners -- but while a free license is technically non-exclusive, the effects are pretty extensive, and I could see that type of license might be ruled differently by a court to require all co-owners. But I don't think there has been an actual test of that in court, and the statutory language might still rule. So... feels best to me that for family photos, we accept a license from any co-owner. Seems a bit over-the-top to require OTRS from all of them. If another member of the family (co-owner) asks for deletion (which I'm guessing would be rare) then I'd probably delete, and let the family sort it out. That approach would likely minimize uploading friction and administrator time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is the owner of a picture I take of someone?[edit]

Hello: I'm editing an article in Wikipedia of a known living writer. The article doesn’t have a picture of the writer and there are no pictures of her available at Wikimedia Commons. If I take a picture of her (with her permission), in order to upload it to Commons and use it for this article, who owns this picture? the writer or me? In other words, if I try to upload it to Commons, in the upload wizard, should I upload it as my own work on not? If I upload it as not my own work, it will ask for a license. What would be the most practical way to do this? And a related question: If I’m writing an article about a celebrity, or a musician, who doesn’t have a picture available at Commons, and I take a picture of him/her in a public place, who owns this picture? Do I have the right to upload it to Commons? Thanks a lot for your help. Garai0316 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • If you are the photographer, you own the copyright to the photo, unless you did take the photo for hire or it includes someone else's copyrighted work as well (e.g a painting).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help. Garai0316 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


Is the licensing for this image correct? There's a non-free version of the same file being used on English Wikipedia as en:File:Real-housewives-of-new-jersey-logo.png. If this can be freely licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}, then the non-free version can be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)