Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/10

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

The Arch Linux logo's license has not been stated. However the Arch Linux website's github repository, which has the Arch Linux logo is licensed as GPL-2 (repo here -> https://github.com/archlinux/archweb). Would this mean the logo are GPL-2. Please remember thats this is the official Arch Linux website's github repository, and the Github repository is not made by a third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matr4x-404 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Matr4x-404: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/DeveloperWiki:TrademarkPolicy --RZuo (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Flickr license washer found

Photos uploaded here from the Charles Patrick Ewing Flickr photostream include numerous cases of license washing; this photostream needs to be added to the block list, and all photos already uploaded, should be checked and (most, if not all) deleted. I've started on the task, but there's plenty more to do! Unfortunately, a number of them exceed the 20 megabyte size above which google image search doesn't work. - MPF (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I may check my uploads itself. Thanks Юрий Д.К. (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@MPF: Can you please give original source of these files File:Mockingbird - 26342949266.jpg File:Beautiful Blue & White - 22852591693.jpg File:Yellow Headed Amazon Portrait - 21842483383.jpg ? I can't find it in Tineye. Юрий Д.К. (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@Юрий Д.К.: - they were on multiple popular wallpaper download sites; unfortunately, I can't refind them now as I can't get google image search to work from deleted photos! I'll be checking some more, and will add locations here first - MPF (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@MPF: Desktop wallpaper sites usually take photos from Flickr directly, and not vice versa. If these files are copyvios, then the date of uploading to the wallpaper site should be earlier than on Flickr. Did you compare the dates? You can get Google image search to work from deleted photos as you're still have ability to see deleted text. Go to deleted image' link, download file and open Google search Юрий Д.К. (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@Юрий Д.К.: - here's one: File:Guinea Turaco Portrait.jpg is at wallpaperflare.com and several other sites (see google search). Also significant, is that the photos cover species from multiple regions of the world, without the photographer giving any indication of where the photos were taken; usually, a photographer proud of their travels will give some indication of where they have been - MPF (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@MPF: It uploaded 2017-09-18 (wallpaper site) while on Flickr no later then 2016-10-13 (per Tineye). Also these photos appears to be from zoos so no problem at all. No copyright violations and flickrwashing there. Юрий Д.К. (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@Юрий Д.К.: - OK thanks! I'll restore the ones I've deleted. Could you make sure they are all correctly categorised in the relevant [Category:Genus species (captive)] or [Category:Genus species in zoos] (rather than just the lead species category) where relevant, please. - MPF (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Derivative work of copyrighted work of something not copyrightable

here are some scenarios that make me wonder:

  1. suppose two realist painters have almost the same level of skills. a model is painted by painter A and photographed in the same condition. painter B draws a painting based on the photograph. the resultant paintings (and the photograph) are almost identical. must painting B be released with a permission from the cameraman?
  2. google satellite has an image of an island. i took an aerial photo of the island. two images have the same precision. now if i make an outline map based on the google image, and another based on my own aerial photo. they are idential. must the outline map based on the google image be released with permission from google?

these problems are similar to the "photo of jumbotron display" / "screenshot of zoom call" problems. human faces, geographical features... are not copyrightable. photographic works are made to represent such non-copyrightable subjects in a most realistic way. then derivative works are made from these photos as if they are made from the original subjects. what's the situation of these derivative works?--RZuo (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of the law is that if two people took a photograph of the Statue of Liberty in the exact same way by coincidence, and the photographs are bit-by-bit identical, if someone copied one of the photographs, the person who took that photograph would have a right to sue, but not the other person. They would have to establish which photograph was copied, but the person whose photograph was copied would have a legitimate legal claim. The copyright holder has a right to prevent people from copying their work; that's the core rule.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
but if the derivative work has greatly simplified from the original, it's impossible to conclude from what the DW is based. imagine the photos are 20MP but the artwork is 8 bit pixel art. for example: how do people conclude from which photo of trump is https://i.imgur.com/6l7O9wE.png derived?
if the original is something really specific, like the famous che guevara avatar, sure even a most simplified version can still be determined to be a DW. but what if it's just something far too common?
and another scenario:
many political comic artists have never actually seen their subjects face-to-face. rather, they draw based on their knowledge of the faces from watching numerous photos/videos. does this make their comics derivative works, even if the comics are not exact replicas of certain photos/videos?
then there're things like inspired artworks. for example: Make Everything Great Again. it's clearly inspired by the scene of My God, Help Me to Survive This Deadly Love but replaced with artistic depictions of putin and trump. does this make this artwork a DW of the photo between Brezhnev and Honecker, an unknown photo of putin and an unknown photo of putin? RZuo (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
People are not allowed to copy someone's original work. Downsampling or adding noise does not remove the notion that the work was copied. Start with someone's original work, and you risk a copyright violation.
There is no copyright on facts such as "the sky is blue". Compare drawing a coat of arms using an existing CoA versus drawing a CoA from its blazon.
A political cartoonist will have seen dozens of pictures of a politician, can learn certain features, and then create his own image of that politician. That's not the case when there are only 5 or 6 images of w:Srinivasa Ramanujan. (I just looked at that article; looks like I'm doing a deletion request.)
In US copyright, parody and satire come under the fair use exception. It may not be available in other jurisdictions.
Protest art may not care about the fine points of copyright. There may be far worse consequences for those who make protest art.
Glrx (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Srinivasa Ramanujan - OPC - 2 (cleaned).jpg Glrx (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
In the example, there were two identical, separately copyrighted photos. The fact that you can't easily tell the original work is not fundamentally a problem in copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Neon sign

Greetings. Can someone here tell me if this image can be used on Wikipedia under a free license? I've read about threshold of originality and looked at your examples but am still not certain. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it is just {{Pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Ruslik. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, a question about a UK photo just over 120 years old. UK law says copyright lapses 70 years after death of last known author. The photo in question is not anonymous, as it was taken by the Biograph Studio, Regent Street. How to assess copyright status in case of corporate ownership while no individual author is known, so no date of death can be established? Thanks. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

If no human author is named, it's anonymous. If Biograph Studio is known to be a one-person operation, then it could serve basically as an alias and the author would be known, but otherwise it's anonymous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Clear - thanks! Ni'jluuseger (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

City of Seattle - "Our photographs are public record and do not require permission for use."

Re: photo File:Seattle Engineering Department Negatives 40083.tif

The City of Seattle site from which it was taken states: 

PERMISSIONS:
Our photographs are public record and do not require permission for use. We ask that photographs are cited Courtesy of the Seattle Municipal Archives and that the identifier number is included. If a rights holder other than the City of Seattle exists, that information will appear in the Notes field.

I have cited the Seattle Municipal Archives source and included the ID number. No additional right holder is listed in the Notes field.

Help requested on how the copyright of this file should be tagged. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • @PK-WIKI: The Seattle Municipal Archives have been forthcoming with VRT-type permissions whenever we've requested them (e.g. see Template:PD-Seattle-Neighborhood-Atlas). They had a problem with sending us a blanket permission because some things are in the archive where someone other than the city holds copyright. I'm sure that if someone contacts them they will be cooperative, but I would hope that their wording on their site suffices. And, yes, we probably should create a template for use on images taken directly from their site, like this one. Pretty sure we don't yet have one. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: So could a tag template similar to, say, Template:PD-MGS be created for all Seattle Municipal Archives photographs? How does that creation process work and who has the ability to create and bless it? Anyone? Thanks! PK-WIKI (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    • @PK-WIKI: Something like, but the problem is that it doesn't apply to all Seattle Municipal Archives images. Analogously to the U.S. federal government, some photographs are taken by contractors, and the City doesn't own the copyright; there are a lot of third-party posters, postcards, ephemera etc. in the archive, and much of this is not old enough to have gone out of copyright. So, yes, we should have a tag like that, but it needs to say something like "this is work of a City of Seattle employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties and deposited in the collection of the Seattle Municipal Archives". Expect to have to make some deletions when uploaders don't understand the distinction (as arises often for U.S. federal government images). - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Book cover art

File:Developments In Teaching of Literature In English.jpg and File:Now Read On.jpg were most likely uploaded in good faith, but they are photographs of book covers and thus not entirely COM:Own work. The book covers may be simple enough to be {{PD-text logo}}, but the author en:Malachi Edwin Vethamani is Malaysian and COM:TOO Malaysia isn't very clear. The cover art might also be a bit more complex than it appears due to the semi-visible text "behind" the main titles of each book. Can these files be kept by relicensing them as PD. FWIW, the photos are probably also PD per COM:2D copying, but the CC license the uploader released them under doesn't really seem to be an issue for the photos themselves. It's possible copyright of the cover art that is more of a concern. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Copyright law in Malaysia should be similar to that of UK. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Image possibly in the public domain

This image of Peggy Charren is possibly in the public domain as it was published without a copyright notice before 1989, although it might be unclear whether it was copyrighted within it's first five years. I was redirected here from the Wikipedia noticeboard to see if some people knew anything else that could help Spiderwinebottle (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I do see a number of registrations under the name Action for Children's Television , mostly textual registrations for handbooks in the late 1970s to mid 1980s. Looks like they did have a news magazine as well. If this photo was present in one of those, that might qualify. If not, that looks to have been distributed in 1987. You do need to be careful of wirephotos (printed at the newspaper and never distributed from there), and photos which may only have actually been distributed after 1989, but that bears the hallmarks of being in someone else's archive yet owned by Action for Children's Television (there is a "return to Action for Children's Television" mark on them, which was likely an attempt to qualify for limited publication, but don't think that has held up for publicity photos which by nature were meant to be seen by as many people as possible). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Thu bom.jpg

This file needs licence correction. GeorgHH • talk   22:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@GeorgHH I asked for a source/author/permission. Without them, the file will be deleted soon. Thanks Ruthven (msg) 19:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This is photo from Desert Rock nuclear test in 1950s. Looks liek screen from this video where it says it was declassified by U.S. Federal Government. Borysk5 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Are photos inside of a National Park Service report public domain?

Specifically, I'm looking a this report [1] which is written by the US National Park Service but has a lot of pictures. Can I crop and upload these pictures as works of the government? Some of them say "courtesy of (name)", does this change how it can be used? Thanks Nweil (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think - generally not, unless these pictures are in public domain by some other reason. Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Does these images of mine meet the threshold of originality?

And a last one not uploaded by me

--Trade (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

PD-US gov question

Would a photo originally posted by a US Embassy taken inside said embassy (and thus presumably taken by an embassy employee) be public domain? (Specifically wondering about the status of this one--RespectCE (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi RespectCe. This would seem to be OK to upload under a {{PD-USGov-DOS}} license, but there are cases where official US government websites do use content provided by third-parties. I don't have a FB acocunt so I can't see the full image or whether it's been attributed to someone else. If, however, it looks like other similar images shown here with the embassy's banner at the bottom, then it's likely OK. You could, of course, email the embassy and ask for a confirmation if you want, but it should be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
It has no attribution to someone else, and based on the setting plus lack of attribution it is almost certain that it was an embassy staff or other US government employee that made it.--RespectCE (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The test is not simply if the picture was taken by a US employee. It needs to be a picture taken in the scope of employment. If an employee (say the janitor) just pulls out his cellphone and snaps a shot, the government does not have a claim on that image. That employee might allow the government to post the photo, but the posting would not put the image in the public domain. If the duties of the employee includes taking pictures (say a public information officer), then it would be a government photo and in the public domain. Glrx (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:PD-DPR-exempt and Template:PD-LPR-exempt

On 30 September 2022, we all know that Russia unilaterally announced the annexation of Russian-controlled Donetsk and Luhansk, previously governed by the self-proclaimed regimes of Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic (DPR, LPR). The following provide some opinions represented by different countries brainstormed by myself:

  • From an Ukrainian point of view, while {{PD-UA-exempt}} exempts edicts from copyright protection, the provision is constrained by the condition of government authorities within their powers. As both the DPR and LPR are considered illegitimate by Ukraine, PD-UA-exempt obviously cannot apply to edicts issued by DPR and LPR. In fact from such point of view, DPR and LPR official edicts are as nonsense as a purported restoration proclamation of the Kievan Rus' by someone else. Without considering enemy property confiscation, ordinary Ukrainian copyright protection would apply.
  • From a Russian point of view, as DPR and LPR have since been annexed into Russia as federal subjects, Book IV of the Russian Civil Code, being a federal law, will most likely be applied and supersede the former Civil Codes of DPR and LPR. As "legitimate" (again, from a Russian POV) successors of state government agencies of Donetsk and Luhansk, works that are covered under PD-DPR-exempt and PD-LPR-exempt will automatically fall under {{PD-RU-exempt}}, and these templates can therefore be superseded by PD-RU-exempt and deleted.
  • From an United States point of view, while §313.6(C)(2) of the Compendum mentioned in {{PD-EdictGov}} states that Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties, as the US doesn't recognize DPR and LPR, I don't think DPR and LPR edicts will fall under the scope of that section.
  • Lastly, as Ukraine is fighting Russia, and the US have imposed sanctions against DPR and LPR leadership, law related to enemy property confiscation (enacted by Ukraine) and US sanctions may be relevant, though previous deletion discussions VPC discussions agreed that mere US sanctions and deprivation of copyright in the country of origin are not sufficient to determine whether a work can be considered to be within public domain.

As the current essay of Commons:Disputed territories don't provide useful information on this case, I'd like to solicit opinion on the future status of {{PD-DPR-exempt}} and {{PD-LPR-exempt}}, which, currently is mostly used to tag DPR and LPR official edicts (see also Commons:Deletion requests/Symbols of Russian-occupied Oblasts of Ukraine).廣九直通車 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wikisaurus, Donald Trung, Kaliper1, and Лобачев Владимир: , as participants of Commons:Deletion requests/Symbols of Russian-occupied Oblasts of Ukraine, and @Butko: as the creator of these templates.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Can I use my own uploads in a book?

If I uploaded my own photographs here years ago, but now I want to use them in a book, can I do that? Or would the license prevent me from doing so? (I think they're all CC BY-SA 3.0) It's an academic book so (in theory, haha) people would pay actual money to buy it. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

You can do what you want with your photos. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Great! That's what I thought but I wanted to check with the experts. Thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Bishop CC-By-SA means that the book you are writing should also be licensed under a Creative Commons license ("share alike") if you use CC-By-SA photographs. But since these are your photographs, you can also license the book however you want, because you're free to use your photographs the way you want. Skimel (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

requested removal of a copyrighted photo

I have discovered that a file was uploaded that was copyrighted by me years ago. - File:N72EX by Don Ramey Logan.jpg - A user has already violated 3 R & r rule in reverting my efforts to have the file removed from the site. IagoQnsi has reverted my efforts to delete this file 3 times in a row. I request admin intervention and deleation of the file and all copies. Don (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Attention: Wikicommons/Wikimedia copyright office Pursuant to 17 USC 512 (c)(3)(A) this communication serves as a statement that:

I am the EXCLUSIVE rights holder and duly authorized representative of the exclusive rights holder for N72EX by Don Ramey Logan.jpg. These exclusive rights are being violated by material available upon your website at the following URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:N72EX_by_Don_Ramey_Logan.jpg & https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:N72EX_by_Don_Ramey_Logan_(original_scale).jpg

I have a good faith belief that the use of this material in such a fashion is not authorized by the copyright holder (me). I certify that under penelty of perjury in the United States of America court of law that the information contained in this notice is accurate and that I am authorized to act on my own behalf as the exclusive copyright holder of the exclusive rights to the material in question.

I may be contacted by the following methods: Don Ramey Logan i.c.o. the Law Offices of Mario Iskander, 1100 6th Street Santa Ana California. 949 872 6806. Don@logan.com

I hereby request that you remove access to this file as it appears on your site at once, thank you. Regards: Don Ramey Logan — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs) 16:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi, Do not make legal threats, or you will be blocked. Also there is already a DR running here. There is no need to create a speedy deletion request. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@WPPilot: It looks like this is a DMCA notice. Per [2], these must be sent via email to legal@wikimedia.org or via "snail mail our designated agent at this address": [3]. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Maryland GIS Data

Maryland releases their GIS data under the following license:

The Spatial Data, and the information therein, (collectively the "Data") is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed, implied, or statutory. The user assumes the entire risk as to quality and performance of the Data. No guarantee of accuracy is granted, nor is any responsibility for reliance thereon assumed. In no event shall the State of Maryland be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential or special damages of any kind. The State of Maryland does not accept liability for any damages or misrepresentation caused by inaccuracies in the Data or as a result to changes to the Data, nor is there responsibility assumed to maintain the Data in any manner or form. The Data can be freely distributed as long as the metadata entry is not modified or deleted. Any data derived from the Data must acknowledge the State of Maryland in the metadata.

I want to make a derivative work from it. Would the data be under a free enough license for commons? It reads to me like a self-written version of the MIT license -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Graciepfost.jpg

This appears to be a modified form of the photograph at https://history.house.gov/Collection/Detail/43090?ret=True - How certain can we be of the copyright status? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Georgia v. Public Resources.org and {{PD-EdictGov}}

The {{PD-EdictGov}} template, while not wrong, and used across multiple wikis in the exact same form... is bad. It doesn't actually explain anything, or tell you "why": it only refers to the Compendium. Old conversations, linked from the talk pages of this template across multiple wikis, make it clear that questions about "why", since it's not stated in 17 USC, and "what does this actually mean", since it's buried in the depths of history, and "why are we listening to the Compendium about something that isn't in 17 USC", abounded, and were never really answered.

The decision in Georgia did not change this rule. What the Supreme Court did, in Georgia, is to validate a argument that actually places the "government edicts principle" on a basis that isn't buried in the depths of 200+ year old legal trivia...it instead divorces the "government edicts principle" from the vague "for reasons of public policy" justification, and places it on the grounds of fundamental copyright principles; giving us, in a way, a test that is actually usable, instead of just having to know "what is or is not an edict" and requiring a knowledge of the incredibly obscure history to actually get it.

Edicts of government are basically the same thing as monkey selfies.

To actually understand this.... unfortunately, the Compendium, and the Georgia decision, and even the English Wikipedia article on "edicts of government" don't give the needed context, which gets into obscure facts of history and the way copyrights actually came into being in the US: the history of "common law" in the US, and the exact intention of Congress when passing the Copyright Act of 1790.

I have started a discussion, on the English Wikipedia, at w:Talk:Edict of government#Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and the public policy argument, with what is essentially a long screed, explaining what the Court was telling us in Georgia, what they were actually telling us about this in Wheaton v. Peters, back in 1834, when actually first validating the "government edicts principle" as law in the US, and giving the "common law in the US" context to understand why it's not written down.

I'm mentioning this here, and intend to post this message across multiple wikis, to attract interested editors.... not to canvass for a discussion there, to change the article, but to achieve a consensus there, about rewriting that article so that it is based on something other than "the Compendium says so", that it can be used (the article, and the consensus) to rewrite this template on every wiki so that it actually says something useful, instead of the just "because the USCO says so" that seems to have been the conclusion of most discussions about this subject.

As a footnote, this doesn't apply to most edicts of the US federal government... since the definition of "works of the US Government" specifically says "prepared by", and doesn't require authorship, it includes such edicts. They are denied protection separately. Jarnsax (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Photos of flags of sports clubs

I was at a large competition in orienteering in May. I took lots of photographs and I am uploading them now. I photographed several flags of the clubs participating in the event. Am I allowed to upload these photographs or are they considered derivative works? Per W (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If flags are already in public domain or too simple to be copyrightable, then yes. Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have a question related to the correct copyright template to use for a publicity photograph released by an author's publicist without a copyright notice and with no use restrictions. This publicity photograph of literary critic Edmund Wilson was taken by a for-hire studio portraitist in April 1936. As Wilson hired and paid Pinchot for this publicity photograph, the copyright resided with Wilson.

According to the librarians at the U.S. Library of Congress, Wilson's publicist Dorothy Larrimore of Doubleday & Company freely released and distributed this publicity photograph without a copyright notice and with no use restrictions ten years later in 1946 to promote the author's forthcoming book Memoirs of Hecate County.

Am I correct in assuming that a publicity photograph released in 1946 without a copyright notice by an authorized publicist to hundreds of press outlets in order to promote Wilson and his books resides in the public domain? I plan to add this photograph to a Featured Article on Wikipedia, and I wish to be certain as to its copyright status before doing so. I would appreciate any and all guidance. -- Flask (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should be in public domain now. You can use {{PD-US-no notice}} template. Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I've updated the template to be {{PD-US-no notice}}. -- Flask (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding Iranian news website's re-use statement

I recently encountered an upload from Mizan News Agency, which includes the statement .تمامی حقوق مادی و معنوی این سایت متعلق به خبرگزاری میزان است و استفاده از آن با ذکر منبع بلامانع است in its footer. I am not a native Persian speaker, and the machine translations I'm able to get are both unambiguous with respect to authorizing re-use of the images hosted on the website. However, one machine translation is ambiguous as to whether this statement implies that photos may be re-used with modification, while the other appears to imply that re-use with modification would be OK. Are there any native Persian speakers here that are willing to help parse this? There are ~1600 files currently sourced to this website, so clarity would be helpful regarding how to proceed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

In the United States, non-governmental works are copyrighted for 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter. However, I've noticed that some countries don't seem to have a maximum duration. For example, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom says the standard copyright term is life + 70 years, and does not indicate a set period of time except for anonymous works. Does this mean the length of a copyright is limited only by lifespan in certain countries? In other words, could some works be copyrighted indefinitely if the author makes it to longevity escape velocity? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Most everywhere, the term is based on the author's life. Even in the United States, it's that way for non-corporate works created today (there is no maximum 95 years from publication; that is only for works published before 1978, or corporate works today). If medicine ever gets things such that people could live forever, I'm sure laws would change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh wow... I didn't realize the maximum duration of 95 years didn't apply to post-1977 works by individuals. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"Melancholy Elephants" won the Hugo Award for a reason. DS (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Do all TIGER products made by the US Census have the same license?

I've been working on a vection version of the file Map of Chester County Pennsylvania With Municipal and Township Labels.png and I have used TIGER produced shapefiles to speed up the process. I've used two of their products, one for the townships, and one for the cdps. The township shapefile license information says that TIGER products are not copywritten, but that credit must be given to the Census Bureau. However, the cdp license information says no license has been provided and that permission must be requested before use. I assume the latter case is just an oversight, and that the cdp shapefiles share the same license as the township ones, but I would like to make sure. Thanks in advance! Physeters✉ 01:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Produkte fotografieren

Gibt es Beschränkungen, wenn man Produkte, die man gekauft hat, fotografiert und ein Bild davon hochlädt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiegelthomas (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Ja, bspw. dann, wenn das Produkt selbst oder seine Verpackung urheberrechtlich geschützt sind. Siehe u. a. COM:TOYS und COM:PACKAGING. --Rosenzweig τ 09:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Picture copyrights of Grammy award received in 2017

I used in this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Warsaw_Philharmonic_Choir a picture of a Grammy award. The issue is copyright. But to be honest receiving such a great award make us proud and we want to share our joy. This picture was taken by me, the note on the awards says it is for The Warsaw Philharmonic Choir. Marek Gudowski (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Marek Gudowski: The copyright on that Grammy by The Recording Academy probably lasts from 1958 through 2053.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
All right, the picture is gone. Thanks for an explanation. Marek Gudowski (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@Marek Gudowski: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

DALL·E - artificial intelligence

Hello all,

Can files created by dall-e-2 - "AI system that can create realistic images and art from a description in natural language", can use {{PD-algorithm}}. See also discussion Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/09#Policies around images created by Artificial Intelligence applications (such as GANs)?. Does the software must be Open-source software? -- Geagea (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The commons policy right now, is to accept AI generated images under public domain regardless of software, yes. Borysk5 (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

US Copyright on File:A Bukharan dance performed by members of the Rina Nikova ballet in the citadel of Jerusalem - Restoration.jpg

I noticed that this image, which is scheduled to be featured as the October 17th picture of the day, did not have a US license tag, and in fact I am not sure by what rule it would be PD in the US at all.

The Israeli copyright expired on 1 January 1997, 1 year after the URAA restoration date, and the image is certainly not 95 years old. I am sorry if I am missing the obvious, but could anyone here help out? Felix QW (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

FOP in Baltic States

IMO, we should review all files within categories (and sub-cats) such as

There is a plenty of images breaching FOP rules in the Baltic States (no FOP, only NC-FOP). — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Jenya shinjuku.jpg

I nominated File:Jenya shinjuku.jpg for deletion since it did not exist on the Creative Commons website. Now, the Japanese voice actress, Jenya, introduces herself as the username that uploaded the image. You can check her blog here and see that the image is uploaded with a self-post CC tag matching the conversation we have on the image's deletion request page. I'm now torn between allowing the image to stay on Commons (since the voice actress allows it and I believe a blog is a public domain) and pushing her to upload it on the Creative Commons website. Centcom08 (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Centcom08 (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Liāu Hiok-hiân.jpg

So in the URL listed under Permission the subject of the picture are specifically requesting people to upload the picture to Commons to use on Wikipedia. Does this count as permission?--Trade (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

When photographs become "Public Domain" in the United States.

Is an old original photograph printed on photographic paper considered to be "published" under U. S. copyright law? Or must that same photograph be published in a book, newspaper or other U. S. publication to be able to use the PD-US-expired tag, where the photo was published before 1927?

There are many photographs that are created before 1927, but not known if they were ever published in any publication. The PD-scan|PD-US-unpublished tag indicates it can be used. If "this work was never published before 2003" and "created before 1902" and unknown author. So, if a photograph was created before 1902 in the U. S., is that the year where all U.S. created photos become Public Domain, if the photographer is unknown and is is not known that the photo was ever published?

What if you use the PD-scan|PD-US-unpublished tag and it is found later to have been published? An example- a photo is created in 1901, but was apparently first published in 1993- what consideration is used find the correct tag on commons or to know what year this photo could be properly used on the Commons?

Thanks -- Ooligan (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Publication was not explicitly defined in the 1909 law, but in general it meant copies being distributed. The act of printing was not publication, but the selling or other distribution of those copies would be. Prints kept private by a family would not be published. There are intricacies even there; the question can get really complicated. There was some discussion recently at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/07#When_is_a_photograph_made_public, and I wrote some other thoughts at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg.
There was no term limit on unpublished works until 1978, and the first ones expired in 2003, but there are some complicated rules for works published long after creation but before 2003 -- see Commons:Hirtle chart. We do have a general 120 year from creation rule, {{PD-old-assumed}}, when we really know nothing about the origin of the work. But it is possible for copyright to last longer. Most works were made to be published, so we do often assume publication around the creation time, unless there are factors which indicate otherwise. The real standard in that case is COM:PRP, where if there is a significant doubt we would delete -- but not every theoretical doubt amounts to a significant doubt. If we know something was unpublished though, we would follow that Hirtle chart (for U.S. works; the terms in other countries could be very different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I have uploaded both the images File:Reims, France. Mlle. Fouriaux, who is now assisting the American Red Cross in their canteen at Reims.tif and File:Reims, France. Exterior of the American Red Cross Canteen at Reims, and the working staff.tif which both are photos taken by the American Red Cross in 1919, and are hosted on the website of the Library of Congress with the following copyright notice:

There are no known restrictions on photographs taken by staff of the American National Red Cross. The rights status for photographs collected from other sources, particularly those created outside the United States, is not known. For more information, see American National Red Cross Collection: Rights and Restrictions Information.

More information about the copyright status of these photos is available here: https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/717_anrc.html

How can I fix the metadata of my files, so they don't get deleted?

Best regards. Lechatfrancais (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Use the {{PD-US}} template ? Skimel (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Every file must have a copyright license tag on it, to give the reason of the PD status, otherwise they will get flagged by the bots. We usually have tags specific to Library of Congress collections which have been placed in the public domain, but we don't seem to have one for that collection -- we have Category:American National Red Cross Collection (Library of Congress), but not a specific tag. I guess the {{PD-US}} tag mentioned above would be the best one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Can I make new maps based on existing Wikimedia Commons files? And how do I attribute to the original?

I'm currently working on creating/expanding Wikipedia pages for township-level divisions of China, and would need images of maps where the township that the article is about is highlighted. Since no such files existed in Wikimedia Commons yet, I want to make them on my own (Based on files like this one, and abide by the Wikiproject convention for maps). I just want to know would I be allowed to upload such images? From my previous searches in the Archives, I learnt that I'll need to add "Derived from" template to the adapted and "Derivative version" to the original, is there any other steps that I would need to take to make proper attribution? Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Human attention required

Hello,

This file coming from Flickr has two licenses: CC2.0 and CC4.0. It was uploaded on Commons 3 months ago and apparently the bot cannot determinate the status. How to handle this situation, please? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: I'm wondering why you used the {{Self}} template in the first place and changed the original Flickr licence to 4.0. Judging from the Flickr account of Prof. Bizzaro, one would think that the photograph is not your own work. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@De728631: this picture is not my work. As mentioned since the first upload, the author is called "prof.bizzarro", who has published it on Flickr, and has been duly credited. Which template should be used in that case? I am not aware there are different options for non-Commons users. The flickr page indicates the picture is free under CC2.0 with a direct link to Creative Commons. That's why CC2.0 was initially chosen. But this guy, prof.bizzarro, also wrote in the description CC4.0. Although CC2.0 seems valid, I think under our precautionary principle, the most restrictive of both licenses should be used in that case. And that's why I switched to this one with the summary "source unclear". What do others think?
To make things clear, the reason why this file has been imported on Commons is because another user mentioned this logo in a Wikipedia article.
Please feel free to modify the templates in accordance to what should be done. Being not a specialist, I am asking the Village Pump because the text "If you are an administrator or a trusted reviewer, you can review the image and remove the tag." in written in the the yellow box, on the file page. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Bonjour, Si vous n'êtes pas le titulaire des droits d'auteur et que vous n'avez pas effectué de modification notable, vous pourriez déjà enlever le «self» et le «sa» que vous aviez ajoutés. For the version, in the circumstances the safe choice is probably 4.0, which the photographer specifies explicitly beside what seems the required attribution including pseudonym and url. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks for the tip (and now I understand what De728631 meant). URL also added in the attribution. And I agree concerning the "safe choice" 4.0. Still human action needed in that case. I left a link to this discussion on the talk page of the file -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Now I see where the CC 4.0 licence comes from. I have reviewed and approved the current licensing at Commons. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion

I'd like to upload this photo from this webpage. I'm not sure if it would be considered a work by the US government. I cannot find a copy of the image anywhere else. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Images on *.house.gov are generally public domain as a work of the US government unless otherwise specified. You could potentially contact them and ask. I don't find any other results doing a reverse image search and I don't see any reason to believe it isn't PD. But if you contact them, they could tell you for sure and it's even possible that they would be willing to provide a higher-resolution version of the image. --B (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Tau Cadre Fireblade Dario Colasanti.jpg

File:Tau Cadre Fireblade Dario Colasanti.jpg is a photograph of a Games Workshop miniature figure. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tau Cadre Fireblade Dario Colasanti.jpg, it was kept as per information in Template:GamesWorkshop, but that template is now deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GamesWorkshop. What is the status of photos of Games Workshop miniatures? I can see Category:Warhammer 40,000 has a bunch more photos of miniatures that would be in the same situation. -- Whpq (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

If we do not take the letter alluded to in the now-deleted Games Workshop template to be effective, then these all seem to be totally straightforward COM:TOYS violations. Felix QW (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is my thinking too. I was just surprised that deletion of the Games Workshop template did not result in any action on the images that relied upon that template. I think maybe dropping a note at the comtoys talk page pointing to this discussion might draw some more information. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Quillwork

Was wondering if whether File:Upper MO quillwork pre1804 UPenn.jpg is OK for Commons as licensed? The photo might've been taken by the uploader, but the actual quillwork itself is obviously not the "own work" of the uploader. If the quillwork itself really dates back to 1804 then it would be PD as an anonymous work given its age, but I'm not sure how that can be verified. It's described as being part of the "Collection of the University of Pennsylvania Museum" but it seems a bit odd that the museum would allow someone (particularly someone not wearing gloves) to handle such an old and possibly valuable part of its collection. Is it OK to take the uploader's word in a case like this or should there be some form of more formal verification per COM:CB#Folklore and tradition? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The lack of gloves is interesting, though if it was a modern copy of an old work then there still is no copyright. In general though, we do assume good faith. It would be an odd thing to lie about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Washed hands, no gloves is the norm in curation at fashion museums I have visited. Gloves increase risk of damage for various reasons. I am not surprised by that detail. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
This image to my eyes looks similar/identical to the top two black and white quillwork items in Figure 16 of Merwin, B. W.. "The Art of Quillwork." The Museum Journal IX, no. 1 (March, 1918): 50-58. Accessed October 18, 2022. https://www.penn.museum/sites/journal/630/ which at least gets us back to 1918 or earlier for publication of the quillwork. (Caveat: "This digitized article is presented here as a historical reference and may not reflect the current views of the Penn Museum."). The text does not specifically describe the items in Fig. 16 but identifies Fig, 15 as "one of four pieces" created from "1832 to 1839" and then shows three additional pieces in Fig. 16. If the 1839 date is reliable for creation and/or the 1918 date is reliable for publication of the quillwork itself then the 120 years from creation rule or the 95 years from publication rule should be met, I think. 68.189.242.116 20:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your investigations, IP! The 1918 publication will do regardless of creation date, so the Museum journal piece was the key finding. Felix QW (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Jonardondishant

Jonardondishant (talk · contribs) was recently en:User_talk:Jonardondishant#Blocked blocked in en.Wikipedia for uploading copyrighted work. Some of their uploads were deleted here at commons as well. But it seems there are many images still that exist here in commons that clearly are copyrighted. I have tagged a couple (e.g. File:Rajeswar_Singha_coin_in_persian_script..png). Is it possible for someone who is more proficient that I to review this user's uploads? I am not as proficient in investigating image copyright violations. Thanks Chaipau (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Right. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jonardondishant‎. Yann (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 Thank you. Chaipau (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

CC BY 2.0 on Flickr

Hallo, I have a question about copyright license. I want to transmit my paintings which I placed on Flickr to Wikicommons. My works on Flickr I gave the license CC BY 2.0. Wikimedia VRT release generator seems to me a perfect tool to transmit, but it gives only three license options:

  1. a: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
  2. b: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
  3. c: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication

Which one of them matches best with CC BY 2.0.?? Thanks.FotoDutch (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

if they are your paintings you can upload them on Commons under whatever license you want, regardless of Flickr. Borysk5 (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
While Borsyk5 is correct, of the three given licenses the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) is the closest match to CC BY 2.0 and indeed an updated version of the latter. Felix QW (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
That is very convincing to me. Thanks!FotoDutch (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Borsyk5 FotoDutch (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Help wanted - copyrights on photographs of deceased

I write articles about cold case Jane and John Does, and I know that some images of identified Does are available under free use, but not others. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people doesn't include much information about consent and permissions when the subject of the photo is dead, and since I have made several mistakes with this in the past, I was hoping someone could walk me through finding and uploading a free use photo of one of the cases I'm working on (particularly Dean and Tina Clouse, "Mountain Jane Doe" Sonja Blair Adams, "Strongsville Jane Doe" Linda Pagano, and Tammy Zywicki) Apelcini (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Still from a 1963 American film

File:The assassination.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkat TL (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandhi#Please_note_the_%22assassination%22_picture_from_Nine_hours_to_Rama I have no clue if this is true or not, but a user in the above thread has claimed that it is a Still from a 1963 American film. If so then depending on the copyright status it should be deleted or kept. Raising this so that people who are more experienced than me can take a look. Venkat TL (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

If this is a still from Nine hours to Rama, then it would probably indeed be copyrighted. There are several corresponding entries in the Copyright Catalog, indicating that the copyright to the film had been renewed. This would make it copyrighted until 95 years after publication, i. e. 2058.
Since the image description page was edited later by an IP to indicate that the shot is a still from the movie while the image source (a course material page by a Columbia University Professor) claims it to be a news photo, more research would have to be done. Felix QW (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
On second thought, due to URAA restoration US copyright would persist in an Indian 1948 news image too (see COM:Hirtle Chart), unless it was published in the US in the first 30 days after publication in India. Felix QW (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@Felix QW thank you, for checking it. It is possible that this might be a news photo of the shooting, rather than a still from the movie. The movie Nine hours to Rama (1962) showed (re-enacted) the assassination of Gandhi, a real event that had occurred on 30 January 1948. I just found that this movie is available on Youtube and this scene is around 1:55:32, that said, this particular image is not seen exactly as it is in the film. So it is more likely that it is photograph taken at the time of the shooting and not an actual screenshot of the copyrighted movie. Will this information change the copyright status? Venkat TL (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
It is probably a photograph from the set for the publicity of the film. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
In that case, it might have been published without a copyright notice, which would have rendered it public domain. Felix QW (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

BSD License is non-free?

Came across a potentially concerning DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icon webview.png, in which the nominator effectively declares the BSD License to be non-free because it has conditions regarding reproducing the license text that are "more than permitted for a Commons file". Is there any consensus on this? ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

BSD is a known-free license. I know of no consensus. There was one on the GFDL, but only the GFDL, which has far more text than that. BSD isn't the best license to use for images, but it's still free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Coins of Bhutan

It's not clear how either COM:Currency and COM:Bhutan apply to the individual photos of Bhutanese coins found in Category:Coins of Bhutan. It looks like all of these files have been uploaded under acceptable CC licenses, which would be fine for the photos themselves but might be insufficient for the designs on the coins. Some of the files like File:Half Rupee (1955).jpg have quite descriptions but others like File:Bhutan N.1,00 - 1979 (B).jpg just a claim of "own work". Some like File:Bhutan N.0,05 - 1979 (C).jpg also were taken at a bit of an odd angle (at least in my opinion) and are a bit blurry for a photo of a coin. Anyway, none of the photos seem to have any licensing for the coins themselves and seem to be assuming that the coins are PD for some unclear reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It would seem to me that coins were a work of applied art, for which the Bhutan copyright act grants a 25 year period of protection. This means that coins whose design came into circulation prior to 1979 should definitely be OK, as their copyright term expired before the URAA restoration date (25 November 2004).
I am not sure what the situation is with regards to those works of foreign governments which were still in copyright at the restoration date (designs published 1979-1996), since equivalent US works would be public domain as US federal government works. Maybe someone else knows more? Felix QW (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

File:00-02-32, campus artwork - panoramio.jpg and FOP US

File:00-02-32, campus artwork - panoramio.jpg might have issues related to COM:FOP United States, but the file seems to have been uploaded by the bot Panoramio upload bot. The licensing for the photo seems fine, but I'm not sure the bot is capable of assessing whether the photo is a COM:DW and assessing the copyright status of the photographed artwork. Tagging the file with {{Dw-nsd}} is possible, but once again the uploader is a bot. Is this file OK as licensed or should it be taken to DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Unless it can be demonstrated that this sculpture had been erected before 1978, it seems like a clear-cut COM:FOP US violation to me.
The Panoramio bot's uploads are frequently listed at DR (see its talk page), most commonly for such FOP violations. Felix QW (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be the X-Position (1976) by Robert Ellison. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the research! In that case, since this seems to me like a publicly accessible area, it comes down to whether there is a copyright notice on the sculpture. If not and if it has been at this spot since 1976, it should have entered public domain due to publication without a notice (see Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US#Before_1978). Felix QW (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Borderline

There's a public domain map (from the year 1853) on Wikimedia [4] (the source site refuses to make a connection) that has 2 missing areas by carelessness. The other area has a borderline. I found 3 sites showing the same map that shows also the missing border. The first [5] is a museum that says "content is available only in Russian". The second [6] offers a download option, but the photo's metadata has a copyright text of a firm. The third site [7] has also a good borderline but no information on copyright. The metadata on the same page says: "Copyright status not set". Can I use this third map on Wikipedia, if I mention the source site in Wikimedia? If not, or if you are in doubt, how much do I have to change the borderline, which I remember, that it is no more a copyright violation? Jari Rauma (autochecked user and autoconfirmed user in Finnish Wikipedia) 2001:2003:F641:6B00:FC73:2E68:5502:DAA7 11:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jari Rauma: Please see http://web.archive.org/web/20211024110040im_/http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/atlas/assets/Uploads/NEW_Karta-5-Pyatiny-Novgorodskie-XVI_vek.jpg as displayed by http://web.archive.org/web/20211021193511/http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/atlas/home/ot-pjatin-novgorodskih-do-respubliki-karelija/pjatiny-novgorodskie-xvi-vek/index.html and stay logged in.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes, I founfd those 2 broken pictures in web archive. So what to do? I have already removed the dirt from tne new version. Border colors can easily left intact, but then I noticed that one border is missing. Jari Rauma. 2001:2003:F641:6B00:69D8:CC4F:1EF6:65F 12:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
You ask if you can use the version from syamozero? You can upload it to Commons as a new file (please do not overwrite Novgorod_Pyatiny.jpg with a version from a different source), with mention of both the immediate source and the original source. After that, any particular use in Wikipedia depends on the encyclopedic relevance in articles there and you would have to evaluate that on Wikipedia. You can change whatever you want on a public domain image, as there is no problem of copyright, but for clarity please mention the changes that result in differences with the original. See also File:Неволин К А О пятинах и погостах Новгородских XVI 1853.pdf, page 663. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Wau, the last one is much better. I start with it to make it better. Thank you. – Jari Rauma 84.250.65.107 14:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jari Rauma: Again, please stay logged in.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
We can see here the results [8] in an article. I also added a picture "Novgorodin torielämää" or Life in Novgorod's market here [9], because original in Wikimedia has exaggerated contrast and color and because it is not possible to use an older version of a Wikimedia photo in Wikipedia. One problem I have still: Why Wikimedia puts so bad comment in field 'kommentti' here [10]. I tried to edit it but Wikimedia doesn't allow it. Jari Rauma 2001:2003:F64A:2C00:3458:79BC:3166:69B2 08:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jari Rauma: That field 'kommentti' ('Comment' in English) is not bad, it is a copy of the wikitext of your upload, in summary of that upload.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
It's bad, its's not my comment as you said: it's summary that I have to make in Finland. But again: why Wikimedia puts it into wrong place? Jari Rauma 84.250.74.44 10:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jari Rauma: If you have a better idea of what to put in that comment automatically, please see mw:How to report a bug.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:Clarification: the form asks many things, like author's name and the year of the work. But there's no comment-field. So Wikimedia gets information from this summary and puts it to proper places. But why Wikimedia puts all these questions in comment when I haven't commented on anything and without the possibility of commenting then or later? And why also Wikimedia exposes IP-addresses if someone accidentally doesn't log in 2 times? Jari Rauma (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jari Rauma: The IP Addresses are exposed by default; only by making sure you are logged in, replacing them after the fact, or getting them hidden or suppressed can you stop their display.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I must thank you for your great councels! First you offered 2 net addresses where I found same broken picture that is in Wikimedia. Then you said that "the field comment is not bad" when there was not comment at all. Then you said I'm not logged in trying again not to answer proper questions to a beginner. It is a bug when the system can easily know that I'm logged in and still exposes IP. Jari Rauma (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
And here's ping: @Jeff G.: (by the way: why four tildes doesn't work here) Jari Rauma 2001:2003:F64A:2C00:3458:79BC:3166:69B2 08:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jari Rauma: Because you have chosen not to stay logged in. The link is Special:UserLogin. Thanks for the ping.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G. I'm logged in right now in Finland's Wikipedia and that's a fact! Jari Rauma 84.250.74.44 10:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jari Rauma: Did you check the "Pidä minut kirjautuneena" box ("Keep me logged in" in English)?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Flickr is adding a way to view license history soon

https://blog.flickr.net/en/2022/10/11/flickr-release-notes-september-2022

If this is what I think it means, then it will be very useful for Commons! Ixfd64 (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I presume that now when users change licenses, there will be a public record. Right now not much info there. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
As a note, the license history feature just launched today. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Rubber Duck by Florentijn Hofman

I'm curious that a general rubber duck is below the threshold of originality and it is free from copyright, but why Rubber Duck by Florentijn Hofman are marked as copyrighted artwork? A1Cafel (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it is not a general rubber duck? Ruslik (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Because of its unusual size. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Ceci n’est pas un canard en caoutchouc. --Rosenzweig τ 19:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@A1Cafel, Ruslik0, Guido den Broeder, and Rosenzweig: because the artist claims the Rubber Duck is his art. This article provides some important insights; the artist's camp/estate had slapped counterfeiters with lawsuits: those who were attempting to exploit his duck in their souvenir items (miniature ducks) as well as life-sized near duplicate ones for purpose of exhibition. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
That article doesn't say that he's slapped counterfeiters with lawsuits; someone licensing the duck sent a cease-and-desist, which is a threat to sue, not a suit. It also made it pretty clear he's annoyed about another big rubber duck, but has not sued, making the copyright infringement at best questionable in the US or Canada, where the other rubber duck has operated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: in application of this to Commons context, does the threat one of the things that COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle tries to avoid? Let's assume the duck artist notices a Wikipedian's photo of his duck exhibited at Pittsburgh, under a free culture CC license. The Wikipedian lists his email and Twitter links on his user page. Then he requests his camp to determine the details of the uploader, and upon knowing the contact details they then sends a correspondence to him threatening him to take his photo off from Commons or otherwise face lawsuits. This is of course an assumed scenario, but such things may be among the things COM:PCP wants to avoid. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Sunrise at One World Trade Center from Liberty State Park, Lower Manhattan, New York City, U.S.A.jpg

So this is a complex case so bear with me. Right now, File:Sunrise at One World Trade Center from Liberty State Park, Lower Manhattan, New York City, U.S.A.jpg is uploaded with a Creative Commons license and sourced to a Flickr account operated by the US State Department. But its actual source is this Flickr file owned by Anthony Quintano.

Now, the original Flickr file is marked All Rights Reserved. But here's the thing. The aforementioned government account appears to only repost freely licensed photos. And if you look at files in Category:Photographs by Anthony Quintano, many of the photos uploaded with CC licensing are now marked all rights reserved. So I think a reasonable assumption is that this photo also went through a change of license.

Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine shows no evidence of a free license. And worse, it looks like by the time the photo was uploaded to Commons in 2019, the license had already been changed, so we can't use {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. Do we have to delete this image? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Adeletron 3030: So, some providence for this image. It was taken by Mr. Quintano on 15 May 2015 and posted under CC-by-2.0, and was re-shared by the GPA photo archive on 12 September 2018, also under CC-by-2.0. Mr. Quintano changed his license to All Rights Reserved on 2 November 2018, but this is irrelevant because it was already re-shared under the CC-by-2.0 license, and the license cannot be revoked. Thus, it was uploaded to Commons on 26 June 2019.
So, it seems so that Mr. Quintano did relicense his images to make them All Rights Reserved, and that's fine, but once they have shared elsewhere under the original license, they're out there under that license.
Heh, didn't think the new Flickr license history would prove so immediately valuable! — Huntster (t @ c) 05:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Wait, you can find license history now? That’s great! Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Adeletron 3030, yep! Look under "Additional Info" at the bottom of the right column on the Flickr image page, and you'll see it. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
That entire account looks like the State Department went looking around Flickr for CC-licensed images; they credit many different authors and have different licenses on them. Or public domain for photos from other US Government agencies. They have no problem with NC or ND licenses though, so they aren't all free. I did find one "all rights reserved" for a USGS photo, but other than that, would certainly seem they are being careful about citing sources and preserving licenses. So, would have guessed that they preserved the license when copying to their account, and thus it remains with that license at that source, and is therefore fine. But yes, the license history now makes that easy to see, that it was copied from the original account when it was licensed that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that they seem to be careful about licensing and I don’t see any license laundering happening. I’ve been going in tagging files from the account with {{Duplicate}} if the originals are on Commons. Once I’ve identified and tagged all the duplicates, I plan to correct the source info and re-upload the originals for the remaining uploads. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No free equivalent criterion

Hello, I would like to use the following scan on a Wikipedia page: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFHiwale4ieMseJh4kg-JLgy4_6_Jx9F/view?usp=sharing

I think it is the only surviving evidence of what I believe is the first ever computer racing game. The BBC program that it refers to is no longer in existence. The article appeared in an internal newsletter for IBM in the UK in 1970 or 1971. I don't believe there is anyway of tracing the original author.

- Would the copyright for this belong with IBM in the UK?

- If so, what would be the best way for me to request permission to reproduce the article?

- Is there a template email I could use?

- Is there anyway for me to use this file under the no free equivalent criterion?

Many thanks. Tuesday x (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have access to the whole newsletter? There might be some author information there. Copyright is 70 years from publication, so this cannot be out of copyright. As an internal newsletter I'm not so sure it was ever legally published at all. Who the copyright belongs to depends on where the photo comes from - if someone working for IBM took it, it would belong to IBM, if it's from the BBC, it would belong to the BBC, if it's a freelance photographer it would depend on their contract. I would assume the text copyright to lie with IBM. There copyright of the game itself is irrelevant, because we cannot actually see it. I see two options for you:
  1. Contact IBM and possibly the BBC for copyright information. I would not put too much hope in getting information and pretty much none in them releasing this under some free license.
  2. Upload the scan on a Wikipedia with an non-free content policy, e.g. the English language one. It could be suitable for illustrating en:CALL/360:BASIC or en:Early mainframe games. You would need to ask there for details.
--rimshottalk 08:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The article was cut out of the IBM newsletter and, as far as I know, is the only surviving copy. I have no other details on the newsletter and no way to track down the photographer.
The Wikipedia page I would like to use it on is this one under the History section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_game
I have never edited a Wikipedia page before but the instructions say to upload it to Wikimedia first. How do I upload it with a non-free content policy? Thank you. Tuesday x (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
In principle you are right, all content should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so that it can be used on all Wikipedias. Non-free content ist the one exception, however. It must be uploaded directly to the Wikipedia that allows it. For English language Wikipedia that would be en:Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard, which has a big button upload a non-free file. English Wikipedia has a comprehensive non-free content policy. Your case is a bit of a border case in my eyes, because the article already has a number of illustrations, but none for this particular case of racing game. If you get no definite answer here (because fair use is not our specialty), you might have more luck at Wikipedia itself, namely at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --rimshottalk 10:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much. That makes sense. I will follow this up via Wikipedia. Tuesday x (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Photos taken casually, kept private and then published in a book decades later

If a photograph was taken casually, by a family member or friend for exemple, was kept in a private collection and then published in a book decades later, would the publication be considered the date the photograph was taken or the date of the publication of the book?

About the photograph:

  • Context: photos taken around 1890-1925
  • Author: Undisclosed since they were taken casually
  • Country: Austria-Hungary, then Czechoslovakia, now part of Czech Republic, under European Union copyright laws.

About the book: (in German)

  • Book publication: 1983
  • Country: Germany

(in English)

  • Book publication: 1984
  • Country: United States

Would it be public domain? I'm trying to figure if it's PD-anon-70-EU or not. AnAkemie (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

If the book was the first divulgation, it's the date of the book. The template PD-anon-70-EU is for anonymous works made available to the public for more than 70 years. However, obviously someone believed that they had the right to publish the photo in Germany in 1983. So, it could be an idea to contact the persons who authorized that publication and see what their rationale was. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Apparently the person got the photographs from the private collection of the family and made their own archive. I am not sure if they published the book because they have legal rights over the photographs or if it's just because they have the photographs in their archive. AnAkemie (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
If the exact year of creation is known, anything created 1901 or earlier in a 70 pma country is OK per {{PD-old-assumed}} regardless of publication date, unless the author is known to have died 1952 or later. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I think I need to give full context because it is not clear enough. I already uploaded a bunch of Franz Kafka images. Source for them is Franz Kafka: Pictures of a Life by Klaus Wagenbach (1984). Basically most of the images there are sourced to "Klaus Wagenbach Archiv", meaning that the author of the book is the responsible for the archive. My rationale was that since a lot of these images didn't have the author specified, I could upload them under {{PD-anon-70-EU}}, because if the archive itself doesn't know the author, who would? An example of this rationale is File:Kafka1920.jpg. I also did some basic reverse searching, and they either didn't give authorship or was just the generic "Divulgation/Klaus Wagenbach Archiv". Some other images were given the author. For example, I uploaded File:Photograph by Franz Kafka.jpg because the authorship is given to Kafka himself, so it would be public domain since he died in 1924. Another example is File:Valli Kafka, 1910.jpg, in which the book gave authorship to "Schlosser-Wenisch". Searching more, I found that it was an atelier owned by Otto Schlosser (1880-1942) & Max Wenisch (1876–?), with no evidence that Max Wenisch acted as photographer on the atelier whatsoever. He apparently was just a partner in the business.
But recently I was thinking: "Wait. The images are not by Klaus Wagenbach himself. He just took these images from somewhere else, possibly from a private archive of Kafka's family or Max Brod, Kafka's best friend, but still he put these images in a book and published it. Maybe he actually has legal rights over the images somehow?"
If that's the case, then literally all images on Wikimedia Commons about Franz Kafka should be deleted, even the ones I didn't upload, such as File:Franz Kafka 1910.jpg, File:Kafka.jpg, File:Kafka1906.jpg, etc, because all these images are presented in the cited book.
I think the Klaus Wagenbach Archiv really has the physical photographs, because it is oftenly credited on photographs in news articles, and even the Kafka Museum credits them.
I feel like I made a mess when I decided to upload these images. If they are under copyright or just can't stay because there's no evidence it's in public domain, I myself will nominate them to deletion.
Apparently Klaus Wagenbach died in 2021. AnAkemie (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the situation with anonymous works published posthumously in Germany is very complicated. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Anonymous_and_pseudonymous_works explains it in more detail. Essentially, everything published posthumously but before 70 years after the death of the author (whether their name can ever be found out) is protected until 70 years after death of that author.
In the US, the following complicates things further (taken from COM:US, emphasis mine):
Works created before 1978 and first published after or in 1978 are protected for the earlier of 95 years from publication or registration for copyright or 120 years from creation (for anonymous or corporate works) or 70 years after death of the creator for known authors; if it was published in 1978–2001, that copyright is extended to December 31, 2047 if it's shorter. (Thus no works first published with permission of the copyright holder between 1978 and 2001 in the US are out of copyright.
Of course, for the anonymous photos we can assume that the photographers did not indeed give consent, so that they are presumably not effectively published for the purposes of US law (but maybe someone more familiar with the niceties of US publication requirements can chip in there).
It therefore seems to me that the safest thing would be to keep only the pre-1902 photos under {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Felix QW (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This could get complicated. If the book had a copyright notice, and they were truly not published near the time of creation, then they are still under U.S. copyright until 2048, due to an old grandfather clause for works created before 1978 but first published between 1978 and 2002. That would be the U.S. status, regardless of the URAA. If the book had no copyright notice, then the status would depend on the status in the foreign country due to the URAA, which *sounds* like Germany but even that could be complicated.
The country of origin is usually the country of first publication. However, if works could expire based on date of creation, other aspects might come into play. I'm not sure that the Czech Republic had any terms expire based on date of creation, though, so don't think they could have expired based on data of creation there. Their photographic terms at the time were 10pma, so only 10 years after the death of the author. Anonymous works were 50 years from publication, but nothing for unpublished works to expire if the author was not known. Today, PD-anon-70-EU is 70 years from the "making available to the public", which includes publication, or public display, or TV broadcast. If truly kept private though, and never "made available", then the works expired 70 years from creation, if that had passed before making available. So, photos taken before 1913 would have expired by today's standards, and those taken after would still be under copyright.
As an historical note for Germany, it would depend on the nature of the photos. If they were carefully-composed photographic "works", the older German law did not have a term for anonymous works, so they may still be based on the life of the author. However snapshot-type photos were considered "simple photos", and not "works", and had a much shorter term. Snapshots, if they were news-reporting worthy, were protected for 50 years from publication, or 50 years from creation if not published. Other snapshot type photos were 25 years from publication, or 25 years from creation if not published. If these were formal portraits, they were "works" (though if taken at a photography studio, then it's possible they could be considered published at the time). If private snapshots, then they likely expired by Germany's laws before they were published in 1983, which would explain the ability to publish them at the time. However, the copyright was restored in 1995 when Germany enacted the EU directives, which almost eliminated the "simple photo" thing such that snapshots were thereafter considered "works", so they then get the terms of PD-anon-70-EU, which would have made any photos created 1913 or later (and which were first published in 1983) under copyright again, until 2054. The U.S. would then have restored them since they were under copyright in 1996, again until that 2048 date.
As mentioned above, we could possibly apply {{PD-old-assumed}} for works more than 120 years old. That would not apply for works that we know to be under copyright, even if older, but since this revolves around questions on when a work was published (or made available), and that may be hard to really know, then maybe we could use that. Were these likely taken by a family member, or someone else? If someone else, how did the family have copies? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Some are passport photographs, some seem to be very casual photos, some seem to be taken by a photographic studio but were unattributed. If I had to guess, they were originally in a family private collection. There are photographs of other family members. AnAkemie (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The U.S. book has a 1984 copyright notice by Random House specifically for the "English translation" (was that wording meant to also cover the photos?). It also refers to a copyright of the 1983 book by Wagenbach [11]. Do those copyright notices have an effect on the status of the photos if the unknown owners of the potential copyrights on the photos did not consent to their publication and if Wagenbach's right was on his text only or was a short "publication right" in Europe on the photos? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible that Wagenbach felt he could publish these photos based on the sweat of the brow doctrine? He did some studies on Kafka. Maybe he collected these photographs and assumed his hard work getting them was enough.
Edit: I think that's what happened. The sweat of the brow article has a Germany section which states: "Prior to 2021, German law granted ancillary copyrights (Leistungsschutzrecht) due to the effort involved in the production or exploitation of creative works". AnAkemie (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed that the 1984 book also refers to "permissions acknowledgements" which would be on its page 221. But page 221 is not included in the linked url. AnAkemie, do you have access to that part of the book and, if so, does it provide useful information? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Here is page 221. It refers to copyright over excerpts of Kafka's literary works. Page 219 has an acknowledgements list, but it just names people without context. Page 218 has credits but it's just crediting people who had the photographs, not who took them. As far as I remember all my uploads were sourced to Klaus Wagenbach Archiv. If you feel interested enough you can create an account on archive.org and borrow the book for 14 days to see its full content. AnAkemie (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I found this (archived link because apparently it keeps changing).
"Previous Registration: Preexisting material: photos, ill., quotations, letters, documents, excerpts from Kafka manuscripts."
What does "Previous Registration" mean exactly? So the photographs were registered before? AnAkemie (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

NeXTcube first webserver.JPG

The File:NeXTcube first webserver.JPG (sorry I do not know yet how to add a wl to it without that the image comes out full size) is about an object created somewhen around 1989 and a GDFL license added to it. Copyright is valid for 70 years and I am not sure how a GDFL and a Creative Commons license goes over a copyright of 70 years.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The physical computer itself doesn't have a copyright (at least in the U.S.) -- it is a utilitarian object, or a "useful article" in U.S. copyright terms (see https://copyright.gov/register/va-useful.html ). The photograph itself does, but that is freely licensed (and yes, the copyright on that photograph will last much longer than 70 years). A license is the right to use the copyright under certain conditions; the uploader has given re-users the option of using GFDL or a CC-BY-SA license, each of which have specific terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Clindberg And the right-bottom book? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Enquire Within upon Everything was first published in 1856, so not too much of an issue there... Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

License review request

There is a request at the English Wikivoyage to make a derivative of File:덕소 삼패공원 가는 길 05.jpg (a simple crop). Could someone please review the license? I think it'd be preferable to have that done first.

Thanks for considering my request, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I've got a screenshot of a scan of an advertisement that was printed in a 1957 newspaper, The Albuquerque Tribune, that I'd like to include in a Wikipedia article.

According to the US Copyright Office, as a general statement, "If a copyright originally secured before January 1, 1964, was not renewed at the proper time, copyright protection expired at the end of the 28th calendar year of the copyright and could not be restored." (see "Renewal of Copyright")

According to Ebrary, a facsimile of a printed public domain work is not copyrightable, so the scan/screenshot shouldn't attach new copyright, I wouldn't think. (see "Are facsimile copies of public domain works still under copyright?")

According to the University of Pennsylvania, "1957 original copyrights were due to be renewed in 1984 and 1985 (see the Copyright Office database for registrations for these years.)" (see "Copyright registrations for 1957")

The US Copyright Office's Public Catalog for The Albuquerque Tribute shows no renewal entries for 1984 or 1985. (see "USCO Public Catalog Search for Albuquerque Tribune")

Am I OK posting this image? Kerri9494 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kerri9494: Advertisements placed in a periodical by a third party generally were subject to their own copyright, they were not included in the newspaper's copyright. There would have to have been a separate copyright notice on the advertisement itself. If it was copyrighted, then you would have to search for the renewal under the advertiser's name (or the name listed on the copyright notice). The vast majority of newspaper advertisements from that era are public domain and can be uploaded with the template {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}. Toohool (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Liz Truss official portrait.jpg

The portrait of the outgoing British prime minister Liz Truss, widely used across multiple Wikimedia sites (inclusive of derivatives which are cropped versions), has a metadata that contradicts with the public domain license. The metadata contains copyright statement. The author is "Simon Dawson / No10 Downing Street," and the copyright holder is "Crown Copyright." The usage terms at exif states (with added emphases): "This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form." Furthermore, the exif bears an "online copyright statement" field, with the given field info "https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/163." As the copyright claim statements and proofs cited the British Copyright law, it is becoming questionable whether this widely-used photograph is in public domain or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not public domain. It's Crown Copyright. The source page, at the bottom, states All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. So that copyright is licensed under the terms of the OGL, a free license, and the image is marked as such. Even if marked fully copyrighted in the EXIF, that copyright can be licensed later on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The question I have is: Was this file as it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, 4114 × 5760 pixels file size 2.45 MB, ever available from https://www.gov.uk/government/people/elizabeth-truss, which is given as the source? As of right now, I only see a crop of this file there, severely reduced in dimensions and file size. And accd. to [12], that crop was already there on September 5, 2022, a day before the photograph was supposedly taken. --Rosenzweig τ 15:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
That is a good question. The photo on Sept 5 was a different photo, though. This one was uploaded to Flickr, which means it could be licensed OGL whenever those turn up on their national archives site, but at the moment it has a non-free license there. We may have to limit ourselves to the crop there until we find one with a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated those files for deletion. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@A1Cafel, Clindberg, and Rosenzweig: the same issue also applies to File:Liz Truss Official Photo.jpg, with identical metadata stating restrictions on commercial reuses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The source of that one clearly states it is available under the Open Government Licence, as part of the response of the freedom of information request. So, not a problem. It's entirely possible (likely even) that following the same process with the later photo would end up with the same result, but I don't think we have a source for that higher-resolution version which explicitly states OGL. That's all we are looking for. The lower-resolution crop does have such a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Österreich-Wappen (1934-1938).svg and File:State flag of Austria (1934–1938).svg

Can these files be considered public domain? It's just that I understand these are the old symbols of Austria Артём 13327 (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No, unless in particular countries there is a specific prohibition on copyright for coats of arms and the like. Copyright is generally on the specific expression, i.e. the exact lines etc. drawn, so each individual drawing of a general design can hold its own independent copyright -- see Commons:Coats of arms. It's even possible for a vectorization (the choosing of all the specific control points) to have a copyright separate from that of the visual result. A U.S. court decided that once on a vectorization of public domain property maps. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether the images of UniCredit Tower (Milan) violated the copyright of the architect. I remembered so said the copyright in Italy expired once the copyright holder dead. Is is true? 182.239.117.9 06:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Not true anymore, @182.239.117.9: . See COM:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/08#Question on the so-called de facto Italian FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Fonz 1976 sega arcade.PNG was uploaded under a claim of old work. It's a photo of the en:Fonz (arcade) game and it looks to me like it might be a COM:DW. The 3D elements of the photo would make the photo itself eligible for copyright protection; however, unless the photographer is also the designer/maker of the game since the artwork on the cabinet would seem to be separately eligible for copyright protection or at least would've been eligible for copyright protection at that time. This kind of thing looks akin to COM:PACKAGING and perhaps the last paragraph of COM:UTIL in that the shape of the cabinet is probably too simple and standard for copyright protection, but the "packaging" (i.e. artwork) for the cabinet is probably eligible for copyright protection. Are they any known examples of how US copyright law dealt with things such a arcade games like this and pinball machines? Is the "wrapping" treated as applied art per COM:UA since the primary way of identifying the game and differentiating it from other similarly shaped arcade games does appear to be the artwork on the cabinet. The same uploader also uploaded File:Fonz 1976 sega arcade flyer.JPG which also shows the game in a print advertisement. Assuming that the ad is indeed {{PD-US-no notice}} (it seems to be, but the upload could be cropped a tad to remove a notice), then I'm wondering how that might apply to the uploader's photograph of the game. Does it mean the actual artwork on the physical cabinet of any Fonz arcade game is no longer eligible for copyright protection or just that the photo in the ad itself is no longer eligible for copyright protection? I think it means the latter, but just want to check. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The cabinet artwork would be copyrightable, though if that was before 1978 in the U.S., there would have needed to be a copyright notice or all that artwork became PD (and really, even if before 1989 it probably did). However, it would only be a photo focusing on that artwork which would be a problem, per the Ets-Hokins decision -- you can argue that the artwork is unavoidably there when trying to photograph the entire arcade. So, not sure it's a derivative work. It's arguable, but I'd lean no. "Applied art" is artistic-ish forms applied to useful articles; the U.S. does not protect such things with copyright at all (rather design patents).
The first photo is just a crop of the advertisement you mention, so there should be no "own work" about that -- it has the same copyright as the ad. As for the other question, the publication of the photo without a copyright notice should not affect the copyright of the artwork on the side of the arcade. Only if the arcade box itself had no copyright notice would that artwork be PD. But the photo would not necessarily be derivative of it (though other photos could). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Carl for the speedy reply. I didn't notice the photo was a crop since the description seem to imply the uploader owns the game and took a photo of it. So, I'm assuming that the description needs to be cleaned up and the photo relicensed to be the same as the licensing used for the ad, right? Any need to be concerned about the ad possibly being cropped? As for the other stuff, I forgot about Ets and can see how it could possibly apply to a photo of the game cabinet regardless of the copyright status of the artwork. Did, just for the sake of argument, US copyright law at the time require that there be a visible notice on the cabinets of such games? I'd image that any such notice would be quite small and possibly hard to find just from looking at a photo; it might also be displayed on the game screen when the game is being played. Would separate notices be needed for the artwork and the game or could one cover them both? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the licensing of the first one should be cleaned up. If a copyright notice was cropped out, then yes that would be a major concern -- it would make the original ad non-free. Not sure that it was though -- Alamy has no trouble hosting a copy. Would always prefer to see the original magazine, but not sure that is a crop at all, looking at it. If you can find a copy which has a notice, or even other ads by that company which did have notices on their ads at the very bottom, might be a more interesting question. As for notices, yes U.S. law required visible notices to be on all distributed copies. If you wanted to keep copyright on that artwork, there wouldn't be much alternative to having a visible notice on there somewhere. But yes, we probably can't quite tell from the photo. Interesting question on the game screen, but I would assume that notice would only be for the software and game graphics itself. There have been cases where a book's copyright notice had no impact on the cover, since the cover was decided on by a publishing house quite separately from the book author (File:Jaws Book 1975 Cover.jpg). Same reason why advertisements needed a different notice than the magazine's. I would think that you shouldn't have to play the game to know if a work on the outside was copyrighted or not. May not be impossible though depending on the respective authors, details of the particular situation, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Good use or bad?

I raised a question at the Wikipedia Teahouse about using an image from a scientific journal article. The initial response was that it was usable, but then (after I uploaded the image (actually 4 images) another editor suggested it might not be ok. I query further, and they suggested I come here. What are your thoughts? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems as if Stephen D. Nash gave permission for use of his photos in the article, but this does not usually imply that the authors have the right to relicense the image themselves.
The applicable page of the journal website explicitly limits the right to reuse of the images to original images published therein, which these are not. You could try and email them about it, but I would assume that the CC license does not cover artwork of which the authors have deliberately disavowed copyright. Felix QW (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually, that link has a section about "Figures and tables". It looks like we have the right to use the figures from the article: Reproduction of figures or tables from any article is permitted free of charge and without formal written permission from the publisher or the copyright holder, provided that the figure/table is original, BMC is duly identified as the original publisher, and that proper attribution of authorship and the correct citation details are given as acknowledgment. If you have any questions about reproduction of figures or tables please contact us. So as long as I credit Stephen D. Nash (which I have), and as long as I cite things properly, we should be good. So, should I include a journal citation on the image pages as I would for citing the journal itself? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and I need to indicate BMC is the original publisher as well. I have not modified the images, so they are the originals. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I took original in this context to mean that original creations by the journal authors, and therefore explicitly not to include those images credited to others.
A side note about image usage on the Titi monkey pages: The images File:Cheracebus torquatus.jpg and File:Callicebus lugens.jpg are in fact imports of the very same flickr image, which is labelled Callicebus torquatus. Since I am not a zoologist, I couldn't say which is right, but we certainly should not illustrate separate species with the same image. Felix QW (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Well that doesn't make sense. How would reproduction of figures or tables [be] permitted free of charge and without formal written permission make any sense in that regard? It has to mean unaltered. *sigh* Well, I'd uploaded after I was given the "ok" and before I was told "on the other hand". What should I do?
As for the duplicate images, that is definitely C. lugens and not C. torquatus. The one at the torquatus location should be removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I think Felix QW (as well as Deor in the original Wikipedia Teahouse discussion) is right about this. The key word here is "original". I'm not a copyright expert, but I do a lot of professional editing for academic publications in a different field, where questions like this come up frequently. It is very common for sources to grant permission for the use of a photograph or other illustration for a single specific publication, while at the same time retaining their copyright on the image and not granting the licensed publication any second-hand rights to disseminate that illustration further. This is how I understand the language on the BMC license page, which seems quite clear to me: reproduction of all artwork that is original to the article (i.e. not previously published or subject to other copyright claims) is free and requires no formal permission, but they cannot grant that right for images that they have licensed from other copyright holders. That's the reason for the copyright notice on Figure 4. Choliamb (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah! Ok, I think I understand it now. So, I'm not finding an email address at which to contact Mr. Nash. I guess we should take down the images. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it's probably true that the Commons should not be hosting this image, since everything here must be 100% free. But if your principal reason for wanting to upload it was to use in one or more Wikipedia articles, you may still be able to do that, since unlike the Commons, English Wikipedia allows some copyrighted images under the the principal of Fair Use. You'd have to check with them about the exact requirements; they're stringent, but this may qualify. Good luck, Choliamb (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure this would qualify under en.wiki rules; the artist is a renowned professional who earns his living as a primate artist (see his en.wiki page), and, more importantly, any volunteer of sufficient skill could make a free drawing themselves, thus violating the "no free replacement" clause. Felix QW (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know the copyright status for the CFA franc currency, since I added light green dots to the countries that use the euro in File:Whether to allow uploading of currency World Map.svg.

What is the copyright status of West African CFA franc and Central African CFA franc?

West African CFA franc and Central African CFA franc are not mentioned at COM:CUR. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting question. I couldn't find anything explicit in the copyright law of Senegal, the seat of the Central Bank of West African States. On the other hand, the currency has close ties to France, and although French copyright law does not explicitly mention currency either, the Cour de Cassation ruled in 2002 that the Franc is not covered by Copyright Law. I do not know quite enough about the extent to which those states have taken on the French legal system in this regard to say whether the court ruling reflects thoughts in these countries too. Felix QW (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Then, how about Bank of Central African States? It's located at Cameroon. Ox1997cow (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Article 3c of the main IP law of Cameroun, the 2000 Copyright law, explicitly excludes "les signes monétaires" from copyright protection.
"Signes monetaire" refers to both coins and banknotes, cf. this French legal text.
Judging by this, I think we should clear the Central African CFA franc in terms of copyright. Felix QW (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@Felix QW: I added the following according to the talk:
COM:CUR Benin
COM:CUR Burkina Faso
COM:CUR Guinea-Bissau
COM:CUR Ivory Coast
COM:CUR Mali
COM:CUR Niger
COM:CUR Senegal
COM:CUR Togo
These countries use West African CFA franc. Ox1997cow (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
@Felix QW: I added the following according to the talk:
COM:CUR Cameroon
COM:CUR Central African Republic
COM:CUR Chad
COM:CUR Equatorial Guinea
COM:CUR Gabon
COM:CUR Republic of the Congo
These countries use Central African CFA franc.
--Ox1997cow (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Excellent! Now someone just has to make the template! Felix QW (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@Felix QW: If so, how do I make {{PD-CA-CFA-franc}}? Ox1997cow (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I've made it, though it results {{Autotranslate}} template loop. :P Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I see. Someone will edit it correctly. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
For Sénégal (the seat of the Central Bank of West African States) I found this. Article 6 lists all the protected works of art under this law. Are coins and banknotes under "6° Les œuvres des arts visuels, comprenant les œuvres de dessin, de peinture, de sculpture, d'architecture, de gravure, de lithographie, les œuvres photographiques et les œuvres des arts appliqués comme les créations de mode, de tissage, de céramique, de boiserie, de ferronnerie ou de bijouterie;"? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

(Note: Copied from discussion started at Help desk)

I'm a bit unsure about the copyright status of this image File:Selene Moon Impact Lunar Prospector LCross.jpg. It's a screenshot from the desktop version of Google Earth, and although it uses public domain imagery, the way it is presented, with the images combined and such, seems to be enough to call it copyright, isn't it? Mako001 (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So, the question here is this: Does stitching together multiple public domain works into a spheroid, then adding some little tags to show impact locations of various spacecraft, create a new copyright? Mako001 (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

U. S. Copyright Law says that new copyright arises on

work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship

.

To me, the arrangement into a spheroid, which presumably includes altering the projection, does constitute such an original work, so in my opinion new copyright does arise on it. Felix QW (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Thats what I was thinking too. Thanks for the help. I'll mark it as a copyvio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I was the original uploader; wasn't aware of the copyright issues. There are several others in my upload history from around this time that are likely also copyvios based on this discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The original version of File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg (which has been a featured image for over 10 years) is marked a being in the public domain, and the vectorisation as CC-BY-SA. Are we sure this is correct? I've just checked the Intellectual Property Office's guidance on copyright duration, and it says the 50 years from publication only applies to commercial publication. Was the Royal Arms ever commercially published? Otherwise, Crown copyright lasts 125 years from the date of creation. Also, according to The National Archives: "The Royal Arms and its constituent parts are protected by perpetual Crown copyright, and may only be re-used by His Majesty the King, members of the Royal Family, government departments and official holders of the Royal Warrant. The Royal Arms are Royal ‘devices’ and as such are protected by law from commercial misuse." To make sure this isn't simply because of the new monarch, I checked an archived version, and it says exactly the same thing. Am I missing something? It sounds to me like this, and presumably variants such as File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (HM Government).svg, are still under copyright, and, as they're not covered by the Open Government Licence or any other free licence, are thus ineligible to be on Commons. Adam9007 (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Adam9007: We should defer to the Crown on this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
You mean ask the Crown? How? Adam9007 (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@Adam9007 No, I mean delete the file as no unauthorized commercial use allowed per perpetual Crown copyright.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
So you reckon I'm right? Shall I make the deletion nomination? It's not just the original, but the variants too. Adam9007 (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify, that would be the entire Category:Coats_of_arms_of_King_Charles_III_of_the_United_Kingdom, as well as others such as File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (black and white).svg Adam9007 (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
And there's more: according to this, the no commercial use restriction also applies to the Queen's (and presumably the King's) Cypher and the Royal Crown. Adam9007 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we accept perpetual copyright declarations from anyone -- that amounts to a non-copyright restriction, really. They surely have certain right over coats of arms, so {{Insignia}} applies of course, but not sure we would accept copyright claims that go beyond what Berne would allow. Peter Pan has a perpetual copyright within the UK but we don't recognize that, either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, I've found this. This is not looking good... Adam9007 (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I am by no means an expert on this, but COM:Coats of Arms suggests that independent realisations of the description of coats of arms (as opposed to copies of images) are fine, and this is precisely what Sodacan, the original uploader is specialised in. So I assume that this coat of arms is indeed an independent reproduction of the blazon of the Royal Coat of Arms.
Whether particular aspects of British law change anything about the general assumptions on the copyright of Coat of Arms I do not know. Felix QW (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm also no expert, but the National Archives says the Royal Arms itself is protected by Crown copyright, which I'd imagine means that Sodacan's rendering of it itself a copyright infringement. Adam9007 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I think this whole thing is conflating a bunch of different stuff. First, a drawing made after a written design is not a derivative work -- it is an independent work. It is a separate expression of the same idea. See Commons:Coats of arms. There should be no (copyright) problem with an SVG created by users, unless it incorporates existing *artistic* expression, i.e. the small details of an existing work. A vectorization created by the UK government will likewise have a modern copyright and be under copyright for a long time, which we can't use. Therefore, there is no single "copyright status" of the arms -- there is only a copyright status of each different drawing. Second, it seems the general design of the arms dates from 1837. It would have expired anyways. Current UK law does have a 125 year from creation limit for Crown Copyright, but if it is not commercially published within 75 years. 125 years is only if they never commercially published it in the first 75 years. Third, "commercial publication" includes simply "making the work available to the public by means of an electronic retrieval system", which they likely have. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the two terms in article 175. The definition is completely different from what you might think the term means. Fourth, those are the terms under the UK copyright law from 1988 (effective 1989). Under the older laws, Crown Copyright artistic works expired 50 years from creation (other types were 50 years from publication, with no mention of "commercial publication"). There was nothing in the newer law to revive any expired Crown Copyright. So, older works likely expired before that time. Fifth, most countries have insignia laws which give protections somewhat akin to trademark, since trademark law prevents official symbols like that from being trademarked (though trademark law prevents normal trademarks from including them). The term "commercial" changes quite a bit in that context, and has no relation to commercial use of a copyright. None of Commons' uses is a commercial use of that sort. Most of the rights they are asserting is about that type of right, which is a Commons:Non-copyright restriction. We add the {{Insignia}} tag or the like to indicate that for re-users, but that has no bearing on deletion here. It is up to others to make sure their use conforms with the law -- we care strictly about copyright. Lastly, we would ignore any claims of "perpetual copyright" -- that should be noted for re-users within that country, but if expired by normal copyright rules, I don't think we accept those claims as applying outside that country, and would not be a prohibition on uploading here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I've been looking through older discussions, and it seems that this particular version isn't Crown copyright, because, as you say, it's a discrete and independent rendition. That said, do trademarks and other laws affect use (as opposed to just hosting) here on Commons (and on other Wikimedia projects)? I'm looking to use it on another wiki in much the same manner as {{OGL}} does, and figured that if it's okay here, it should be okay there too. Am I being naïve? Adam9007 (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
A "use" of a trademark, or insignia, is generally making it appear you are affiliated with the trademarked product or organization, or are implying some sort of connection, especially one that helps you sell stuff. If you do that without permission, then you could have issues. Such as, don't put such things on clothing you're selling, etc. Or if Wikimedia had some initiative that included the logo of some other organization, without any actual connection or permission to use it, that's a problem. If you have it just to show people "this is what it looks like", or have it using to identify the source of a (non-modified) document, it should be fine. So sure, Commons itself (and the rest of Wikimedia and everyone else) needs to follow the law, and not make actual use of such emblems which violate things. For example, one portion of U.S. law is 18 USC §713: Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. In general, most of our uses are educational, and would not serve to create a false impression of sponsorship or that kind of thing. All of our licenses here are strictly for the copyright however, and do not imply any extra permission against any other type of right or intellectual property like that. You would need to decide if anything in the way you are utilizing them would come close to those conditions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Although the UK's National Archives say the Royal Arms are under 'perpetual Crown Copyright' [13] the guidance from the Lord Chamberlain's office is far more geared towards re-use and that the Arms are classed as a trademark [14]. As Carl's (as always) expert assessment says UK copyright law is only applicable to the UK and that hosting such images here is not an issue as no attempt to deceive is being made (s99 Trade Marks Act 1994 [15]). All such risks are upon any re-user in how they re-use the arms. Nthep (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. Going by that, I should be okay (I think...), as the use isn't in connexion with any business. I'm still a little confused by the claim of perpetual copyright, but I suppose this isn't the right place to ask about that? Adam9007 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
A government can make whichever laws it wants, basically. They want to protect the arms as much as they can possibly, although I'm not sure that the law actually grants such permanent protection. They do have such a thing as royal prerogative, which is where that likely comes from. For example, there is an effective permanent claim over the King James Bible -- only the government is allowed to publish that in the UK. That was claimed in the 1600s, and I guess still exists, per section 171 of the copyright law which states that the new copyright law does not affect those other rights. There had been some perpetual copyrights under their 1775 copyright law, but those were more or less terminated in the 1988 law, giving them 50 years further protection starting 1989 and then those would be over too. So the concept did exist in really old law, but they seem to be ending it, other than where royal prerogatives overlap. The 1989 law also ended perpetual copyright for unpublished works. On the other hand, British copyrights to "Peter Pan" had been donated to a hospital in 1929. That provided a funding source for decades, and Article 301 (and Schedule 6) of the 1988 UK law made portions of particular copyrights "permanent", such that certain uses in the UK itself would still need to pay royalties -- see Great Ormond Street Hospital#Peter Pan. The copyright in foreign countries has mostly expired -- though the 1928 play is still under U.S. copyright until 2024 (the earlier book is public domain). Commons allows material from the book, despite any perpetual restrictions in the UK. There is nothing in the Berne convention which states anything like that needs to be respected elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Queen Camilla's cypher has been announced. I have not been able to find an original source, but it is reproduced on the BBC, Metro, MSN, Huffington Post, and Hello! websites, and many others. Either the original announcement contained a licence to reproduce, or all of these outlets have independently requested a licence, or they are all contravening the law.

Or perhaps the Crown does not greatly care where the royal symbols are reproduced (recognition being of the essence for such symbols) as long as they are not misused, or used to make invalid claims. So if you have a book or website that shows the royal standard, or royal coat of arms, or royal cypher - then fine. But if you create a flag reproducing the royal standard, and mount it on your car, or if you use the cypher to claim that your book has royal approval, or royal origins, then you will have misused the image and will have action taken against you. Most of the places I have seen the royal emblems have not been when they are in use by royalty. But on the rare occasions I see them used by royalty, I recognise them because of all the other places they are reproduced for my information.

Does this constitute an implicit licence to reproduce-without-disrespect? -- Verbarson  talkedits 10:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

MRC National Institute for Medical Research photos

In Commons:Deletion requests/Brigid M. Balfour photos, I nominated two photos uploaded by SHopkins1 for deletion. Adam Cuerden said that SHopkins1 was an MRC employee and had permission to release the institute's archive before the institute shut down. Years later, when the institute no longer existed and SHopkins1 was no longer active, someone tagged their uploads with Template:No permission since, resulting in them getting deleted. Adam Cuerden said that there were some evidence that SHopkins1 was an employee authorized to upload the images. Firstly, they had access to a lot of material that was not previously publicly available. Secondly, in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mary Lobban.tif, SHopkins1 was acting on behalf of MRC. Thirdly, a second MRC employee, Fnorman-london, also uploaded material from the institute's archive, who had a permission document given to the VTRS team. See File:Martin Rivers Pollock.jpg. Is there any way to have all of SHopkins1's and Fnorman-london's uploads restored? FunnyMath (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Further evidence is User_talk:SHopkins1#Scientist_photos, where SHopkins1, under their former username History_of_Medical_Research, said "Thanks so much for getting the pictures seen! Hopefully we'll get lots more scanned in the coming weeks and months.'" (emphasis mine) This further proves that the images were not previously publicly available. FunnyMath (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
And more evidence: at least two photos uploaded by SHopkins1 (and retouched by Adam Cuerden) were featured pictures. [16], [17] How could copyvios become featured pictures? FunnyMath (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
It's one of the most awkward situations I've seen, an active deletion of an institutional offering. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
From the section "WISWIKI at MRC/NIMR" of a Wikipedia page, it looks like that could have had some connection to a project by Wikimedia UK. Maybe Richard Nevell (WMUK) has more information. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell (WMUK): Any information on this? FunnyMath (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Crikey that was a while ago! Wikimedia UK ran a training event with the NIMR back in 2013. Fnorman-london and SHopkins1 both worked at the NIMR. Fnorman-london was head of the Library & Information Service so had the institutional permission and SHopkins1 was working with him on uploads. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Right! So, massive deletion of institutional uploads. Lovely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell (WMUK): Thank you. I've started an undeletion request for the images. See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_uploaded_by_User:SHopkins1_and_User:Fnorman-london FunnyMath (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

For non-print works, what counts as a copyright notice?

I'm interested in three particular scenarios:

  • 2D artworks: Does the notice have to be part of the artwork itself for it to be valid?
  • Sculptures: Similarly, does a copyright notice have to be embossed on the sculpture, or is a notice on an accompanying plaque enough?
  • Film: For video recordings, does the notice have to be recorded as part of the video? Or is it enough to have a notice on (say) a label on a VHS tape?

Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ixfd64:
For 2D and film I am going to interpret your questions as referring to mass media reproductions. The answer in that case depends on when and where it was published. An easy answer is that after 1978, everything published everywhere gets full copyright term even without notice, and before 1978 knowing place and date of first publication helps.
For sculptures I am not aware of anyone distinguishing notice on a plaque versus on the art itself. If anyone knows more speak up, but I say treat them as the same until and unless someone presents a rule otherwise. In print copyright notice is generally not on the art, but elsewhere in a publication. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. This answers my questions regarding 2D and 3D artworks. I'm not sure what would count as a copyright notice for video recordings, but I guess it would be prudent to treat any sort of copyright notice (even if it's just a label on a videotape) as valid. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe there were rules on that before 1978 in America, which you could review. Of course, it barely matters, since the real rise of videotapes only barely predates 1978.
But it only takes one falure of notice. Hence Night of the Living Dead losing copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/10&oldid=708498978"