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.

Is the license for this file correct? This file was transferred from Flickr and Anroid license was not indicated there Артём 13327 (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems as if the little green robot image is already contained in the file tree given as the source, so I am not sure what the original contribution of mtan14 is. The Apache license is certainly fine. Felix QW (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, that green robot was once part of the Android source code.
And the original source of the photo did not have an Apache 2.0 license indicated, and it was added after copying the file here Артём 13327 (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there's a good argument to be made that this file doesn't have a lot of potential to ever be used, as it is a partial slanted photo of a screen. (Can be replaced with a screenshot or a png file) Bremps... 15:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Law Library[edit]

The Massachusetts Courts website has some useful photos of the famous w:Sacco and Vanzetti trial from the 1920s - but are the images PD-US or not? Specifically the images of the judges and attorneys. Muzilon (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If they were published contemporaneously, then yes, since works first published in 1927 or earlier are in the public domain in the United States (the trial was in 1921). If they were photographs taken by the MA government, then it might be {{PD-MAGov}}, regardless of when it was published. The "Sacco and Vanzetti Defense Committee" letter was unquestionably first published in or before 1927, so that's fine. You'd have to look a bit more into the provenance of the other photographs; it's technically possible that they were not taken contemporaneously, were registered, and had their registrations renewed, but it's very unlikely to be the case. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allan C Green, photographer[edit]

A large collection (over 8700 images) of this prolific Australian ship photographer's work is held in the State of Victoria Library, gifted by Green, with a large proportion available on-line. They are properly tagged PD in Australia as he died in 1954, and the extension from 50 to 70 years introduced on 1/1/2005 was not retrospective. So far, so good. However it seems clear that none of these images are PD in the US - an example arose recently here.

My question is when they will be free to use under US rules. Does it depend on when they are considered published? They were taken over a period of some 50 years; and, as I understand it, Green provided copies (whether for payment or not) to collectors and for publication over a long period. It seems reasonable to assume publication at the date of the photo - but there would, I think have been no specidfic publication or registration in the US. The normal 70-year rule would release them on 1/1/2025. But do some of the more arcane US provisions extend that? Davidships (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone else may want to weigh in, but as far as I can tell, even with the URAA restoration, these are copyrighted in the U.S. only for 95 years from initial publication (regardless of where that publication took place). So anything published before 1928 is already free in the U.S., and that will move by one year every year. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is certainly correct. Having been published abroad by 1954 and not having been PD in their source country at the restoration date, they will enter the public domain in the US 95 years from their first publication abroad. Felix QW (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Date of death is irrelevant for photos. Australian photos were protected for 50 years from creation (since extended to a term based on lifetime, but not retroactively). So, any of his photos before 1946 should be OK, unless there is a question they were never published at all before 1989. It sounds like most were a gift to the library in 1956; that or actions after that could well have constituted U.S. publication. I don't think I would delete anything on those grounds. Photos from 1946 and later, and any paintings (which had a 50pma term on the URAA date), could be U.S. problems though due to the URAA. If the government owned any copyright (i.e. it was transferred with the gift), and they declare them public domain, there is a chance that is good enough for the U.S. as well -- if they consider that declaration to apply internationally, the way the one in {{PD-AustraliaGov}} does. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: I rarely question your judgements on copyright, but if the U.S. rights were restored by URAA, isn't the copyright then valid until it would have expired in the U.S. if U.S. formalities had been complied with, rather than when it happens to expire in its home country? - Jmabel ! talk 02:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If formalities were followed, then yes. That was extremely rare for items outside of movies and books, so we often assumed publication happened without notice for non-U.S. works. For any publication before 1964, there has to be a renewal on file in the U.S. Copyright Office, so if you find one of those that would change things of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: You're not following my question. Didn't URAA constitute a restoration to what the rights would have been if formalities had been followed? Or am I wrong about that? If I'm wrong, what exactly is the chronological term of the "restored" rights that were granted? - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is correct, the URAA would restore to what the rights would have been had all formalities been followed, including the formality of renewal. Some of those photographs (i.e. those from before 1928) will be PD in the US (the restored rights would have expired), while those published in 1928 and thereafter are probably copyrighted in the United States. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Carl Lindberg meant was that in 1996, Australian copyright actually ran from creation rather than lifetime, and that hence URAA restoration did not happen for those photos that were taken before 1946, since they were PD in Australia in 1996 already. We had all been operating under the (incorrect) assumption that Australian copyright used to be pma+50, but apparently it was creation+50 for photographs. Felix QW (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. If you followed formalities, the URAA doesn't matter -- anything 1928+ is still under copyright. If you didn't, for Australian photos taken before 1946 (regardless of when the author died) were PD in Australia on the URAA date ({{PD-Australia}}) and were thus ineligible for the URAA and remain PD in both countries. Australian photos 1946 and later got restored to the full 95 year U.S. term. The deletion rationale on the mentioned work is completely wrong, but as a 1953 photo the end result would be the same. Well except for that if the copyright itself is now government owned, I think it gets the PD-AustraliaGov terms, and normally the URAA is ignorable for those. I just don't know if the author donated the copyright as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this photo PD?[edit]

This file was posted by the US Embassy in Rangoon, so I assumed it it was PD because it was made by the Federal Government (the Embassy). Metadata, however, says it is made by "Aung Win Htut". Is it safe to assume Aung Win Htut is an employee of the Embassy? Bremps... 15:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hard to say. They posted it without attribution, but that could be someone being very sloppy at the embassy.
It's right there on Facebook, so it would be pretty easy to ask. - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea; I hadn't thought of that. Bremps... 16:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got permission from trusted user via forum - do I need to do anything more?[edit]


Is it kosher and OK or should I do anything more here? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just license reviewed it, the Twitter user is the same as the OpenStreetMap poster. Abzeronow (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added two categories: Category:Charlbury and Category:Fingerposts in Oxfordshire. I suspect more are in order. Please, when uploading photos, add relevant categories. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New user uploading various images probably violating copyright[edit]

I've noticed new User:BowlingBaddy has uploaded various professional-looking photos (uploads), either claiming they were his "own work" (though photos must have been taken over decades), or leaving no evidence of permission. I left a message on his Talk Page at en.WP, but I'm not sure how admins would proceed from this point. RCraig09 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done There are all already tagged with "no permission". I added a warning to the talk page. Yann (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Create new Open license tag[edit]

Not sure how I should go about it, but I would like to upload photos from the Yukon Government website which have been released under a "Open Government License - Yukon", however there is no tag for that yet. There are tags for British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta (COM:TAG Canada) but not Yukon. How does one create a new license template? Ex. {{OGL-YT}}, Thanks. PascalHD (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personality rights of US citizen artistic performers in the UK[edit]

There's been a question raised about possible issues of personality rights for a photograph in the following DYK nomination: [1]


--~~~ 3family6 (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]