Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/09

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

A 1984 book from Google books

Hi!

There is this book from 1984 that has a copyright sign, but it is freely available on Google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=30YcAAAAMAAJ

Is it allowed on Wikimedia? Thanks.

Hello! The original author (Olylmpiodor the Deacon) is dead long ago ("born between 470 and 490" (https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_1985_num_54_1_2165_t1_0412_0000_3)). Therefore, the text of his manuscript is in the public domain. The rest of the book, however (introduction (Einleitung), footnotes, vocabulary, etc) is copyrighted, therefore you cannot put this book as such on Commons. If you want to use the orginal text, it would be better to put it on Wikisource. Skimel (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

India copyright law, important update

Hi, FYO, I updated Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India‎ and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India-table.

The subject is the first owner of the copyright of a photograph, a portrait, a drawing, or a film, unless there is any any agreement to the contrary.

Under Section 17(b) in the Copyright Act, 1957
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;

Regards, Yann (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't the "...for valuable consideration..." clause mean that this only applies if the photo (etc.) was paid for? For that matter, I don't think this clause has anything to do with the subject of the photograph. I read it as "If a photograph, a portrait, a drawing, or a film is made at the instigation of someone, and that someone paid to have it made, they are the copyright holder, absent an agreement otherwise." See Right of ownership under Indian copyright law. —RP88 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Neither in the article linked by RP88 nor in the copyright act itself can I see anything saying that the subject of the photograph is the copyright owner. Section 17(b) is just about photographs ordered by somebody.
However, this clause may apply to some studio photographs made at request of the subject, not because he is the subject but because he ordered the photo and paid for it. That may be a difference with other countries, where copyright of private portraits made by professional photographers usually belong to the photographer.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that is just for commissioned works, not anywhere close to all photos. Analogous to a work for hire situation, though for non-employment situations, and has nothing to do with the subject of the photo but rather the purchasing party. It is taken from a nearly identical clause in the 1911 UK copyright act, which was reworded in the 1956 UK act but was still there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The 1911 UK article 5(1)(a): where, in the case of an engraving, photograph, or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration in pursuance of that order, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright
The 1956 UK article 4(3): Subject to the last preceding [work for hire] subsection, where a person commissions the taking of a photograph, or the painting or drawing of a portrait, or the making of an engraving, and pays or agrees to pay for it in money or money's worth, and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of this Part of this Act.
So I would presume the Indian clause was basically the same as those two clauses -- commissioned works are sort of like a work for hire, that's all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I checked that in Commentary on the Copyright Act, 1957, by H. K. Saharay, and it is quite clear that it doesn't only apply when the photographer is paid. It is a general clause which applies at all time, except in case of any agreement to the contrary, when the picture is taken at the subject's request. This effectively covers all cases of a picture taken by a passer-by. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
By the wording, it has nothing at all to do with the subject of the photo. It sounds like it is still just for commissioned works, regardless of what the subject is, even if there may not be monetary compensation. It sounds basically like an expansion of work for hire, in accordance with older UK law. That may well cover situations like asking someone to take a photo of you, but your edits make it sound like if I take a photo of someone on my own volition, they would own the copyright simply by being the subject of the photo, which as far as I can tell is not remotely what the law says (or the commentary that you quoted). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I changed the wording, to be clearer: The subject is the first copyright owner of a picture, when taken at his request, except in agreement to the contrary. That's basically the text of the law, so I don't see the issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I think you're still overlooking the "for valuable consideration" requirement of Section 17(b), i.e. your rephrasing should be something like "The subject is the first copyright owner of a picture, when taken at his request for valuable consideration, except in agreement to the contrary." Under Indian law "valuable consideration consists in the accrual of some right, interest or benefit to one party, or in the giving, suffering or undertaking if some abstinence, loss or detriment, or reponsibility by the other party, at the request of the promisor." (Sukha v. Ninni, AIR 1966 Raj 163). Being paid money is the most common form of valuable consideration under English common law (presumably also Indian law), but it definitely includes other less common considerations such as the discharge of an obligation to do something (see Supreme Court of India decision Chidambare v. Renga, 1966 AIR 193) which cites Currie v Misa).

While in most cases the owner of the copyright to a work is the author, in cases involving multiple parties who have not consented to a specific agreement with regard to copyright ownership who owns the copyright can actually differ from country to country. This can complicate use on Commons since Commons requires that a work be freely licensed under both U.S. copyright law and the copyright law of the country of origin. For example, consider the case where a payee pays an Indian portrait photographer to take a photo of a subject without an agreement regarding copyright ownership. Section 17(b) of Indian copyright law presumably assigns the Indian copyright to this photo to the payee, not the photographer (in most cases the payee would likely also be the subject). However, under U.S. copyright law the U.S. copyright to this photo would be owned by the photographer. In this case, we are in the unfortunate situation where the owner of the U.S. copyright is not the same as the owner of the Indian copyright (there being no such thing as an international copyright). In order to upload this example Indian photo to Commons we would need a license for the Indian copyright from the payee and a license for the U.S. copyright from the photographer. If we adopted your reading of 17(b) the situation is worse, Commons would need a license from both the subject and the photographer for similar Indian photos even in cases where no valuable consideration is exchanged. —RP88 (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: I still don't see what the subject has to do with anything at all. From the sounds of it, if someone asks you to take a picture of a building for them, they also own the copyright (provided the "valuable consideration" is met). I don't think it matters whatsoever what the content of the photograph is. Basically, to me, it's just a wider form of work for hire, which is not mentioned on that other page either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@RP88, Clindberg, Pere prlpz, and Jkadavoor: Here are a copy of the 3 pages from the book mentioned above: [1]. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Yann, thank you for uploading the excerpt of pages 212-214 from the commentary to which you referred earlier. That was a generous gesture (although I do wish you had also included page 211). However, I struggle to see how you got your summary from this commentary. The commentary supports the comments Carl and I make above. At the top of page 212 where it talks about certain artistic works (i.e. photographs, portraits, etc.) created at the request of a person it says "(2) in the absence of any contract to the contrary such person shall be the first owner of the copyright. This rule will, of course, not apply in the case of the aforesaid artistic works in the following cases: (1) ... (2) ... (3) if there is no valuable consideration, and (4) ...". Note that it is the requestor who might be the copyright owner instead of the photographer (not the subject, although often the requester will also be the subject) and that valuable consideration must occur. This is further supported later on page 212-213 in the "(d) Photograph" section which says that in cases where a photographer who takes a portrait for the sitter under employment by the sitter, the copyright is owned by the sitter. Page 214 discusses a case involving a sketch (that was ruled to be a portrait despite some unusual circumstances) created by an artist at the request of a father and the father had paid for the portrait after reviewing the result. Despite the portrait being made at the request of the father and the father paying the artist, the copyright nonetheless was held to belong to the artist as the father was not considered to have ordered it nor given valuable consideration, but only accepted and paid for it after the plaintiff had completed it. I am sorry, but this commentary does not support your argument that when a photo is taken merely at the request of the subject the copyright belongs to the subject instead of the photographer. —RP88 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@RP88: Thanks for your comment. I don't understand what "valuable consideration" means here. To me, this means that the photographer has considered the request favorably, not that a payment was made. So I removed that sentence. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The Supreme Court of India, in Chidambare v. Renga 1966 AIR 193, cites Currie v Misa to define valuable consideration, i.e. "A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other...". It is a benefit conferred or a detriment incurred, something of value in the eye of the law. There must be some detriment to the giver or some benefit to the receiver. Money or a promise to pay money is the most obvious example of valuable consideration, but it can include other things like a forgiveness of a debt, or the obligation to do something. For example, a promise from me to take your photograph is valuable consideration. So if you take my photograph in return for a promise from me to take your photograph, you have taken my photograph for valuable consideration. —RP88 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: OK, reading those, those all revolve around exactly the question of who owns the copyright of a commissioned work. It has nothing to do with being the subject or not -- that just happened to be the most common situation of commissioned works. The scholar interestingly cites some American cases from the 1800s and early 1900s, which did often rule that the commissioning party owned copyright (where some other cases did not), though that question was settled in the 1976 Act which eliminated such presumed transfers. The example on the third page is of a portrait made of a deceased son, which the father bought once he had seen the finished product -- that was ruled to not be subject to that clause (from the UK 1911 law), because there was no "valuable consideration" paid before the work was made -- the artist made the work upon suggestion but of his own accord, and the father bought it only after he decided he liked it. I.e. it was not a commissioned work, where the commissioner was going to pay regardless of what the final product looked like. The UK 1911 act was limited to a commissioned "engraving, photograph, or portrait" and the case in question determined that it was a portrait, even though it was a painting, so it was in scope per that first clause, though not in scope by virtue of the "valuable consideration" part. The Indian law is more clear on that question, including cinematographic works and portrait paintings in the scope. But to me, that is all the law is saying, and all that book is saying. If you commission a photograph in India, no matter the subject, you own the copyright and not the photographer (who is the author, but not the "first owner"). It has nothing to do with actually being a subject or not, although "portraits" are still included in the wording so I guess commissioned paintings and drawings which are not portraits would be excluded from the scope, while it would still seem that all photographs, engravings, and cinematographic works are in the potential scope regardless of subject. But if a photographer takes a photo of a person of their own accord, or even just without being commissioned up front, the photographer owns the copyright, it seems to me. So I don't think your interpretation is correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it is only a limited use right. See the wording "subject to the provisions of clause (a)" which points to "...but in all other respects the author shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work;" So if I paid a photographer to take my photo, I can reproduce it for my uses without any copyright infringement but for all other uses a permission from the photographer is required. Jee 02:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I don't think so... clause (a) is about a specific work for hire situation for certain types of works, for a newspaper or periodical, giving certain rights (but not full rights) to the newspaper proprietor. Then clause (b) would be about any remaining rights, should both situations apply, where the commissioner would be the (full) owner of the copyright (or whatever rights the newspaper proprietor does not have). If (b) does not apply, then clause (c) is the work for hire provision, where the employer is the first owner. For clauses (b) and (c), I don't think there is any division of rights -- the commissioner or employer owns full rights, unless clause (a) also applies, in which case the newspaper proprietor owns certain rights. So, for the author to be the owner of the copyright, it cannot fall under the scope of any of the three clauses (or, if just clause (a) but not (b) or (c), then the author still has some rights). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Carl for the explanation. Jee 02:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hemy: The Widow or Telling the Bees

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_Napier_Hemy-Telling_the_Bees.jpg

You seem to have a rather free interpretation of the original art work in Commons. Contrast

with this, the version that appears in Commons:

This last is a commercial site offering 'reproductions' of oil-paintings.

I think that you have been sold a pup ... Scarabocchio (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, it seems so. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Napier Hemy-Telling the Bees.jpg‎. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Art.com does have a version that looks like the one on Commons (see https://www.art.com/products/p22110707219-sa-i7605078/charles-napier-hemy-telling-the-bees.htm ). However Charles Napier Hemy's "Telling the Bees" appears to be at the Wolverhampton Art Gallery (WAGMU W265), but their photo is a mirror reflection of the similar photos in the preceding links. —RP88 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm ... perhaps the enWP caption "The Widow or Telling the Bees" was misleading. Perhaps there are two separate paintings? The Widow's face is almost entirely missing in one,and sharp in the other. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The houses in back are different, there is a more obvious beehive in one, the positioning of the child's arm is a bit different, and many other details are different. So it would appear there are indeed two paintings, one being The Widow, and the other being Telling the Bees, which are very similar -- but are definitely different paintings (was the Bees one a study for the other? -- would make sense if it was far less detailed). The question is which orientation the Telling of the Bees actually is -- was it reversed from the scene in The Widow or is it the same. The links you originally gave are for The Widow, so are not relevant, but there do appear to be different images of the Bees around, and not sure which one is correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The Widow (detailed face) is signed and dated. Telling the Bees is not. It's looking likely that the second is a draft of the former. Scarabocchio (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. All the art reproduction sites, plus some blog entries predating the upload here, have the figures on the right side as our upload does. But the Wolverhampton Art Gallery page, and pages which copied that info, have them on the left. Weird. One of them is lying, but unsure which :-). One thing is for sure, our image is a crop and not the full painting. The Widow is a larger painting, also giving credence to the guess that Telling the Bees was a study for The Widow. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok ... so, there's no problem with copyright as such (the work in Commons exists as some sort of original by the stated artist) so the deletion request should be withdrawn. Separately to that, the image could/ should be replaced with the later, more detailed The Widow. I can do that if I can just copy the rationale behind the current Telling the Bees. Will that work? Scarabocchio (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
For Commons, we should have versions of both paintings. The file as uploaded is fine, and is titled correctly, so it should be left alone so long as it's the right way around. I would prefer to have another file with the full painting, but there is nothing wrong with having a crop as well. The Widow should be uploaded separately. Which one is better on the en-wiki article is an argument for the editors there -- whether it would be better to have one with more detail, or one which is actually titled like the subject of the article, so the link does not have to be further explained. But for Commons, the idea is to provide editors all the options, so what is "better" for that article can be discussed there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I closed the DR, as per comments above. Thanks for your contributions. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: , the talk page is still showing 'A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion'. Scarabocchio (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Scarabocchio: That's normal. Please read it again. It says: This file was nominated for deletion on 3 September 2018 but was kept. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

uploading an original image of a famous individual

I want to create a a Wikipedia profile for my friend, and I Have her original photo, she is using that photo in her verified twitter account https://twitter.com/Kholu24

I tried to upload it, the volunteer said it is forbidden because the picture is used on the internet already.

whats the problem? can you help me uploading it or tell me which license I should be using?

Regards

--Saher AlSous (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Saher AlSous: Whoever owns the copyright of the photo (probably the photographer, but maybe also your friend if it was a work-for-hire) needs to release it under a Free license compatible with the rules at Wikimedia Commons (this site). See COM:OTRS for one way of documenting this. --El Grafo (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of Odisha.png

It's possible that this might be {{PD-India}} or PD for some other reason, but I don't think an official symbol such as this can be licensed as "own work" unless it can be verified by OTRS that the uploader is actually the person who originally created the emblem/seal. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

When was the seal designed? Ruslik (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure of its age. The file is being used in {{GoO-donation}} though, so maybe it's covered by the OTRS ticket referenced in that template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status of Vallbacksskolan, school building in Gävle, Gävleborg County, Sweden

I've taken photos of Vallbacksskolan, school building in Gävle, Gävleborg County, Sweden. Does anyone know if the building has copyright holders other than the original architect Herman Teodor Holmgren (1842–1914)? I don't want to rely on just Freedom of Panorama for photos of Sweden. – b_jonas 12:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If that was the sole architect, copyright expired in 1985 regardless of who the copyright holders are. (Well, more accurately, the copyright expired in 1965 once 50pma expired, and was not restored in 1996 when the retroactive extensions to 70pma went into effect.) So the question is if there were other authors, and it doesn't sound like it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. – b_jonas 12:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Review of OGL-licenced photos

Given the recent situation in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portrait photographs in the Government Art Collection, I request that all photographs that had been uploaded from the NPG to Commons with an OGL licence be reviewed for whether or not the photographer died more than 70 years ago (that is, 1948 or earlier), and that the NPG be considered for addition to the problematic sources list. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

By NPG do you mean the National Portrait Gallery, London? This is different from the Government Art Collection. The NPG is not a branch of the British Government, and an NPG source is not evidence to support an {{OGL}} licence. Do you have any examples where {{OGL}} has been improperly applied to NPG images? Verbcatcher (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The files discussed in the link provided and also here apparently had an OGL licence attached to it only because of a footer that said "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated", but the copyright is actually held by the photographer (in this case Vivienne Florence Mellish Entwistle). It appears that it is recommended to add NPG and GAC to COM:PRS with respect to the "life+70 year" copyright because a licencing mistake had been made in uploading the photos to Commons. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I made a mistake, "NPG is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport",[2] so it is an branch of the British Government. However, I see nothing on the NPG website to support the general use of OGL for its images.
A few NPG images bear the text "© Crown Copyright. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0". Does this amount to an {{OGL3}} license for these images?
Verbcatcher (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
"sponsored by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport" does not equal "branch of the British Government" - they could be a w:Non-departmental public body. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Lyen wong wiki.jpg

Can Commons keep this as licensed? The author of the file is given as en:User:Yellowstone, but therenever seems to have been a "User:Yellowstone" on English Wikpedia. The source given for the image (lyenwong.de/wikipedia.html) is a deadlink The archived versions I found here and here don't show the photo, but show "© Lyen Wong Fitness&Dance; 2004 - 2006". There's another picture (de:Datei:Lyen wong wiki4.jpg) by the same author which was released under a different license in as well as some others in Category:Lyen Wong also by the same author with different licenses. File:Lyen wong wiki 4.jpg and de:Datei:Lyen wong wiki4.jpg seem to be the same file with different licensing, with the local German Wikipedia file not being released under a {{PD-user}} license. Shouldn't all of these be released under the same license if they are coming from the same author, the same source from around the same time period? If the original files uploaded to German Wikipedia were released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license then shouldn't any re-uploads of the file also be released under the same license? The original file uploads seem to go all the way back to early 2006. Would that make them COM:GOF files even if they were moved to Commons from German Wikipedia at a later date? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

In enwiki the user is en:User:Yellowstone~enwiki. Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that Ruslik0. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Jonah Band album cover photo

Hello,

I am creating a wikipedia page for the band Jonah. They were a band from the mid 70's that received little attention in the mainstream but has a celebrity team of producers and players. I uploaded a photo of this obsolete album cover to my sandbox and submitted with my wikipedia page for approval. So far, the photo was deleted by Wikipedia with concern for copyright infringement.

I went through all of the steps necessary to research the copyright.

1. I checked everywhere on the front and back cover of the album and there is no mention of the word or symbol copyright anywhere. There is no mention of rights or permission for photography listed anywhere on the insert either. There is a only a photo credit to Benno Friedman listed on the back cover, but there is no copyright symbol.

2. I was able to locate one of the band members, Vincent LaFata, who is the main artist and guy on the front cover (sitting in the middle of the picture).

3. Vincent stated that the photographer "Benno Friedman was a "work for hire." He was paid and has no claim to the image. The image should be available to the public."

4. 20th Century Records is no longer in existence.

5. The image to be used on wikipedia is only for informational purposes and nothing is being sold.

6. Vincent offered to provide any written consent that Wikipedia requires in order to publish the photo, if necessary.

How can I go about re-uploading this photo with consent understood by Wikipedia?

All Best, Danielle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veltriwolf (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 September 2018‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Veltriwolf: Please have Vincent LaFata send that info via OTRS with a copy to you, and come up with a better name.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

CC BY-NC 3.0 images

Hello, Cambridge University Digital Library has alot of old images under this license. Are they allowed to be uploaded here? Are they allowed on Wikipedia? Thanks. Crook1 (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Crook1: not under that licence, see COM:LIC. (The NC condition is the deal-breaker.) However, if particular images are old enough for their copyright to have lapsed (including faithful reproductions of old 2-D originals), the library’s licence may be spurious or irrelevant. That would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Can you link to an example? As for the English Wikipedia, NC is a problem there as well, but irreplaceable images that are essential to identify an article topic, or that are discussed in some depth in the text, may be allowed as non-free content under a fair use rationale regardless of their copyright status.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: The images are old and the copyright had definitely lapsed. For example, the images I'm interested in are taken in April 1900 in Australia, author is unknown, most likely one of the officers of the ship. https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PH-Y-00308-M/6 for example. Crook1 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Crook1: the trick with an anonymous image like that is determining if and when it was published (before being posted online). According to our info on Australian copyright, photos taken before 1955 are OK, but if anonymous & unpublished they’re protected by American law for 120 years after creation—so 1900 is just a couple of years too recent. To be sure such images are free in the USA, we’d need reason to believe they were published either before 1923 or without the formalities American law required at the time.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
If published, after 1923 {{PD-1996}} may apply in some cases. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
see also Template:PD-scan, and Template:PD-UK-unknown, need a Australia unknown. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Request?

It's written on the metadata of this photo and some other photos from the same user "Copyright holder: www.herbertgreg.com". Do we need permission from the website? Hanooz 06:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't see anything suspicious in their uploads. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Hanooz 07:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Images (5104086027).jpg

I'd like to get some input on my findings regarding this rather careless Flickr import. Rather than depicting "images" created in October 2010 and copyrighted by Christopher Michel (1967–), this is an advertising poster for Sapporo Beer, created by Igawa Sengai (1876–1961) and published in 1900 according to one source. Others say 1900s–1920s or 1930s.

If my reading of Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Japan is correct, the copyright in Japan would either have expired somewhere between 1950 and 1990 ({{PD-Japan-organization}}) or at the end of 2011 ({{PD-Japan}}). Would the work be considered a work in name of an organization? Which publication date seems credible?

As for copyright in the United States, {{PD-1923}} should apply if the publication date according to the first source is correct (regardless of whether it is considered a corporate work). But if one of the later publication dates is correct, then it is potentially protected for another decade or so. Is there enough info to salvage this? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Some information about Igawa Sengai can be found on the website of Lavenberg Collection of Japanese prints. Based on that, 1920s or 1930s seems more likely than 1900. I agree that the advertisement can be considered a work in name of an organization, in which case Japanese copyright expired before 1990, {{PD-Japan-organization}}. Is there a way to find a more exact date? Vysotsky (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
If it was PD in Japan in 1990, then it would be {{PD-1996}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
If it was published before 1923, {{PD-1923}} applies whatever date is became PD in Japan. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Per the old copyright law, it looks like the general term was 30pma, extended at some point to 38pma, then effective Jan 1 1971 extended to 50pma. The anonymous term in article 5 was 30 years (later 38 years then in 1971 50) from publication, though if the author made themselves known in that period it became 38pma. But then there was article 6: Copyright in a work published or publicly performed under the name of a governmental or public agency, school, shrine or temple, association, company or any other organization as its author shall endure for thirty years from the time of such publication or public performance. That term was changed to 33 years (not 38) at some point, and there seems to be no provision for those works to convert to 38pma. The corresponding article in the 1970 law, which became effective in 1971 and is the basis for {{PD-Japan-organization}}, extended to 50 years and does have such a clause extending to 50pma if the author makes themselves known. The 1970 law was not retroactive, so anything expired before that point remained public domain. So if the old article 6 applies, it certainly seems as though something published before 1938 would have expired before the 1970 law came into effect. We have the {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} template for photographic works (which had originally a 10 then 13 year term before the 1970 act) which uses the old law, but the PD-Japan-organization tag does not mention the distinction between the old law and the author making themselves known. There was a ruling on Kurosawa's films that he got the 38pma term (which was not shortened by the 1970 law), so in those cases article 6 did not apply. Not completely sure that old article 6 would apply here, but if it does, I think it's PD in both Japan and the US. If it was based on the author's lifetime, sounds like it is PD in Japan as of 2012 (after being extended to 50pma) but not the US, unless published more than 95 years ago. Sure seems like that clause should apply, but that is of course the English translation and I could be missing a subtlety in the original Japanese law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please delete image. I didn't realize that City Governments were not included in the copyright use.Please delete image. I didn't realize that City Governments were not included in the copyright use. Mrwoogi010 (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Already deleted. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Patristic Greek Lexicon

Hello!

Would it be allowed to put this lexicon on Commons?

https://archive.org/details/LampePatristicLexicon

Thank you.

Hello, this book is from 1961 and its author, w:en:Geoffrey Hugo Lampe, died in 1980. You will need to wait until 2050 for his works to be in the Public Domain in the UK and you therefore cannot upload this book on Commons. Regads, Skimel (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Movie credits?

Hello. Is it allowed to upload a still image coming from a movie and containing only its credits? Is it copyrighted? Here is an example:

http://020952.free.fr/DOWNLOADS/WEB/movie%20credits.PNG

It would be used in the French Wikipedia.

Thank you very much in advance for your answer: Tatvam (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tatvam: I think this screenshot would be public domain per {{PD-text}}, since the text shown appears to consist solely of "[f]acts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface". Assuming this is from a French movie, the depicted text is probably below the threshold of originality in France (COM:TOO#France). clpo13(talk) 15:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@Tatvam: @Clpo13: we don't accept raw text, see COM:SCOPE, please do not upload it. Instead type it up.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Scans of the original source are covered by the last paragraph of Commons:Project_scope#Excluded_educational_content. A plain text file (ASCII) with the same information wouldn't be in scope, but the screenshot is.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
There's a subtle but important distinction between "in scope" and "realistically useful". We don't really need an inundation of (or any) pngs or jpgs containing nothing but text. --Animalparty (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we do. They're used in Wikisources, for example. The credits of a movie wouldn't be eligible for Wikisouce, at least not English Wikisource, but it could be useful as a record of the original unsubject to typing errors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, Commons community has proved itself to be pretty good at dealing with inundations of every kind of files in scope. Even in the unlikely event that somebody could manage to upload credits of thousands -or even hundreds of thousands- of films, they would be soon categorized and properly stored.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Do the laws of Ukraine apply to the Donetsk People's Republic

This is in regards to a DR that I closed, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Donetsk72, along with a note left on my talk page by Sealle, User talk:Majora#Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Donetsk72. The Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) is a break-away, self-proclaimed, state existing within Ukraine. No other country recognizes the sovereignty of the DPR, although Russia has started to recognize some aspects of it per w:Donetsk People's Republic. So the question is what to do with their stamps? And are we following Ukrainian law on the matter? That was the point of the DR that I closed as keep per Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Ukraine which states that stamps of Ukraine fall under {{PD-UA-exempt}}. Since the DPR is not recognized internationally or domestically as independent it is therefore a part of Ukraine so I followed Ukrainian laws. At least that is what I believe. But since there seems to be some questions here I thought I would ask for other opinions on the matter. --Majora (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

They are not stamps of Ukraine, of course, and therefore they are not in public domain. Only Ukrainian postal service can issue postal stamps in Ukraine. Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant. Sealle (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Even if they are valid postage stamps accepted by the postal service? That seems counter intuitive. They are stamps, with specified face value and state servicing as a tool of payment for postal services. I'm ok with being wrong and I'll correct my mistake. It just seems strange to me that stamps created in Ukraine accepted for postal service in Ukraine would not fall under Ukrainian stamp law. --Majora (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
stamps created in Ukraine vs. stamps created on the territory of Ukraine by a non-authorized issuer. Sealle (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Ukraine says
These stamps are clearly not "state signs" of the Ukrainian state, so it is unlikely this law applies to them. In the absence of an applicable law they are not public domain. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. If anything, there is enough from multiple people now to seed significant doubt. I've rectified my mistake. Thanks everyone. --Majora (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

These are NOT Ukrainian stamps, so cannot claim the exemption of {{PD-UA-exempt}}. They are copyright to someone, or some organisation, and we have no clear indication of their copyright status, so must use the precautionary principal. Their author/s are certainly not dead long enough to be PD by normal means. Whether the Ukrainian post office accepts Donetsk mail with their stamps for delivery in Ukraine, with or without objection or taxing them as unpaid mail, has no effect on their copyright status. As I've been working both here and on the enwiki with stamp images and their copyright status for more than 10 years and I believe they must go. Ww2censor (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
So, entire Category:Stamps of Donetsk People's Republic by year should be deleted too. MBH (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
MBH: unfortunately I think they must all be deleted, unless we got some OTRS verification but how would we even know that was even true. Ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Some images in subcategories can be kept, including the portraits in Category:Stamp cancellation in five years anniversary of Art Donbass. These may be miscategorised. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Butko Your opinion here is welcome. MBH, I let it go last time but you need to notify people when you DR their images. That is non-negotiable. Your recent DRs also failed to notify any of the uploaders. --Majora (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I have redone the DR and administratively closed the other one. Verbcatcher, I only nominated the stamps which were all under {{PD-UA-exempt}}. You can see the DR here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with deepcat:"Stamps of Donetsk People's Republic by year" hastemplate:PD-UA-exempt --Majora (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: There are some images of stamps in Category:Stamps of Donetsk People's Republic by year that do not claim {{PD-UA-exempt}} but appear to violate the copyright of the stamps, for example:
Some might be allowable as de minimis, including:
I am assuming that these are Donetsk People's Republic stamps based on their categorisation; a Russian speaker would be better placed to confirm this. Should these be added to your DR or raised separately? Category:Stamps of South Ossetia may have a similar issue. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to hear from Butko regarding these images before anything else is done with them. They speak the language, they are the uploader, and they would know the ins-and-outs about them. --Majora (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I've taken photos from category Category:Stamp cancellation in five years anniversary of Art Donbass by myself. This event was related to cancelation of new stamp of Donetsk People's Republic. I tried to follow Commons:De minimis and accented on event. Also I uploaded some stamps which listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with deepcat:"Stamps of Donetsk People's Republic by year" hastemplate:PD-UA-exempt. I've taken into account that the Donetsk People's Republic has status an unrecognized state so I uploaded only stamps with coats of arms and taged them with {{PD-UA-exempt}} as coats of arms which have clear status --Butko (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: Stamps of South Ossetia are a problem of one Cudarec (talk · contribs) who uploads stamps as {{Own}} (which, in principle, is copyvio) whereas Stamps of Donetsk People's Republic are a problem of inappropriate placing of {{PD-UA-exempt}}. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Butko: thank you for your reply. I think that some of your photos of the cancellation event do not qualify for de minimis. Regarding the DPR stamps, are you saying that stamps with coats of arms are public domain? This might be valid if the coat of arms is sufficiently old and the stamp only has a conventional depiction of the coat of arms with text in a simple font. However, the coats of arms (if this is what they are) in the deletion request look relatively modern and we cannot assume that they are public domain due to their age. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Coats of arms are not public domain due to their age but they are public domain due to their copyright status before war in Donbass. They were public domain before proclamation of Donetsk People's Republic. --Butko (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

At the same time, according to the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Donetsk People's Republic of 02.06.2014. No. 9-1 "On the Application of the Laws in the Territory of the Donetsk People's Republic during the Transitional Period", Ukrainian legislation is still in force in the field of copyright, because the Donetsk People's Republic has not yet adopted a new law on copyright. --Butko (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:"Fusco" in divisa da Partigiano.jpg

This image appears to be from the 1950s or somewhere long time ago. Is it still copyrighted, or is it in PD in Italy? --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Italy the copyright term for non-creative photographs is 20 years since creation. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Pictures given me to upload.

My brother and I exchange images in messaging. Sometimes we desire that I be able upload the image, since he is a farmer and does not have enough time to edit.

Would it suffice, good faith and all, for him to message me the image with the statement "I release this image Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0" or some such? IveGoneAway (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It has long occurred to me that this is a commonly experienced situation and the reflects a glaring omission in the FAQ. What should my brothers say in the message that will be accepted by Commons as freeing the images? IveGoneAway (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC) 14:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
One brother (professional artist) only wants credit, but doesn't understand why I can't just upload it, the other is a farmer that just wants to be anonymous. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
In want of a response, I have made a trial upload in the best fashion that I was able to figure out without instruction: File:Fencepost and Fairport 123 1001002.jpg. Please, refer to the questions in the Licensing section. I will be quite happy to revise the Licensing section in any way necessary. IveGoneAway (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC) 02:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Hernan-medford.jpg

The source has a cc by sa 3.0 license at the bottom of the source but I am not sure it refers to the photo since it is next to wikipedia's article on the subject in the photo. Secondly, the image resolution is very small and this is the uploader's first image on Commons. Is this image acceptable for Commons or a copy vio? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The article in Alchetron is a copy of the Wikipedia article. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: I think it's a copyvio, and I tagged it as such.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Using commons photos in a publication

Hi

I'm new to this. I want to use some images denoted CC BY-SA 3.0 in a publication. How do I contact the photographer to ask permission, or do I not need to? Do I just need to acknowledge the source ad the photographer?

Thanks!

Marilyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilyndeegan (talk • contribs) 14:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, if you want to use CC-BY-SA images in a book, you don't need the permission of the author/photographer, as long as the images are properly licensed, that you credit the author and put a link to the licence (eg : "By Skimel [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], from Wikimedia Commons"). Sometimes, the uploader would also like to be informed (write on his talkpage) that you want to use his picture ;) Skimel (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Marilyndeegan,
CC-by licenses are not hard licenses, so our publication don't have any kind of restrictions, you can publish it under any license that you want, only the photos will be under cc-by sa.
So, as Skimel told you, you don't need permission, you just need to attribute.
For more information: check this
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mel Lastman.jpg and File:Jaye.jpg

Can a Flickr reviewer please add the correct tag for these two files? I created them as crops from File:The 2018 CFC Annual BBQ Fundraiser (43690337515).jpg, which has already passed the review process. I tried copying the {{Flickrreview}} tag from the original to the derivative files, but of course couldn't do that as I don't have flickrreview status. The bots fail for these files; I've deleted the bot tag and failed {{FlickreviewR}} for now. Mindmatrix 00:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: use COM:Croptool (in lossless mode) and don't list yourself as an author. Cropping does not create copyright and those two files are not "derivative works". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Change in license

Hi. Is the change discussed at COM:BR#Change in licence[sic] acceptable?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I suppose that the intend never was to release the images under CC-BY, so as these are recent files, it should be OK (IMHO). Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Originality threshold for copyright

1845 basal disc of the Portland Vase

The British Museum claims copyright over a photograph of a basal disc once placed on the Portland Vase. The disc is technically three dimensional, in that it is several millimeters thick, but the photograph shows only the top, which is effectively flat (unlike a coin, the surface of which is itself 3D). For the purposes of hosting on commons, would this be considered under BM copyright, or would it be considered "a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits" that therefore "lacks originality" per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the latter. Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Ruslik0. I've uploaded it for now (perhaps jumping the gun, but facilitates this request), but if consensus changes it can always be deleted. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Malacaņang Photo Bureau

Howhontanozaz (talk · contribs) is uploading a lot of low-resolution photos from the Office of the Press Secretary from the Government of the Philippines which are credited Malacaņang Photo Bureau. This venture is described as a Government entity in their Facebook page though their high-resolution pictures are licensed by Getty, Alamy and Reuters. So is Malacaņang Photo Bureau a government-owned and/or controlled corporation and shall {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} apply ? Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Guy Harvey mural SeaWorld Orlando.jpg

Hello! I've recently uploaded a mural image by an artist (Guy Harvey) from a theme park (SeaWorld Orlando, created c. 2016), however going through Commons to see if it was appropriate to upload after-the-fact, I think it violates copyvio. If so, can someone delete it or help to file under appropriate tags? My mistake if so, sorry! Adog104 (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Adog104: Deleted. Thanks for bringing it here! You were right, it violated copyvio since Commons:Freedom of panorama does not apply in the United States to 2D works (nor sculptures, only to buildings). Do not worry, it happens to everyone. :) Strakhov (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Strakhov; Thank you very much, I was worrying for a bit! :D I'll make sure to look at Common's criteria when uploading to be more cautious the next upload around. And I hope my recent uploads are all good if you want to check. Again thank you and trout me at will! Adog104 (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Logo and copyright help

I am confused as to where, specifically, I need to go to add copyright information for a file I uploaded that is marked for speedy deletion. Apparently my filling out a template and providing a link was not it. I cannot find the copyright information I am supposed to provide on the long page of copyright things. It is the logo for a school for an article about the school. I am new here and could use the assistance. Thank you.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair use images are not allowed on Commons. The file must be released under an appropriate cc license or deleted (See Commons:Licensing). Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that. I have permission from the copyright holder to use it but as I saw the fair use rationale when uploading it, I thought that was a better option. Wrong. Can someone delete the file so I can reupload it properly? Or tell me how to correct it without deleting it? I have spent over an hour trying to figure out how. Thank you.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

If you have a permission from the copyright holder, you should follow instructions on Commons:OTRS. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

GFDL and other wikis

As I read in Commons:Licensing

"GFDL is not permitted as the only license where all of the following are true: 

   The content was licensed on or after 15 October 2018. The licensing date is considered, not the creation or upload date."

So can we assume that all files that are on wikpedias and that are GFDL only lincensed but was been licensed before the 15 October 2018 can be transferred after the 15 October 2018 too? Thanks. This because the last mass message was no so detailed. If my english is not correct please tell me it--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. --El Grafo (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Native American Pictures: Round 2

I have early pictures of the Native American Alabama Tribe. A while back I was directed to some kind of specialist to discuss uploading them. Because I didn't take these pictures (they are much older than I and I'm in my 80s) the situation is complicated but the pictures were the property of my parent who is now deceased. It's been too long and I no longer remember who I communicated with but I sent them a thorough explanation of the history of the pictures expecting a reply. Time passed and I never got one. So, I guess I must start over. These images, though not good quality, I consider them important history of this tribe. So, who do I go to about this? Wiki name (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

if you have them scanned, i would upload them to flickr. then transfer them over. need to include as much photographer info as possible. if pre-1898, i would tink about using this license Template:PD-US-unpublished , you can also seek out GLAM-wiki help at https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I have them scanned from a publication as I no longer have access to the original pictures. The identify of the photographers (probably multiple) is lost in history. I don't know when they were taken. They span some time, perhaps some from the end of the 19 century but most the early 20th century. I said it's complicated. The problem is I have to reveal too much personal information to explain the history of the images in a public forum. I explained everything in the message to whoever it was before. I will add them to Flickr and try to figure out how to transfer them. Wiki name (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
ok, thanks. there is Commons:Flickr2Commons. you could try uploading all of them, since they are unknown, the ones after 1898 may be challenged. was the publication before 1923? or before 1978 without a copyright mark, or renewal? that would work also. if you gave a publication title, we could search the copyright records. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I have put them on Flickr. I tried the blue box in Flickr2Commons labeled "Transfer selected files to Commons" and nothing happened. If it had worked I think I was supposed to put this number in there -- 72157700130670241. There are fewer pictures than I remembered. Not sure what happened to the rest. My guess is, all of them were taken between 1900 and 1930 -- mostly closer to 1900. As far as I know they were taken by random people who would never have thought about copyrighting them. Because I do not have the originals I scanned the pictures from a book titled, "Kalita's people: A history of the Alabama-Coushatta Indians of Texas" by Aline Rothe published in 1963. This and the fact the printing was bad accounts for their poor condition. Wiki name (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
ok, the book does not appear to be renewed [3] i would use Template:PD-US-not renewed. you may need to get OAuth https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:OAuth at mediawiki to use flickr2commons. upload wizard should also work with flickr id, with a custom no renewal license. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
your last post was beyond my pay-grade. I found Template: PD-US-not renewed but didn't how or where it would be used. I will look again at OAuth, but it wasn't clear at first look Wiki name (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I looked again at OAuth and it's still Greek to me. It appears to be doing something with an application, not providing a pathway to link to Flickr. Wiki name (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Pictures published in Newspapers and old magazines in early 1900s

Here is another question - are these out of copyright? No copyright explicitly given. Crook1 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If they are published before 1923, they are in public domain in USA. In other countries they are likely to be in public domain as well but not always. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I thought.Crook1 (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright proposal

Only a little hint on Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Licensed-PD-Art and nc --Habitator terrae (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

File:BarCamp1 poster.jpg

This appears to be a photo of a poster that appeared on the wall of a en:BarCamp conference (see en:WP:THQ#Is this worthy content - a photo of a handwritten poster from Bar Camp 1 for details). The uploader is certainly the copyright holder of the photo, but they are not claim authorship of the poster and I'm not sure whether the text on the poster would be considered copyrighted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the poster can be considered {{PD-text}}. BMacZero (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Would a fence fall under Freedom of Panorama in Russia?

Hello, all. I have uploaded several photos yesterday, and now I am a bit unsure if they really fall under FOP of Russia. I would like some other pairs of eyes to look at this:

If they cannot be reproduced in photographic form, feel free to file a deletion request. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 06:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: I don't know if Russia takes into consideration the utilitarian nature of an object like the US does, but I think a fence like this counts as a work of urban development or perhaps garden and landscape design, photos of which are covered by Russian FOP. clpo13(talk) 17:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed file uploads

Hi, I have some issues with uploaded works from source Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE):

  1. Reproductions are being uploaded as 'author unknown', when the reproducer is unknown, even though the identity of the original author is known. Example: File:Reproductie tekening Royaards, opmeting - Apeldoorn - 20023712 - RCE.jpg (the name Royaards is in the file name AND on the file itself, but not being mentioned as author.
  2. Apparently RCE considers their employees to be the author, when all they do is make a 1:1 copy of copyrighted material.
  3. RCE calls itself 'Rechthebbende', which translates as 'Rightholder' in English, for the images that are being uploaded with their 1:1 copymakers (RCE employees) as author. Example: File:Afbeelding uit boek met vier kerkplattegronden- 1) Königsberg in Pruissen 2) Westerkerk te Amsterdam 3) Waardkerk te Leiden 4) Nieuwe Kerk te Den Haag - Unknown - 20408157 - RCE.jpg This file is a photocopy of a page in a book. It says in the file description, that the file is from the dissertation of G. Fritsch, called "Die Burchkirche zu Königsberg in Preussen und Ihre Beziehungen zu Holland, 1929/1930". Using Google Search, in less then one minute I found out, that this person G. Fritsch actually is Georg Fritsch, of whom there is a article on the German language Wikipedia. Mr. Fritsch was a German architect who died in 1955. My assumption would be that he should be mentioned on Commons as the author, but rather, RCE calls one of it's own RCE employees, a certain J.P.A. Antonietti, as the 'Vervaardiger', which translates as 'creator' in English. No mention of Mr. Fritsch as author. The uploaders to Commons follow the instructions by RCE, and in File description they put down the name of (in this case) RCE employee Mr. Antonietti as being the author.
  4. RCE also names itself as 'rightholder' on their website, claiming the ownership of the authorship. RCE literally ignores Mr Fritsch as the (possible) author, even though they mention it is from his publication. In many other cases, RCE doesn't even mention the original author.
  5. RCE calls itself Rightholder, even when the original author died less then 70 years ago and the original work is most likely not in the Public Domain. Example: The Dutch architect C.W. Royaards is the author of the file File:Reproductie tekening Royaards, opmeting - Apeldoorn - 20023712 - RCE.jpg. Mr. Royaards died in 1970. In my opinion his works would enter into the Public Domain in the year following the year 2040. Perhaps even in the year following 2060, if US Law is being applied because of the Wikimedia Commons servers being on it's territory.

Just by the RCE employee Mr. Antonietti there are already 1.064 files on Commons. In the hidden category Category:Images from the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, there are close to 500.000 files. The are dozens of collegues of my example Mr. Antonietti, are being called author of huge amounts of works, of which it is clear to me, that not they are the authors, and not RCE owns the author rights, but the original author. Under the Dutch Copyright Law (Dutch: Auteurswet) the RCE can only own the authors rights, if the author bequests the inheritance to them through a deed, approved by a notary attorney. Of no deed has been made, the authorship goes to the authors legal (natural) heirs. The fact that photocopies by RCE employees, or photographs by employees, made at close range in an (almost) 1:1 setup, or that some archives from authors may have been deposited at RCE, doesn't make RCE the owner of the author rights, in my opinion. On the RCE webpage Rechten en Creative Commons (= Rights and Creative Commons), the RCE defines that wherever it says 'Rechthebbende', you should read as 'Auteursrechthebbende', which translates to 'Copyright holder'. And it states that in those cases the RCE should be mentioned under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license as being the 'Copyright holder'. It makes no mention of any need to state the name of the original aurthor. The RCE clearly usurps the authorship by claiming to be the copyright holder, by ignoring to mention the original author. Also, in many cases the name of the original author is unknown, but is IS known that the file was originally created under 70 years ago. Also in those cases the RCE states the RCE employee who made the photocopy or 1:1 photograph as the 'author'. I have always understood that only if a photo (or copy) of an original was made in such a way that by creativity in that a new authorship was created, the photographer (or copyist) should be mentioned. That a simple 1:1 photo or copy doesn't meet the threshold of originality.

Besides the Dutch legal situation, on Commons we need to abide to the US laws on copyrights. The Wikimedia Commons Template:RCE-license states: „This file was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed as part of an image release. The Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed, exclusively provides images that are either made by its own employees up to a 1200px size, or that are otherwise free of copyright.” (with no other additional rule) This could perhaps be used within the Netherlands, but it doesn't cover US Laws and Commons rules. The Template:RCE-license has been used hundreds of thousands of times, without providing any US applicable license. On all files, that use this Template:RCE-license, it states: Attribution: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. Even though the authors of many of the files have died less then 70 years ago. Under US Law, I am assuming that some files would be in the Public Domain (in the US) only after 90 years since the death of the author.

To me it is clear, that either the RCE doesn't understand how to properly deal with authorship and Copy Right Laws, or it made up it's own deviant rules, to protect their own interests. Perhaps the RCE can ignore Dutch laws: The Wikimedia Commons uploaders can not and should not. Also, they should make sure that their uploaded files are secure under an US license as well. In the past I have pointed these things out to some uploaders, but they chose to ignore my comments and rather strictly follow the instructions by the RCE. I feel I can no longer ignore the situation, therefor am asking those of us who are more familiar with the copy right laws and Wikimedia Commons licenses, to examine the situation. To determine if I am wrong in my examination and conclusions. And, if applicable, what to do next. --oSeveno (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's stick to the facts. The Dutch Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE, Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands) made 486,000 photographs from the RCE collections available under a CC-BY-SA license. These photographs were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in the period 2012-2013. The photographs were originally made by photographers either employed or hired by RCE, and copyright of these photographs is with RCE (apart from some exceptions incl. the 2 examples you are giving, which I will discuss later on). Most photographs concern Dutch buildings and monuments, and several thousands are photos of heritage monuments in 20 other countries. There are also some photographs of maps and (architectural) drawings, but this is less than 1% of the collection. Most of the <1% are now labelled CC-BY-SA, though indeed photographs of 17th, 18th or 19th century drawings should have been given a Public Domain license rather than a CC-BY-SA license. Anyone who has ever uploaded large batches of photographs, knows how difficult it is to do a tailor-made upload. I would like to retrospectively thank RCE for the time and money they invested in making these photographs digitally available and for giving permission uploading them to Wikimedia Commons (by giving the photographs an appropriate CC license). I think RCE also perfectly understands how copyright works, and is genuinely interested in sharing. Back to your 2 examples (from the <1% of the collection containing photographs of maps and drawings). RCE didn't fake the metadata: with the Royaards file RCE correctly mentions "reproductie tekening Royaards", with the map of the four churches RCE itself mentions the dissertation of Georg Fritsch and gives Antonietti just as the photographer. If you think the license should be different, the description should be improved, or the image should be deleted, don't hesitate to do so. My statement: >99% of the descriptions and licenses of the images from RCE (Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands) in Commons are correct. The claim that US Copyright laws were ignored is simply not true. RCE holds copyright over these photographs, and was thus entitled to bring these photos under a CC-BY-SA license, also valid under US law. Vysotsky (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


First, "author's rights" is kind of a blurred term here. The Berne Convention (and EU law) separates out author's rights into "economic rights" and "moral rights". "Economic rights" is the part which permits copying, and is the part that needs licensing (and corresponds to U.S. "copyright"). Economic rights are transferrable, so if material was donated to the museum along with the economic rights, the museum is indeed the rights holder and can license the material. The "copyright holder" or "rights holder" is not the same thing as the "author". Such a license would be perfectly valid in the United States. "Moral rights" is the right to be named, preserve a reputation, etc. and those rights are generally not transferrable. If we are missing an author's name on a work, by all means please add it. However, moral rights are outside the concept of "free", which is instead explicitly about the "economic right" portion (moral rights usually cannot be licensed, as they are not transferrable). With photographs, usually there is a separate copyright on the photograph itself, separate from whatever the subject of the photograph is, and it's possible that is all the museum is licensing (since they would own that copyright; presumably they know the law enough to make the employment contracts transfer the economic rights by deed to their employees' works). Photographic reproductions of 2-D works are not copyrightable at all in the U.S. ({{PD-Art}}), but might be in the Netherlands, not sure. Generally though, the museum probably has a good grasp of copyright, better than any of us. With that many uploads, it's possible there are a handful where there are some rights involved which are outside of the museum's control, but best to bring those up case-by-case. With a bulk upload, it may not be possible to always extract out all of the author names from the description into the "Author" field.
For the Fritsch one, there is a possible photographic copyright and the copyright in the drawings. The author of the photo is named, which they should be if known. The author of the drawings should be added -- just because they are included in Mr. Fritsch's dissertation does not necessarily mean he actually drew them (though it's very possible). If the museum had no rights over those drawings, there could well be an issue there, but if the author had donated those drawings to the museum along with the economic rights, they are fine. Similar for the Royaards example; both the photographer and Mr. Royaards should be named as the authors, as there are two separate possible copyrights there. If Mr. Royaards donated that drawing to the museum along with the rights, the license covers that copyright as well; if not donated (and Mr. Royaards still owns the economic right) then it should be deleted. So by all means please add mention of these other authors to the Author field (for works like those two examples, they are more important than the photographer); naming the author in the description is probably legally enough, but even if missing, mistakes of that nature are not grounds for deletion. However, if the photo is derivative of a work to which the museum does not own any rights and which is still in copyright, there could be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
RCE is not a museum, it's a branch of the national government. RCE is the policy, implementation and research organization of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science in the field of cultural heritage: archeology, monuments, movable heritage and cultural landscape. Photographic 1:1 reproductions of 2-D works are not copyrightable in the Netherlands either. RCE government employees have been making photographs of works, among other reasons for the purpose of documentation. If it where only a hand full of works, like Vysotsky claims, I wouldn't make a fuss about it. I do a lot of correction work on Commons. What I do care about, is that authorship credit is given when it is due. The bottom line being the file description here on Commons. Photo's of buildings and landscapes made by RCE employees are not the problem. It is the lack of mentioning the authorship of scans and 1:1 photo's of prints and architectural designs that in the file descriptions are being accredited to RCE employees, in stead of the real authors. I really do not care for batch uploaders that lack in care for proper file descriptions, as they should to do by applying rules of Commons. It being batch uploads is no excuse for creating two measures, when it comes to copyrights on Commons. It's a violation and a ground for deletion. Individual uploaders that upload individual files again and again without proper credit for authors, or even bad credits, may be nominated for sanctions. There is no rule that says: You may face sanctions if you upload dozens of badly accredited files, but if you upload thousands by the batch, you do not need to verify the source of each file. At the least it is sloppy work. My best interest at heart is for Commons. --oSeveno (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, if there was no donation of rights (and the works are just being reproduced for history's sake) yes there could well be an issue on some of those. People can donate works to government archives as well though (for example, the U.S. Library of Congress). When it comes to batch uploads however, you are pretty much at the mercy of the structure of the source data -- if you are uploading thousands of works, you really can't do individual research and correct each entry. I think you are expecting too much. Rather, that is hopefully the job that Commons can do *after* upload, with many contributors correcting records and adding information once it is accessible. Secondly, if the author is named in the description field, that is still being named, thus conforming to moral rights, just not in the best possible form for Commons. Third, naming authors actually is not relevant to copyright / economic rights -- just moral rights, which is a non-copyright restriction. Strictly speaking, mistakes in that area are not policy problems and absolutely not grounds for deletion. If the authorship is not named correctly, then please fix it. In looking at Commons:Simple photographs, the Netherlands does not seem to have anything there, so agreed that reproductions are not covered by economic or moral rights there -- on the other hand, in *some* countries such rights might exist, and naming the authors would then absolutely be part of moral rights in those countries, so the photographers are still helpful to add and should not be removed. I definitely agree they are hardly the primary authors for PD-Art or PD-scan situations, but I can see why they would be named in the source data. The author of the underlying work should be named first -- but it is not a copyright issue if they are not. However, if the copyright has not yet expired (the underlying author died less than 70 years ago and the government does not own the work), that *is* a policy problem and grounds for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

French copyright

Can someone explain the French copyright for old (prior to 1923) photos? Thanks. Crook1 (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

If the photographer is named, then that person's lifetime plus 70 more years. If not named on the original publications, then 70 years from that original publication (or if not published within 70 years of creation, copyright expires). So you would at least need to know publication dates, and preferably authors. If that information is lost, or you don't know when the photographer died, it gets dicier and we may prefer that photos be 120ish years old before assuming the PD-old tag (70 years after death). If they were published before 1923, that would solve the U.S. copyright part of policy, but not the country of origin (presumably France). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
At that time, the copyright was 50 years + war extension, which is something like 65 years (56.5 years after World War I). This still applies if the author died before 1937. The duration was extended to 70 years in 1997, but only if the copyright didn't elapse. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Er no, the 70pma was retroactive. That older term only matters for U.S. URAA computations in 1996, which would be irrelevant for anything published before 1923. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it was not retroactive if the copyright had already elapse. This is pretty clear. If the copyright expired in 1995, it was not extended. If the copyright was to expire in 1996 or after, it was extended to 70 years pma. That's the reason works by author who died before 1937 are not affected by the URAA. The Cour de Cassation says in 2007 that the war extension should not be counted. Please see fr:Prorogations de guerre. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Goodness no, all the EU countries had to retroactively restore works to 70pma. Expired works were restored as long as they were protected in a European Community country as of July 1995, which given that many of those countries were 70pma already (and Spain had been 80pma) that basically means all of them. There had been some question if the old war extensions should be additionally applied to the new 70pma term, but the court case you mention said no -- so it's a flat 70pma for France aside from a couple of small edge cases. But it was retroactive, clearly. The provisions of Title II of this Law shall not have the effect of reviving rights in works, performances, fixations of programs that passed into the public domain before July 1, 1995, unless they were still protected on that date in at least one other Member State of the European Community.[4] Agreed that the new terms were not applied until 1997 so the URAA restorations in the United States are based on old terms, but that is just to determine copyright in the United States -- in France itself it is 70pma. And if something is published before 1923, the URAA is irrelevant for the United States, and was not part of the original question anyways, which was just about the terms in France. 13:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
And why the law you quote would not apply to France? It is a French law after all, isn't? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Your interpretation doesn't make sense with the wording of the law. If all works were retroactively applied a 70-years pma, why not just say so, and have such a convoluted wording? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Because that was the way the EU directive was worded. (The terms of protection provided for in this Directive shall apply to all works and subject matter which are protected in at least one Member State, on the date referred to in Article 13 (1) [July 1, 1995]). If you could somehow find a work which was not protected in any country in 1995, that may be OK, but I don't think anyone has ever found any. Some EU countries dispensed with that wording and explicitly restored everything, but effectively the above is the same thing. But it's very clear that any work still protected in any EC country as of 1995 got revived to a 70pma term even if previously expired in some countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I think it's safe to say if it is a EU country then I can safely assume it's 70 years after author's death, and if the author is unknown then 70 years after publication? What's the proper tag for France?Crook1 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Crook1: {{PD-France}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Threshold of Originality

Does this logo of an organization reach the threshold of originality? [5] Radioactive Pixie Dust (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Radioactive Pixie Dust. The logo is almost entirely text, and a fairly standard shape of a droplet, and Israel appears to have a stance on TOO similar to the US. So this logo would most likely not qualify for copyright, and can be uploaded using Template:PD-textlogo. GMGtalk 15:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Radioactive Pixie Dust (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Files sourced to “Flags of the World”

Is anyone aware of any recent discussion regarding the status of files sourced to the website “Flags of the World”? Has there been a general consensus been established regarding their use? The reason I’m asking is because there are quite a lot of files like File:Flag of Big Horn County, Wyoming.gif being used in en:Flags of the counties of the United States which are sourced to FOTW whose licensing might need to be reviewed. Many of these seem too complex to be public domain, and also seem unlikely to be the original creation of the persons who uploaded them to FOTW. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  • FotWer here. Okay, it’s a mess. FotW-ws displays images “prepared” by contributers for FotW-ml (and occasionally from other sources directly added by FotW-ws editors). The level of additional authorship in said “preparation” varies widely, from images made from scratch based on trivial information to photos or other imagery grabbed from anywhere online or hardcopy, to be incorporated unchanged (credited or not). All this is done under the guise of fair use, and each image is displayed alongside with its contributer’s name (and date of contribution); additional authorship, be it of the image in question or the design it represents, may be found alongside and/or in the mor oe less long text that typically folows each image. There is a page concerning Disclaimers and Copyright but it is woefully outdated and doesn’t really constitute a licensing; I would venture that FotW authorship and copyright remains with each individual image contributor, inasmuch matters of ToO, DW, and copyright can be cleared. I have been thinking of how the FotW copyright issues could be simplified and streamlined for possible reuse licensing, but t.b.h. when I’m wearing my FotWer hat my priorities and interests shift totally elsewhere. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • FotW-ws: Flags of the World website
  • FotW-ml: Flags of the World mailing list -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I can see how FOTW allows copyrighted content to be uploaded under the guise of fair use as you say, but the problem with that is COM:FAIR. Commons doesn't accept any fair use content, so I'm not sure files can be kept per COM:PCP if their original copyright holder status/authorship cannot be verified. A FOTW upload be maybe creative enough for it to be claimed as a derivative, but even then it seems that the copyright status of the original work it's based upon should be taken into account. COM:LL (even if done unintentionally) might be relevant with respect to FOTW files, just like it is for Flick'r, YouTube, and other websites which primarily cater to user uploaded content. For example, File:Flag of Teton County, Wyoming.gif most likely wasn't originally created by the person who uploaded the file to FOTW, but the copyright is instead held by Tenton County per this. Just because somebody uploaded a gif version of the flag to FOTW shouldn't mean that the original copyright is no longer valid. For sure there might be cases where the original imagery is either too old or too simple to be protected by copyright, and those can be discussed and their licensing tweaked accordingly. However, even FOTW's general license does not seem to allow for commercial or unlimited derivative use; so, that would also not seem to be acceptable per COM:L for even 100% user-created files where the uploader is the original copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Donald Duck in The Spirit of '43

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Duck

Maher27777 thought the DR wasn't getting the attention it deserves and insists this must be public domain. I just don't see how. Donald Duck as a character wasn't created for The Spirit of '43 and even this particular drawing for the title screen most probably wasn't. Am I missing something? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz You can't take this very drawing from any Donald Duck cartoon, except The Spirit of '43! The Spirit of '43 is in public domain for a well-known reason, we have only to prove that this image has been taken from this cartoon, no one else.--Maher27777 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Maher27777: The Warner Bros vs Avela court case[6] had some relevant rulings on this. Unfortunately, the character copyrights already existed, and the The Spirit of '43 is a derivative work of that character. Any additional expression added in that film is public domain, but if it is derivative of a still-copyrighted work, it's still a problem. (For another example, there was a case where a movie fell into the public domain, but was still derivative of the underlying book, so distribution of the movie was still restricted until the book went out of copyright.) In this case, the character itself counts as a separate copyrighted work. In the Avela case, they used some images from publicity materials from The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, and some Tom and Jerry cartoons. Publicity materials (which had no copyright notice) came out before the film and before the character copyright was created, so they should have been OK, but then Avela added a quote from the movie and the court ruled that the result infringed the character copyright, which was still valid. And any stuff Avela used which was published after the character had been established was not OK either (even if published without notice). The Donald Duck image would seem to fall directly in that area -- the film itself is public domain, yes, so any expression new to that film is public domain, but anything which is still derivative of the Donald Duck character is still restricted by that copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
So when does the copyright for the Donald Duck character expire? 2030-01-01? (First appearance in 1934 + 95 years + 1 day) --Rosenzweig τ 17:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Possibly slightly longer as the Donald Duck in The Wise Little Hen looked a bit different. In Donald And Pluto (1936) he looked very close to the modern Donald. When that expires, I'd say any drawing of Donald made for The Spirit of '43 also expires. The title screen may have been used before though. If the title screen was first published in, for example, Donald's Penguin (1939), it'll expire when that expires. Title screens may have been swapped though for modern broadcasts, so there is no telling how old that title screen really is. It could well be newer than The Spirit of '43. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes per those rulings, though like anything derivative, elements added to the character in later films will last longer. But the first movie should be copyright-free in 2030. It will be similar with Mickey Mouse; the first movies will expire in 2024 but that would only be the appearance as seen in that film; the modern representation of Mickey (and probably more of his storyline) was only added later so that won't expire as soon. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Although I'm a contributor, not a lawyer, I'll try to take it logic. Had The Spirit of '43 been fallen in public domain, anyone can upload the whole cartoon to, or download it from; any website, like Youtube; Wikipedia; Facebook, without the permission of Disney. This file is included in the video. Why can Youtube users share it for entertainment, when Wikipedia users can't share for knowledge?!--Maher27777 (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Maher27777: The video is a compilation of multiple media elements each of which have their own copyright. One relevant copyright is the video as a collection, and the creative work of combining the elements of that collection is what is in the public domain. Part of that collection is the character copyright of Donald Duck, which has its own copyright, and which is not in the public domain. Wikimedia Commons only accepts media for which either all elements are in the public domain, or for which the copyrighted elements are Commons:De minimis. A video with a character under restrictive copyright is not allowed on Commons.
This is just a case of the creator of a free work having a license to include non-free elements. A license to publish a non-free work in a free compilation is not also permission to change the copyright license of the licensed work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/09&oldid=336451479"