Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/03

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

Flickr uploads, invitation only

An Instagram friend uploaded some nice pics and I requested that he share them on Wikipedia. He doesn't want to have to deal with signing up etcetera, so instead he uploaded them to Flickr (cc-by-sa-2.0). One is publicly available, but for the other three photos he gave me private links. Therefore Flickrreviewer cannot find the image; how can I go about to make sure that the licenses of these photos are cleared? See 1992 Ford P100 TD, rear right.jpg for instance. I will be happy to share the private urls with VRT or whichever reviewer can help with this. Thank you, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 04:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If your friend doesn't want to make their images public, then it's seems rather odd (at least to me) that they would be OK with them being uploaded to Commons. They do understand that once their work is uploaded to Commons under an acceptable free license, they won't be able to keep it private any more per se, right? Did you explain to them that CC licenses are non-revocable and the the only ones that Commons accepts basically allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the images at any time to use pretty much any way they want (including commercial and derivative uses) as long as they comply with the terms of the images' licensing. Moreover, any problems with license enforcement are going to need to be sorted out by the copyrighit holder. As for your question about VRT verification, you can ask about it at COM:VRTN, but they might require your friend send them the links by email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
They are fine with that. They didn't want to upload them all in their public stream because the photos do not fit the way they want to present their accounts (doesn't want to show four pictures in a row of the Ford P100). I will go to VRTN. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Louvre pyramid

Would File:Détail d'une des petites pyramides du Louvre (31088931).jpg be a copyvio as France does not have FoP? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably yes, it would, though it does show much of the pyramide. Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Public Domain

Hello, I wanted to know if it is necessary to cite a public domain image if I based on it to make a drawing. And if it is necessary to quote it, how should I do it? Thank you. 181.94.146.228 19:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Attributing as "drawing based on (insert title) by (insert name of artist if known)" and including the date of the public domain work should be sufficient. Abzeronow (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
You don't say necessary for what. If you are uploading to Commons, what Abzeronow says, because that is our rule as a site. In terms of legality, elsewhere? You can do pretty much anything with a public domain image. Acknowledgment is a matter of intellectual honesty, not legality. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
It should be noted that in some jurisdictions, right of authors to be attributed falls under moral rights. https://deakin.libguides.com/copyright-module1/moral-rights Moral rights do not expire. For the OP, here's the English Wikipedia link on moral rights w:Moral rights Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK in most parts of the world you don't have to, with the probable exception of Germany.
"how should I do it?"
Every Wikimedia Commons file has a series of links below the title that say "Download / (World icon) Use this file / (Wikipedia icon) Use this file / Email a link / Information".
The resalted icon generates an attribution that you can use if you need it or want to. Lugamo94 (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Threshold of originality for text

Do we have a general idea of the amount of text needed for copyright protection?

I uploaded File:Mcom-92-340-print-matter-1.png a while ago as it consists only of a title, a list of names and a fairly simple logo. However, a similar file on the English Wikipedia was listed for discussion at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 February 24#File:American Journal of Mathematics (front cover).jpg on the grounds that it might meet the ToO. One user mentioned that it would be similar to a list of API function names, which was ruled copyrightable. Thoughts? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  • It isn't the amount, it's the originality. Ashleigh Brilliant has a self-imposed limit of 17 words for his epigrams; most are rather shorter; and more than one court has upheld their copyrightability. - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    • I see. Would you say the given examples are original enough to meet the ToO? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
      • For that, no. A list of names in alphabetical order is not really copyrightable (unless the selection itself is creative, but not when it's just a list of editors). You can look at the Copyright Compendium; chapter 300 is on the general topic of copyright ability, and chapter 700 deals with literary works in particular. As noted, it is not the amount of text. Per regulations, titles and slogans and short phrases are not copyrightable. Going beyond that, is how much originality and creativity it took to create. A short haiku could be copyrightable, while all the text in a phone company white pages book was ruled to not be copyrightable (Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.). So you have to look at the nature of the text, not the size. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding an image uploaded to Unsplash AND to elsewhere by the original author.

So, I've got this picture, which this website from the Integrated Group of Aquaculture and Environmental Studies (GIA) identifies as Astyanax altiparanae, and I'm currently setting up a page for the fella. (It's a real honker of an article, so I'll probably seek out peer review at some point. The Google Doc itself is 5 pages long.) I'd like to upload the image to Commons for use in the article, and evidence (such as presence on gallery sites) suggests the picture was available for use as early as 2010. The website cited earlier used it in an article from April 2017. The issue arises when the original photo I linked is an Unsplash post from December 2020, which is outside of the noncopyright date range for Unsplash. However, one of the tags is "free images". Given its original availability before the Great Unsplash Copyright Overhaul of 2017, and the fact that the author uploaded it with a "free images" tag, plus its presence on an informational site from ichthyological authorities, is it reasonable to assume that the image is actually free for use? Or should we fear the Wrath of Unsplash? (...Or is it just better to play it safe?) Snugglyaggron (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no clear alternative release, so it does seem that this is an unfortunate casualty of the Unsplash change to terms. The tag 'free images' could apply to the general Unsplash license which although 'free' does not allow all commercial reuse under Creative Commons definitions. It could be that the photographer would be fine with it, so may be worth contacting them to check. --Anstil (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Contacting the photographer is a good idea, so I might try that at some point. My current priority is to get the page itself up for review, however, so I'll see if I can find something under a proper license for commons use. Thanks for your help!
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. -> Snugglyaggron (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Can you clarify, is there any evidence of the photo being shared with a CC or compatible license? Many images get distributed with a range of licenses, and that is not unusual. If there is one valid case of the copyright holder distributing it with a compatible license, then that is all we need. If that is not present, then we do not make assumptions. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
It seems as though it may be best to find a different image, as I can't find an upload under a compatible license. Disappointing, but not at all unexpected. Thank you for your help! -> Snugglyaggron (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Primož Trubar woodcut

Hello. Could someone please check that the information on File:Primož Trubar (woodcut).jpg is provided in accordance with the site terms and that the licence is correct? I've done several changes. I don't think this image is from the 16th century as was initially claimed and the linked page only provides the CC-BY-SA-3.0 DE tag and no information on provenance. There are other files from this collection that may have to be tagged in the same way. Thank you. --TadejM (t/p) 18:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As no one has commented on this, I am also going to implement such or slightly modified attribution and possibly licence change on other file pages in the category. --TadejM (t/p) 19:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Urbiztondo Ordinance no. 1- 2022.pdf

@Turistaboy: posted this as Creative Commons, but I'm seeing a government edict, albeit a local one from the Philipines? Surely those are technically public domain (PD-Edict-Gov)? There isn't an incompatibility either way, but I'd like a clarification before updating the license tag. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree; that's {{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}}; it's not restricted under a Creative Commons sharealike license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it is a government edict. For Philippines the appropriate tag is {{PD-PhilippineGov}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Or {{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}} as indicated above. Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I have a question about File:AzMarie Livingston drawtober 2021.png. The current illustration is a horizontally-mirrored copy of a copyrighted photo (see here), which is featured on IMDB and is credited to "Alan Weissman". Compare the original version of this upload, before it was mirrored horizontally, and note the precise similarities in the pose and lighting. Note, specifically, how the shadow beneath her chin is exactly the same as the original photo.

This supposed copyright issues of this illustration were discussed a couple years a ago here. I'm puzzled as to why an administrator, User:Yann, felt that this illustration was "OK for commons" given that the illustrator, User:Nattes à chat, admitted to using the photo as a basis. It doesn't help that the relevant conversations were all held in French. -- Veggies (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Upgrading of GNU 1.2 Only license to CC3.0

There is a person on Wikimedia who uploaded 1,212 images of classic aircraft about a decade ago, via a Wiki user who placed them on Wikimedia. The man's name is Jon Proctor. He died almost three years ago. The photos on Wikimedia have the old GNU 1.2 Only license, which is very complex when compared to the CC licenses. Mr. Proctor's photos have been in the hands of an aviation organization since his passing. I contacted the organization as I wanted to inform them that Jon's photos are in Wikimedia commons and the license that Jon used is complex and could the organization allow Wikimedia to upgrade the license to the newer CC3.0. They said they'll discuss this with their Attorney. They did so, and I received an email from them today stating that their attorney recommends the upgrading of the license. The organization's name is: World Airline Historical Society (WHAS), and their website is: https://wahsonline.com/. The person who sent me the email, was Tom Livesey, the Board Director of WAHS. I have his telephone number, but cannot disclose it in public. These photographs which are not used due to the GNU 1.2 only license , need to be easier to access for every aviation enthusiast worldwide. You cannot find quality classic airliner photos like Jon Proctor's anywhere these days. He was a master of classic aviation photos. So, as I am not savvy on upgrading licenses, could any one assist to just upgrade the photos to CC3.0 or CC4.0?

Thanks.

Ted 707 Ted 707 (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ted 707: There are a couple of issues here. First, you say the photos are "in the hands of" World Airline Historical Society (WHAS) but what does that mean? There is a difference between ownership of the physical photo and ownership of copyright. Does WHAS own the copyright of the photos? If not, the copyright may be owned by Jon Proctor's estate (often under the control of the next of kin).
Second, if copyright ownership has passed to WHAS, we will need evidence of their agreement of the new licence to be sent to Commons:VRT. If you have email correspondence from them already, that may be sufficient (hard to tell without seeing the content and I am not a VRT member) for you to forward to VRT yourself. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, From Hill To Shore I have contacted the WHAS Board Director, Mr. Livesey, and he would like to get in touch with you directly. He prefers email, or chat. Is that ok with you? Ted 707 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ted 707 Besides the points already raised, you may want to specify if the copyright holder wants the BY or the BY-SA license (any other kind of Creative Commons license -except for CC0- is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons). Lugamo94 (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Lugamo94, I will say to you what I stated above to 'From Hill To Shore. I have contacted the WHAS Board Director, Mr. Livesey, and he would like to get in touch with you directly. He prefers email, or chat. Is that ok with you? Ted 707 (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, but for the sake of clarity, three things: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not American, and I'm not a VTRS member (which is the Wikimedia Commons team that handles verifications), I'm just a community member. If they still want to contact me to explain the differences between the two licenses, you can send me their e-mail via this this link so I can contact them. Greetings. Lugamo94 (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Family member loves cameras, hates computers, how to upload for them?

Good FAQ: Q: My spouse / child / parent / grandparent is good with a camera, but not willing to make their own account and upload I have decided to use my own account to upload, and they think that is great. Also they told me to just pick the default licensing terms too. So what is the proper way to still give them credit somewhere? Jidanni (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jidanni All files require personal attribution, therefore you cannot use your own account to upload photos taken by one of your relatives and licensing it as "own work". You can, however, upload any file licensed under a CC-By/CC-By-SA license and published elsewhere. I suggest you open a Flickr account, put all the photographs taken by your family there, with precise name of each photographer and the correct license, and then upload them to Commons. Skimel (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
It is a bit odd that we trust such a Flickr account more than we trust our own users. Wouldn't the proper way to do this be to authorise an account to upload photos of those photographers? If they have an e-mail account, sending an e-mail to VRT shouldn't be too hard. The user could do the needed handholding. If they don't have an e-mail account, I think a scan of a corresponding authorisation should do. We ought to have an example letter for such authorisation, like we have on individual files on COM:VRT. –LPfi (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
@LPfi I admit I am not familiar with the VRT process. Your solution might be better! Skimel (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

1984 Virginia Yearbook

Looking online to how copyright was handled for Yearbook photos in 1984 in Virginia USA, the best I can find is a vague statement that all Yearbooks Published Before 1989 are Public Domain...but it doesn't elaborate on that, so I'm being cautious here. The yearbook in question was published with no copyright notice (and is on Archive.org who I assume THEY vetted it for copyright but I figure we want to be more careful ourselves here) - would appreciate any help confirming it is not in copyright and also which tag to use. LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@LauraIngallsEvenWilder: Can you share a link to the copy at archive.org? A US yearbook from 1984 with no copyright notice could be {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but one would need to check a few things. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States provides an overview of copyright rules of the United States relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 08:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Uploading a photograph taken by someone recently deceased

My father died recently, but had been meaning to add a photo of the construction of the New Otani Hotel in Tokyo that he took in 1964. I have now uploaded that citing his copyright CC BY-SA 4.0. But I now think I should contact the VRS team about this as I think my mother would now hold the copyright as next of kin. So she should provide her permission to them. Is that right? Gilgongo (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If you had inherited the copyright then you could use the {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}} template. However, if your mother has inherited the copyright then a declaration to Commons:VRT would be wise. In many countries, someone is appointed to manage the estate of the person who has died (even if the management is as simple as saying, "all the possessions are now owned by this other person"). If no one knows who owns the copyright but you have someone who was appointed to manage the estate, you could ask them to make a statement/decision about who now owns the copyright. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
OK thanks. In the UK, the estate of the deceased generally passes to the surviving partner automatically, so I assume that logically includes the ownership of copyright as it does property and finance. I'll see if she can make a declaration to the VRT. Gilgongo (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
If you are not in the UK, other laws might well apply. I believe that in Spain, for example, inheritance passes first to the descendants, if there are no descendants, then to the antecedents, and only the to a surviving spouse. Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Is Bing "Public Domain" search fit for Commons

I found this image under Bing Public Domain search, is it fit for Commons? I followed The Username Policy (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The URL indicates that image of actress w:Apoorva Srinivasan comes from this set of photos hosted on a "Bollywood" site. The website also has a copyright notice, so I'd be skeptical of the Bing bots claiming it's public domain. Muzilon (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that notice, I just wanted to see if there was a photo I could upload of her. I was assuming the copyright was embedded into the image, but I guess I was wrong. I followed The Username Policy (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Any search tool is, at best, "potentially useful". It is not going to pronounce a reliable verdict. - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Public domain images for Wikipedia article?

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the right place but thought I'd bring attention to several public domain images available for Canadian professional wrestler John Katan.

The National Library of New Zealand also has one photo from the Wellington Evening Post (May 4, 1940). The website lists the copyright status under "Some rights reserved" but Template:PD-NZ says photos / works published prior to 1973 are in the public domain. 173.162.220.17 21:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I added the first one as its licenced in the Public Domain, you can use it on wikipedia now..The Toronto one may be free too, i'll look further into that but the NZ one is noncommercial unfortunately... Stemoc 00:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist! 173.162.220.17 19:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ayala Avenue photos

I just noticed one w:en:Ayala Avenue photo was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ayala avenue street scene.jpg. Around a month late. In my understanding, while buildings here are not so trivial, the photo depicts more of the road scene. This is similar to File:Ph-mm-makati-makati cbd-ayala ave. - gt tower eastbound (2015-04) 01.jpg which I requested for undeletion, with that undeletion being successful.

Now there are two different outcomes on the photos of the near-identical scene of Ayala Avenue, which one will prevail? I'm leaning towards requesting for UNDEL for the deleted file but I want a wider input regarding this. Ping the peeps involved in the deletion request as well as the undeletion request: @Taivo, Ikan Kekek, P199, Abzeronow, Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, Clindberg, and Yann: . Also ping a few Pinoy Wikipedians — @Ganmatthew and Inarawan1979: — to judge the undeleted photo (File:Ph-mm-makati-makati cbd-ayala ave. - gt tower eastbound (2015-04) 01.jpg) if the buildings are indeed trivial or incidental. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The photos are really similar. In my opinion deletion was correct and undeletion was incorrect. Taivo (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a lot like one that was deleted. I felt it was borderline on the deleted one, but this shows even more of the building on the left than the deleted photo. I'm inclined towards deletion, but I'm definitely interested in reading what the others have to say on this since I'm not that familiar with Philippines law (and hopefully Philippines gains FoP soon). Abzeronow (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
It's borderline to me. The DR had some reasoning I disagree with -- don't care how much of the photo is taken up by buildings; if each one individually is de minimis or incidental then the photo should be fine. Focusing on one particular building is when it becomes not OK. We always keep cityscape photos, for example, even if they are entirely copyrighted buildings. "Incidental" is when a building (or other work) is unavoidably part of a larger scene. This one... half the photo is one building, so you could argue it is focusing on that, though the other half is the street. I would probably lean keep, as the photo to me seems more of the street than the building. But it doesn't surprise me that we would have divided opinions (and results) on photos like this. If a judge feels the photo is materially enhanced by the design of the foreground building, they could rule otherwise. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
My feeling is either both or neither should be deleted, but the decision should be based on things like the precise language in the relevant legislation, case law and legislative history, and I don't know anything about those fine points. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Case law on photos of buildings being ruled derivative is exceedingly rare (I doubt there is any in the Philippines). (Which is probably why this type of deletion is on the unpopular side.) I can't see the deleted one, of course. There is probably no way to really know. In general, for all cases I'm aware of anyways, the copyrighted subject was either the obvious focus of the photograph, or was intentionally included by the photographer for effect. It's that latter aspect which is the question here, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
My opinion is that neither applies/applied to the two photos in question. It's a street scene that includes buildings, none of which was the focus. I don't really know how to interpret "effect," as the buildings (or, more properly, parts of them) are part of the scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
One example case that I recall was one of a fashion shoot, where the photographer had the model wear a pair of (very) fancy glasses. The glasses turned out to be copyrighted, and since the purpose was to enhance the photograph (it was not "incidental" at all), it was derivative. Basically, the expression of the glasses enhanced the expression of the photo, and it was all under control of the photographer. A snapshot of a person walking down a street who happened to be wearing those same glasses, would almost certainly be "incidental". Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
That is an interesting case. Which country was it adjudicated in? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
It was a U.S. case. Been a while since I've been able to find the actual reference, though somewhere years back I did have a link, and posted it somewhere here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Both pictures should have the same decision, as there are very similar. Yann (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that both pictures should have the same decision whether it be deletion or undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Although the title of the image is "Ayala Avenue", obviously the asphalt that is literally the Avenue is not the reason for the photo. We have a nondescript car, bus, and scooter and the buildings lining both sides, all of which are copyrighted. Without the buildings there would be no reason to keep the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Nah, the interesting part to me is probably the vegetation and divider as well. It'd still be plenty useful if you blurred the foreground building. The rest of the buildings are definitely fine; it's not derivative of anything other than that first one on the left (if even that). A photo of a street (prominently including a copyrighted building at the end) was the exact case that a French court ruled was OK ("theory of the accessory" or something like that). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't really invalidate DM, though. Pretty much every single building in La Défense is copyrighted, and without them there would be no skyline, but we accept photos of the La Défense skyline anyways. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Since the orientation of this thread is more of DM, I took the liberty to request the deleted photo's undeletion, as well as the restoration of one more Ayala Avenue photo, File:Wiki ayala.JPG, at COM:UNDEL#File:Wiki ayala.JPG. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

CCTV and public domain

Hi everyone. I wanted to ask particularly about this template which says "CCTV, dashcam, and bodycam footage has no creative input" and therefore is in the public domain. Is this something related to a country's law or is it something globally accepted on Commons? HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyright in CCTV footage would typically be owned by the organization that created it. It is NOT automatically in the public domain.
(Aside) There are also issues of privacy rights if using extracts in which specfic indviduals can be clearly identified.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00 Thanks. So I assume files like this or this are problematic? There are also many other files using this template. I think if there is a problem with Template:PD-CCTV, then we should consider deleting that template. Right? HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The template should be revised and files using it re-evaluated certainly. Bear in mind I am based in the UK, and thus my views on copyright matters might not be a global view.
In respect of the specific media you link, the second example seems to have formed part of an official press release, and thus it would be under whatever license the govt agency obtained/released it under. Almost certainly 'fair-use' on a local project, but without a specfic 'free' license, not necessarily compatible with Commons automatically.
The video you linked, would most likely need a specific VTRS, it seems to be privately held footage, and it's not clear if the uploader is also the copyright holder.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@HeminKurdistan and ShakespeareFan00: In the United States, most CCTV, dashcam, and bodycam footage are almost certainly in the public domain. I'm not sure about the UK and other specific countries, although it is a common feature of copyright laws in much of the world to require creative authorship from a human in order to have copyright protection. See en:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices for more detailed discussion. Nosferattus (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Mrmw recently converted the 1901 Burberry logo to SVG format:

The files were tagged for speedy deletion. {{PD-textlogo}} clearly does not apply.

In the US, the 1901 logo should be public domain because Burberry would have published the logo ca 1901.

I do not know what to do for the UK copyright. If the author were unknown, then {{PD-UK-unknown}} would have applied in 1971. However, the author should be known to Burberry. Is there a corporate author expiration date in the UK? Is there a 120-year presumption? Glrx (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that you can use {{PD-old-assumed}} tag. Ruslik (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@Glrx: There is no "corporate author" in the UK, authors are always human beings accd. to UK law. If the logo is indeed from 1901 though (is there evidence for this? It says somewehere that the logo was trademarked in 1909), you can use PD-old-assumed as already suggested. --Rosenzweig τ 09:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
1901 seems to be correct accd. to [1]. --Rosenzweig τ 09:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
And this (via [2]) was probably the original drawing. --Rosenzweig τ 09:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
If the author was publicly named before 1972, then it may have a longer UK term. If not, finding out the author now wouldn't change anything; it would remain PD. At the time, anonymous works were 50 years, so it's probably been PD there since 1952 and was not restored in 1996 (again, depending on the author being publicly known or not). Should not be speedy deletion, though. Pretty clearly not a straight copy, so there is nothing obvious about it. But I'd say the original image is fine; only question is if later expression was added by Burberry and was copied in the SVGs. But that would need evidence and be in a regular DR. From what I see at first glance, they seem to be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig, Clindberg, and Mrmw:
The problem with {{PD-UK-unknown}} was that it wants a description of the efforts to identify the author. I presumed Burberry would know the author.
The https://www.burberryplc.com/en/company/unmistakably-burberry/equestrian-knight.html and https://us.burberry.com/c/our-history/ state the logo was the result of a public competition, and the winning entry was inspired by 13th and 14th century armor at the Wallace collection. So Burberry must know the author. Presumably, Burberry announced the winner ca 1901, so the author would have been publicly identified before 1972. Glrx (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
1912 USPTO trademark registration: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:73807z.6.1 Glrx (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
That link has expired. This one should hopefully last. --Rosenzweig τ 20:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Per that entry, the trademark was apparently first registered and commercially used on July 23, 1909 in the UK. --Rosenzweig τ 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, here is the UK trademark. --Rosenzweig τ 21:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The first time I found it pictured in a newspaper ad was in this 1913 Canadian newspaper ad. Though the Burberry label was mentioned before that. I didn't find it in English newspaper ads before 1916. --Rosenzweig τ 20:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@Glrx: You could try emailing press.office@burberry.com and customerservice@burberry.com. I doubt they will provide a useful response, but at least then you could say you tried. Nosferattus (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Frankly, I think for a logo this famous, the designer (if known) would be findable with a Google search, which it looks like you have done. The company itself did not bother to name an author on their pages on the subject. If an author only became known now, it would not change the copyright status. I would link those two histories, but I'm fine with PD-UK-unknown. And given the 1901 date, PD-old-assumed too. Definitely OK in the U.S. The SVG can still have copyrightable details unto itself, so that should have whatever license the uploader wanted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
{{PD-old-assumed-expired}} apply for these, whatever are the details. We don't know the details, and that's why we have this template. Yann (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about Creative Commons

We have a website, which says on its footer "All Content by this website are published under Creative Commons 4.0 International License" (translated into English). Can we assume that it is licensed with cc-by-4.0? Please note that none of the words Attribution, ShareAlike, NonCommercial or NoDerivs are mentioned in the footer. HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes although the text is ambiguous, it is linked to a specific license. Any such luck? Felix QW (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is only text, no link to the license is available. Do we have any default assumption? HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately (but sensibly), the default assumption in Commons is Commons:Precautionary principle, and the only safe assumption is that "Creative Commons 4.0 International License" means CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, just because no stricter CC license exists.
Contacting the web owners may help them to actually choose a license, which may be free enough for Commons or not.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. Looks like absence of these words is more significant that I thought. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Image of Ken Money credited to NASA - would it be applicable to PD-USGov-NASA?

Hey, recently Canadian astronaut w:Ken Money died. His wikipedia page has no image and he never did a space flight. The Canadian Space Agency posted some images online including this one on Twitter (https://twitter.com/csa_asc/status/1633226681988046849/photo/1). The other photo is credited to "NASA". Is this sufficient for a a PD-USGov-NASA tag? Thanks - Caddyshack01 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there an official NASA source for the image? Dcs002 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I have tried searching the NASA video and image library (https://images.nasa.gov/) and can not find it. Money was active from 1983-1992, so the image may not be digitized by NASA? - Caddyshack01 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Without any proof, the image may be one of these non-digitized images from the National Archives (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/203236251) or (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/203236250). - Caddyshack01 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
since image is very similar to Roberta Bondar (same i'd say taken teh same day), I say its fine, just write NASA in the source area Stemoc 21:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Two 1975 arcade advertisements

I'm interested in uploading pre-1978 Atari and Midway advertisements. They don't seem to include a copyright notice. Would it be possible to upload them? Lugamo94 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure looks like it, {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Lugamo94 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

CC BY applicable or not: can I upload this image?

I would like to upload this image used by Huntley (2019: 34), with the statement "After Burgess et al. 2004, map used with permission". Please download its PDF version and you will find CC BY with remarks "Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (...) The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material" at page 42, i.e. the end of the article. These two statements are tormenting me and I am not sure whether I can upload the image here under CC BY. Burgess et al. (2004), copyrighted work with no known CC licenses, is available at ResearchGate and I have found a possibly corresponding map at page [20] from which Huntley apparently took only their concept with very limited part of the whole map and arranged in a somewhat different style. Can't we infer that CC BY is applicable to the image since the authorship of the image now fully belongs to Huntley and the permission Burgess et al. gave him also includes their acceptance of the licensing, or since their essential concept of the map itself is free of copyright restriction? --Eryk Kij (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

JSTOR "free" content

JSTOR has a lot of early material with the headline "free to anyone in the world", but when you read down it says this for non-commercial purposes, so not free by Commons standards. The original sources for this material are generally clealy PD. For example I have uploaded this file from an 1831 article by an author who died in 1863: File:Map of Marocco Washington 1831.jpg, from https://archive.org/details/jstor-1797664. I've used the template Licensed-PD-Art, which passes through the JSTOR restriction and also states the WM disclaimer. Is the the most appropriate way to deal with this? Thanks Kognos (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, that's exactly how I would have tagged in this situation. Felix QW (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory PD claims

The license template of File:Henry Scott Tuke - Beach Study.jpg is a bit confusing: “It is also in the public domain in the United States for the following reason: This work is not in the public domain in the United States.” I guess it makes some sense to experienced Commons editors but random readers will certainly find it baffling. --Geohakkeri (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That US tag was only added to that page in 2022. The image was uploaded under PD-old-70, which it was, and at a time that the URAA law was under debate (and a pending Supreme Court decision), so many folks were not deleting if that was the only reason to delete. The original upload simply didn't mention the US status at all -- just PD-Art, and PD-old-70, which it was and is. However it is apparently a 1928 painting, so if true then yes it did get restored in 1996 in both the UK and the US, and has since re-expired in the UK but won't in the US until next year. It had been PD in both countries for years before that (UK was previously 50pma, so it had been PD there since 1980). The URAA policy is that we don't delete if an allegation of URAA restoration is the only reason; you have to show at least a significant doubt that it was in fact restored. The painting was exhibited in 1928, though if it had been published in 1927 it would be OK now. The file page just says "circa 1928", not a definite date. We should probably delete until next year, but there are admins who dislike deleting under the URAA so still don't, so you will still see many of those works still around (although some tagged Not-PD-US-URAA are probably inaccurate; nobody has wanted to systemically go through them). This one probably escaped attention until that 2022 edit, and is near the time where it will be moot. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Good summary! Hekerui (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Illustrations from The Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee

There is a book titled The Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee. It is an English translation of a Chinese text from some hundreds of years ago, featuring illustrations that are universally described as "after an old Chinese woodcut." If these illustrations are not already in the public domain, it may be further relevant that the book was originally published in 1949 (in postwar Japan) and, in the 1976 Dover edition, there doesn't seem to be a copyright notice. My question is -- may we assume that the illustrations, specifically, in this text are acceptable for Wikimedia Commons? (Either as copies of public domain art or as published in a public domain book.) RexSueciae (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If the illustrations are faithful reproductions of the Chinese woodcut, than they are in public domain. Woodcut can be considered sort of 2D work. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
If the illustrations are a copy of the original, that's fine. If the illustrations are redrawing the originals, then they would almost certainly have a new copyright. It's very hard to tell the difference without comparing the two. Wikipedia says "The translation features nine drawings, three copies from old Chinese art, and six illustrations by the author", presumably van Gulik.
Van Gulik's copyright would have been in effect in Japan until 1967+51 and thus would have been restored in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk)
Ah well. Thanks for the insight. I don't think that on the balance of things I can definitively place these images as public domain -- even the supposed copies look very much like van Gulik's illustrations -- so those images are staying off Commons for now, I guess. (Pity. There aren't many images of Di Renjie out there.) RexSueciae (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Gide - The Vatican Swindle.pdf

Hi, I would like confirmation that this is OK. The translator is British, and died less less than 70 years ago, but this was published in USA before 1928. Otherwise it should be moved to Wikisource. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If first published in the U.S., then the U.S. is the country of origin despite it not being PD inside the UK. The French author of the original died in 1951 it looks like, so that copyright expired last year. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't find a UK edition of this book, but I found 2 US editions, one in 1925 an one in 1928. Yann (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
It would make sense to verify whether the 1925 book was first published in the U.S. or not. If not, a copyright violation. Hekerui (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The 1925 edition was certainly published in the US, as the uploaded pdf copy shows. It also claims full copyright and does not indicate anywhere that it is a republication.
Furthermore, a 1962 academic text on the subject names two publication events, both in the USA and the first this 1925 text. So in my eyes this should be fine. Felix QW (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I don't see evidence of publication overseas that would predate the U.S. publication of the book. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

1978 Notre Dame ticket stub

I'm interested in using this image (or a new scan I can make myself) on Wikipedia. Ticket stub with color photograph.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230312191852/https://i.imgur.com/uj0JfsN.jpg

It's a ticket stub produced by the University of Notre Dame. It's a 1978 ticket stub and the photo must have been taken in 1978 as well. There is no copyright notice on the photograph or ticket stub.

Is there any chance this can be used? I'm unsure of the relevant rules for these years and this kind of "publication". Thanks.

PK-WIKI (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The bigger question would be if the five trophies pictured are protected by copyright in the United States. There's no freedom of panorama in the United States for 3-D works, and COM:DW would require us to ascertain that those five trophies are in the public domain because the photo on the ticket is a derivative work. Supposing the trophies were not copyrighted and the ticket made available to members of the public and sold (which it would have to have been, given that it's a ticket stub), then yes, it would have been published in 1978 and would likely be in the public domain in the United States per COM:HIRTLE. However, I'm not sure of the copyright status of those trophies, so I don't have a definite answer here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how to determine if those trophies (created in the 1950s/60s) would be under copyright for this matter? Links to similar past discussion?
PK-WIKI (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
If they were all created prior to 1964, you can check to see if a copyright was ever registered for the trophy or if the copyright was subsequently renewed (the online records collection from the U.S. copyright office can help for finding original registrations, and renewals filed post-1978 are all available through the Library of Congress). If any of the trophies were published in 1964 or beyond, we'd need to check the physical trophy to see if there was a valid copyright notice written or engraved somewhere on it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I have already asked this question at the help desk, but another user suggested I come here to be sure.
I would like to request clarification for what is stated in {{PD-chem}}- are structural chemical formulas by default ineligible for copyright and thus in the public domain? Could I therefore copy a structural formula drawing (i.e. from here), and upload it to commons, with proper attribution? The example given here is not explicitly in the public domain.

Thank-you, Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Children's homework

It appears that the files in Category:Homework in Mexico are children's homework. Assuming that the uploader is the photographer, we have his permission for the photos. However, are the children who wrote these essays copyright holders from whom we need to get permission in order for these files to be hosted on Commons? Marbletan (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the photographs are clearly derivative of the pupils' homework, which is copyrighted by the pupils. So in my opinion we would need permission from the pupils (or their guardians) to host this material. Felix QW (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Since the children are probably not yet of age (usually 18), they cannot give permission,l so permission MUST come from their parents or guardians. Martinvl (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore, there might be serious privacy issues. I don't know about privacy laws in Mexico, but in Europe a lecturer wouldn't be allowed to publish the names of their adult students without permission. Here we are dealing with essays on quite sensitive topics undersigned with their full name by their authors, who happen to be minors.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I say speedy delete as copyright violation on the basis that the authors (students who created the work) are not credited and did not clearly give license, and I have to wonder if a teacher publishing their students' work, even if anonymized (which it's not), is legal in Mexico. It's exploitation IMO. Dcs002 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, I have nominated these files for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Homework in Mexico. Thanks, all, for your input. Marbletan (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this and taking care of it. I might be overreacting, but this feels pretty egregious to me, involving identifiable minors and claiming authorship for their work. Maybe the professor never claimed authorship. Maybe someone here simply attributed it. I dunno, but thank you! Dcs002 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
If it passes the threshold of originality, the child would own the copyright. There is no age limit for copyright (though only their parents can license it). As mentioned in the Compendium II] (section 503.01), Registration does not depend on artistic merit or aesthetic value. For example, a child's drawing may exhibit a very low level of artistic merit and yet be entitled to registration as a pictorial work. The professor would have needed to get permission from the parents to publicize these under a free license, I think. Schools would have some fair use rights over them, but not that far. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know the laws specific to Mexico, but in the US it's a violation of federal law (FERPA) to make public a student's work (child or adult student, primary school or university) with very few exceptions, such as to show it to the class as an example of good work, or to celebrate an excellent accomplishment, and that's only within the academic setting, not in the public. The school where I work has signed consent from all parents to use images of their children in school projects and for promotion of the school, but that's it. The rules are very tight. In the US this would be a violation on academic privacy grounds. I don't know whether that is germane to this case though. I know Wikimedia is bound by US copyright law, but I don't think laws such as FERPA apply. The violator of that law wouldn't be Wikimedia. It would be the instructor, if the violation occurred in the US. Dcs002 (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

自分の写真が掲載されていた

その写真はとても記念になるので、譲ってほしい。 Junkosu (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyright for photos on public domain art - 2D vs 3D

Hi!

In Denmark a proposed law based on an European Union directive is currently in hearing process: https://hoeringsportalen.dk/Hearing/Details/67272

One of the things they want to make clear is that photos of art in PD is not protected by copyright (article 14 in the DSM directive).

Thats all good and that matches {{PD-art}}.

However as an example of what is no protected they mention a photo of an ancient sculpture (3D):

Dansk: "Et eksempel herpå kunne eksempelvis være den situation, hvor en kulturarvsinstitution har delt et generisk fotografi af en oldtidsskulptur, som en bruger ønsker at dele på sin egen hjemmeside."
English: "An example of this could be the situation where a cultural heritage institution has shared a generic photograph of an ancient sculpture that a user wants to share on their own website."

Does anyone know more about that? --MGA73 (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

From the article International copyright relations of Russia:

With the accession of the Soviet Union to the UCC, Soviet works published on or after May 27, 1973 became eligible to copyright in all other signatory countries of the UCC.

Does this imply that Soviet works published before that date are not eligible to copyright in all other signatory countries of the UCC?

I see no mention of this in Commons:Copyright tags/Country-specific tags. Synotia (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Russia has since retroactively restored works, and the URAA retroactively restored some of those works in the US even if they were published before 1973, since the U.S. had also now joined the Berne Convention (as has Russia and all successor nations), which does not allow the formalities (copyright notice etc.) that the UCC did. So... that is probably moot in most countries now, and definitely the U.S., although not sure there have been explicit test cases for it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
See also earlier discussion at Commons:Village pump#Soviet-era copyright. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Because there were already several stills from other older Italian films on Commons, I uploaded some from the film Arabian Nights, some of which I used for Wikipedia articles. Now there seems to be a problem with these uploads. Can anyone tell me if there is indeed a problem? According to my interpretation of Italian copyright rules there is not. A I wronɠ? @Judithcomm Judithcomm (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The stills may be out of copyright in Italy... but are they out of copyright in the USA (where Commons is hosted)? Muzilon (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift reply, but could someone please answer this question for me? Stills from Italian films of 1974 are uploaded all the time and not just by me. --Judithcomm (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
This discrepancy of US and other countries copyright is one of the most difficult and unsolved issues on Commons. The Anne Frank diary was deleted per this ruling of the Wikimedia Foundation, in PD in Europe since 2016. You can also read the URAA statement. Sorry, this is not of any help in this particular case. If somebody bites in your uploads and writes a rationale to delete the images from the US servers perhaps they will be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellywa (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Italian law gives film stills a copyright of 20 years from creation, even if the film itself is copyrighted for far longer. The U.S. question is, would it use the URAA to determine that the film still was public domain in Italy in 1996 and thus not restored, or would it use the copyright for the film which would be far far longer (2070). If there was a copyright notice on the film, then the URAA would be moot as the U.S. copyright would have never gone away. I don't think there has been a test case for this particular and odd situation, but I'm sure we have some files uploaded under that theory. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The film is available online (somewhere) and does have a 1974 copyright notice in the opening credits. Muzilon (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
In that case, the license tags which claim the movie was published without a copyright notice are incorrect. The stills would be under U.S. copyright until 2070. In the rest of the EU, if they follow the film copyright, the end date is not known yet (one of the writers is still alive, so her life plus 70 years). If a still is just based on the cinematographer's life, then 2078. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
So I guess the stills will have to be removed from Commons. Too bad. --Judithcomm (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@Judithcomm Actually still frames of 1974 Italian films can be uploaded per {{PD-1996}}{{PD-Italy}}. The URAA limit date is then 1976 (1996-20). I don't see any issue. Ruthven (msg) 15:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ruthven: PD-1996 does not apply if the work had a copyright notice and was published 1964 or later, since copyright was never lost and the URAA did not need to restore it. Which is the case here. These are copyrighted in the U.S. for many decades yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg But the US are not the country of first publication. Thus the copyright was lost in 1994 for these still frames. In other words, what happens if I publish in the US a public domain still frame in 2020? I agree that URAA law makes no sense outside US (how it is possible that a foreign country influences another copyright law?) and is difficult to deal with. Ruthven (msg) 16:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Even if the US are not the country of first publication, foreign citizens could sometimes acquire US copyright by affixing a valid copyright notice to their work. This is explained in more detail in en:Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights#Subsisting copyrights. Felix QW (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The film has copyright entries in the LoC's U.S. Copyright Catalog (not technically possible to share a direct link here, but do a search for Reg. No. PA0000062847). Apparently registered for U.S. copyright 4-Sep-1979, renewed 22-Mar-2002, with a note that the original Italian copyright is 1974. Muzilon (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Which means any copyright violations are subject to automatic damages per infringement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ruthven: The copyright expired in Italy in 1994, but likely no other countries, since most others treat film stills as the same term as the film itself (unless maybe they use the rule of the shorter term for this case). Usage in those countries would then be copyright infringement. Commons policy is to require PD in the country of origin, which is Italy, and also the US (since we are a US hosted service). This fails the US side of that policy, since they have never lost their US copyright, which will last until 2070 (and even longer in the rest of the EU). PD-1996 is there under the assumption that a copyright notice was not used, and so the work had lost copyright, but was only restored by the URAA. That is often true, but films and books more commonly did have them, so you do need to be more careful about it. The PD-1996 tag, in its bullet points, requires that a copyright notice was not present to use that tag. The US does not use the rule of the shorter term; they use their own term always. It's possible for a work to expire in one country, but the rights still exist in others. In this case, they are fine to use in Italy, but not the rest of the EU (unless one of them has a similar exception for film stills which I don't remember any others having), and definitely not the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I note that another still from this movie is currently the subject of a deletion nomination here. Muzilon (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about Flickr user Alabama Extenstion

Hello. I recently encountered some photographs uploaded to Commons that are from the Alabama Extension Flickr account. On first glance, they would seem ok to upload (they're marked with CC0). Upon looking in a bit more, however, it appears to be the compilation of the work of several different photographers: this file on Commons is attributed to Janet Guynn on Flickr; this image on Commons is attributed to Bruce Dupree on Flickr; this image on Commons is attributed to Margaret Barse on Flickr; et cetera. Looking in more, Alabama Extension appears to be this cooperative, but their website claims copyright on the content that's posted on it and says "All Rights Reserved." I'm a bit confused as to how to handle files uploaded from this account; does anyone have advice? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It would appear all three people you named are staff members of the Alabama Cooperative Extension System[3][4][5], so their photos would seem to be works for hire, meaning they should have the right to license them. It's understandable if the main website is not licensed, if they only want particular photos licensed. But if the photos come from further sources, it could be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you for your help on this! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Second Life

Can I get a second opinion on whether https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy constitutes a valid license? I tagged a bunch of Second Life files in Category:Ballet Pixelle Chimera that were tagged as own-work but IMO were clearly not as missing permission, and the uploader reverted me after a brief discussion at User talk:Pppery#SL Photo-License, pointing to that as permission. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a license to capture and to use, but I don't see re-use covered. Last I heard (and this was maybe 8 or so years ago) Linden Labs was trying to claim copyright on all works within their grid, regardless of who created them, and that was not at all established as valid, nor, at the time, did it seem likely to be. They simply declared they owned the copyright to everything within Second Life, no matter who created it, which obviously upset the content creators. This looks like a bone they threw to them, licensing limited use of content that might not belong to them in the first place. They don't have a great record with respect to other people's intellectual property, and claiming to license something that isn't theirs seems about par. In any case, this policy statement doesn't seem to do anything for us because, as I understand, a license has to be valid for re-use, not just use, as well as licensing property that they actually own. Dcs002 (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
TOS SL 2.5 .... " you hereby grant other users a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to photograph .... and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display," ...etc. - BTW It is spelled Linden Lab, not Linden Labs. Peli (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyrighted art / free MTA licensing

Hi all --

Bringing this query here as it's come up several times now, and there seems to be some confusion. The MTA in New York has a large public art collection and regularly commissions artists to create new murals, sculptures, video work, and other art for the subway system. The MTA also has a Flickr account where they publish images of the art in the system, along with pictures of the artists designing, constructing, and posing with the art. They release their images under CC-BY-2.0, so theoretically they are usable on Commons. But the artists themselves do not seem to have released the copyright for the underlying artworks, meaning the MTA doesn't really have the right to publish with that free license. I've been able to find no documentation of any artists releasing their rights to these works. Images from this Flickr account have been uploaded to Commons several times, and several have also been deleted for the issue I'm raising. But there doesn't seem to be a consensus on these photographs, as many editors get very defensive of these images when they're nominated for deletion. Could someone help clarify if this type of image - derivative works ostensibly freely licensed by a public institution but have no evidence of the underlying copyright having been released - should in fact be deleted? Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

To me it seems plausible that the Flickr license applies to the photograph rather than the underlying work. In absence of a transfer of copyright agreement, the only way I can see the MTA having the authority to license the image including the derivative aspect is if the mural were created as a work for hire, but that seems unlikely for a commission from an established artist. Felix QW (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm trying to transfer the logo of Green Party faction in the German parliament (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Bundestagsfraktion_B%C3%BCndnis_90-Die_Gr%C3%BCnen_Logo.svg) onto Commons, but I'm unsure what license to choose and what is appropriate / allowed.

Background that might help: There are already other similar logos on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=B%C3%BCndnis+90%2FDie+Gr%C3%BCnen&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image. The logos of the other factions are also there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Logo+Bundestagsfraktion&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image.

Any idea what's the right way to do this? Thanks in advance! OpenHypervideo (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Green party logo is more complex than that of the other party factions already on Commons. In particular, the flower on the right hand side of the logo may well reach the threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe) to be eligible for copyright. In that case, we couldn't host it on Commons unless the copyright holder releases it with a suitable free license. Felix QW (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
We do have other versions of the logo on Commons though, so it would make sense for there to be some consensus on whether that flower icon reaches the German threshold of originality or not. Felix QW (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and thoughts. The point that there are also other versions of the logo on Commons which include the flower made me assume that it might be ok. Would it help if the Bundestag faction as the copyright holder uploaded the logo themselves? OpenHypervideo (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
If the copyright holder emails their COM:CONSENT to COM:VRT, then that would make the logo OK for Commons. Anyone could upload it if the copyright holders do that. If the copyright holder would rather upload the file themselves, they can and then use COM:RELGEN for verification purposes. The copyright holder can even publish a version of the logo on one of their official websites under a free license that Commons accepts as explained here, and then anyone could upload the logo. If, however, the copyright holder doesn't want to do any of those things, then the file will most likely be unacceptable for Commons regardless of who uploads it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

TASS / Bundesarchiv image

I am confused about this image and its copyright status. It seems by the description that copyright is not in fact with the Bundesarchiv, but lay with the Soviet news agency TASS, and that it was first published in Russia. According to the header text at Category:Images from TASS and {{PD-Russia-1996}}, it should be public domain in Russia and the US. So shouldn't we really undelete the higher-quality intermediate revisions, unless they show original creative input from the Bundesarchiv? Felix QW (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I have just seen that the image is credited by the Bundesarchiv to Gutjahr, apparently a staff photographer of the Wehrmacht and not TASS. So it would not be public domain in Russia after all. Felix QW (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Scans of ancient books

User:MY, Japan would like to discuss the copyright of scans of 700 years old books like File:SBL001 詩〔集傳〕.pdf (see DR). After 220+ deletion requests I blocked their file page access temporarily. --Achim55 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Claiming a copyright on what appear to be public domain books is simply copyfraud. Yann (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Technically they are not claiming copyright. They claim a violation of the terms of use of their database. Since Commons is not accessing their database, but merely hosting content that seems to be in the public domain, I don't see how that would be a reason for deletion. TilmannR (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

uploads by Px820

they(Px820 (talk · contribs) are import the web site ( px820.onmitsu.jp ). the web site claim "当HPの画像、内容は転載、リンク自由！営利、非営利問わず無断で使っても問題なし！" (mean; reprint is free. Permitted for profit and non-profit.). that declaration to waive rights ? I think that derived work is not permitted. --eien20 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Airline's new logo question

Hello, recently an airliner in Japan changed its logo [6]. It is also shown in their home page here and I am thinking of uploading this found on the bottom of the 2nd link. Will this violate the copyright for the airline? Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 04:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Has the old logo been uploaded to Commons? Ruslik (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ruslik0 Yes, it is uploaded. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 12:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I actually expected a wikilink. Ruslik (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
[7] sorry, here's the link. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 22:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The new logo is slightly more complicated. So, it is going to be a close call. Ruslik (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I am asking for guidance and advice about the copyright of United States, state court documents. I am anticipating that court documents from California and Florida are Wikimedia Commons compatible due to being public domain, but wanted to check in here first in case anyone had guidance.

I have these documents

  • United States
  • court / judicial / legal documents
  • high profile cases in marriage, of interest to LGBT+ history
  • from states (not federal or central government)

I have perhaps 300 of these for various states. I want to get a sample collection of these into the Wikimedia Commons + Wikidata + Wikisource ecosystem, but I do not need to get them all here to do the project.

The situation is that per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States, while federal works are public domain, "This does not include governments of the individual states". Exceptions are many documents from the states of California, Florida, and Massachusetts.

I am comfortable uploading sample documents then coming back here to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright for feedback until I get confirmation that what I am doing is compliant, but before I being, I wanted to ask if anyone knew of a precedent for this or had advice.

Questions -

  1. Does anyone know of a United States, state-court, legal document collection in Commons? I checked Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal) to find uses of state licensing tags. I did not see anything. I checked Category:Government of Florida, Category:Law of Florida, Category:Government of Massachusetts, Category:Law of Massachusetts, Category:Government of California, and Category:Law of California but do not see court documents. I would not be surprised if there were no such documents in Commons, as Commons editors rarely have a need for such documents.
  2. Does anyone know of any model, well-categorized legal document collection for any country in Commons? I see Category:United States Supreme Court cases which has good content but is also kind of a mess. I can work with it, but I want to know if anyone knows of a more organized collection anywhere.
  3. Does anyone know a Commons contributor whom I might ping for collaboration? I do not know anyone enthusiastic about court case documents. I could ping people who have done prior uploads, but wanted to ask here if anyone knew anyone.


Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The works of all state and local governments, to the extent that they are considered edicts, are public domain per {{PD-EdictGov}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD-GermanGov-currency

This template, created in 2012, claims that This image depicts a unit of currency issued by Germany. It is believed to be in the public domain (under § 5 Abs.1 UrhG) as an official work issued by a German federal or state authority, or by a predecessor state.

That was what was assumed for a while, but after discussions, that changed, and COM:CUR Germany now says "Currency: Not OK except for Deutsche Mark bank notes." plus some more details.

So this template is horribly outdated yet constantly being applied to new uploads of all kinds showing German currency where it does not apply, and something should be done. Either

In either case a cleanup would be necessary: change to another suitable license tag for those files which are in the PD (for example because the designer died over 70 years ago and there is also no URAA problem), nominate the rest for deletion.

Are there thoughts / opinions on how to proceed? --Rosenzweig τ 12:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you outlined the situation well, and which option to go for depends on how much we trust the rationale behind the remaining use case. Do you understand the reasoning applied to Deutsche Mark banknotes? COM:CUR Germany mentions a "permission" which may or may not be sufficient, and the linked reference provides what I would consider an acceptable attribution clause, but only for the images on the Geldscheinsammlung (which don't actually included any post-1949 notes as far as I can see). Felix QW (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@Felix QW: Supposedly there was a statement to that effect by Deutsche Bundesbank 11 years ago that was also archived as an OTRS ticket. Currently the site of their coin and banknote collection (Münz- und Geldscheinsammlung) is here, and there they offer a kind of attribution license: „Die Nutzung der Abbildungen ist kostenfrei.“ (The use of the images is free of charge.) and „Werden diese Abbildungen publiziert, muss als Quelle "Deutsche Bundesbank, Frankfurt am Main" angegeben werden.“ (When publishing these images, "Deutsche Bundesbank, Frankfurt am Main" must be credited as the source.) They also say that because Deutsche Mark banknotes are not legal tender anymore, all protections in criminal law they formerly enjoyed do not apply anymore, and therefore showing / printing / reproducing them is ok as far as criminal law is concerned. They don't say anything about copyright. Since the bank produced these banknotes and certainly had exclusive usage rights for that purpose, one could argue though that them offering images of the notes free of charge (and apparently to be used by anyone) means that they allow their use for all purposes. They would „begrüßen“ (welcome) it if one refrained from certain types of reproductions (especially those on paper that come very close to the actual banknotes), but the way that is worded it's more a request. So they apparently have nothing against reproductions of DM banknotes and even offer high quality images for free, but it's not a dedicated public domain license or something like that. --Rosenzweig τ 15:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

B&W photo of anonymous work of art

I was contemplating uploading a (cropped and straightened) version of this image of the full-rigged ship Cypromene from State Library of Victoria (SLV), Australia: [8], cat entry at [9] has "No copyright restrictions apply. This work is out of copyright", so I assume that is acceptable from an AUS point of view.

But what about USA? The uploaded photo seems to be a faithful reproduction of the original photo in an album. That original photo (assessed by SLV as from 1885-1946) is of a pre-existing work of art, but I have not found any definite information about that artwork, eg medium or age. I assume that the original photo is acceptable as such, although in monochrome, as it must be pre-1946, so using technology generally available at the time. But what about the original artwork? The ship was built in 1878, and had that appearance and name only until 1904 when converted to an oil barge - generally, such illustrations were made of visiting ships at the time, but I suppose that cannot be guaranteed. Davidships (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That is definitely a pre-1946 work. It looks like it came from the late Victorian or early Edwardian periods, and I'd say as far as the United States goes, that was definitely published before 1928. Abzeronow (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Ludwigsplatz_Heidelberg.jpg

When this file was uploaded to German wikipedia in 2009, it was not certain that it was old enough to be transferred to Commons. The date is "around 1910" and it must pre-date 1918, when the equestrian statue in the centre of the image was torn down. So it is now over a hundred for certain (happy birthday photo!). Can it be transferred to Commons? Furius (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

see Template:PD-old-assumed.
120 years from now makes 1903, so in seven years we will have 1910
--Goesseln (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Logo for web page.png

I've got a couple of questions about File:Logo for web page.png. First, since this apparently is the logo for the en:Fort Bend Independent School District per this, it probably could use a more descriptive name that what it was given by its uploader. Any problem with using {{Rename media}} to have this moved to File:Fort Bend Independent School District logo.png or something similar? Next, this is almost certainly not the uploader's "own work", but seems like it might be {{PD-logo}}. Anyone feel this is too complex to be converted to "PD-logo"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Renamed directly into your suggestion, thanks for that. I agree the logo is below TOO of USA, it consists only of simple geometric shapes and fonts, see COM:TOO USA. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Stamps in Latvia

Seem to be protected. Comments at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Latvia#Stamps: copyright protected would be welcome. This would be quite an upheaval. Comments there, not here, please. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am currently working on wikipedia page of a subject. As it is my first time working on a non government subject here I have some questions here(both I ans the subject are from India if that matters). Please answer the questions.

1) If the image of the subject is in public domain(facebook and twitter) can I use it in my Wikipedia page? With or without his approval?

2) If the image of the subject is captured by another person(like a cameraman) but the subject paid him the fees for the image then who owns the copyright of that image?

3) Suppose I contacted the subject for my sincerely just to improve wikipedia. And he gives me total freedom to use his images then what proof do I need from him? 42.105.139.243 11:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  1. "Public domain" has two common meanings. The meaning you are using is, "accessible to the public" and relates solely to the ability of people to find the image. The other meaning (which Wikimedia Commons is interested in) is "all copyright protections have expired" and means the public can make free use of the image. The image being accessible on facebook or twitter does not make it "public domain" in the copyright sense. We can still use images that are in copyright but they must comply with Commons:Licensing.
  2. The copyright is owned by the photographer unless the photographer has entered into a contract with someone else to transfer the copyright. Some employment contracts include terms where copyright of images made at work transfer automatically to the employer. In your example, it would depend on what the person paid for and what paperwork they signed with the photographer whether copyright was transferred.
  3. You would need permission from the copyright owner (per point 2, this may be the subject but more often will be the photographer) and you will need to follow the process in Commons:VRT. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    Hi
    Thanks for the reply I sincerely appreciate your help here.
    Most of my doubts are now sorted but I have a few left. Please answer the following:-
    1) Suppose in a scenario a friend of subject takes his picture from the mobile or professional camera device owned by the subject then do the whole copyright of the image belong to the subject only or we need the friends permission too in that case?
    2) How we can differentiate if the image was taken by the subject (with or without the help of his friend) or was captured by a professional cameramen?
    3) How one can prove that he owns the copyright of his image not the photographer because he captured the image without anyone else's help? 42.105.139.243 12:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  1. Usually the person who hold the camera is counted as author, and owner of copyright unless the copyright is transferred (I think that must be in writing in the US; here in Finland it just is easier to prove written agreements).
  2. We cannot. Sometimes a photo is an obvious selfie, sometimes very unlikely to be one. If we have doubts, we ask the uploader to provide evidence, usually via the VRT process linked above.
  3. As above: if there is serious doubt, then we ask for evidence.
–LPfi (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Labrynth13

I don't know whether this is the right venue, and apologize if it's not. I noticed that sound files uploaded by Labrynth13 were all mis-categorized, so I changed that. I'm not very familiar with current popular music, but I suspect those sound files are recordings by Taylor Swift. I suggest someone with a grasp of popular music inspect those files. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

its a re-occuring LTA...admins will delete the files "only" when reported but they tend not to block or run CU's on the account which is irritating and yes uploading those music even in the free.ogg format is illegal as those music are protected by her production company/label.. Stemoc 04:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Uploading Logo of a Private organisation

I need to upload logo of a private political entity. The logo is artistic and have a copyright on it. How should i proceed? Do i need to contact the subject for it? 117.192.214.112 06:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If the logo is copyrighted and meets the Threshold of Originality, then yes, the copyright holder would have to grant authority for said image to be uploaded to Commons. See COM:Licensing, COM:VRT, and COM:ET. (Failing that, the logo might qualify for Fair Use on Wikipedia - but not on Commons.) Muzilon (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Can be uploaded here images of the spanish Congress of Deputies website?

Hello,

I want to know if I can upload here a image of a spanish deputy that I have downloaded from the Congress web.

Thank you in advance. ツSenador Tell me! 16:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Are Chicago Police Department mugshots public domain?

I have two mugshots I wish to upload, one of Akua Njeri and one of Fred Hampton. Njeri's mugshot was credited "Chicago Police Department" in a CNN article: [10] Hampton's mugshot is also credited "Chicago Police Department" in a Chicago Tribune article: [11]. The en:Illinois Freedom of Information Act was effective July 1, 1984. The Wikipedia article on the FOIA says that Chicago enacted its own FOIA, which was effective August 6, 1983. The FOIAs allow general access to public records of "public bodies", including units of local government. So I assume the FOIAs imply that the mugshots were published 1983-1984. I searched copyright.gov to see if the Chicago Police Department registered any mugshots for copyright protection, but I didn't find any relevant results: [12]. So I assume that the mugshots can be uploaded per {{PD-US-1978-89}}, correct? FunnyMath (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Public records are not the same thing as public domain, copyright-wise. People are free to examine them, so probably the "fair use" scope is expanded quite a bit, but it does not mean public domain. The usual example is that evidence in court cases are also public records -- so if you have to submit a copyrighted work as evidence in a copyright infringement lawsuit, it can't be that you lose copyright by doing so. So in most cases, public record or FOIA laws really don't change the copyright status. In Florida and California, there are some rulings where many state-authored records do become public domain. Harvard has a website on the status of state copyright; we primarily allow Florida, California, and Massachusetts (all with some limitations), and no other state. Illinois is shown there as dark red, meaning they rate it as one of the less open states. Looking at the details, there are some specific things that their law specifies is public domain (such as "Public data sets made available under the Open Operating Standards Act"), but many others which are not. So, I would assume that most Illinois city or state works are copyrightable.
That said, they still had to follow copyright law. If you can show a mugshot was published, meaning copies were actually distributed before 1989 and those did not have a copyright notice, then that may work. The FOIA is generally irrelevant to that question -- actual distribution of those copies had to occur to invalidate copyright. The state did not need to register any works to still have copyright though (only works published before 1964, since renewals were required for those) -- they only needed a copyright notice on the copies. So, lack of registration on copyright.gov doesn't really say one way or another (if registered, it'd definitely be hands off though). If CNN etc. cropped out a copyright notice then we wouldn't know. That said, I'm not sure I've ever seen a copyright notice on a mugshot, so those in particular might have a better argument than other state works -- the standard for COM:PRP is "significant doubt"; if we know that the Chicago Police department mugshots of the era did not have notices, then we might be able to assume the others didn't either. If they were published in newspapers, then copies were obviously distributed then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough answer. I tried looking at newspapers from the 1980s on Newspapers.com to see if the mugshots were published, but I couldn't find any. Out of curiosity, I tried to look for any random mugshot and I typed in "police mugshot" into Newspapers.com. From a cursory look, I couldn't find a single mugshot published in newspapers from the 1960s to the 1980s. I can find mugshots published in newspapers starting from the 1990s and later. Maybe I'm not looking closely enough, but it seems like mugshots were rarely published in newspapers. Based on your response, I'm not going to upload the mugshots, unless I live long enough to see their copyrights definitively expire. FunnyMath (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
That is a bit interesting. I do see a summary of state situations with respect to mugshots (at least any explicit law or rulings) here. That more speaks to if mugshots are considered public records subject to disclosure; seems there is wide variation between states. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

1930 Soviet map

Hello, I would like to take this image from Russian Wikipedia onto Wikimedia Commons to use in an article I'm writing on enwiki. It was suggested that I ask here about copyright issues.

The image is a scan of a map, produced by a state institution in the Soviet Union in 1930. Is this even possible to bring over to Commons? Akakievich (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure looks like it qualifies for {{PD-Russia-1996}} as I don't see a named author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Finnish stamps and threshold of originality

From bulletin
From colnect.com

Statements and decisions of Finnish authorities are free of copyright. This has been seen as including annual reports etc. Until the end of 1989 the stamps were emitted by a public body and it seems probable that the stamp designs were included in its decisions and thus PD.

The problem is that those decisions can be hard to find, to verify that the designs were indeed included (and to what extent they were). However, the stamps seem to have been included in bulletins to post offices etc., which should count as statements – in greyscale.

In what cases can the colourisation be seen as not exceeding the threshold of copyright? Is the resolution an issue? Here a stamp from such a bulletin and the colour version; this stamp from the 1970s was printed in 5-colour offset, some stamps of that era and most older ones were in black plus one auxiliary colour. It seems the threshold of originality is quite high in Finland (cf the Paavo Nurmi photo and municipal CoAs modified from older designs).

Here the motive is the central element of the probably PD-old seal of the National Audit Office, but I assume it was modified quite a bit, and the background numbers are from elsewhere.

–LPfi (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, but this seems like a way to run around the whole bit in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Finland/stamps that says "If an image of a stamp was included in a public body's decision or statement...the document can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and the image can be cropped from this document." Since it assumes without evidence that the final design was included in the body's final decision and creates a crop from something that isn't directly from it like the wording of the article requires. At that point you could just use images from stamp magazines or books, change them to greyscale, and claim it's perfectly fine "because derivative" or whatever. We still need evidence that the image is exactly like the one in the original decision in the meantime though, which we clearly don't have, in this case or any other. Even you say it's "it seems probable that the stamp designs were included in its decisions." Probability that the images are the same isn't the bar here. The image being cropped directly from the decision is. Especially since uploading the image is contingent on the person including a copy of the original decision with it. Otherwise, the image shouldn't be hosted on Commons per the wording of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Finland/stamps. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The text also includes the sentence "It is uncertain how the above affects the copyright of stamps depicted in other places." I am trying to get some clarity on that part. I don't understand why that would be "a way to run around" the text. Also, what should count is the legal situation, not what is written in our guidance. –LPfi (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The sentence you quoted is exactly why it would be a run around. the lack of clarity is the whole reason the text of the article says the original decision has to be included with the uploaded stamp. So using the lack of clarity as a reason to say it's OK to upload images of stamps from other sources besides the decision is a run around to the requirement. It would be like if I said "if we do X, we have to do it this specific way because of Y" and you responded by saying "Oh, OK. So Y means we can do X however we want then. Got it." That's not how it works. Whatever the nuances or unknowns might be you still have to include the body's decision with the image when you upload it. Otherwise, your just trying to get around that part of the guideline. Which honestly, I'm kind of surprised you'd want to do since you spent a month repeatedly saying decisions that include images of the stamps exist. If that's the case, then I don't really see why they can't just be included when someone uploads the an image of the stamp like the article says to do. At the end of the day if images of the stamps are included in the decisions there's no reason to get them from anywhere else anyway. Or were you wrong about that when you repeatedly said they were? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not agree with the premise that including an image of the stamp makes the stamp part of the decision. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Finland#Stamps says that, but that section refers to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Finland#Not protected. That section says that attached works do not lose their copyright.
For me, the "decision" is the written text that selects a stamp design and not the stamp itself.
If the stamp is a work for hire, then it would be a government work and be a free image. If there is a contest where artists submit designs, then their artwork is speculative and not a work for hire. The artist should retain the copyright. The artist would not lose that copyright merely because the decision attached an illustration to show which design was chosen.
I view the Not protected section as controlling.
Glrx (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
It is maybe relevant to say that there were copyright change in 2005 which added the rule that attached works do not lose copyright. Before the change it was possible (example: Copyright council TN 1989/13 decision and example law document related to coins: Regulation on amending the coin money regulation). However, as said there were 2005 copyright law change and also most likely if the stamps weren't protected by copyright before it then most likely if somebody would try to actually use them then there would be something else which would prevent commercial use as reproduction of the stamps was/is regulated) -- Zache (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The crucial consideration for that is whether the attached image is an independent work. Before the 2005 amendment situations where an attached work would keep its copyright were believed to be very rare, while the amendment made it much more common. Still I don't think most works specifically made to be included in such a decision are independent. There is some jurisprudence on this, but it is not what I want to discuss here.
Rather, if the image in the decision is free of copyright, when can that be extended to the stamp itself? I assume that the decisions include black and white versions and a statement on what colours to use (as good quality colour printing was expensive before the 1990s).
Also worth noting is that the 2005 amendment does not affect the URAA status of the stamps, as the ones under discussion were published before 1996 (the post became a company between 1989 and 1996).
–LPfi (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The coin decisions are not persuasive. The decision cites to a lion image being out of copyright for 350 years. Other portions of the coin sound like government works or works not subject to copyright (simple text). Furthermroe, coins and currency are often government works done by government employees.
Moreover, would not the artwork in the stamp, if not a work for hire by the government, have a US copyright that makes this discussion moot?
Glrx (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The statement on the municipal and regional coats of arms are perhaps a better reference. However, the coins are not PD as governmental works, but as having been included in the statute book. The employment relation may affect whether works are regarded as independent, but that was immaterial in the case of coins, as being published in the statute book made them PD regardless.
Finland doesn't have the legal concept of "work for hire". I don't think there is any difference between making a copyrightable work as employee or as contractor, other than that certain terms that are implicit in the case of an employee have to be explicit for a contractor.
Finnish stamps were not copyrighted in the USA and to the extent they were in the public domain in Finland in 1996, they did not receive a copyright by URAA. As the discussion is about stamps from before 1996, the crucial question is whether they were PD in that year. If they were made for and included in (or attached to) a decision or statement by a public authority (such as Post och telestyrelsen) they were PD.
What is unclear to me is under what circumstances the stamp design as decided being PD makes the actual stamps PD. My reading of the coinage and CoA statements would be "in most cases", but others disagree, even in the case when there are no visible differences, and we need to reduce this grey zone.
–LPfi (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The statement on the municipal and regional coats of arms are perhaps a better reference. Not really since as has already been hashed out elsewhere they are PD because it serves the public interest for them to be, not because they are included in decisions. So you can't extract anything relevant from them that would be relevant to stamps.
Finland doesn't have the legal concept of "work for hire". IMO the discussion isn't really about the "legal concept" of contract work, it's more if people are contracted to design the stamps or not, which obviously isn't dependent on it being a "legal concept." That said, I'd be interested to see evidence it isn't one since there's plenty of websites out there about doing fixed term and seasonal jobs in Finland. So I find it hard to believe it's not something that happens.
I assume that the decisions include black and white versions and a statement on what colours to use If you don't me asking, how exactly would the original decision include a black and white version of the final stamp when it hasn't even been created at that point yet? Obviously it can't. Just like a decision to build bridge obviously can't going to contain an image of the complete bridge since it wouldn't have been built yet at that point. That said, I'd still like to know your reasoning for assuming the final design of the stamp is included in the decision. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
As I have explained there, you confuse the rationale for the law with the rationale for the statement. They are related, but not that straight-forwardly (the law says nothing about public interest).
Yes, people are hired to create copyrightable works also in Finland :-) It just isn't a legal concept like in some countries (where e.g. works for hire do not get a pma term). The transfer of copyright is sometimes by a default regulated in law (most computer programs), sometimes in the collective bargaining agreement, sometimes in individual contracts.
The decision I am talking about is not the request to create stamps on a certain theme, but the approval (signing off) of the final design.
Anyway, I don't want to get into the weeds here. Let this discussion be about copyrightable expression.
–LPfi (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't really feel like repeatedly looping about this nonsense with you since it's clearly not something we are going to agree about. Really, it seems like no one agrees with about most of it, but whatever. To your original question, I can't find the exact part of the policy right now, but I'm pretty sure Commons:Licensing or one of the other ones having to do with copyright says that the copyright status of a work doesn't transfer to derivative works. From what I understand how it works is that the parts of the derivative which are exactly like the original maintain it's copyright status. But any additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work would obtain their own copyright. How that work in this case is really up in the air since we don't know exactly what form of the stamps design is in the original decision. For all we know, there might just be a short paragraph describing how to design the stamp. Which obviously wouldn't transfer anything over to the final stamp. Assuming it's the full black and white version though, then the coloring would make the final stamp have it's own copyright separate from the original black and white image. If the orgininal decision is just a short description about how to design the stamp then both the black and color versions would have their own copyrights separate from the original decision and each other though. At least that's how I understand things, and I've seen zero evidence to contradict that. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
In the US, black and white versions of 2-d art don't have separate copyrights from colorized versions. The Copyright Office is quite clear about that, and even had hearings before they decided that a colorized movie had a separate copyright from the original.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
In the US, black and white versions of 2-d art don't have separate copyrights from colorized versions. Take it how you will, but according to this document from the United States Copyright Office "The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously registered works or works in the public domain or owned by a third party."
There's also a snippet from this website having to do with changes to the color of the movie It’s a Wonderful Life. According them, "Some film historians and art purists decried colorization as a desecration of the original black and white film, but the Copyright Office decided that colorized versions were entitled to copyright registrations separate from the black and white version. It’s a Wonderful Life is an appropriate film to illustrate this issue with side-by-image images with different color schemes, because there were two different colorized versions of this film (one in 1986 from Hal Roach Studios, Inc., with work done by Colorization, Inc., the other in 1989 from Republic Pictures Corporation with work done by American Film Technologies, Inc."
So it seems like colorization of a work does matter. I don't think anyone can argue that a black and white image being colorized isn't an addition or change to the original black and white version either. I'd say it's at least enough for us to default to the precautionary principle. At least for now since the evidence as it stands clearly doesn't favor the idea that colorized versions of a work retain the copyright status of the original. The example of It’s a Wonderful Life was just one example that took me 2 seconds to find BTW. I'm sure there's plenty of others. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Would you mind reading what I wrote? I pointed out that colorized movies are different, and that the Copyright Office specifically had to think about that case before making that exception. See 906.3 Colors, Coloring, and Coloration in https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf .--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I read it. I was just expanding on you said because I don't see how it's not relevant. Just because they had to think about the case before making the exception isn't really relevant either. That's literally how the legal system works. Either way though, it clearly establishes a legal precedent for colorization obtaining it's own copyright. Be my guest and disregard it though. There's other examples. to quote from the article "After studying the comments responsive to the questions listed above, the Copyright Act, and the case law, the Copyright Office has concluded that certain colorized versions of black and white motion pictures are eligible for copyright registration as derivative works. The Office will register as derivative works those color versions that reveal a certain minimum amount of individual creative human authorship." So they didn't just decide on that movie only. It applies to any color versions that reveal a minimum of human authorship. Does the colored version of this stamp meet that standard? I'd say so. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
If you have to discuss something, it's discussable. If colorization normally gained a copyright, colorizing tens of thousands of frames of a movie would obviously gain a copyright. You didn't bother reading the link to the Copyright Office guidelines, I see. They're clear here; you cannot add two colors to black and white image and get a new copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
To quote the very law itself, https://www.copyright.gov/title37/202/37cfr202-1.html : "The following are examples of works not subject to copyright: mere variations of ... coloring".--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. I'm aware of what the law says, but like you quoted "mere variations of ... coloring" aren't subject to copyright. Adding blue and yellow to a grey image isn't a variation of it because your not changing the amount, or level of the grey coloring. Let alone is it a slight change to the grey. Your adding new colors to the image. Also, the word "variation" implies it's a different or distinct form or version of the original, which is kind of the point in the law. It would be ridiculous to claim the colorized version isn't different or distinct from the black and white one since we are having the discussion about their differences in the first place and calling them "versions" of each other while doing it. Either way though, they clearly aren't the same image or this whole conversation would have been moot. So I think the wording of the law supports what I've been saying. The color version isn't just a minor change in the amount of colors in the original. It's using completely different colors. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I support LPfi'S notion that stamp designs as published in the Post Office notifications would be Public Domain (except in cases where there is an express copyright), as official statements by a public authority. The fact that the 1988 "American Letter" stamps actually include a copyright statement on the stamp itself, presumably to meet US requirements for this joint issue, indicates that the Suomen posti- ja telelaitos themselves did not automatically consider stamp designs copyrighted. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Derivative work?

Should Commons treat File:FBISD Historical Marker.jpg as a derivative work per COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs? There appears to be a date at the bottom of this marker that is "1991", and if that's the installation or creation date then no copyright notice would be required per COM:US. In addition, Texas doesn't seem to be one of the US states that releases works created by state employees as part of their official duties into the public domain. The imagery at the top of the marker could, I guess, be blurred if it's the only problem, but blurring the prose of the marker would make no sense at all if it also has copyright issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason one would not consider it a derivative work? To me, the prose is clearly above the threshold of originality, and if Texas state government works are copyrighted then I see no way this s not derivative. Felix QW (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The Texas Historical Commission claims copyright on its website, and unfortunately only allows unrestricted use of its material there for non-commercial purposes. Felix QW (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I think this is a derivative work, but wanted some other opinions on it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Is the text creative enough to be copyrightable? It's just a list of facts. Borysk5 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I always thought that for fully formulated sentences, the bar is actually very low, so that a couple of sentences including a dependent clause would certainly suffice. Felix QW (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The copyrightability of automobile designs

User:Adamant1 has boldly taken the step in trying to delete photographs of a particular model of Renaults on city streets in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Renault Mégane IV RS, they raise some interesting points like that design protection for cars is a thing in the EU. https://www.murgitroyd.com/en-us/blog/how-intellectual-property-rights-can-protect-automotive-designs/ It is a territorial registration and can last up to 25 years. Although the user also perhaps shouldn't be using patent law to make points about copyright law. If car designs are copyrightable enough that they may need to be removed from Commons, the questions of whether they would fall under FOP also needs to be considered (if they are artistic enough to be copyrighted, they would also subject to FOP as well), and whether or not this is a case where US Copyright Office guidance and US law trumps anything in the EU or China (like we do with PD-Art). I think this question should have been put here before a Deletion Request but the questions raised are definitely important enough that I believe a VPC discussion on this is warranted. Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. I had actually planned to myself at some point, but I didn't want to do it while the nomination was open. A few points, I mentioned patent law a few times in passing because someone else mentioned it. I've been pretty consistent in saying automobile designs be copyrighted though and I provided plenty of links to court cases and laws that have to do with copyrights, not patents. As to the FOP thing, I don't think it would apply to cars in most places because they aren't permanently installed works. As Commons:Freedom of panorama says "If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is permanent." No one parks an automobile somewhere with the intention of it being left there whole natural lifetime of the car. One more thing then I'll leave to this others, my main issue here is with vanity shots of automobiles that are clearly created just to display their designs.
That said, I think an argument could be made for images of automobiles driving the road or being worked on being hosted on Commons, but I don't think there's a justification for hosting images where the only purpose of it is the admiring of the automobile. In those cases the best thing to do would be to treat the images in the same way images of board games or most other modern products are handled. Fine to upload if it's incidental, not if it isn't. Especially since there was a case by the Tenth Circuit that determined images of automobiles aren't original enough to be separately copyrightable. There's also references to other copyright cases where the defendant lost in this article. I'm sure other examples are out there. So it doesn't seem like something Commons should be testing by hosting the images. At least not without some kind of standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
A German court recently ruled that a painted design on a ship was "permanent". The car is almost always in public. That said, cars are utilitarian, and usually not subject to copyright in the first place. The EU has design rights yes, but those are not at all the same thing as copyright, and the "derivative work" aspect does not come up for photographs. It primarily protects against other car manufacturers from using that design. In general, design rights and design patents are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions and generally don't apply to photographs anyways. There are some countries which do also protect "applied art" through copyright, and it is there where photographs of such things becomes dicier with respect to copyright, if car designs are included under that. But in the U.S., car designs are non-copyrightable. Most of your arguments don't measure up; the part where you mention "applied art" is the most relevant. More to the point though, we primarily use court precedent to guide us, and if you can't find any case where a photo of a car (or very similar) was ruled a derivative work in a copyright sense, then it's likely they are not. If you are going to bring up photos like that, it is evidence of that type which is the most powerful. There have been untold numbers of photographs of cars made, and sold commercially, and if none have ever been ruled derivative then it's fairly strong indication that they usually are not. Almost all of your arguments on the DR don't pass the smell test for me -- a statement like "Although I will say though that the idea cars are utilitarian objects is just laughable" is completely wrong, because they indeed are. They are not purely artistic, as utilitarian concerns constrain the design. One example was Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co., where a copyrightable sculptural work was slightly modified into a bike rack. A competitor made a similar bike rack and it was ruled to be uncopyrightable, since the functional requirements changed that version into a "useful article". In the U.S., only parts of a design which are "conceptually separable" (say a sculptural hood ornament) can be copyrighted. The Meshwerks case you cite doesn't help you at all -- you can make a copyrightable drawing (or photo) of a non-copyrightable car, but that case was basically that using lasers to measure a car exactly meant there was no human involvement, thus no additional copyright, and since there was no copyright on the car either then there was no copyright in the 3D model.
The question really comes if countries protect such things through copyright, and in those cases to what extent can photographs be derivative, and we mostly look for court precedents there (though the language of the law matters too of course, if it's explicitly accounted for). Certainly some countries do, so if you make copies of the cars themselves, you could be guilty of both design right infringement and applied art copyright infringement. But, photographs of cars could be an entirely separate matter, since those don't compete with the originals in the marketplace, and court treatment of those could vary a lot. We follow copyright law to be sure, but we also don't try to expand its scope to places where courts have not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Although I will say though that the idea cars are utilitarian objects is just laughable Your taking that out of context. I meant it in relation to the DR and it being used as the only keep reason since like I said in the DR most things are utilitarian to some degree. Including plenty of objects that people aren't allowed to upload images to Commons of. As to the rest of what you said, I don't think we should need specific cases if it's clear that the designs can be copyrighted. Most of this hasn't been tested in court. That's not a valid to circumvent the law, legally or in what Commons allows people to upload. As has already been said, design protection for cars is a thing in the EU and China. Maybe there isn't protection for them in the United States, but we still have to follow the laws of the countries that were the origins of the images. If that's the EU were they have laws that allow for the designs of automobiles to be protected for 25 years then we should follow it. Period. In the meantime the fact that there have been untold numbers of photographs of cars made just seems like an excuse. So what? We don't know what arrangements those people made with the manufactures or really anything else about the images. Untold numbers of photographs of other modern products, but people still can't indiscriminately upload images of them regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
If there are utilitarian aspects, then the object is frequently not copyrightable, or only by "applied art" countries. Most objects of that sort, people can upload photos of. What kind of things do you think can't be uploaded? I would thoroughly disagree with ignoring them being tested in court -- if a particular practice is commonly done without lawsuit, it's tacitly allowed, and courts could well find ways to rule that way. If they do actually rule another way, then yes of course we take notice. We don't delete anything that a theoretical argument can be made, though. We delete things that copyright law does apply to, not simply could if courts (or future laws) decide to increase the scope. If it hasn't been tested in court, when untold numbers of such photos have been used commercially for decades, there is likely a reason for that. You keep saying "design protection", but that is a separate intellectual right from copyright and there is no crossover. We care strictly about copyright, only, unless the use here is an actual violation. The COM:PRP standard is "significant doubt", not any theoretical doubt, and your concerns are in that area to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
If there are utilitarian aspects, then the object is frequently not copyrightable, or only by "applied art" countries. It really depends on the country and product. According to Chinese law "where a work is both functional and artistic, such as a design of a car, it is protected under the Copyright Law for a term of 25 years." There's also the law in the EU. Neither one are places with insignificant automobile markets either. So at least with automobiles what your saying is just wrong. Maybe that's the case in the United states, but they aren't the only country out there.
What kind of things do you think can't be uploaded? This is confined to none de minimis vanity shots since that's what the DR was about and my only real issue, but essentially everything that Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter says isn't OK to upload. Of course there's exceptions, but that's why I've said I think there should be standards for what images of automobiles are and aren't OK to upload. Not a complete ban. Either way, in all those cases there's untold numbers of photos of them out there that have been used commercially for decades, probably no or only a few law suites, and yet images of them still aren't allowed. I don't really see why automobiles should be treated any differently.
You keep saying "design protection", but that is a separate intellectual right from copyright and there is no crossover. I'm aware there's no crossover, which is why I've repeatedly said "automobile designs are copyrighted." The only reason I said "design protection" in this discussion is because Abzeronow brought it up in their original message. I think the only other time it's been brought up was in a direct quote from the DR and I think it was used more generally in that case. Either way, in no do I keep saying "design protection." I've been pretty clear from the beginning that this has to do with copyright. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
If you don't see why automobiles should be treated any differently, figure out first why they're treated differently, in the US, and as you point out, under Chinese law. There have been plenty of lawsuits about photos of statues and other things that Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter talks about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I had brought up "design protection" because that seemed the most relevant to the DR itself which concerned photographs of automobiles in various European countries. I'm still not convinced yet there is a copyright issue with these photographs, but I am convinced that there is a possible need for some sort of template warning re-users in Europe (and possibly elsewhere) that there would be non-copyright restrictions on the reuse of such photographs. I am keeping an open mind towards this though. Abzeronow (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
They are "design patents" in the U.S., and there is a design right in the EU. None of that has the derivative work aspects like copyright does, so does not apply to photos. The Berne Convention gives countries the option to protect applied art through copyright or not. Many countries do not, such as the US, though the EU does. The EU directives seem to give wide latitude to individual countries for just how much they protect such works and their scope, though a recent case said that the standard is the same as other works (or at least cannot be any more lax), which is if it reflects the author's personality (the author being a human). That case notes there can be harmful consequences of overprotection of designs by copyright -- such as things like the DR in question -- and does strive to use that threshold definition strictly, to limit the protection to the specific lines drawn and that sort of thing, and not any aesthetic aspect or style which seems to result from it (which are ideas, not expression, and therefore not copyrightable). If a car design is not attributable to a particular human author, it may well be that any individual expression (if copyrightable at all) is de minimis, since only humans can be authors. That case notes that many countries do limit the scope of applied art copyrights for that reason -- the design right should be the primary way such things are protected; if copyright is equal or stronger protection, and easier to obtain and lasting longer, there would be no reason for the design right in the first place. So, being strict on which applied art qualifies, rather than liberal, is that decision's way out of that quandary (and that in fact was the ruling -- they ruled the claims in question were not copyrightable; they were trying to get copyright protection over what should be either design or trademark). It's not impossible -- I think there was an EU case over some photos of a particular stylized chair. But it might also vary by country, so we normally look to a country's rulings for guidance. If there is a copyright, FoP probably applies as well. We really would need a court case to define the more precise boundaries, if these are indeed a possible problem in the first place. It won't be open-ended to the effect that a car designer (or any other product0 gets copyright control over every photo that contains the car -- there needs to be a balance of photographer's rights somewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
If a car design is not attributable to a particular human author, it may well be that any individual expression (if copyrightable at all) is de minimis, since only humans can be authors. That's patently false. Plenty of countries have copyright terms for anonymous works. De minimis doesn't have anything to do with who authored the work either. You can't claim that it would be OK for a modern work created by an anonymous author is to be hosted on Commons because the law doesn't concern itself with trifles or whatever. It's not like corporate authorship isn't a thing either. As to your thing about the EU law, "design rights", and your claim that they don't have derivative work aspects like copyright does, according to the document that Abzeronow linked to in their original comment "While a design registration sounds straightforward, the protection it provides is defined by the drawings submitted. In order to infringe the design, a product must look substantively the same as those drawings." I don't see how someone potentially being sued for creating a product that is similar to the drawings isn't a "derivate work aspect." Maybe it's not one having specifically to with copyright, but it's still revolves around derivative works and if people can legally create them or not. Sure, call it a patent or whatever, but the fact remains that people can't create products that look similar to the drawings. And I assume that would cover making almost exact recreations of them in photographs by taking pictures of the automobiles. I don't see why it wouldn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
With anonymous works, there is still the presumption of a human author, just one that was purposely omitted from being credited. What Carl means is that in the United States, we don't give copyrights to works whose author is a machine. It is possible that in the future, some jurisdictions will give copyright to a work created by an AI. But there is also w:WP:Crystal that could guide us here (Wikipedia principles are not binding on us on Commons) and we take on those issues when there are applicable statutes or court cases made. Abzeronow (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be fine with a warning for at least Europe and China, if not other countries, in absence of a full ban since they clearly have copyright laws. Something is better then nothing. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
It is not true that "we still have to follow the laws of the countries that were the origins of the images." Commons does so by convention, and has made exceptions by choice, like {{PD-Art}}. This seems quite similar to the Greek and Italian laws on antiquities, stuff that might be a problem but we classify as non-copyright prohibitions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but realistically also so the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't get litigated into oblivion. The debacle over German stamps is a perfect example. In that case we choose to allow German stamps because of a technicality and we wanted to allow them anyway. Then the foundation got sued, lost the case, and now we don't allow images of German stamps for legal reasons. So it's not a black and white thing. Laws strongly influence the conventions. We should also have enough scruples as users who are granted the privilege to decide these policies to not play fast and lose with them. Especially not just so Commons can have a couple of more images. Images that in most cases aren't being used anywhere and are of extremely questionable educational value BTW. Most of the images of modern automobiles have clearly been uploaded for COM:HOST reasons, not because they are educational. Whatever the specifics though, we aren't here to play a game of "Pokémon Media Repository Version or whatever on the Wikimedia Foundations dime. At least I'm not. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
German stamps are by default copyrighted in the US. Cars aren't. I'm glad you're here to tell us that we have too many images; I would have otherwise thought that we should have a generous collection covering everything. I certainly don't see Commons as a place for philatelists over car enthusiasts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
OK. I'm not sure how your comment is relevant to the discussion, but I know it's impossible to have a single conversation on here without someone making personal comments. So at least you got the quota for this discussion in lol. It's clear your upset that I disagree with you about the stamp colorization thing. That's fine. But lets not that bleed over into this discussion by turning into a personal spat. Please keep the stamp discussion to the stamp discussion. Thanks. -Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
He's at it again playing the victim from these "personal attacks/comments", he usually get to that point when his argument is failing. The next thing he going to do is accuse you of "forum-shop". --Vauxford (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
"Your here to tell us" is a personal comment. Does that mean he's attacking me or that I'm being victimized by him saying it? No of course not and I didn't say either one was happening. Also, Sammy D III was clearly forum shopping. They even said they were. Either way, his and your comment are clearly off topic. So I'd appreciate if we ended it here and you saved the off topic gaslighting for another time. Feel free to comment on what the discussion is about though. I'm actually interested to know what people from the original discussion think about this outside of some variation of "Adamant1's a big meany butt. Waahhh!" Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
It's clear you upload stuff that I would never bother with or care about, and think you should stop harassing people for uploading works you don't care about. I think it's also clear you have more time to waste on this than I do, and less care about the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Without voicing any opinion as to how we should deal with this as Wikimedia Commons, perhaps this ruling of the highest German court, the Bundesgerichtshof, is closer to what we are looking for.
In this case, the Fraunhofer Institute, a public agency for applied research, used an image of an ICE train for which the railway company Deutsche Bahn had design rights (Geschmacksmuster, as they are known in German) in an advertising brochure for a trade fair.
The court ruled that this was an infringement of Deutsche Bahn's rights from the Geschmacksmuster and that they were liable to pay damages. Felix QW (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This is rather absurd. If one could not publish photographs of mass-produced goods (which are not copyrighted, but trademarked and commonly patented designs - the copyright belongs to the photographer and no one else), then there can be no Commons, there could only be photos of nature.
The Fraunhofer case hinges on the fact that the applied research agency was using the ICE3 pictures in a way which implied that they had designed the train or were offering services relating to it. If WP was to start manufacturing cars and then publish images of the Renault Mégane as a suggestion of the services we provided, then there would be an issue. But we do not and so there is not. German copyright law also contains §40 Nr. 3 GeschmMG:
"Rechte aus einem Geschmacksmuster können nicht geltend gemacht werden gegenüber
3. Wiedergaben zum Zwecke der Zitierung oder der Lehre, vorausgesetzt, solche Wiedergaben sind mit den Gepflogenheiten des redlichen Geschäftsverkehrs vereinbar, beeinträchtigen die normale Verwertung des Geschmacksmusters nicht über Gebühr und geben die Quelle an;
Or, in English, you can freely publish images of copyrighted/trademarked goods "for the purpose of citation or teaching". As with other trademarked goods, like Category:Coca-Cola bottles, the trademark/copyright only applies to the trademarked purposes and we cannot lead the public to believe that we are associated with or sponsored by or endorsed by Renault or Coca-Cola or whomever. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons has a "for any purpose" clause when it comes to what people are allowed to upload. So it's clearly an issue if someone can only use an image of a train in Germany "for the purpose of citation or teaching." Same goes for images of automobiles. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The crucial parts for us, I think, are the Leitsatz at the beginning of the verdict and the arguments on page 23.
Here, the BGH explains that against the view of the lower appeals court, the fact that the Fraunhofer Institute used the image in a deceptive way is irrelevant. Relevant is solely that the use of the image was not to support independent points made by the user in "intellectual engagement" (geistige Auseinandersetzung) with the design, which would be required for use as citation, but in a solely commercial context. Felix QW (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyhow: COM:VEHICLE should suffice. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 20:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Father's photos

I'm interested in uploading some of my father's photos taken in the 1950s. They are not strictly my photos and he cannot give consent as he died in 1998. How do I describe ownership and copyright? Sibsons (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sibsons. Are these photos of your father or photos taken by your father? Have they already been COM:PUBLISHed in some way (e.g. posted on social media, used in a book)? What is your reason for wanting to upload them to Commons? Sorry for all the questions, but it might be easier for someone to help you if they knew more about the en:provenance of the photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Marchjuly. They are photographs of places and events on the island of Malta in 1957-58. They have never been published. They are in colour and originate from 35mm slides so are of reasonable quality. I think they are of interest and would like to upload them as an historic record. Sibsons (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
You will nmeed tohe consnet of the owner of the copyright if the photos to publish them. Unless he passed the copyright of his photos on to a specific person in his will, the copyright of the photos is owned or shared by whoever inherited his estate. That of course depends on the law of where he lived. Assuming that your mother survived him and that they were not divorced, then if he lived in the United Kingdom, the copyright would have passed to your mother and if she has since died, then to whoever inherited her estate. If however he lived in Spain, the copyright would have passed to his children (ie you and your siblings). In short, you need to tell us where he lived when he died and who inherited his estate. Martinvl (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Martinvl. He lived in the UK & the estate subsequently passed to my mother, who has since died. The photos have now passed to me, their son. So what you're saying is that effectively the copyright is now mine. Sibsons (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for wanting to contribute photos from the collection to Commons - they would be much appreciated! We actually have a collection of templates for this situation, assembled in Category:License tags for transferred copyright. I suggest you have a look there and see which license you would feel comfortable with. Felix QW (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Felix QW. I have posted the first image and attributed it to Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. If you think that is inappropriate can you advise if I can reallocate it to one of the heir attributions. Thanks Sibsons (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I have replaced {{Cc-by-4.0}} with {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}} as the second version includes extra text clarifying that you are releasing the image as the heir of the original copyright owner. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks. 51.9.146.88 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Photo had creative commons licensed changed

If a photo used to be licensed under a Wikimedia Commons compatible license, but since changed, would that be allowed on the Commons still? This photo for example, used to be licensed under a CC BY 2.0 license, but since changed to a CC BY 2.0 No-Derivatives. Creative Commons licenses cannot be revoked, but I am not sure if this would be considered revoking the license. PascalHD (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If we imported an image and then it changed, then we are certainly allowed to retain it. The grey area is whether we are allowed to import an image which no longer has a valid license, but verifiably did so in the past. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) The photo was taken in 2009 but there is no mention of when it was uploaded to Flickr. The licence is recorded as being changed in 2011 to non-commercial but there is no record of how long it was available under a commercial licence. The Flickr licence history tool is fairly recent but we have seen similar records of files recently uploaded and licence changed on the same day. Flickr lets you set a default licence for your account and then records changes to individual picture licences in this way. It is quite possible that this image was never published under a commercial licence and the licence history is showing you the change made in the fraction of a second before publication. If the commercial licence was never applied, it doesn't exist for consideration of irrevocability. You would first have to prove that the image was available before the licence change before we could say that it was once commercially available.
Even if the commercial licence did apply at that time, if you obtained the image when the NC licence was in force, you have stumbled into a rather grey area. Yes, the owner can't revoke the commercial use and redistribution right of those who obtained the file when the commercial licence applied. However, there is nothing that forces the owner to continue offering the old licence to new users. You would have to obtain a redistributed copy from someone holding the CC-BY licence for your reuse under that licence to be valid. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
In this case, this image I used as an example was infact uploaded to the commons here (albeit a cropped version). With the account being created in 2007, and some photos from that time made it to the commons, its safe to assume that the photos were most likely uploaded relatively after they were taken.
After some digging, it appears that the licenses for all existing photos on the account were changed at the same time (February 24, 2011). Beyond this, new images were uploaded and kept a CC BY 2.0 license. So there was defiantly a period of time for some images that had a compatible license, and others not so much. If I were to upload one of these older images, I could in theory still claim the old license since it is not revocable? Or does it matter more about when the user obtained the photo, before or after the license change? Yeah, definitely a grey area. PascalHD (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
We have the evidence for the dates then but that reveals another problem. The Flickr account appears to belong to the person depicted in the images. Does the account holder have permission to release these images under the CC licences? From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Photographers are listed, and likely signed an agreement. It is common for political figures to release promo photos while running for public office, here in Canada. Other examples which come to mind include, Erin O'Toole, Andrew Scheer. PascalHD (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that the agreement might not have transferred copyright, nor allowed the subject to relicense the photos. Those are hardly standard terms in promo photo agreements. Do we believe this person to understand copyright or have legal advice at their disposal? It is possible that the relicensing was the consequence of somebody bringing the issues up. –LPfi (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
It is a political campaign account. The person running for office would not have been the one running the account. The team would have done that, such as the photographers whom are listed, I don't think any copyright would have to be transferred. The copyright holder of the photo is listed in description. Can always reach out and ask them if they agreed to release these photos under that license.
But we are straying away from my original question. Authorship is a whole other can of worms that can be discussed on another thread. What I am asking, If a(ny) photo used to be licensed under a compatible license, then changed later, would the old license still be valid? PascalHD (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
You got answers to most of that above in this thread. The remaining question is perhaps whether the CC licences stick to a work, such that the licensing isn't limited to a specific copy or a specific transaction (download). Has everybody, now living and yet to be born, got the licence from you as soon as you utter the magic words, silently in your chamber? –LPfi (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
If you obtained the image under that license, then yes, that license is irrevocable. The user can choose to stop distributing works under that license, but copies already distributed retain that license. The image in question was uploaded in 2009, and we did a Commons:License review on it the next day, so that license was confirmed at the time. The user changed licenses in 2011, so the user stopped distributing under the free license. I personally would not upload a work off of Flickr if the current license was non-free, regardless of what the history says. Possibly if you get an archived copy off of archive.gov, that would work. It may be possible for a Flickr user to replace the photo from what used to be there -- can't remember. But they chose to stop distributing under that license, so I would tend to respect that and not obtain the image from that source. Technically, all expression in that copy is licensed, so all exact copies are also licensed -- you just have to be able to prove that license in court if challenged, that you got it from the copyright holder. This is why we require a license review for Flickr images (or anything copied from a source which has a license on it). Uploading a work based on only the Flickr history may fail that step -- if no copies were actually ever distributed under the old license, then nobody may have a valid licensed copy. For works uploaded while under a free license, but changed, we do have the {{Flickr-change-of-license}} tag which can be added to explain the situation. Obviously, if it turns out the license was bogus in the first place (someone else owns the copyright), that is a separate matter and we obviously can't use it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
So realistically, the only way to get an image after a license change, I would have to find a web-archived copy somewhere with old license still intact.
As it goes for directly taking them off of Flickr now, although such images may or may not still be valid thru an old license, it is probably too risky for Wikimedia to take. That certainly clears up my question pretty well. Perhaps in the future, a precedent could be set, but as it stands for now, I won't touch 'em. PascalHD (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I still don't get what stops people from just downloading the image under the new license and claiming it's the CC BY 2.0 (or whatever) licensed version. It's not like EXIF or other identifying information can't be altered. So the whole idea of "new" or "old" versions of an image just seems nonsensical to me. Like say it ever goes to court, how is the defendant realistically going to prove their image was obtained under the old license or how would the plaintiff prove the reverse, especially if it's multiple years after the fact? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Probably a bit off-topic, but this is starting to feel like a philosophical debate. If a work is freely licensed at one valid source but "all rights reserved" at another, and both files are identical, then does it still matter which file is used? Ixfd64 (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering the same thing too. For example, en:File:Tesla Roadster in Falcon Heavy fairing.jpg is being used on the English Wikipedia as fair use, but the Flickr source indicates it was once under a CC0 license. Would it be kosher to transfer this to Commons? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
If someone changed the license, then we can no longer download and use it. Even if you could find an archived version of the full image, you are still committing the act of uploading it today and thus would be in violation of the copyright notice. Also, maybe besides the point, it would be awfully rude. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I am more or less just looking for clarification on this grey area. According to Creative Commons: "The CC licenses are irrevocable. This means that once you receive material under a CC license, you will always have the right to use it under those license terms, even if the licensor changes his or her mind and stops distributing under the CC license terms."
What is the definition of irrevocable? Oxford: "not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final."
If the Commons already has an image, that is well established it can stay, but ones not transferred, you can see the license history on Flickr. If it can be shown it was available for a time prior to the license change, (Web Archive) would that be permissible since the license is 'irrevocable'?
What I believe needs to be clarified here is whether changing to a different CC license on Flickr (Ex. from CC BY 2.0 to CC BY 2.0 No-Derivates) would keep the original license valid & considered as irrevocable, or does the new CC license override the old and count as 'staying within CC terms', never being considered as revoked. That's all. PascalHD (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Is a photo public domain

I uploaded a photograph File:John_H._Stevens_house_moving_1896.jpg
The photo is from the Minnesota Historical Society. The MnHS source does not give a photographer/author or date, but the photo is of an 1896 event. Presumably it is public domain because it is before 1923.The metadata includes: Online copyright statement which is a bad link. And also Usage terms which says it is copyrighted and non-commercial use. Is the photo pre-1923 public domain? Does scanning/digitizing create a new copyright? Can the photo be used? BudKey (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Yes, it is under the public domain.
2. No, it does not.
3. Yes, you can.
You can use the template {{PD-Scan}} just to be sure. Lugamo94 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about Artwork from 1889

Hello, this artwork was produced in 1889 (Meiji 22), but it was colored around 2021. Is it in the public domain? -Artanisen (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What's the country of origin for both and what are their laws around derivate works? It's probably hard to answer the question without knowing the answer to either of those. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The country of origin is Japan. It's called the 「戊辰戦争絵巻」(Boshin War Emaki), the original is monochrome and public domain since it was made before 1945. The colored version is an updated version of the original. -Artanisen (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg: What's your thinking of {{PD-Art}} (with {{PD-Japan}} inserted) possibility in this case? Is the colored one faithful or not? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I really don't know about Japan. The original is fine of course. The U.S. Copyright Office generally does not give a copyright for just a few color changes, though colorizing an entire film does generate a copyright for the colorization. Colorizing a single photo might get a copyright -- basically is it enough for a "selection and arrangement" copyright. The closest example the Copyright Office gives for a photo also changes the impression of what is portrayed, so there are creative changes beyond colors. But an example of the Mona Lisa might be instructive. From the Compendium 906.3:
Charles Carter took a digital image of Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa and added different hair color, colored nail polish, stylized clothing, and darkened skin. Charles submitted an application to register the image, and described his authorship as “changed public domain Mona Lisa to green and pink streaked hair; purple nail polish; prisoner-striped black-white clothing; and darkened rouge on cheeks.” The registration specialist will register the work because the changes in color are sufficient to constitute a new work of authorship.
Clara Connor found a black and white photograph that is in the public domain. She altered the image by adding a variety of colors, shades, and tones to make it appear as if the photo was taken in a different season. Clara submitted an application to register the revised photograph and in the Author Created and New Material Included fields she described her authorship as “adapted public domain black-white image by adding different colors, shades, tones, in various places of derivative work.” The registration specialist may register the work if Clara made sufficient changes to the preexisting photograph.
Colors on flags probably don't count if those colors were known and obvious, and choosing just a few colors may not be enough. But there do seem to be many colors there... and numerous clothing ones in the second image. I probably wouldn't be comfortable uploading the colorized one. And have no idea what level Japan would use. Is the original black and white one uploaded? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

1977 US Poster

I see that this poster is wrongly tagged as own work and I wanted to nominate for deletion. But then I thought maybe Template:PD-US-no notice applies if it was published in 1977. Am I right? HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It's impossible to tell, as it seems clearly cropped and any copyright notice might have been cropped off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The uploader is claiming to be the creator. The username matches the text in the image (though the text is in a different font and could have been added much later). We are lacking evidence of permission, which may be resolved through VRT. One interesting thing about the image is that the scan has picked up faint lines of text - is this an extract from a book (with text on the following page) rather than a poster? From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
My guess would be that its an add for the play in a local magazine or newspaper. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eva buchmuller: given that you are uploading work that you have previously published, you should probably go through the process outlined at COM:VRT, not to offer a license for a particular photo, but just to establish that you really are Eva Buchmüller and that this is not some fan violating your copyright by uploading your work without your permission. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like that uploader only added that one work two years ago and then nothing else since. However, earlier there was an upload of another poster credited to her (but uploaded by someone else), File:Squat Theatre Mr Dead & Mrs Free Image of Poster.jpg, and VRT confirmation was received there so presumably she communicated then. It could be a username created to try and get by copyright, but given the earlier one, it's probably the author doing the upload to help the article further, later on. Would not hurt to confirm it using info from the earlier VRT ticket, if possible, as I'm not sure it strictly meets the rules as something previously published. But the older VRT seems to point that they simply tried to avoid the need for VRT the second time around. This user's only en-wiki edit was to add it to the en-wiki article, on a day when the uploader of the earlier poster was making numerous edits to the article, so it sure seems like it was uploaded in response to a request from the same person. Unless it was actually the first uploader alone, creating a SPA to avoid being as obvious, maybe. Unsure if a VRT agent could add any helpful info based on the older ticket. Leaning OK since we got permission for a similar one, but not completely sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Hm.... that other author/uploader was blocked on en-wiki over copyright issues, and hasn't edited since (here or there). I'm less sure now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I had a photo on my website from this url. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Lagos%2C_Nigeria_57991.jpg The photo is no longer there and not sure when it was removed from wikipedia commons. I was contacted by a lawyer saying I have infringed the copyrights of his client. I have read through the articles here but unsure about the application to this photo. I have removed the photo in question from my website. Have I broken a copyright law? Tpaulboda (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tpaulboda: File:Lagos, Nigeria 57991.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation 8 June 2015 on the following basis:
So it looks like it was indeed a copyright violation. You should certainly take it down from your site. You don't mention what country you are in, but in most countries you will be OK if you simply take it down now that you have become aware of the situation. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I took it down immediately when I was informed by the lawyer a few months ago. I am in the USA. I then found the exact photo on Alamy.com and purchased it and uploaded it to my website. https://www.alamy.com/aerial-lagos-nigeria-image359312484.html?imageid=EB11E87A-E341-45C4-A35B-7EC20A5B0395&p=90133&pn=1&searchId=5bb502ff6d93addcf799a88e0c8a9e15&searchtype=0 Nevertheless, the german lawyer is still wanting me to pay up failing which he says he will take it to court. The photo is owned by Alex Bartel but the lawyer says he is representing someone other than Alex Bartel. Tpaulboda (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@Tpaulboda: I'm not a lawyer, so I can't give you legal advice, but you might want to look up "DMCA notice". - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not get a DMCA notice. I just got an email with a cease and desist order (which I did not sign) and a letter demanding payment of 2500 Euros for damages failing which it will go to court. I have not responded as it may be a scam. I immediately took the photo in question down once I was notified and then purchased it from Alamy. I did not know it was no longer on wikipedia commons. Any advice is appreciated. Tpaulboda (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@Tpaulboda: Hi, and welcome to Wikimedia Commons, not "wikipedia commons". See also COM:ALAMY.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Lots of files get uploaded to Commons by people who might mean well but simply have zero concept of copyright law or simply don't care about copyright law. In many cases, the files are uploaded by someone wanting to use them in an article on one of the local Wikipedias. Unfortunately, it can take quite a bit of time to find these and usually that only happens by when someone (for some reason) notices the problem file. I'm not sure there's really anything Commons can do here because utimately it's up to the reusers of Commons files (as explained in COM:REUSE) to make sure the file is OK to be reused. I can only suggest that you seek legal assistance (try seeing if there's a free service in your area) from someone experienced in intellectual property or copyright law and see what they might have to say. You could also be being targeted by a scammer who hopes you'll quickly pay them something to get them to go away. If you legitmately purchased the rights from Alarmy to reuse the photo on your website, you might also want to contact Alarmy to see what it has to say. Perhaps, other Alarmy customers have received similar request for payment and they might be able to suggest a course of action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Disney characters

Saw some stamps with Disney characters and asked an admin how to proceed, and was told to put a question here. Since found apparently Disney characters got its own separate category for deletion requests... so... I guess the Category:Disney characters on stamps and its subcategories, and perhaps even the Category:Disney characters and down, should be reviewed? TherasTaneel (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'd nominate them for deletion. Although I say that with the caveat that depending on the character some of them are probably fine. Like I could be wrong but I think the original design for Donald Duck is copyright free but later designs aren't. There's also some characters like the from The Wizard of OZ and Winnie-the-Pooh that I think are public domain now because they are based on older works by other entities. Don't quote me on that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Portrait of a US Army colonel in uniform

Here we have a portrait of a US Army colonel in uniform (he served in WW2 and was retired in 1962). Can we assume that Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army is the license for this portrait? HeminKurdistan (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Die Dame ohne Unterleib, Nikolaus Stoecklin, 1929.jpg

There are two files of Nicklaus Stoecklin, who died in 1982. The uploader mentions that the rights are with his daughter, and that the image took Stoecklins grand child. Is that a valid license? If yes, ok, if not, what do you suggest? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Meersicht Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm working for a living potter who has paid a photographer to take pictures of her work and of herself. The potter would like me to upload these photos to her wikipedia page but it is not letting me. How do I go about this? Thymenough (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thymenough: Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but this is probably more complicated than you seem to think.
  1. "It is not letting me" is rather vague. What exactly is happening?
  2. I see you have edited Julia Galloway and your remarks here suggest that is who you are working for. This sounds like you are doing paid editing of Wikipedia. Please read en:WP:COI and make appropriate disclosure on en-wiki before you find yourself blocked there!
  3. Just so you don't go through uploading only to have your photos deleted: in the U.S., copyright of a photo originally belongs to the photographer and can only be transferred in writing, not orally. Possession of the physical photo is unrelated to possession of the intellectual property rights. If copyright has been correctly transferred, you'll need to send a copy of the relevant document (either electronic document of a scan of a paper document) to the email address given at COM:VRT. If it hasn't been transferred, either you'll need to take care of that first or the VRT people will need an email from the photographer, who is still the copyright owner, granting the appropriate free license.
Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Thymenough: Further to Jmabel's comments, may I make the following observations:
  1. Copyright of the photo belongs to the photographer unless they explicitly asssigned it to the potter. You should check with the potter whether or not the copyright was explicitly assigned to them.
  2. The article en:WP:COI#Supplying photographs and media files actually encourages editors to upload high-quality photographs which is what you are doing. If there are no photographs of the potter on their Wikipedia page, then by all means insert the one you are talking about into Wikipedia (assuming of course that you have sorted out the copyright issues). If there is already a photograph, proceed carefully.
Martinvl (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: What's your take on File:Urns.jpg? Is it a derivative work under the scope of the US's freedom of panorama? Would pottery (even unfinished work like this seems to be) be considered an "artistic 3D work" if it's of an ornate design? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Freedom of panorama doesn't even enter the matter: it's not taken in a public, outdoor space. If those are considered as art objects, the photo would be a derivative work; if they are considered practical objects, to be used as containers, probably a photo like that would not be considered problematic. But it can certainly be cleared up by VRT email from the potter, and it sounds like User:Thymenough is in close contact with the potter. Thymenough, assuming these are works by Julia Galloway, it would be good if she would write a note (again using the address given at COM:VRT) indicating that you are uploading on her behalf, and that she grants the relevant permission for her works appearing in any copyrighted works that you upload. They may need something more specific that I'm not thinking of, so there may turn out to be some back-and-forth, but I'm sure that can be worked out.
Just in case it's unclear:
  1. Yes, this sort of thing is very welcome on Commons if we can get the copyright issues sorted out.
  2. The English-language Wikipedia, however, is pretty strict about editing by anyone where there is any sort of conflict of interest, and you need to make disclosures there (per en:WP:COI and en:WP:PAID).
Sorry that this gets complicated, but it does. - Jmabel ! talk 21:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
My bad about the FOP stuff, and thanks for correcting me. I was thinking COM:TOO US, but had a brain fart and mistakenly wandered into FOP territory. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

How stamps in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India should be reviewed?

There are 13k+ images in this category and I tried to review some of them. Many of them are clearly tagged invalidly (for example logo/insignia which are explicitly not covered by this license).

There are also many images just posted by official Twitter account that appear to be not clearly covered (as one of numerous exceptions may apply)

Commons:Stamps#India claims that stamps may be covered by this license but make no explanation whatsoever how it may be verified. For example, how reviewer is supposed to check whether claimed license on File:C_Sankaran_Nair_2001_stamp_of_India.jpg is applying?

See also Template_talk:GODL-India#Stamps_of_India

As it stands, I see no explanation why this stamp is openly licensed (and in general GODL appears to be horrifically badly designed and may be well intentioned but in practice appears to be nearly useless, good luck with guessing whether any of exclusion applies) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

File:C Sankaran Nair 2001 stamp of India.jpg is a derivative work of an old picture, itself PD-India + PD-1996. The rest is just text. I fixed that Yann (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I was unaware that we can be certain about that in this specific case, I was unable to guess that or track down the picture. What about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kakaji_Maharaj_2003_stamp_of_India.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kailashpati_Mishra_2016_stamp_of_India.jpg then? Would it be a good test case? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kakaji Maharaj 2003 stamp of India.jpg for now Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Validity of PD-NWS

The National Weather Service is a U.S. government agency. Its website mostly hosts content that is produced by the N.W.S., but it occasionally hosts content submitted by third parties that is not an original creation of the U.S. government agency. For this case, the current version of {{PD-NWS}} states that As stated at https://www.weather.gov/lmk/photo_submission_information: "By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others."

I'm deeply concerned regarding the validity of the sentence quoted above. The basis that third-party photographs are in the public domain The link is currently dead; the last successful archive of the page is from October 2021, so I don't think we can presume the instructions to apply after that date. But, beyond that, there are greater issues with using that source: the page was hosted under the auspices of the N.W.S.'s Louisville office, and other offices have different submission instructions that don't explicitly waive rights to the public domain (see: Memphis and Sioux Falls, which only obtain permission to share it with the public or permission to use your photos in our graphics respectively—neither of these are broad grants of the photos into the public domain).

The National Weather Service's terms of use state that The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise. Some photographs hosted by the NWS contain explicit copyright notices, but nonetheless have been uploaded on Commons under a claim that they are in the public domain (such as File:EF2 tornado near Wrights, IL.jpg) with that copyright notice removed.

For these reasons, I think that we should revise our {{PD-NWS}} template to remove reference to the deadlink and to simply replace the contested text with a statement that According to the National Weather Service's general disclaimer, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise". This would avoid relying on a (weak) argument based upon a single form at a regional office, and it would also make clear that there are cases where works by third parties that are hosted on the N.W.S. site are not be in the public domain. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: A single NWS office technically can (and does) speak for the National Weather Service as a whole. That is part of their responsibility. Each NWS office (referred to as NWS WFOs) are responsible for all the National Weather Service functions inside their weather forecast office area (WFO). This includes officially surveying tornadoes, creating the official weather forecast, and officially documenting weather events inside their WFO. https://www.weather.gov/srh/nwsoffices shows the map of NWS WFOs. Each office speaks for the National Weather Service as a whole.
While we should remove the dead link for sure, the statement still applies that NWS said. Even more importantly, it applies to all of NWS. Nonetheless, the dead link needs to be removed, but a similarly worded thing should be put back since things uploaded by and to NWS web servers are in public domain. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
My greater point is that the current terms of use explicitly indicate that, while most things on the servers are in the public domain, there are certain labeled items that are not in the public domain. The template cannot be so broad as portray copyrighted materials hosted under license from third parties that have an explicit note that those materials are copyrighted as if they were in the public domain. The exact text from the disclaimer, The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, seems to be sufficient to indicate what is and isn't in the public domain that's hosted on the N.W.S. site. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I will note that the file I had noted above as being hosted under a dubious claim of public domain has been deleted following a DR. Another similarly problematic file was deleted for like reasons. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I plan to contact Tom himself because you are mis-interpreting NWS policy. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to have him send permission to COM:VRT, but it's frankly quite clear that we can't rely on something that has a copyright notice marked on it as being in the public domain. I've updated the NWS template along the lines noted above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
"dubious claim" seems very exaggerated. I have no idea why, but you honestly just cost Wikimedia a ton of good images that ARE public domain. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Dubious" is a milder word than I would use. "Silly", perhaps?

Again, as User:Red-tailed hawk has clearly stated, an image that is labeled with an explicit copyright notice cannot be PD unless the person who placed the copyright notice is committing copyfraud. It can be licensed under a free license, but PD and © are mutually exclusive.

Also note that copyright licenses must be in writing, signed by the copyright owner, so any notice on a government web site such as the one cited above has no effect unless explicitly acknowledged in writing by the copyright holder of the posted images.

Finally, even if one could rely on the wording cited above, it would apply only to images that were uploaded by the copyright holder. It would not apply to images taken from a photographer's site and posted on the NWS site by a third party or by the NWS itself. Neither the NWS nor a thrid party has any right to remove a copyright from an image. We have no proof the the images under discussion were actually posted by the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Should we add the National Weather Service to the list of problematic sources? Ixfd64 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm unsure; we don't list Voice of America there, despite {{PD-VOA}} having a pretty explicit warning statement.
On a related note, I tried to improve the existing {{PD-NWS}} template, but I was reverted. Based on this whole conversation and the related DRs, I think that changing that template to reflect the actual language of the NWS would be worthwhile, but apparently at least one person disagrees. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/03&oldid=750816763"