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.

Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi)[edit]

Moved from Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi). --Achim (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Are They really in public domain gita press started in 1923. No painter name no author life time no published date Baddu676 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Mahabharata appears to be an ancient text. Is that volume a translation, an adaptation, or just a printed edition of public domain text? If there was new authorship in that volume, but no author listed, then it is anonymous -- those types of works can have shorter terms. Which country is Gita Press from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir from India. The world largest publisher of Hinduism Books with very low cost --Baddu676 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, India has a term of 60 years from publication for anonymous works, which if there is no author named, means this one is. The linked work has a library stamp date of 1955, which means that volume was published before that (and possibly well before that). So, the work is virtually certain to be PD in India even if there was new copyrightable content in this edition. The US situation would be a bit fuzzier, and would depend on the exact publication date (before 1941 would mean it's OK), and if there was any new copyrightable content in this edition (if not then there was nothing copyrightable to begin with). If this is a translation rather than the original text, then there would be new content. If it is the age-old text, then there is nothing new, unless there was a foreword or annotations or other added text. So, is this a translation, or is there any added text? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read this book page about gita press.Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India --Baddu676 (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Google Books is blocking some of the linked pages for me... can't quite tell what helpful information would be there for the questions I had above. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This book says that these are published in 1955s by gita press--Baddu676 (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Albert Einstein photos[edit]

1. Can someone review this front and back photo of Einstein from 1933? --Light show (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

2. And another from 1932. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

3. Or this one from from 1933 as a deadly outlaw on the run. $5,000 bounty. --Light show (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

4. Until he found a temporary hideout in the UK with armed protection from some English friends. --Light show (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

First one looks fine. Second one... probably fine; would prefer evidence of actual distribution for that copy, but seems probable to be OK. Third one... taken in Belgium, though it says "exclusive photo" for a U.S. company, which may indicate it was first published there, and so may also be OK. The fourth one... comes from a UK source, so presumably the UK is the country of origin. If it was published in the U.S. within 30 days, it would avoid the URAA restoration. The N.E.A. date (which was part of Acme) seems to be less than two weeks after the photo was taken, which does seem to indicate it was likely published within 30 days. So, the question is if it qualifies for {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Is there any information on who the photographer was? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It was a news photo, similar to this one. Einstein was there for a few weeks at Locker-Lampson's invitation. It was likely published as part of a news story about his visit, although the location was kept out of print. --Light show (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure. But is the photographer known? You can't claim lack of copyright notice on this one since it's not a U.S. work; you have to show that it is PD in the UK today, and either that the URAA does not apply or that it was PD in the UK in 1996 -- and it was definitely under copyright in the UK in 1996, so you need to show why the URAA did not apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Various photo agencies all attribute each other in the usual shell game, but the BBC attributes the image as 'courtesy' of the son of the landowner, a couple of places. Might help tracking something down, though I had no luck beyond this. Reventtalk 08:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The date on the the BBC page is not accurate. It's not really wrong as they write circa 1934, but still, the year is 1933. The credit might not be complete either. It could be that Philip Colman shared with the BBC a copy he had of the photo. Other photos, apparently taken the same day of the same people, are credited to Leslie Cardew of the Daily Herald: there and there, which give the date 24 July 1933. Also uncredited and credited, which gives 12 September 1933, almost like the photo in the link by Light show, which gives 11 September 1933, but 11 and 12 September might be the later dates when Planet News (SSPL) distributed the photos taken on 24 July for the Daily Herald. It's possible that the place was open on that day to other media and photos taken by different photographers. It's possible also that on that day it was an exclusive story for the Daily Herald and the photos were all taken by Leslie Cardew. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The BBC image is slightly different -- almost the same instant, but the angle is different (see the tree in back and positions of participants), and Einstein's hand is on the horse's forehead in one, and behind the head in another. So there were likely a group of photographers there, or perhaps a family member (Colman) along with someone from the press. If there is a named author, the work is most likely still under copyright. The back of the photo has a credit to Planet News Ltd., and later the Acme stamp. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
You're right, it's not the same, though clearly within a couple of minutes. Reventtalk 12:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The first of these was uploaded by Light show at File:Einstein 1933.jpg, and I've now sent it to DR as the New York Daily News not only attributes it to one of their employees, but explicitly claims it was copyrighted as late as 2000. Reventtalk 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
And withdrawn, now that we have (clearly) enough evidence to discount the Daily News here. Reventtalk 12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-free revisions of File:Inkscape0.45.png[edit]

According to File talk:Inkscape0.45.png, the three revisions of this work available on Commons have metadata of CC-BY-NC-SA (unknown version). If true, this is out of scope. Those screenshots were also captured on Windows XP, which is non-free. Could you apply oversight to hide these revisions? 12:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

They are not out of scope but copyright violations. We do not apply oversight in such case - simple deletion is sufficient. Ruslik (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, how is this different from #Image updated with a copyvio discussion on this page? Nevermind that I've not determined yet if there's licensing issues in the revisions with a yellow car. 19:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It was hidden, not oversighted. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
If so, I don't understand the difference. I guess I meant to say "hidden" in original post. 19:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Files allegedly authored by rebel/terrorist groups[edit]

Numerous files are uploaded to commons attributed to rebel/terrorist groups such as ISIL. We know that such groups are not inside the Berne Convention, nor their copyright laws are sufficiently known. What should we do regarding these files, considering the very fact that per Precautionary principle, where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. --Mhhossein talk 06:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Syria is a member of the Berne convention; Iraq is not. Regardless, copyright laws have never been designed with a war zone and forcible changes in who gets to enforce laws in mind, so I am inclined to call them "unknown copyright status". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to call them copyrighted materials. The files seems to fall under files we should delete per our long standing policy. This is not a PD work and the fact that their author is unknown or difficult to identify is not a valid reason to keep them here. For example, the author of this work needs to send permission to our support team. Thus, if we can't get a permission from its author, there is no point keeping them here. Wikicology (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a fact that this rebel/terrorist claim to be independent and to tend/want to apply only its "own law". It is also a fact that no text laws edited by them about their "copyright law" is available for us, nor, if this text law exist, it have a chance to be recognized internationally. Our policy demands that a file must be free United States and in the source country. The files have been created outside the constraints of the copyright law textes of the countries concerned, e.g. nor Syria neither Iraq do not recognize the document (medias) created by the rebel/terrorist groups. Therefore we have no textes to determine the copyright statut of such medias. I fully agree to apply PRP and to delete all full content created by this rebel/terrorist group. On a more personal level, I will also be happy that content created by "these persons" be not next to my photos, I mean sometimes it's hard to remain neutral, I saw no shame in that. But even if neutral point of view is in our policies, it is a fact that the copyright statut is very unclear. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should apply COM:PRP with these, and be very careful with COM:TOO. Keep votes in DRs of these logos by non-Arabic speakers/readers are questionable at best. How do they know what's simple and what's calligraphy? Also, permission isn't an option, unless someone from OTRS really feels comfortable communicating with terrorists/possible terrorists, which is illegal in most countries. Any email from Nusra (as mentioned above) would have to be forwarded to WMF Legal, and then probably to the NSA. We certainly wouldn't get an OTRS ticket out of it. INeverCry 17:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's a DR for the Nusra flag/logo: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jabhat al-Nusra flags. INeverCry 17:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What about svg recreations of some of these files? I've noticed files which look like non-free logos being used in infoboxes/list articles about these groups or the conflicts they are involved in such as en:List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War and , but quite a number of them are svg versions uploaded to Commons under a free license. For example, en:File:National Defence Force Syria Logo.jpg was uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free, yet File:Flag of the National Defense Force.svg and File:Flag of the National Defense Force (Variant).svg are uploaded to Commons under {{PD-textlogo}}, and File:Národní obranné jednotky insignie.png was uploaded as "own work" (FWIW, Special:Contributions/Grozo20 all seem to be fair use files claimed as "own work" and probably need to be checked). There many other examples of this and it's a bit hard to understand how the basically the same image can be non-free for Wikipedia, but PD for Commons. Does simply creating a svg version of a copyrighted logo/flag mean the original copyright no longer is applicable? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the both images above for deletion, as I can't see how they can be below TOO, and if some SVG codes can have their own copyright, that don't surpass the original artwork.... Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think a user has been changing a lot of these images from a cc license to a "below TOO" license, which I agree doesn't work with things like the linked NDF flags. These were all uploaded several years back, but I think the reasoning for uploading the NDF logo as fair use was because I had merely found it (as opposed to creating an svg) and therefore didn't feel comfortable uploading it under a cc license. I wouldn't lump the NDF in with the various non-state groups in Syria however - the NDF is an irregular government run force; perhaps more akin to a Syrian equivalent of the US National Guard than a private army. If it's felt that a cc license can't cover the NDF flags, and that there's no allowance for it due to its nature as a government creation, then what we could perhaps do is replace the wikicommons flags with a small, low-res image image (like what's been done here for Hezbollah). I suggest this because I'd venture the bulk of NDF flag usage is in small, infobox form. A fair-use version could then in turn be uploaded to Wikipedia. In these circumstances all other Syrian government emblems etc (e.g. the various Coat of arms) would have to be removed too and something similar done. MrPenguin20 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


  • @Wikicology, Christian Ferrer, INeverCry: Is it a suitable place here for making a decision regarding these files? I think most of us believe that the files attributed to rebel/terrorist groups should be removed per Precautionary principle, can make a conclusion out of this discussion? --Mhhossein talk 07:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't think I would be comfortable interacting with terrorist/rebel group and I am not sure any member of our support team would be willing to talk to them either. Wikicology (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It may now be potentially impossible for French citizens to license their works under free licenses[edit]

Recently, France passed the "Law on freedom of creation, architecture and heritage" , which makes "reproducing and communicating to the public images for search and indexing purposes" illegal without a license from a copyright royalty society. To allow this legal requirement, the law prescribes that when an image is published online, the "reproduction right and the right of communication" is automatically assigned to a collection society. This could mean that contributors no longer have the right to license their works under free terms.

Is this accurate? Is this a correct interpretation of the law? ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: This actually means that it is still free to license works under free terms, but any search or indexation engine will have to pay to a collection society for indexing these works, even if they are free. For example, will have to pay to some randomly assigned collection society for indexing 33M images from Wikimedia Commons, while, say, will not have to pay for it. It is not yet clear how this can work in reality — NickK (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
That means that our content will essentially become non-free in France, since they now cannot be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose due to copyright restrictions. ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It'll be as free as it can be made, which is all authors can do. We'll see what the effects actually are; while I have not read the new clauses, it would not be the first time that a law change would have unintended affects, and it may be corrected later or shaped more precisely by the courts. I'm not sure who would sue who, if someone used a work without payment under a granted license like that, so it may end up being a theoretical thing without any practical effect. And if the law truly does what is suggested above, it may not even conform with the Berne Convention -- Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. Countries have the right to have some limited exceptions; maybe it would be in the form of a compulsory license for such usage, making Google etc. pay a licensing fee (I wonder if actual authors will ever see a portion) for unlicensed works, but I'd be really surprised if there was a legitimate lawsuit over nonpayment for using a work that way which had been freely licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151, NickK, Clindberg: not entirely wrong but not accurate, this new law is not about copyright per se but more about related rights (maybe Commons:Non-copyright restrictions can be applied here). French citizens can still choose the license they want but other people will collect royalties on it (which is stupid and kind of immoral for free works... but it doesn't forbid to choose a free license). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyrights status of Calligraphies[edit]

Per Compendium of U.S. Copyright office practices, Chapter 900 (visual arts), "as a general rule, typeface, typefont, lettering, calligraphy, and typographic ornamentation are not registrable. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a), (e). These elements are mere variations of uncopyrightable letters or words, which in turn are the building blocks of expression."check this link Now the question is that how we treat the calligraphies in Commons. --Mhhossein talk 11:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

They are ineligible in the U.S., so that satisfies that part of licensing policy. So, the rest would depend on how such things are treated in their country of origin. We have a little bit of info at Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag; it would seem that Japan and China protect calligraphy. Iran, in article 2(5), protects Paintings, pictures, drawings, designs, decorative writings, geographical maps or any decorative and imaginative work produced in any simple or complex manner; the "decorative writings" part would seem to indicate that calligraphy is protected there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the point, Carl Lindberg! However, what should be done for the cases with unknown copyright law in their country of origin? --Mhhossein talk 07:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully, almost every country has a known copyright law ;-) The best we can do is read it, and see if there is any likely support. If not, and no known court cases, we may well accept it. But as always we can only decide with the legal information available, and make our best guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Manuel Acuña Roxas.jpg[edit]

It seems unlikely that this file is "own work" given the fact that it can be seen posted online here in October 2014 almost two years before being uploaded to Commons. It's possible that the real source of the file is this January 2013 archived version of an official Philippines Government website. If you scroll down a bit, you'll see that this is actually a colorized version of a much older looking photo. I'm not sure how colorization affects a photos copyright status. Could the original be old enough or is "official" enough to qualify as PD? Would the colorized version be considered a derivative work and would colorization be considered something that is "creative enough" to establish a new copyright for it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not "own work". The colorization was done by the Philippines government, which might be OK. But we need to find where the original photograph came from. It looks like it was taken in the Blair House (across the street from the White House) in Washington DC, in May 1946. There is a photo taken that day in the same room here, though I have not yet found any source on this photo in particular -- if there were a number of photographers there, it could be from a lot of sources (and maybe even PD-USGov). Most likely a US photograph at any rate. But without evidence, it should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to take a closer look at this Clindberg. FWIW, the file has been nominated for deleteion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manuel Acuña Roxas.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Artificial Archipelagos, Dubai, United Arab Emirates ISS022-E-024940 lrg.jpg[edit]

In the extend there is no FoP in UAE, the buildings/artificial islands were clearly constructed coordinated way for artistic purposes (from above a kind of palm tree at bottom left, and at top right a map of the earth). The buildings/artificial islands are undoubtedly in UAE territory, so no matter from where is taken the photo, here the space. The subject stay under copyright law of it's country of origin, therefore the image is a copyright violation under the UAE law. Other opinions? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting case of an image of one country taken and published from under jurisdiction of another country (USA). In this case, I think, the USA law should apply and therefore the image can be uploaded here as there is the freedom of panorama for buildings in USA. (Artificial landscapes can be regarded as buildings.) Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
FoP USA should apply only for buildings in USA territory, I don't see why an how FoP USA could apply only because the photo was made by an American agency from the space. It is the depiction of the subject witch is not allowed by the UAE law. Another way to see the issue is, is a french building near the border with Germany not protected by French law? me I think the building stay protected, because FoP Germany apply only for artworks permanent displayed on it's territory. It's the same for UAE. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
That is taking things a bit too far, I think -- the photo would also have to be focusing on one island in particular to be an issue anyways, I'm pretty sure (e.g. photos of a city skyline should always be OK, even if recognizable buildings are in there and even centered). This photo is of a wider scene. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
This is clear that the artificial islands have been made and arranged for to be seen from above and...from far. All that is voluntarily artistic may have a copyright protection. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Carl here. Even if there is a design, claiming a copyright violation doesn't make sense. No photographer went to UAE to take this, so there is no reason the UAE law should apply. The most logical is to use the law where the picture is first published, i.e. USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Buildings are made to be seen, too. It is only a photograph focused in on one particular building where we would have an issue. A wider scene is typically not a derivative work. Making an island like that does not suddenly grant the author (if there even is an individual) a derivative copyright over every aerial photograph of Dubai. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is only a photograph focused in on one particular building..." FoP laws are not only for building but for all artworks, all of the buildings are of course De Minimis in this photo, but honestly who can deny the artificial islands were made in a coordinate ways in a visual goal therefore were made artistically (in same proportions a logo with a similar palm tree and a map of the earth will be below TOO? I don't think so). The artwork is the arrangement of these islands, whose purpose design is to be seen and understood from ...the sky in a whole great set. And who can deny the artificial islands are the main features of this photo, and if not the main features, at least certainly not De Minimis. But well, fine for me, I wanted opinions, now I have. Thank you :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Let's apply our policy. The image must be free both in USA and the country of the origin. The latter country is defined as the country where the image was first published and this country is also USA. Therefore the image must free in USA, which it is as per USA freedom of panorama for buildings that I mentioned above. The UAE law has nothing to do with the copyright status of this image. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Mauthausen Concentration Camp photographs[edit]

Hi all, I'm posting here in order to get opinions about the copyright status of the pictures taken by the nazi administration in the Mauthausen concentration camp. Who's the owner of the copyright of such pictures? The author of most of the surviving pictures taken before the liberation of the camp (for instance, see here) was Paul Ricken, an SS official who led the photograph service? I don't have the information about his death date, but he definitely survived the war and subsequent trial. Did the copyright belong to him, to the SS or to the German state? If the latter, was it seized by the Allied powers? Any idea? Thanks --Discasto talk 21:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If they were part of official duties, and if he was heading the photographic service it would seem that would be the case, I would imagine the copyright would be owned by the German government. However, the copyright term (if an author is known) would still be based on that author's life. If the photos are sourced to a U.S. National Archives record, it's probably fair to assume those were seized records. That type of photo would have had its original copyright expired in Germany almost certainly, only being restored due to the EU directive in the 1990s, so it would be the restored terms which would apply today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Per here, before June 1941 the photos were taken by a Friedrich Kornacz (who was apparently sent to the eastern front). It's also possible that some were taken by assistants Antonio Garcia or w:Francisco Boix (the link above has a photo showing Boix with a camera himself, though apparently he was not a photographer by trade). Boix supposedly took photos during the liberation. Not sure it's the same person, but a German veteran cemetery search ( has a single hit for someone named Friedrich Kornacz, born in 1913 and died (or missing) on October 29, 1944. The only hit on Ricken's name has someone who died in 1917, so not the same person. He was supposedly 55 years old in 1941, though pl:Paul Ricken (esesman) has him born in 1892. Boix died in 1951. Garcia was still alive in 1998. But yeah, it seems that most were taken by Ricken. Would be very good to find out how long he lived. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carl, I'm going today to the library for a book telling the story of Boix (BTW, it's the article I'm working in and the reason to ask). According to Pike's book, it was Kornacz, and then Ricken, who actually took the pictures (prisoners working in the photograph service were not allowed to take the pictures). The reason why many pictures survived it's because Boix stole and smuggled the pictures (the pictures taken after the liberation are his, that's another issue). So, the source of all the pictures is Boix. Many of them are nowadays available in the Bundesarchiv (and subsequently taken here), NARA, or the Friends of Mauthausen association (who provided them to the French archives or to the Catalonia National Archive). I take for granted the copyright status of the pictures uploaded here by the Bundesarchiv (I assume it's what you said, Germany is the owner of the copyrights), but I'm unsure about other pictures. NARA pictures are possibly pictures provided by Boix to the Nuremberg trials... The question is simple: may take Mauthausen pictures not provided by the Bundesarchiv and assume they're already in the public domain? --Discasto talk 08:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The ones taken by Kornacz which were also in U.S. archives, yes. The ones which were not in U.S. archives technically got restored by the URAA... although if they were all used as evidence at Nuremberg, that may count as seized. The whole point of that URAA clause was to avoid suppression of Nazi/Japanese war crime material via restored copyright shenanigans, so these are directly on point. If they are in the U.S. National Archives, they would have passed through the Alien Property Custodian, which is the legal requirement to avoid the URAA, but unsure about images in other archives. If Ricken survived the war, then his photographs are still under copyright in Germany -- we'd need to find out how long he lived. If the Bundesarchiv licensed them, that is then cool for both countries of course, but otherwise we can't assume copyright has expired. I did read some about it last night -- apparently Garcia was the trained photographer, but mostly did the development, while Boix helped out in other non-photographic ways. Garcia was the main one accumulating the photos, but Boix had the better connections to smuggle them out. But yes it does sound like the German officers were the only ones taking the photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
According to El fotógrafo del horror. La historia de Francisco Boix y las fotos robadas a los SS en Mauthausen (2015), by Benito Bermejo (page 109), Ricker was born in Duisburg in 1892 and died in Düsseldorf in 1964.
Considering what you have pointed out above, what happens with the pictured smuggled by Boix that are nowadays in hands of the Association of Former Mauthausen Prisoners? May I assume that their copyright actuall belongs to the German state until 2034? --Discasto talk 21:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Evaluating suitability of a file[edit]

en:File:Thor's Hammer - Bryce Canyon.jpg was uploaded by a "Mjones3137" (which can be a shortened form of "Martin Jones") to enwiki under a free "self" license and with plausible EXIF and by a "Martyn Jones" to Flickr earlier where it currently displays a All Rights Reserved license, with identical EXIF. Is it plausible enough that both were uploaded by the same person? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Also applies to File:Monument Valley Panorama 2.jpg and, with the same circumstances. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, the Wikipedia files are full resolution, and it doesn't appear as if the full-resolution files are available at Flickr, which indicates they are the same person (the Flickr source would not indicate previous publication of the full-size images). Of course... who knows what the situation was in 2009 when these were uploaded. If they are not the same person, we would be assuming that someone invented a username in order to upload them. On balance... given the high resolutions on Wikipedia, which we can't prove existed elsewhere... I think they are OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You ask if it is "plausible enough". It is certainly plausible. If it is enough depends on your evaluation. The Wikipedia user did link to the flickr account. Of course, what we want is an indication in the other direction. There's no apparent reason to think that it's not the same person. There's a telling clue, which we can find there and there. As we can see on the Wikipedia talk page, a user contacted the uploader soon after the upload of one of his files, noting that on flickr the file was tagged all rights reserved, and suggesting that it would be a good idea to change the tag of his flickr file to a CC license. If we look at that file on flickr now, we can see that the tag is CC. It's a good indication that the flickr user Marty Jones changed the flickr tag following the request made to the Wikipedia user Mjones3137 and that he is the same person. It would have been better to request something more explicit written on flickr or by OTRS, and you can try to find a way to contact the flickr user in order to avoid the question being raised in the future, but the user has not been active on Wikipedia for many years, he was not asked to provide anything more when he was active, and it would not seem to serve any useful purpose to delete good files when an indication that the two accounts are from the same person has already been provided, as requested, by the change of the tag on flickr for the file for which it was requested. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:PFD Logo Gold.png[edit]

This file as well as File:PFD Patch.jpg, File:PFD Logo Yellow.jpg, File:PFD Logo BW.png were uploaded as "W:Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments" and a claim "Released by Philadelphia Fire Department for use on Wiki sites. Contact:". All of the files are dated the same "1951/01/01" for some reason as well. As far as I know, {{PD-CAGov}} and {{PD-FLGov}} are the only two U.S. state governments whose official images are in the public domain. Is there such licensing for Pennsylvania as well? No source url is provided for these, so there's no quick way for their licensing to be verified. Moreover, I don't think it's typical for someone having to email the copyright holder for such verification, but rather it should be on record at OTRS, right? Should these be tagged with {{No permission since}}?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If the dates are correct they'd qualify as {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I won't have time to verify them right now. shows a copyright notice, so without proof to the contrary I would not assume that they are PD for any other reason. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Jo-Jo Eumerus. FWIW, I did a google image search and it looks like "File:PFD Patch.jpg" is a photo/scan of an actual patch that is being sold online at various websites such as [1], [2], and [3]. It's also being used on various blogs, etc. and from this image on the department's official website, it kind of looks like the patch is still being used on uniforms. I have not, however, been able to date the patch or its design. As for the other files, "File:PFD Logo Yellow.jpg" looks the one used on the department's official Twitter account and "File:PFD Logo Gold.png"looks like the one on this press release, but I wasn't able to find "File:PFD Logo BW.png" anywhere online. It seems a bit odd that all of the patches were created on the same day. Is it possible that "1951/01/01" a default setting or something similar for the "date" entry in the file upload wizard? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to copyright strategy discussion[edit]

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a new copyright strategy that is being considered by the Legal department. The consultation will take the form of an open discussion, and we hope to receive a wide range of thoughts and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki. JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Puffy Shirt 2006.jpg[edit]

The background screen capture of Seinfeld is copyrightable. If cropped out, the picture will consist of just the blouse. The reader would not know what the picture is about without the capture. Wait... Is photography allowed in the Seinfeld museum? --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not the Seinfeld museum, and whether photography is allowed is something we've consistently held to be irrelevant. We should crop out the background screen capture, though there is an argument for (also) uploading it to Wikipedia under a fair use license. Pictures don't have to stand alone, and in many of its current uses the puffy shirt alone will be useful with sufficient context in the caption.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

1976 press photo[edit]

I'm wondering if this 1976 UPI press photo of en:John E. Corbally might fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}. I've tried looking for where it might have been published, but I've had no luck. Perhaps someone else can have a look. clpo13(talk) 17:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely. You need to show how that copy got distributed from UPI to another party, and show that that transfer took place before 1978, or at least 1989. It probably was further published, but if all published copies had a copyright notice, then it's not PD-US-no_notice. A common way for clients to get image was wire photos... which is where the image was transmitted over telephone lines and printed at newspapers. In that case, the copy printed at a newspaper was never really distributed, so I don't think the lack of copyright notice on that particular copy has any meaning. So you'd have to know where this copy came from, and when. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
All right, thanks. clpo13(talk) 21:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ali MacGraw publicity photo from 1972[edit]

Can someone review this photo of her from 1972? It includes both sides, showing it's an original from Photofest. No notice found. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

... and maybe not quite enough evidence of distribution. When did Photofest obtain this copy? Before 1989 or after? Basically, the main question is why would lack of notice on this copy affect copyright? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The seller, who is a professional dealer in originals with a 100% satisfaction rating for accuracy, states that "It is an Original Vintage photo FROM YEAR OF ISSUE." Is there any reason to have "significant doubt" about their description? --Light show (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
They were founded in 1981. I'm sure it was *produced* in 1972; but was it *distributed*? If it was not distributed before 1989 (say Photofest obtained an uncirculated copy in 1990), then the lack of notice means nothing. Yes, the odds are for it, but we really should have more than just odds for such a recent photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
There can be seen an imprint underneath, or on, the Photofest label from en:National General Pictures, a theater chain, film distribution and production company that per the text, "released" the film. They ended business in 1973. It includes their N.Y. address. So it was not someone's private photo since it was printed with that company's name to publicize their movie.--Light show (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Barbara Hutton publicity photo, 1938[edit]

Can someone review this photo from 1938. It's an original publicity photo from Photofest, showing front and back w/o notice. --Light show (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Photofest was founded in 1981. They are obviously not the original authors. So when did Photofest obtain this? Without that info, you don't know for sure that this copy was distributed before 1989. Photofest also unhelpfully covered up the original authors with stickers. Now... that may be enough to assume that Photofest knows it's PD, so it was free to do that. Or, they only allow usage under fair use to begin with. The copy itself is obviously old, and does have some markings which probably indicate distribution long ago, so this may be OK -- and it's also likely not renewed, so you could go that route, other than the name you'd need to search for is obscured :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

1958 press photo of Mike Nichols and Elaine May[edit]

Can someone review this publicity photo from 1958? It shows the front and back w/o notice. It also has a newspaper clipping with a date and the TV show it was publicizing. --Light show (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

1971 press photo of Rodney Dangerfield[edit]

Can someone review this photo of him performing. It has no notice, shows both sides, and includes the newspaper clipping with the image, along with the exact date and paper section. (On a side note, I'm mostly listing images where the person's article needs a better image.) --Light show (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Photos uploaded by company's brand officer[edit]

Hello, the brand officer for Himalaya Airlines, Salina Nakarmi, had uploaded several images taken by professional photographers to Commons. However it is my understanding that because she did not take the photos herself, she does not hold the copyright and cannot upload the photos on her own. So I successfully nominated her photos for deletion, examples: here and here.

Then I noticed at COM:ET that under the Interactive Release Generator, a company authority could select "I represent the copyright holder" and go from there. So is Nakarmi allowed to upload those photos she had not taken herself? If so, since the use of Interactive Release Generator is discouraged, what process should she follow to upload the photos? Thanks. – Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 05:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)