This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello. I was wondering that if I could use an image under CC-BY-SA 4.0 in an article under CC-BY-SA 3.0. I asked some people and they said that it was not allowed. It confused me a lot. So I'd like to know where it is stipulated. Thank you. --Yining Chen (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Yining Chen: You cannot mix CC-BY-SA 4.0 text in pages, this is because CC-BY-SA 4.0 is not backwards compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0. Media files are however fine to use. Dylsss (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
London Irish Amateur copyrighted logo with wrong tag
Hi all, File:London Irish Amateur Rugby Football Club Logo.jpg was uploaded but I believe it has the incorrect tag on it. This is the logo of the London Irish Amateur rugby team, which is copyrighted but @Tommythenodd: uploaded it under CC-0. I believe this is an incorrect tag as I doubt this user represents London Irish nor has the authority to declare their logo copyright free. I recommend it for deletion The C of E (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I recently nominated File:Manifesto of the Communist Party, translated by Bo Gu.pdf for deletion, as it was uploaded to Commons (2016-10-17) much later after the validity of URAA is confirmed. The uploader later questioned that according to COM:URAA, the file should not be deleted so merely because URAA applies to a file. I know most of the URAA-affected-files uploaded before the period of uncertainty are pending for further review, however, does such amnesty applies to files uploaded so late?廣九直通車 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Verifying implications of copyright renewal
I'm trying to determine the copyright status of a magazine, Sunshine & Health, which was published between 1933-1963. I followed the guide at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/decisions.html, and found that it wasn't listed in their complete list of first renewals for periodicals published up to 1950. But I did find a copyright renewal covering the magazine with a 1982 date of execution. So my understanding is that issues from (1982-28=) 1954 onward are under copyright, but any issues before 1954 are in the public domain. But I'd appreciate a sanity check on this, as this is sort of new to me. (One thing that's a little confusing is that the "Entire Copyright Document" field is given as "V1956P072-074". I'm not sure what, if anything, the 1956 there signifies.) Colin M (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hm, I don't think that's possible. The magazine was published monthly, so for there to be a Volume 1956, it would have had to be in publication for 163 years. Also, from what I know of the magazine, I doubt a single issue would have had as many as 74 pages. Colin M (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
That links to V1956P072? That's not a renewal notice; that's, I think, a notice of transfer of copyrights. Renewal notices start with RE; for example, see RE0000380546 for an example of a periodical renewal, which explicitly says it's a renewal and says exactly what it's a renewal for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. In that case I'm going to surmise that all issues through 1963 are PD, since there are no other entries in the copyright catalogue when searching for the magazine (under either of the titles it was published under). Colin M (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
However, that page notes it a 1961 revised edition, and so the actual copyright date of the edition which was revised might be earlier.
My next thought was to check the Catalog of Copyright Entries, but can't find the 1961 edition in the CCE for that Year, under the nominal title or under the listed Author, Publisher. (I am considering checking a 10 year windows either side, given the existence of a later 1968 edition.)
I also checked the Virtual Card Catalog on the copyright Office website, and for the given title/author I can only find a 1968 edition of a related work.
I also did a search on the copyright.gov's search engine to see it had been renewed (based on the 1961 publication date) work, which did not produce any results.
(A 1968 edition would have been renewed automatically. A 1961 Edition might not have been.)
As the scans may be of interest as a resource for garment construction, can someone here with access to more detailed records please help confirm if the claimed public domain status at IA is accurate. Lifetime details for Micheal Rohr, the claimed author would also be useful.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Question about licensing – fulfilling different licensing requirements
Hi everyone, I'm with german wikibooks and wondering about licensing. There are "a ton" of different licenses (Apache, CC, LGPL, GPL, MIT...). The files that made me think are: (Apache License), (MIT) and (CC with precise attribution comment). I wanted to use them on wb-de and hesitated, because the license and author are not clearly visible. This Problem gets even worse, when the image is combined with a "function" (aka a link). Becoming more worse, if we want to compile Books in other formats, every picture needs an attribution, a license and maybe even the license in full-text, right?
I must admit, I never cared a lot about that, because I thought: "well, everybody is doing it, it should be fine" (meaning, just using commons-files on wikimedia-pages). And I see other editors doing it. Recently I read something in the german kurier(DE) which made me think. I tried to clear this up for me here on commons by reading help texts about licensing and copyright, reading the FAQ but I'm still struggling.
My main Questions are:
Can every work from commons be used in wikimedia-projects, without worrying about the license (what I thought is true, but actually I think german wikibooks is not aware of MIT, Apache, etc...)?
(note: if lets say above first chevron is used and linked on wb-de (hence no link to commons is available right away), needn't there be a credit and the license available on the exact page where the image is used, because the commons-page isn't available anymore as a link-target?)
If works are compiled to PDF or ebook-Versions, am I right, that every image must be processed manually to check for the correct requirements (e. g. "exact" attribution as stated on the file's commons-page, compare example three above)?
I want to be sure for myself and in the long run be able to help others understand the thing. Is anyone willing and able to explain this stuff to me and answer my questions?
@HirnSpuk: The chevron design is not only too simple for current copyright, but it is also too old (it was used on army uniforms in World War I and before), so it should be considered PD. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me17:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks, I'm aware of that. It's not that I'm concerned about these files in particular, though I'd prefer to make some myself, just in case. But it's more like a general question. I mean the Apache License alone has more than 10.000 pages. Let's say we make something like the right picture in one of the wikimedia-projects. How would we adhere to Apache License: "4. Redistribution... You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License;"? Regards --HirnSpuk (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@HirnSpuk: The Apache 2.0 license is linked on file description page File:Activated lymphocytes-6.JPG, at "https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0". Linking to the file description page has long been considered sufficient compliance for every license we accept. Per w:H:PIC, "If the image is in the public domain, not requiring attribution to the uploader, you can create a plain picture that links to some other location by using the link option." If it's not yours or in the public domain, legally you must not do that. See also COM:REUSE. However, you could provide links to the file description pages or other sources in the books' end matter. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me11:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you very much! That is exactly the Information I was looking for. I don't think wikibooks is aware of that. I'll take care for german wikibooks and share the information with english wikibooks. This needs more attention! Best regards --HirnSpuk (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe an appropriate license tag would be something like {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}}, since the artist, w:Benjamin Thomas Pouncy, died in 1799. Because it's in the PD, it's fine to grab it from a commercial website. This is a common practice, in my experience. Colin M (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Attribution
If I want to modify an SVG image A that is hosted on Commons and which happens to be a modified derivative of a PDF image B that is in the public domain, who do I attribute my new SVG that I intend to upload under a new name to: A (the svg file that I used to make my changes) or B (the original author of the PDF)? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
It is good to keep track of all the co-authors. Legally, you are only required to mention A (if the modifications are sufficiently creative to attract copyright); not mentioning B would be plagiarism (but not a copyright violation). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠02:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Thank you for the quick and helpful reply. Choice A obviously makes the most sense as it allows anyone to trace the modifications and the original unaltered source, but from what you said, this option appears to be enforceable only under a certain condition (the modifications have to be sufficiently creative) and does not seem to cater for plagiarism, such as using an altered image and claiming to have performed the modifications. How is plagiarism dealt with on Commons? Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Actually, I'm not talking about myself and I'd rather not use this venue to speculate about why the editor I have in mind is being less than truthful. What I'm trying to find out at this stage is whether there is a Commons policy or a guideline that is meant to prevent, or at least discourage, such plagiarism. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Commons is a wiki. You can edit other people's file descriptions to correct the attribution. If you think someone is acting maliciously, you can report them to COM:AN/U. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠23:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The full RAAG logo obviously would be too complicated for {{PD-logo}}, if it was designed from scratch back in 1958. There is no doubt for that. But my question is: are the minor changes applied to a similar public domain logo (File:ARRL logo.jpg) creative enough to result to a new copyright? SV1XV (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Is it safe to say that these renewals would include the cover art? If so, I think this user's uploads need to be reviewed. Colin M (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It's reasonable to assume these renewals would include the cover art. File:Jaws-paperback.jpg is an example of why it might not, and I tend to think that interpretation would deprive the cover art of many books of copyright. But that depends on the copyright notices inside, and there's no way to tell from just the cover.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer - that's really interesting. What especially sticks out in the brief about the Jaws cover linked from the file is the cite of Fawcett Publications v Elliot, which found "We are not convinced that the copyright of a book or periodical includes the cover[...] since the cover ordinarily has no literary copyrightable matter and, when an individual design is embodied in it, its relation to the copyrighted literary content is remote and its authorship and ownership do not prima facie appear as in the case of the book's contents." A naive reading of that would suggest that any book cover through 1977 would be in the PD unless the title page explicitly included a copyright notice for the cover, separate from the copyright of the book?
The reason I was looking at this category was that I was hoping to upload some similar images of book covers from the same era, and wanted to get a handle on how to check copyright status. My current inclination is to suppose that the absence of a copyright renewal covering the book (published pre-1964) is sufficient to infer the cover is in the PD (even if it's not a necessary condition). And my understanding is that if the cover art were the subject of a standalone copyright renewal, that renewal would also show up in the registered works database at https://cocatalog.loc.gov/. But this seems unlikely to be the case for an average pulp novel, since http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/decisions.html says there were only a few hundred image copyright renewals per year from 1952-1977. Colin M (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The absence of a copyright renewal covering the book is not technically sufficient; if it had been used on a previous book, it could still be copyrighted from that. I would generally say it was enough to pass PCP, though.
My reading is that a book cover from 1977 would be fine if the copyright notice was "Copyright 1977 Penguin Books" or the like. A key point with Jaws is that the author was credited as the copyright holder, and the author had no connection to the artist.
I haven't exploited this, except for uploading Jaws, because it seems like a bit of a gotcha, a rule that nobody knew existed until 2014. My reticence wouldn't apply to things that weren't renewed, or didn't have a proper copyright notice in the first place. There's also a lot of books out there that slapped various new covers over the years and left the copyright notice as Copyright 1924 Edgar Rice Burroughs, or whatever. That's fair game, and I'm not arguing that these should be rules for Commons, just my personal feelings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dawit S Gondaria: Commons requires that pictures must be in the public domain in both the US and the country of origin. Those pages demonstrate that you don't need to worry about the US side of the copyright, but Ethiopia does have a copyright law that you'd need to abide by, so you need to see whether the criteria in {{PD-Ethiopia}} apply. Based on your description, this probably won't apply to the average photo you find off Google Images. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This is used in conjunction with the FoP templates.
For example: UK
Object
The photographic reproduction of this work is covered under United Kingdom law (Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988), which states that it is not an infringement to take photographs of buildings, or of sculptures, models for buildings, or works of artistic craftsmanship permanently located in a public place or in premises open to the public. This does not apply to two-dimensional graphic works such as posters or murals. See COM:CRT/United Kingdom#Freedom of panorama for more information.
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.
If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation.
Before reusing this content, ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer and {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} for more information.
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.
This is a depiction of a building or work of art in Sweden. The depicted work is believed to be protected by copyright. According to Article 24 of the Swedish copyright act, "Works of art may be depicted if they are permanently placed on or at a public place outdoors" and "Buildings may be freely depicted." It has been widely accepted that this provision made distribution of depictions such as this one legal.
On 4 April 2016, however, the Supreme Court of Sweden issued a statement that the first paragraph in Article 24 does not extend to publication of works of art in online repositories, and on 6 July 2017, a lower court ruled that linking to depictions of copyrighted works of art hosted by Wikimedia (including on Commons) in a database constitutes copyright infringement. See COM:CRT/Sweden#Freedom of panorama for more information.
The second paragraph in the article, about buildings, was not evaluated in the statement or ruling.
The implications of these decisions on Commons' ability to continue to distribute this and other depictions like it are currently under analysis.
Reusing or linking to this file can have legal consequences, unless the artist has died before 1 Jan 1954, to which either {{PD-Sweden-photo}} or {{PD-old-70}} may apply. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe the copyright belonging to someone else. See our general disclaimer for more information.
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.
@Ox1997cow: for me personally, it is best for the licensed-FOP templates to be accompanied by FOP templates (inc. Sweden's). But, for no-FOP ones I tend to put these on top of description box because in my perspective these are not true license tags, but more of warning and/or problem tags. Problem tags because these help veteran users and all admins to check if the files tagged as such are in compliance with de minimis or not. IMO no-FOP templates are not supposed to be placed inside the licensing sections. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)15:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
If it is a NoFoP template, why would the image be allowed here in the first place? That is saying it is a derivative work and the underlying work is not licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: regarding your input, the genuine utility of the no FOP templates was questioned earlier this year by Krd, who then launched Commons:Deletion requests/NoFoP templates. Eventually after different opinions from other users, the result was keep. Majority of the users who opined tended to keep (stating these are more specific than the generic {{De minimis}}), though some like me propose converting all to category-handler templates (similar to {{NoFoP-Japan}}). Such proposals didn't receive significant attention. Note that there are thousands of images tagged with no FOP templates, most especially files showing French and Dubai icons (with de minimis claims, though some of the images may be borderline). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: As someone who participated in the discussion as to keep comment, I think these templates useful for those who are not familiar with freedom of panorama (especially new users). In fact, I found a user who uploaded a close-up photo of Lotte World Tower without knowing that freedom of panorama is only allowed for non-commercial use in South Korea, and I informed this user about freedom of panorama in South Korea and de minimis provisions of South Korea.
@Ox1997cow: one main problem for NoFoP-templates is that these are being treated as "licenses" despite that these are not so. While I agree that these may serve as warning tags, these seem to have originated as warning or signal tags that alert other users about potentially-problematic image files. For me I prefer these to be situated on top of the description boxes. See File:Eastwood (Libis-Bagumbayan, Quezon City)(2012-10-23) 2.jpg for example. The location on top of the description box definitely serves the warning or informatory purposes of the no-FOP templates.
And take note the "object" parameter of {{Licensed-FOP}} is for the underlying license of the copyrighted building or artwork (usually one of the "yes" FoP tags). So I discourage the placement of no-FOP problem/warning tags inside {{Licensed-FOP}}, if the country does not provide Commons-acceptable FOP in the first place. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)17:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I repeat, the no-FOP tags are best situated on top of the description boxes, as these are not true licenses. I noticed your placement of no-FOP tag inside the licensing section at File:Statues in RKV.jpg (which is under an FOP-related DR). I manually transferred it to the top. If no-FOP tags are for warning/informatory purposes, then these should be placed on top and not inside licensing sections, because there's no genuine FOP licensing in the first place (due to the country having no compatible FOP). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)08:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Does this image depict a 2D or 3D art work?
Is the subject depicted in this image considered 2D or 3D art? If it can be considered 2D art, it needs to be re-tagged as {{PD-Art}}. If it must be considered 3D art, it needs to be speedily deleted as a copyvio. The provided source link is broken, but here is an archived version. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@ShyAlpaca482: I would think a 5th century work of any kind would be out of copyright, if indeed it ever qualified for it. But the point is the copyright of the photograph, which seems recent enough to qualify. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Apologies if my question was unclear. I intended the question to be about the copyright on the photograph, not the original work. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk)
Petr Tomašovský není !!! autorem fotografie pěchotního srubu MO-S 19 Alej ( SZM-AOD). Bohužel rovněž i další fotografie " Aleje" jsou jím ukradené... S pozdravem Dan Krzywon, autor zmíněných fotografií " Aleje".
Jsem autorem všech fotografií pěchotního srubu MO-S 19 " Alej " v Areálu opevnění v Hlučíně - Darkovičkách ( zařízení Slezského zemského muzea Opava) , kterými se Petr Tomašovský na Wikipedii prezentuje.
Žádám o smazání ukradených fotografií. Své autorství mohu prokázat originálními soubory.
S díky
Would some others mind taking a look at this file's licensing? It can be seen online at janmeyerpaintings.com/infos (scroll down to the bottom of the page), but there's nothing indicating that it has been released under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. The image is, however, basically nothing but text on a blue background which would seem to make it {{PD-textlogo}} per COM:TOO United States. The country of origin would seem to be the Netherlands based upon en:Draft:Jan Meyer, and it also seems to be PD in the Netherlands per COM:TOO Netherlands. Is all that is needed here is to change the licensing to "PD-textlogo" or is the current license OK? There's another wrinkle in that the author of the image is listed as "Igor Meijer", who might be a relative of the artist "Jan Meijer"; moreover, the uploader of the image is User:JulianMeijer1986 who is also probably User:Julian Meijer and who also might be a relative of the artist. The two Julian Meijer accounts uploaded quite a number of images also from janmeyerpaintings.com, but there's no indication anywhere on the website that the files have been released as licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The real-life Julian and Igor are the sons of Jan and they published the book about their father's works [1], which is mentioned as one of the sources of the files uploaded by User:Julian Meijer in January and User:JulianMeijer1986 in April. We would need a confirmation of the identity of the uploader, through OTRS or other accepted manner. (In cases like this, where it seems almost certain that the uploader is actually who he says he is, it may be good to begin with leaving a friendly message asking the uploader to clarify the whole thing, before starting the "no permission" procedure.) The uploads by the two "Julian" accounts seem to fall into three sort of situations:
The blue poster File:-11 JANMEYER AFFICHE 3.jpg was for announcing an exposition in a galerie in Paris, France. Normally it would be published by the galerie in the country where it is located. So, the country of origin is probably France, if it makes any difference. Anyway, it looks like the sort of image that Commons would consider PD-ineligible (it's not a logo, it's a poster). Not sure what Igor has to do with that poster. Perhaps he designed it or perhaps he just made a reproduction for inclusion in the book and on the website. This could probably be clarified by the uplaoder. The licensing could also be clarified. Is it meant as a claim of copyright by Igor on the design, or as a claim of copyright by Igor on the digital reproduction, or is it there just because the uploader had to put a template in the licensing section? If, as it is probable, Commons considers the poster to be PD in the United States, it's probably possible to get Igor either to accept a PD tag (with its possible non-application in some countries) or to issue a CC0 declaration (in theory applicable in all countries with adaptations to laws).
The reproduction of the painting File:-21 JANMEYER NUV 1971 118X89.jpg. It's reasonable to assume that the sons of the deceased painter are the owners of the copyright and therefore that they can issue licenses. That can be easily settled with the confirmation of identity. The uploader sourced this Commons file as reproduced from the book. For some reason, you judged that it is instead reproduced from the website copy. The Commons version is rotated on one side but it looks larger than the website copy. The uploader could clarify that. It's possible that the uploader was mistaken about the meaning of the source field on Commons, but it may be better to just leave the statement of the uploader in the meantime. We need a confirmation anyway, so it's not really essential right now to guess a different source than what he wrote. Also, it's reasonable to assume that the sons retained the full copyright on the paintings, although it wouldn't hurt if they said that they did not cede an exclusive publishing right to the publisher of the book.
The other four files (Special:Log/Julian_Meijer) are photographs of the artist at work. The authorship is claimed by User:Julian Meijer. That can very well be correct. Although it would be nice if Julian confirmed that it is indeed what he meant (instead of being the common mistake made by some owners of photographs, which they did not take, to put their name in the author field and to mistakenly claim the copyright). The uploader sourced the Commons copies of the photographs both from the website and from the book. It should be only one or the other. The uploader should also fix the dates of the photographs. They are probably not from 2020 because the artist died in 1995 and he looks alive on the photos.
Thank you for looking taking a close look at these files Asclepias. I will leave a message on the uploader's user talk page, providing a link to this discussion and briefly summarizing what's mentioned above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
It will be PD as the work of an official Royal Navy photographer pre-1957 so the licensing can be fixed. I am not overly familiar with Commons and its deletion criteria but I can't see the point of having two files identical except one is watermarked and one not - Dumelow (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Who owns the copyright to a still from a TV show?
Who do I need to contact if I want to request that a still from a TV show be released under a free license? Would this be the production company, or do I also need permission from the network and distributor? Ixfd64 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Remove copyrighted work or tag as de minimis?
Hi, this is a continuation of this enwiki discussion, though in short, this image was created by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service but it includes an image of Pikachu, a copyrighted character. Should I blur/remove the Pikachu before uploading or do you think we can upload it as-is and tag it with {{De minimis}}? Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Given it's "Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Welcomes Pokémon Trainers" and the main focus of the image seems to be the various signage at this location, I don't think a key decorative and topical component of that sign is de minimis. DMacks (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The fact that it was possible to remove the pokémon from the image without making the latter useless proves that it is de minimus. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Uploads of Gavin 78
I found these images myself and they are over 100 years old and are part of the public domain. I changed the copyright settings and now I'm not sure how to notify the editor that I changed the settings. I really love the page I made and it would be a shame if it gets rejected over a couple of old pictures from 1910 and 1922 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin 78 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Well there was just no license template used on the file description pages. The current {{PD-self}} is not much better, because the uploader cannot put them into public domain. Please see Commons:Copyright tags and change the license template(s) to fitting ones. Thx. --JuTa09:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the Iranian threshold or originality, but it probably doesn't meet the U.S. threshold. Kaldari (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Are these mechanical reproductions?
This site has some photos of some old magazines, including many covers of the magazine Strength & Health. I believe those covers to be in the PD, because their copyright was not renewed. However, the uploader is selling these as his own artwork, and it occurs to me that he may have done some editing of the photos. I'm a bit unsure whether the edits are simple enough that these can just be called mechanical reproductions, or if they would be considered creative enough to create a new copyrightable work (per Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag).
In a few cases, I've found some other photographs of the same covers for comparison:
My interpretation would be that these are just mechanical. At most it seems the photographer applied some noise filter, adjusted colour levels, cropped or blurred some ragged edges, and so on, but I don't see any creative effort behind the transformations. But would appreciate a second opinion, as this is an area I'm unfamiliar with. Colin M (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Colin M: As long as there are no substantial changes, they would be considered slavish reproductions and not meet the threshold of originality. For example, if the colors were noticeably changed or details of the graphics were modified it would become a derivative work with its own copyright. From the examples you present, that doesn't appear to be the case, however. (Note that I am not a lawyer.) Kaldari (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Cleanup of CC claim on copy of PD image
Hi. I have just been sorting some First World War photos and found a blurred image of a munitions factory claimed as CC 2.0. The image was imported from Flikr but the Flikr image has now been deleted. I have located a copy of the original image from our import of the Imperial War Museum files at File:The Arms Production in Britain in the First World War Q27868.jpg with a different author. Should we retain the blurred copy (with a corrected author and licence) or is it cleaner to delete the blurred (and cropped) duplicate? The blurred version is in use but I can update the links to point to the IWM version. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I suggest to not *create* empty categories by this template as those would be hassle for many external users, though using on the existing categories are good. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I know that. The documentation also includes the following: Do not create categories that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
At the English Wikipedia, I'm working on an article about a defunct American record label based in California. In one section I'm writing about how the company went from being one person doing business as a record label, to a limited liability corporation with multiple owners. The Articles of Incorporation are freely available from the State of California's business search page and could potentially be added to the article for illustrative purposes. Are Articles of Incorporation considered public domain? As best I can tell from the California Public Records Act and a related court decision, the Articles would be considered uncopyrightable. But I don't have much experience working with government works and copyright, so hoping someone with more experience can advise. Is there precedent for this sort of thing? Maybe an applicable license tag? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@IllaZilla: If you're talking about a form that looks something like this, I have a few thoughts. The design of the form itself would probably be a public record under the California Public Records Act, and under the court case you mentioned it would fall into the public domain (and the design and content is so basic that it might be PD anyway). While the form has been filled out, it has only been filled out with basic information, which does not reach the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. The scan was created by the government of California (and it is a slavish copy in any event), so that is in the public domain. Therefore, the scan of the Articles of Organization are public domain in the United States (for the document I have linked).
However, it is important to note that while California can say that the form is a public record, legally it can only forfeit its copyright over its own works. Therefore, if the form contained a lengthy description of the company written by the owners, for example, that description would receive copyright protection. Because of the supremacy clause, the state of California cannot bar the company owners from enforcing their federal copyright over that description if the completed form were republished. So the key point to recognize here is that these forms are only PD if they are solely a work of the state of California. Mysterymanblue 22:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: Thank you. The form you linked is the one I am looking to use. Since it only contains names, address, and date, and not a description or other content that would receive copyright protection, I think that answers my question. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: , how is possible to nominate to a deletion en masse? Some already survived +1 deletion request, but this precedence is making me thing for some time: or these patchs are or aren't legal on Commons. What do you think @Nat and Patrick Rogel: ? Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Erick Soares3: You may use a Mass deletion request (manual tagging for standard deletion of a mass of files), which links to VisualFileChange AKA VFC (semiautomatic tagging and other operations for 1 or more files). The semiautomatic method requires JavaScript, and works better when the user is logged in and has it enabled as a gadget, including higher limits and saving of preferences. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me13:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Licensing of self-taken pictures at sports competition venues
@Jeff G.: I have moved this question here from the help desk. I hope, that's fine? I'm a newbie on Wiki Commons and not familiar with this project yet.
I have a question about the licensing of photos taken at live sport events like figure skating competitions. A fellow photographer told me that the International Skating Union or local host often writes on their website that taking photos in the arena is permitted, but only for private purposes, not commercial usage.
The problem is that many past events have already deleted their official website like the 2019 Grand Prix Final. So it's not that simple to track the exact rules for video recording or photography in the arena anymore. This is a shot from the junior ladies' victory ceremony: Details
I would like to upload some pictures from past events, but I'm not sure how to handle this issue. Thank you very much in advance! Henni147 (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Henni147: , as for the resulting photos this fall under Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#"House_rules" which in this case ISU or local host only allow non-commercial photography. Such restriction should not affect copyright status of the resulting photos and you should be able to upload them to Commons but beware of other things like copyrighted artworks, architectures (this one depending on Freedom of Panorama legislation in host country), and copyrightable logos. Hope that help.--Vulphere14:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) There are two separate questions. Do the photos contain any elements that are under copyright (or related rights)? If not, you have the full copyright to your photographs.
The skating union can forbid the audience from taking photos, but that is unrelated to copyright and probably not enforceable, other than in throwing out people with cameras or recording devices, and perhaps banning entry to subsequent events. The only way to get at you outside the venue is to claim they have a contract with you and sue you for breaching it. Unless you signed a paper to that effect it is unlikely to hold in court, and they have better things to do than to hunt down unaccredited photographers (I'd hope).
Then we have the copyrights. Actors and musicians have a copyright-like right to their performances, but I doubt sportspeople have – they are not creating works of art by their performance. Many aspects of the arena is under copyright, but they would normally be de minimis (unimportant in regard to copyright) unless you specifically take a photo of them, or crop a photo to contain more or less only that thing (a logo on a sportsman's jacket or somesuch). Depending on country, any involved architecture could also be under copyright.
Thank you very much for your detailed answers! I think, figure skating is some sort of grey-zone in terms of art, because a skating performance is also judged by artistic criteria like musicality or choreography and the skaters wear costumes that may count as pieces of art, too. Apart from that only parts of the sideboards with adds can be seen on the pictures, no logos or such. Henni147 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, figure skating has some artistic elements like choreography and musicality but it is still a sport and as for costume, it is a complex matter (you can read COM:Costume for more information) but you can add {{Costume}} as disclaimer.--Vulphere15:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The source for File:Cezary Julski.jpg says Prawa należą do archiwum / Wolno zwielokrotniać, zmieniać i rozpowszechniać oraz wykonywać utwór, nawet w celach komercyjnych, bez konieczności pytania o zgodę. It also has the "no copyright" symbol. The Google translation of the Polish text sounds more like {{Copyrighted free use}}, so that's what I've tagged it as, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't actually a mistranslation of PD. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: remove all no-FoP SoKor tags please. Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Choice of law, "current practice on Commons is to retain photos based on the more lenient of the country in which the object is situated and the country in which the photo is taken," for situations like the Panmunjeom cases. North Korean FOP applies to all buildings of Panmunjeon area, whether situated inside NoKor or inside the "red zone" (SoKor) but visible from the "free FOP zone" (NoKor). And as I said before, it is wrong to place no-FOP tags under licensing sections because these are not licenses in the first place (more like problem or warning tags, and normally placed above the description boxes or inside description boxes, but not under licensing section). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)13:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The author and source provided for File:Schubert ogden S.jpg is given as en:Schubert M. Ogden, but there’s nothing provided with allows such a statement to be verified; moreover, even if true, the photo still appears to have been taken by someone other than the subject of the article. The uploader doesn’t seem to be claiming they’re the subject, but perhaps the received the photo from the subject. The uploader, however, has been inactive since 2016 on Commons and the subject of the photo has been dead since 2019. The latter might be relevant because a photo such as this could possibly be uploaded locally as en:WP:Non-free content if it turns out that Commons can’t keep this. Can Commons keep this as currently licensed or is OTRS verification needed here? The uploader seem to be still active on English Wikipedia; so, I will ask them to clarify the en:provenance of the photo. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Baratiiman: Hi, and welcome. No, it is not cc by 4. The uploader appears to slap that license on whatever they find on the Internet. I have tagged their uploads accordingly and warned them. Please use internal links. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me13:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Adjusting license templates for photos by Eugène Cattin?
When Archives cantonales jurassiennes uploaded the images by Eugène Cattin in 2016, they were still protected by copyright, but released under CC-BY, as per the OTRS ticket and described on Category:Images by Eugène Cattin in French and German. As Cattin died in 1947, his work went into the public domain in Switzerland on January 1, 2018. So my first thought now was that the license for all these files could be changed to PD. But then the URAA came to mind - as Cattin's photos were still protected in Switzerland at the URAA date in 1996, they are presumably still copyrighted (but freely licensed!) in the US. This would make the CC-BY license still useful, even necessary for Commons (as we require works to be freely licensed in the US as well). The situation for these photos would then be:
In the public domain in Switzerland (and most of the world) since January 1, 2018.
Still freely licensed under CC-BY in the US, based on the still existing US copyright
Do we have a fitting template for such a case, "PD in source country, freely licensed in the US"? There are so many copyright templates now, there might be one, but I can't find it right now. I assume a bot could then batch change the templates. Pinging some people I know were involved or are interested in Cattin's work: @Reinhard Kraasch, Micha, and Xocolatl: ... Gestumblindi (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I lack experience in creating such templates, who could create it? Jarekt, maybe...? But I would wish for a bit more discussion, so we have a clear consensus regarding the approach; seems that the matter isn't particularly interesting to most... Gestumblindi (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
It looks to me as if the Copyright (Gibraltar) Order 2005 laid out the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 that were extended to Gibraltar, and defined some changes, mostly wording tweaks like changing "the United Kingdom" to "Gibraltar". The Intellectual Property (Copyright and Related Rights) Act 2005 of the Gibraltar Government was a version of the 1988 Act with those changes. The current version incorporates various changes up to 2020, and that is the version we should follow. I will add a link to that version to the article. Probably Gibraltar copyright law tracks UK law closely, but I suppose it would be worth going through the Gibraltar version and summarizing the rules. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
As a comparison, the Hong Kong's Copyright Ordinance is also largely modified from UK's CDPA 1988, but apparently COM:Hong Kong contains much more information about the local copyright law. I think more information can be added to COM:Gibraltar instead of just placing redirects to the UK page?廣九直通車 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
When is the copyright expiration period of the currency based?
After a certain period of time, the currency is issued with a design change.
However, some countries' currencies have the year of issue marked, and the currency of the same design may have different years of issue.
(For example, currency of the current design appeared in 2013, but some currencies were issued in 2015, and some currencies were issued in 2017.)
In this case, which way do we set the criteria for the copyright expiration year?
@Jeff G.: In other words, in the above example, since the currency was designed in 2013, is the copyright expired in 2084 for the currency issued in 2017? (If the copyright protection period is 70 years) Ox1997cow (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: 2013+70+1=2084 minimum (assuming the designer died in 2013 in a 70 pma country), or 2084 exactly (assuming a mint's copyright expired 70 years after publication). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me11:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I will ask you additional questions that are not relevant to the main text. Can the author set a copyright protection period different from the copyright protection period specified in the copyright law? (For example, in countries where the copyright protection period is 70 years after death, the copyright expires immediately upon death, protection for 30 years after death, protection for 100 years after death, etc...) Ox1997cow (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: In most countries a copyright owner can release a file into the public domain, which waives all copyright protections. The copyright holder can also retain the copyright but release the file under a licence that sets less stringent terms than that specified in law (for example, the Creative Commons licences rely on the copyright of the creator but allow reuse under varying terms). Theoretically, the copyright holder could create a non-standard licence that removes copyright protection sooner than that specified in law (for example, they could say, "from 40 years after my death, I grant everyone a licence to reuse my work without limitation").
In some cases a copyright can be renewed, which extends the duration of the copyright. However, other than using the legal processes allowed for renewing copyrights, a copyright holder can't set enforcable terms on their files beyond the expiry of copyright. Theoretically, the copyright holder could set up a contract with more stringent terms and then anyone who signs that contract would be bound by both contract law and copyright law (so the work has no copyright protection for the general public but anyone who signed the contract may be bound by contract law). In that last situation, you would need to consult a legal expert about whether the expiry of copyright would make the contractual obligations void (as with copyright, contract law varies between countries). From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I think in most cases the copyright duration will be based on the first issuance, since later ones don't include any original content. There's an example of this in Commons:Deletion requests/UK coins minted after 1969, where we decided that UK coins of designs first issued before 1971 were in the public domain. Note that in the UK, Crown copyright runs for 50 years from publication, so the critical date was the date on which the coins were first available to the public, not the date when they were designed, nor the date shown on the coins. --bjh21 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
At this stage, the page is an essay rather than a guideline. I cannot see any objection to making it a guideline, but that will take a while.
The page should be made translatable - I can do that - but not until it has become fairly stable so we do not waste translators' valuable time translating and retranslating.
I suspect that it will be a while before more than a handful of COM:CRT pages have a "Commissioned works" section. I can set up the mechanism for transcluding those sections to Commons:Commissioned works, but wonder if it will really be needed. There seem to be just two conditions:
Copyright in the commissioned work automatically belongs to the owner
Copyright is retained by the creator unless explicitly assigned to the owner
That could be given in a simple list in Commons:Commissioned works, and the rule for each country in the "General" section for that country's CRT page.
18.1. Pursuant to the agreement for a commissioned work, the author shall undertake duties to create and submit a work and the person commissioning the work shall undertake duties to pay the remuneration to the
author.
18.2. The holder of exclusive rights shall be determined by the agreement.
I suppose that is different, because it leaves open the question of who has the rights if the agreement does not specify it. There may also be distinctions between works by employees and non-employees, and works made for the government. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
24.1. The following circumstances where the works were used without contradicting the normal exploitation of published works and without affecting the legal interests of the right holders shall not be deemed as copyright infringement:
...
24.1.6. To publish works of architecture, fine arts and photography located in public places in order to show the surrounding areas of events while reporting the events to the public;...
But there is a fair use-like condition for the exceptions at Article 24.1, including this one.
24.2. The following conditions shall be considered in determining the circumstances provided in Section 24.1 of this law:
24.2.1. To have a non-profit purpose;
24.2.2. The extent of use and the importance of the used parts;
24.2.3. The value of the work and the effect of the used part on the
market.
COM:FOP Mongolia needs to be clarified further that even de minimis inclusion is not OK, because the provision 24.1.6 is equivalent to incidental inclusion ("in order to show the surrounding areas of events"), and such inclusion "to show the surrounding areas" must be noncommercial. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)14:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
For the Mongolian case, my assumption is that their copyright law itself has set a restriction on de minimis. In most other countries such as ours, it is assumed that de minimis applies, such as skyline photos of Manila etc.. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)16:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: In the case of South Korean provisions, it can be interpreted that there is no problem with commercial use as long as it does not unfairly harm the interests of the original author. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't read that text as excluding commercial use. It says "The following conditions shall be considered", not "commercial use is excluded". It reads to me like US fair use law; commercial use is just one factor among many.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
If you want to upload an image to wikimedia, Does the licensing section in the file description automatically apply the selected license, or do I need to copyright it elsewhere?
@Ultraflair04: Short answer: The licence provided by you is the only reason anybody is allowed to use your images, other than under "fair use" (and possibly work contracts etc.), and you did provide the licence. Since the USA joined the Berne convention, works are under copyright automatically in nearly all parts of the word. –LPfi (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any provisions on the Commons page that would allow use of such data, neither did I see any mention of free licenses at the front page you linked (but I don't read Indonesian). Do you have any idea why the data would be free?
It is possible, like in Finland, that the government owns the copyright, but has licensed the data under a free licence. If so, you need to find the licence statement.
Help understanding Commons copyright policy on derivative works and de minims
Hi all. Recently I've requested undeletion of the File:OG (33812699355).jpg since it seemed to me that the file was deleted in error. The deletion was upheld, but it feels to me that the reviewing admin(s) have failed to substantiate their position or meaningfully engage in the argument I presented. So, I'm hoping somebody here may help me understand where my argument falls short, or how I'm misunderstanding US copyright law or Commons policy.
The image in question is available externally here. It depicts a sports team, w:OG (esports) during one of their matches. They're in a soundproof booth to prevent them from hearing the crowd reaction (to preserve competitive integrity) and on the back of the booth (our front) there is a panel depicting individual characters/heroes they are playing and their status at the moment the photo was taken (you can see, for example, the character on the far left, played by w:ana (gamer), is currently dead, hence why there is a death countdown on the hero portrait).
The image was deleted due to copyright concerns regarding those hero portraits up front. I do not object to the assessment that those hero portraits are likely to be copyrighted, but I have attempted to make an argument based on COM:DM. My argument is thus:
The primary subject of this picture is the sports team in action, not the individual hero portraits.
The portraits are entirely incidental to the photo. The players could have chosen to play any of 100+ other heroes in their game, and the value of this photo would not have changed with the different copyrighted hero portraits being in use.
Therefore, this, to me, falls under COM:DM.
It seems to me that we accept this argument implicitly on Commons all the time. Just to give you some examples:
Sports
Category:FIFA World Cup balls - This category contains many images of copyrighted football balls, most with copyrighted designs and logos on them. But the subject is the ball, not the copyrighted design.
Category:Formula One cars - This category contains formula one cars, which contain copyrighted designs and logos, but Commons allows it.
Category:Eiffel Tower at night - Famously, while copyright on the Eiffel tower has expired, the copyright on the light patterns has not, so photos of Eiffel tower during the night may be copyrighted. Example of such analysis. But Commons has an entire category full to the brim, of such photos.
Admin(s) dismissed my concerns with w:WP:OTHERSTUFF but to me this seems inapplicable because w:WP:OTHERSTUFF is meant to deal with whether an article should exist on Wikipedia, as there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article there. However, in case with Commons, there is something stopping above categories existing if COM:DM does not apply the way I suggest; copyright law is stopping it. I'm assuming that the admins simply did not have time or energy to respond to my argument in depth, so I'd like to receive further input on where it falls short. Thanks. Melmann (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Does "taking a photograph" generate a new copyright?
Obviously it will, in general. However there are some exceptions, recognised in some countries. These are generally for simple "technical" reproductions where there is no "creative input" to making the image, and usually limited to a 2D subject. The implication is a difference between photography vs. photocopying. This may be constrained further if a 2D subject is still "difficult" to photograph, i.e. requiring unusual skill or techniques to make the image. Note that this is not based on the creativity in creating the three-dimensional object: it's the same even if it's a natural rock (we're not applying COM:TOO here) - the point is that photography of three-dimensional objects is regarded as making creative decisions (thus attracting copyright), but that of two-dimensional objects or features is simpler and does not.
In this case, we can reasonably argue that the subject is indeed two-dimensional. Although a physical and three-dimensional object, the subject of the photograph is the inscription, which is flat. (so I would disagree with Jmabel here.) You might also run into the technical difficulty aspect, because some engravings can indeed be hard to obtain a readable photograph of. However I see no evidence of such here - it's not an especially good photograph, I cannot see evidence of particular techniques to visualise the inscription.
If you can source the photographer and a free licence to their work, then please do so, as that's simpler.
Otherwise I would say that this would be a candidate for the 2D simplification - provided that such a simplification is recognised in the relevant country. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I would have appreciated that this discussion stay in one place, but here we are.
I agree that it is not a particularly good photo, but it reveals a lot of texture and shadow. Clearly another photo of the same object would look very different. The fact that the photographer made poor decisions about how to photograph this three-dimensional object does not mean they failed to make copyrightable decisions.
Given that the source is an academic paper, presumably the author of that paper, Alexander Vovin can be contacted and would know the source of the photo. Further, he probably knows exactly where this object resides, and we could arrange a photo by one of our own people. - Jmabel ! talk14:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The crucial distinction, AIUI, is whether they made choices in photographing this object. Did they choose a particular angle, or did they simply set up perpendicular to the plane of the subject? Did their lighting choices involve anything more than the default of the copying stand? Did they apply particular techniques to highlight the inscription? Or (as I would claim is the case here), the photograph is the same competent but non-creative utilitarian function, as if the object had been placed before an appropriate, but unthinking, machine - a photobooth, in effect. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both for your contribution. It's not an easy matter. The characters' incisions might be less deep than the strokes of certain impressionist paintings are tall. The surface of the slab is slightly inclined and has a depression, but anyways, like Andy Dingley said the subject is the inscription. I think that the inscription might be considered difficult to photograph not so much for the skills required as due to the location of the stele (that is, the country of Mongolia).--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
However, when I think about Swedish FOP deeply, I think Swedish FOP is not OK.
Here are two ruling related Swedish FOP.
On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden issued a statement that the first paragraph in Article 24 does not extend to publication of works of art in online repositories.
On 6 July 2017, a lower court ruled that linking to depictions of copyrighted works of art hosted by Wikimedia (including on Commons) in a database constitutes copyright infringement.
This can be interpreted as Swedish FOP does not apply to online databases, so Swedish FOP is not OK.
Here's what I always heard from both @Esquilo and LPfi: : the Article 24 has two paragraphs, and those court cases only affect the first paragraph, the second paragraph "Byggnader får fritt avbildas." (lit. Buildings may be freely depicted.) isn't affected, so taking buildings and postcards (Ah?!) are still permitted. Well Ox1997cow, if you have evidences that those court cases also vetoed the application of that second paragraph, or even the entire Article 24, please let me know. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with what others pointed out for you in the discussion linked above: "The law says there is FoP but the court said that one specific database was not okay. The court did not say that all databases are not okay." BUS knew they could never win a trail against Wikimedia Foundation over Commons, so they filed suit against Wikimedia Sweden over a site that challenged an excluse right they had negotiated with swedish municipalities. FoP for buildings has nerver been contested and is not affected at all by any of these verdicts. /ℇsquilo06:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Item here and here. The latter I'm more confident about (US gov't work), but the former? It's anonymous, from 1946, and the publisher (in colonial Cairo) is long since defunct. How to classify these? GPinkerton (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Some time ago I uploaded this image (2020) to Commons and requested a license review. It is a screenshot of a video posted on YouTube under CC BY license conditions. The person portrayed in the image is informed of its use in Commons and Wikipedia.
YouTube will soon change its terms of use (June 1, 2021) to limit the use of personally identifiable data. Since this screenshot is prior to these changes, I understand that there would be no problem. However, I am anticipating any possible problems and asking for help from an administrator.
Would it be possible to review and confirm the correct use of the image to prevent its elimination because it does not conform with YouTube's future terms? These terms are not yet in use, nor were they when the image was uploaded.
Sorry if I am not asking this question in the right place.
These are unlikely to make it as Featured Images. But nor is that a reason to delete them. What they also have is embedded metadata reading:
Special instructions FBMD0a000a700100000d080000da11000031130000aa140000e61b000072290000e82a0000892c00004f2e0000f8460000
which is a typical fingerprint left in files which have passed through Facebook.
This was seen as reason for their speedy deletion as COM:CSD#F1, with the following block-threatening message left for the user.
This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: FBMD0a000a6e010000ee060000c80c0000a00d00007d0e0000131300008f1b0000041d0000301e00005f1f000098300000
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
This is a failure on several levels. Firstly, it's not a copyvio. It's obviously a user selfie. Secondly, speedy deletion is only for cases where a situation is clear and unchallengable. For anything else, our standard mechanism for deletion is a DR, not a speedy. Speedies are not "better", they're only a convenience which we might be able to use, in some cases. Thirdly, threatening blocks at new editors for uploading their own content is deeply hostile and (should be!) against all Wikimedia spirit (clearly it isn't these days, and we damn well need to stop behaving like this).
Fourthly, where's the policy that FBMD tags in metadata and no other reason are reasons to delete any valid file?
I don't consider Facebook metadata (or other "looks suspicious"/"small size, no metadata, unlikely to be own work" rationales) to be sufficient for speedy deletion. Facebook metadata shows previous publication, but not necessarily previous publication under a non-free license. I've seen plenty of people download their own photos off Facebook because they're using it to back up their photos, or transfer them to their computer by sending them to themselves. I prefer {{No permission}} or DR in cases where the file is suspicious and I can't find a source. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Though I have no problem to put such images into a (regular) DR, I remember some past instances when I converted a third-party speedy into DR getting criticized as unnecessary and nothing to gain. So, opinions seem to differ.
In the case at hand, it wasn't only the FB-code, but also the very low resolution (373 × 280), which suggested "not own work".
The wording of the notification is surely debatable, but has nothing to do with this case, as it's one of our regular templates. --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Another typical case of FB-code carrying images: File:Desembarco (2021).jpg — professional-level quality, sound resolution and FB-code. Own work of single-upload account or stolen from Facebook/Instagram? --Túrelio (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
That is already tagged for speedy deletion by Rodney Araujo as a {{Selfie}} under COM:CSD#F10 as "personal photos by non-contributors". I don't know when Rodney Araujo was appointed as a judge of when Wikimedia editors are "non-contributors" and can have their contributions wiped without even the benefit of a DR. This is INUSE (pretty obviously) at es:Usuario:Desembarco, where an editor is working on a plausible draft article about an Argentinian band of the same name. A member of which (in the photo) shares the initials "RS" with the Commons uploader. See also File:Desembarco2021.jpg, also with the Facebook marker. So in the absence of anything else, this is very likely to be an article about the band, by the band, using images from their own Facebook page. Issues of article notability are a matter for the Spanish Wikipedia, not Commons, and if these two images are COM:INUSE on a Wikipedia, that should immediately invalidate any speedy deletion at Commons. Commons admins will, of course, check for INUSE before deleting such, so I expect they'll be gone in a couple of days maximum and I can even guess which admins will probably have done the deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
What is the copyright status of audio clips that consist of a recording of a text-to-speech engine (not known for sure which one in this case, but most likely Google's TTS) saying a word or phrase? Are they considered "freely usable" media? The files in question that prompted this question are File:Fi-Joensuu.ogg, File:Fi-Kuopio.ogg and File:Fi-Seinäjoki.ogg, which are all marked as "Own work, all rights released (Public domain)". SURJECTION·talk·contr·log·18:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
If something is purely the result of an algorithm, i.e. there is no human involvement (and therefore no human creativity), there will generally be no copyright ({{PD-ineligible}}). If the text is long enough (a word or phrase won't be enough), there could be a copyright on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Chile's TOO
There's not much in COM:TOO Chile about Chile's threshold of originality. File:Logotipo Frente Amplio (Circular).png was unploaded in December 2020 under as {{PD-textlogo}}, but this sort of seems to be a bit more than simple shapes without any real creative element to it. It might be OK per COM:TOO United States, but once again I'm not sure about Chile. Just for reference, the same logo was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content back in 2018, but that might have been done just to be cautious. If the Commons file is OK as is, then a local non-free version isn't really needed on English Wikipedia. Can Commons keep this file as currently licensed or should it be sent to a DR for further discussion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
So then when I selected that license aspect upon upload, and make it more clear in the detailed use outline I authored - it was removed after that brief discussion and these photos are allowed, it attributed and such now on FB? What am I missing here? --Don (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Can I upload this image from HumanRights.Gov to my Wikipedia Article
Hi, I am currently a University student studying a subject which requires the editing of a stub article and improving it. I was wondering whether anyone would know if I were able to use this image of 'Caroline Archer' from this document https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/lalor4.pdf. I have emailed the Human Rights. Gov contact email and they have advised me to contact the owner of the image however I am unsure of this actually is. I would be extremely grateful if someone could help me with this. Thank you Shay0608 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Therefore, following a suggestion by Brainulator9, I am proposing a template that will be used for public domain architecture from no-FOP countries like Iceland but contains a reference to the U.S. law (PD-US-architecture), for U.S. compliance. Perhaps this can be titled {{PD-architecture}}, {{PD-architecture-old}}, or similar title. The template should also include a parameter for adjusting the year of p.m.a. (since posthumous copyright terms vary in different countries). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Can I upload maps from US Army Map Service?
Perry–Castañeda Library Map Collection has interesting map collections around the world, including Indonesia. I discovered USAMS Topograhical Map for Java and Madura, and wanted to upload one of these map (Japara map). I'm not sure about the copyright because it was marked "For use by War and Navy Department Agencies only; Not for sale or distribution" at the top of map. I'm asking whether the copyright is fine to upload. Thanks.
AnsyahF (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you will be ok for most of them using {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE}} but you may need to note they seem to be derivative works of Dutch maps. Are they all Dutch government works? The ones I looked at were based on pre-1926 maps, but later originals might be an issue you need to review more re Dutch law and URAA copyright renewal. Ww2censor (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
AnsyahF: The source may not be so important but the original dates are and yes, I saw the 1940 date. Netherlands copyright seems to generally be 70 years after publication and government works are not clearly in the public domain, so you would need to be careful with any where the original works are noted to be less then 70 years old, if any. I did not check them. Perhaps for any that are later you should keep them locally on the enwiki on the basis that they may not be freely licensed in the home country. Maybe someone else can chime in on this topic. Ww2censor (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Superjurek created new template Template:PD-Polish-Edu/pl. There is no English translation yet but Google translate version is almost as comprehensible as polish version:
"Pursuant to Art. 27.1 of the Act of February 4, 1994 on copyright and related rights (Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1231, as amended), hereinafter referred to as the Act "It is allowed to post disseminated minor works or fragments of larger works in textbooks, excerpts and anthologies. ”, subject to Art. 34 of the Act reading “You can use works within the limits of fair use, provided that the name and surname of the author and the source are mentioned. Specifying the author and source should take into account the existing possibilities. The author is not entitled to remuneration, unless the law provides otherwise. ”. The above graphic belongs to this group. However, according to Art. 35 of the Act, fair use may not "violate the normal use of the work or violate the rightful interests of the author". In some cases, the use of this graphic may be limited in Poland on the basis of other applicable regulations. "
It is unclear to me if this template meets our license requirements, as it seems to me more like US "fair use" than an actual "public domain". So the question is, does this law article actually places graphics in public domain or not? If not than we should delete the template. @Ankry, Jdx, Julo, Maire, Masur, Odder, Polimerek, and Powerek38: (Pinging Polish admins and OTRS members). --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Vulphere@Brainulator9: traditionally all new license and PD templates should be discussed first, usually at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, so there is some consensus among people familiar with the license templates issues that a new template is a good idea. There was no prior discussion of those 2 templates and initially I was more inclined to fix the templates than to delete them; however I was not sure if they were fixable. That is why I started discussion here instead of DR. --Jarekt (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
There is no TOO section in COM:Ethiopia, so the law may not recognize the concept. I would say the image is too original to qualify for TOO in general. Although simple, it is creative and expressive. It is fine in the en wiki under fair use. (Corrected earlier comment).Aymatth2 (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Courts would pretty much always recognize the concept, but it's rarely spelled out in the actual laws, so we would generally need court ruling guidance to help with any specifics. Countries can interpret "original" quite differently. For many countries, there either is no case law, or none that has been brought up here, so we may not have anything we can report.
For this image, I would tend to agree that it is above the U.S. threshold at least, so I'd leave it where it is. Basic smiley faces would not qualify, but there is a bunch of variation, and relative placement (it's possible for a particular selection and arrangement of elements to have a copyright, even if the elements themselves are too simple). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Logo?
Hello,
I copied the logo of a Turkish news agency File:Bianet logo.gif from Turkish Wikipedia to use on English Wikipedia but a bot sent me a message saying it may be deleted. I don't understand what I need to do as [[3]] 'Lisanslama' section seems to say there is no copyright problem. Do I need to add some kind of "logo" tag here or what should I do?
DSan created {{PD-PCP-SL}} recently, which the template creator believes that as the Peruvian Communist Party (and other affiliated/front organizations) are outlawed in Peru, and sanctioned by the United States, these organizations' works are in Peruvian and American public domain. However, I am dubious whether U.S. asset freezing makes any works made by sanctioned entities in United States public domain. We know asset freezing typically involves measures like bank account freezing or prohibition of citizens from engaging trade with sanctioned entities, but do these kind of measures extend to copyright?
Perhaps an example may help to understand my question: We know Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam is sanctioned by the United States. Does the U.S. sanction force her speech or blog entries into U.S. public domain?廣九直通車 (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Greetings. I am not a lawyer but I try to research as much information about Peru to clarify so many point about copyright laws. What you share are of two cases with different context. The first one is about an organization in whose activity produced a work that the State legally prevents to protect their works (I speak of PCP, but there are so many with this name, I only specify SL or MPCP). I would say unrestricted copy work, but perhaps it needs a second opinion to define if it is valid or not. The second case applies for works with protection in China and by the Berne Convention is protected both in the country of origin and in the United States.--DSan (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
"Blocked property" has been deleted multiple times in the past per the precautionary principle, including works by members of Al-Qaeda and the Shining Path (the organization applicable here). Examples:
SL Files uploaded by MiguelAlanCS - Works by the PCP-Shining Path, apparently a photo and a poster? Uploaded as blocked property, deleted per PRP.
FARC-EP flag - A depiction of the flag of the organization FARC-EP by said organization. Uploaded as blocked property, initially kept for that reason, deleted in a later nomination per PRP. -Thespoondragon (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I think a copyright being unable to be enforced due to an organization being declared a criminal or terrorist organization is similar to a copyright being unable to be enforced due to the copyright holder being too poor to go to court over it. The copyright still exists, it just can't be enforced in practice. -Thespoondragon (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Just now, I came across File:Wollongong-breakwater-lighthouse-wallpaper-preview.jpg, which is sourced from peakpx.com, which claims Peakpx is the world's largest free images stock, 301004 royalty free images under CC0 license. Apart from the fact that I thought we were, our (currently) 73,820,258 freely usable media files sort of trumping that number, is this website legit? It really doesn't seem to have any information on where this images are sourced from, who this website is run by. It looks a bit fishy to me so I thought I might ask here as to where images from this side can really be uploaded on Commons. I couldn't find any past posts on this site in the archive. Calistemon (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Calistemon and Dylsss: PeakPX actually does have the image at native resolution, the uploader just handled it incorrectly. But the lack of source information is a problem, if they are just farming images from other sources we should get them from those sources. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
It possible that File:Connery birth certificate.jpg falls within the public domain for some reason per COM:United Kingdom, but the claim that it's "own work" seems questionable at best and the photo itself would seem to be ineligible for it's own copyright per COM:2D copying. Can Commons keep this as licensed?
Similarly, File:Sean Connery plaque, Fountainbridge Edinburgh.jpg might be OK per COM:FOP United Kingdom if a plaque is considered to be a 3D work of art or 2D work of artistic craftmanship; however, I'm not sure whether a plaque like this would be considered to be more of a sign and thus a "graphic work", so the UK's FOP might not apply to it. There's also a logo on the plaque whose copyright status might need to be considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Does consideration need to be given to the logo? Would the plaque be considered a 3D object given the way its photographed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The plaque itself is probably below the threshold of originality. So, it does not matter whether it is 3D or not. As to the logo, you can consider it as de minimis in this context because the purpose of the photo is to show the plaque as the whole, not the logo. Ruslik (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
photos from Sri Lanka
Could anybody help to check whether the 2003 copyright law of Sri Lanka was retroactive or not? I see nothing about this in COM:Sri Lanka but the English Wikipedia page suggests that expired copyright were not restored by 2003 law (eg. they state that pre-1978 photos are no longer copyrighted). Maybe, we should extend the {{PD-Sri Lanka}} template with some clauses? Ankry (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Took a bit to find, but section 208(4)(b) says that works continue to be valid and effectual as if herein granted provided that the term of protection previously granted has not expired under the Code [previous law] or under the laws of the country of origin of such work, performance, sound recording or broadcast that are to be protected under any international treaty to which Sri Lanka is a party. So, that is non-retroactive, and works which had expired before 2003 remained PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
While doing some research today, I was able to find some interesting sketches, engravings etc. (dating from 19th century or early beginnings of 20th century) about the history of Greece. However, most of them were available mainly on websites of e-shops, auction houses etc. So my question here is the following: regarding their copyright status, should I take into consideration the fact that they're copyrights free since their artist (and copyrights holder) is dead for more than 70 years or should I take into consideration that the e-shops, auction houses etc. claim them as their own property? Also, what about the mention of their source? Is it really a good idea to put the website of an e-shop, an auction house etc., or even a social media link? 🤔 PS. Feel free to ask me for specific examples if necessary. --Glorious 93 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
So, Ruslik, in practice that means that I shouldn't upload any of them or upload those that are scanned directly by me? Or can I take my chance and upload them here until I'm asked to take them down or worse? I'm a bit confused here, to say the least. 🤔 --Glorious 93 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Glorious 93: Commons generally takes the position that making a faithful digital copy of a two-dimensional work doesn't create a new copyright. So if the underlying work is definitely out of copyright, and no publication right applies, and the picture includes nothing other than the underlying work (no frame, for instance), then you can ignore any claimed copyright on the digitised version. The {{PD-scan}} and {{PD-art}} templates are intended for this kind of situation. I don't think there's any problem with listing an auction house as a source: I'm fairly sure I've seen such sources on Commons already. --bjh21 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bjh21: Thank you for your answer. One last question, though. What about social media links? Let's say that there's an x social media account which publishes engravings, old postcards, old photos etc. and generally speaking material which is copyrights free and of value in order for it to be uploaded here. What should I do? Put a direct (social media) link? Especially when there's no other source for the file(s) in question. At least in a rather similar quality or resolution.--Glorious 93 (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Glorious 93: Yes, link to where the file came from. If at all possible, this should be a link to the particular post, rather than to the image file or to the user. So (to pick a completely different example) for my recent photo of a goldfinch, you might link to https://twitter.com/bjh21_me_uk/status/1390680471647014912. On Facebook and Twitter you can get a link to a post by copying the link location from the date on that post. I suspect the same is true of other sites as well. If the post is likely to be ephemeral, it may be worth getting an archiving service such at https://web.archive.org to archive it at the same time. --bjh21 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Copyright question about photos
I don't know which photos made by me, i can upload on wikimedia commons. How, for that purpose, look copyright for this kind of photo of:
interior of churches (photo taken without asking anyone when there wasn't info about "not take photo")
tombstone, gravestone, epitaph in churches
tombstone, gravestone, epitaph in cemetery
information boards:
only text
text with photos
text with maps
photos made from unpaved roads between fields (not officially public road, but road used by farmers since years)
Also - did i need to mark photos as "own work" when objects on photos isn't my work, or should i choose "not my work" and in description write eg.: "Photo - own work; objects - {{FoP-Poland}}.".VVerka5 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@VVerka5: You may upload photos of "works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens". Interiors are not included. Exterior information boards with permanent information only are included. "unpaved roads between fields (not officially public road, but road used by farmers since years)" are not included. "Photo - own work; objects - {{FoP-Poland}}." is ok. Read Article 33 of the official translation of Poland's copyright act from July 4, 1994 at s:Polish Copyright Law#Division 3. Permissible Use of Protected Works to be sure. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me06:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and VVerka5: I disagree. Publicly accessible road is not the same as public road. A private road may be publicly accessible if its owner does not restrict access, eg. using fence, gates or information boards. This does not explicitly define any general status of unpaved roads between fields. They need to be investigated on case-by-case basis relying on their accessibility to the general public. If a permission is needed for access, then FoP does not apply. Ankry (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
How to know did permission is needed for walk or ride someone private road, which is publicly accessible because of there wasn't fence or sign, not knowing did road is/was private or public? What i hear years ago, in Poland there is no need to ask owner of area/field about permission for going near river, and owner of can't block access to river (but i don't know if it true and where is answer). VVerka5 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. And what about photos of information boards as main object of photo, displayed in public places (eg. map or scheme of touristic routes; historic information about monument, church, tree etc.):
only text
text with photos
text with maps
Also - how understand situation: photos not made from public road, but from exterior place of church that are beetween road-wall and wall of church:
without gate (spaces publicly accessible during all day, without asking anybody)
with gate but only open in daytime (spaces publicly accessible without asking anybody, but only during part of day). VVerka5 (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I have also photos made from plaza/road around church beetween church and fence of church: better photo of bell tower; photo of inscription from 1785 year; photo of commemorative plaque (of person from XVIII/XIX century) - plaque made probably XXI century (no clear info) with text "w hołdzie / społeczność gimnazjum" - "in tribute / junior high school community" (i don't know if it mean author or founder - someone that can be desribed as owner of law to that plaque). Can i upload that photos? Also hypothetical question - whether i could uploud photos of that object's if i would made photos of them, but outside of church fence and in zoom (to be clear, i don't made in zoom photos of that object from outside). VVerka5 (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC) 
(Apache License), 
(MIT) and 
(CC with precise attribution comment). I wanted to use them on wb-de and hesitated, because the license and author are not clearly visible. This Problem gets even worse, when the image is combined with a "function" (aka a link). Becoming more worse, if we want to compile Books in other formats, every picture needs an attribution, a license and maybe even the license in full-text, right?
.png){kind=link}
(2012-10-23)_2.jpg){kind=link}
Comment Files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Done: Smaller one uploaded, bigger one tagged as a copyvio, and uploader warned. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Delete This is a non-commercial permission. IMO, incompatible with COM:L. Ankry (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
![[3]](https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:Bianet_logo.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
