Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/02

Is this image of Sam Sutter in the public domain?

Hi everyone! I'm wondering if this image of Sutter is in the public domain, since I was planning on adding it to the Wikipedia article about him. Thanks in advance! Morbidbike (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is most unlikely because it is a reasonably recent image and there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Also the person in question is probably still alive and the photographer is certainly not dead over 70 years. Ww2censor (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeking confirmation that this would fall under PD-scan

I'm looking to replace the current version of File:Ratcliffe Highway Murders Reward poster.jpg with a far more legible version found here. While the site asserts that the image is "© Copyright The Open University and Metropolitan Police Authority 2009", it is clearly a mere scan of a document from approx. 200 years beforehand and so I am fairly confident that it would be eligible for upload under PD-scan. Nevertheless, I would like to have confirmation that this is indeed the case.

Apologies in advance if anyone reading and/or responding to this feels like this is a bit of a time-waster. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You can ignore that Copyright notice. Yes, the work itself is in the Public Domain and no new copyright can be gained by a mere scan. PascalHD (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! - Dvaderv2 (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyrightable software screenshot

Hi! While improving a Wikipedia draft about an animation software, I noticed this screenshot used in the page. It has a questionable "self work" claim, since it is a screenshot of a popular software (which I strongly believe is non-free, see its ToS). I'm not completely sure whether the layout would be simple enough for {{PD-ineligible}} and whether the pencil icon at the left would be {{De minimis}}, but I have more doubts about the canvas appearing to have a default background with a barely visible crumpled paper-like texture. Would this background be eligible for copyright protection? If so, would it be fine to replace it with a completely blank background and upload it? ObserveOwl (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Background is barely visible. Initially I even did not notice it. So, I think it is {{De minimis}} and as the whole image is {{PD-ineligible}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If there is any element that is an issue, we could put a Gaussian blur over that element and keep the redacted version. - Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've placed the correct copyright tags. ObserveOwl (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Spanish Ministry website images: do we need a template?

Hi! I'd like to bring here a question I made at the Spanish Café :P. In short: i was wondering if it would be possible to upload the picture located in this press release (she's the former chairwoman of Adif, the Spanish railway infrastructure manager). The legal notice associated to all resources in this ministry website is located here, and i think is pretty similar to Template:Attribution-La Moncloa, but there's no template that fits exactly this Ministry. Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! Yonseca (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can use items from that site. You can use Template:Attribution-mitma. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you!! :) Yonseca (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

US copyright law DOES protect the work of American Samoans

Every file in Category:PD-American Samoa must be deleted immediately. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/American Samoa is incredibly misleading.

• Even though federal statutory copyright law may not apply in American Samoa, the result is that American Samoa (by default) must follow common law copyright (which is what happens whenever federal copyright does not preempt the common law).
• American Samoa arguably incorporates federal copyright law by reference, but let's put that aside.
• American Samoans are US nationals. The very documents cited on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/American Samoa explicitly state that works by American Samoans are copyrighted in (the rest of) the United States.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"American Samoans are US nationals" - wrong. They are not. They con become very easy US nationals. But they are not by birth. I know personally some American Samoans. And the rest of your statement is very likey as false as yout last point. So nothing "must be deleted immediately". So far you're just making a claim that you're backing up with nothing but conjecture. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

American Samoans are 100% US non-citizen nationals by birth. See en:US National. US federal copyright law defines the works of US nationals, wherever they may be made or published, as US works subject to federal statutory copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright for uploading family photos on family member biography

I am attempting to upload a biography of my late uncle and father but am unable to upload their photos which are sourced from our family albums.

What copyright do I need to upload these images that were taken by family members years ago? Lakang (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lakang: are you, personally, the heir to the intellectual property rights of the photographers in question? If not, do you know who is? - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(Also, what country?) - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If you took the pictures, then you are the copyright holder and you can write {{own}}.

If you are the heir to the person who took the pictures, and the person is deceased, then you can upload it as the copyright holder. Otherwise, you can upload it on behalf of the family member(s) who took the photos or their heir(s) if they grant permission for you to do so for them.

Any such photo can be released under any of the acceptable licenses or dedicated to the public domain.

Also, of course, the photos must be within the project's scope (so it's OK if your father/uncle have Wikipedia biographies — though you shouldn't create any for them yourself). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Ben Schnall - the original Sad Sack.jpg

This file has the wrong license. It should not be a CC0 and the date is wrong. The photo is what is being licensed, but the underlying image is undetermined as copyright. I would classify it as an unpublished work by likely George Baker, who died in 1975. As such we should delete it until 2046. Thoughts? SDudley (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I tagged it as speedy copyvio. It's a photo of a character from a copyrighted comic book series. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: I corrected your tag. Pinging @Bonsaiman as uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, whoops! D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! @D. Benjamin Miller@Jeff G. SDudley (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright issue: Gamma-ray burst map

URL source of the picture: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/12/aa24829-14/F4.html

Source paper: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/12/aa24829-14/aa24829-14.html

Relevant article (here in Wiki): Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall

Reasons:

I think this image is under copyright by the authors, and so is discouraged to be uploaded. But I believe this would be fair use because:

• The resolution is the lowest possible (1200 × 1225) given the nature of the map, and just enough to give some sense of the subject.
• No artistic value and only presents a graphical illustration of raw scientific data.
• Purpose is clear and used to give an illustration of the subject
• Falls under academic fair use, with no other comparable image in the public domain.

This is an appeal because the article has been using for too long a picture that is misleading and does not consider the relevant scientific information, uploaded by an author who has been the subject of an administrative review and mass deletion of uploaded works.

This is an important topic for science that deserves a factual illustration of its own, at the very least. Regards. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@SkyFlubbler: Fair use cannot be uploaded to Commons. If you believe you can make a strong and clear case for fair use, then upload it locally to en.wiki with the appropriate statements. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the response. Do you also know any relevant tags to use/what to do on the file description when uploading these types of pictures? SkyFlubbler (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@SkyFlubbler: the requirements for a “fair use rationale” and the use of an appropriate template are described at en:WP:FUR. Note that a bot reduces non-free raster images to a size that would degrade these maps, because its maximum pixel count is considerably less than what you say above is minimal: I recommend converting them to SVG to maintain quality regardless of nominal size. OTOH you could avoid the copyright issue entirely by creating your own plots of the data provided in the appendix.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Skyflubbler: While Commons does not accept non-free material, these graphs are uncopyrightable (Template:PD-chart). Copyright does not protect facts. There is no authorial expression in these graphs themselves. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

See the University of Michigan website which gives further examples of graphs and charts that are uncopyrightable. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Since both of these graphs are uncopyrightable, here they are.

• File:Horváth et al. - New data support the existence of the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall - Distribution of GRBs with measured redshift.svg
• File:Horváth et al. - New data support the existence of the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall - Anisotropic distribution of GRBs near redshift z = 2.svg

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the uploads. Will now add them both to the article. SkyFlubbler (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Are these images posted on US government websites taken by the US government

https://www.loc.gov/item/il0894/ shows various images of the Chicago Parks District headquarters, and https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/81000295 shows the Baskin High School Building (existed 1926-2021). It seems these are US Government images but I see no explicit confirmation of such. Should I treat them as such?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You can see the source information by viewing "Data Pages from Survey" (click the link on the page you just linked).

This report was prepared on behalf of the Chicago Park District by Elizabeth A. Petterson, Consultant, and Julia S. Bachrach, Planning Supervisor, as a donation to the Historic American Buildings Survey. The photography was produced by Judith Bromley.

So the photographs appear not to be a US government work. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

HABS submissions are supposed to be released to the public domain -- see here. That is not quite the same thing as being government-authored. I'm not sure how long that policy was in place, and earlier submissions may have have that explicit declaration. However that submission looks like it was in 1981, and did not have any copyright notices on it that I see in the downloads, so it could have also been PD by that route (which HABS may have previously counted on). The loc.gov guidance does mention that most of them are PD, though sometimes images do come from a historical society (like the ones you point to did), and maybe a bit cloudier. We do have the {{PD-USGov-Interior-HABS}} tag, which used to note the declaration of PD status (which is also mentioned in their guidelines), but I think someone updated that tag to simply refer to PD-USGov-NPS without the specific wording which used to be there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The items are PD either because they were published through the HABS (being offered to the public) without notice before 1989, or because the donors released the work into the public domain specifically. So they should be fine. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Ship picture from a 1935 Dutch Newspaper.

(Preliminary apology, I am quite new to Commons)

Hello, I am interested in using pictures of the ship MV Rapana for use in its Wikipedia article.

I originally found the pictures on this website (collection of Shell tankers) with no author attribution. I have found what I believe to be the source of one of the pictures in this article published by "De Nederlander" on the 5th of March 1935. Separately, I have also found similar pictures of the ship in this archive of Dutch shipping and in this article from a Rotterdam newspaper published on the 6th of March 1935.

Neither source provides any authorship for the pictures, and the closest it gets to an "author" is that some pictures on the archive came from a "Marien Lindenborn" collection, which I have been unable to identify.

The website for the newspaper (Delpher) states that "It is possible that (parts of) this object is still subject to copyright", but also goes on to state "If no name is mentioned or, for example, it says 'from one of our reporters', then the copyright belongs to the publisher. The object is then protected for 70 years after publication and in this case has therefore expired."

Given the circumstances (and having asked on Wikipedia), I have been told that Template:PD-anon-70-EU may be suitable. However, I want to make sure before proceeding to utilize/upload the pictures.

Thanks for taking your time to read all of this! SpanCan (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It has probably expired in the Netherlands. But in order to be uploadable to Commons, it must be in the public domain in the United States as well, which they would not be (since they get an automatic URAA-restored copyright). They will be in the public domain in 2031. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's a shame. Thanks for the help! SpanCan (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Photos from defunct British Army blogs

Good day.

Saw a good photo from this page for the National Directorate of Security. Not sure if it can fall under any British military/government copyright tags here. Ominae (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Photo taken from a copyrighted book

Photo in question is from a book published in 2011. It is used in one article and was recently added. The uploader put this file under CC0. I think he was not the author of the photo. Should he use a lower quality image of it? The Yennefer (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Yennefer: No, absent further info, it should be deleted and the uploader at least warned. Please link the photo here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G. File:Ulomci vladarskog natpisa crkve sv. Vida na Klisu.jpg I dont have the neccesary permits for deleting on Commons so please delete it. I can warn them and delete the contribution on hr.wiki. The Yennefer (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Yennefer: Thanks. Please specify the book at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ulomci vladarskog natpisa crkve sv. Vida na Klisu.jpg. Please use internal links.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

US sound recordings and derivative works

On Commons talk:Character copyrights @SDudley argues that the Lone Ranger, who first appeared on radio in 1933, will be protected by a sound recording copyright in the US for 100 years. I can't imagine that the intent of the CLASSICS Act was to lengthen the copyright of the Lone Ranger by five years, nor do I believe that the Lone Ranger wasn't protected in some other way; maybe the script would have registered for copyright? As an unpublished work (as broadcasting isn't publication), it wouldn't have been a concern until they started distributing it to other stations, but then surely they would have had some protection. Did the CLASSICS act have the side effect of lengthening certain radio characters' copyright by (at least) five years?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Yes, per en:CLASSICS Act there was no federal protection for sound recordings until October 11, 2018, and now it is 100 or 110 years, despite protection having already expired in various states. Recordings since February 15, 1972 are subject to the limits in COM:US.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The right under the CLASSICS act is sui generis and is not considered equivalent to publication of the script. The term applicable under the CLASSICS act applies only to the sound recording and not to any script which is embodied in it. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The sound recording copyright can indeed be 100 years (and 110 years for 1947-1956 recordings). Recordings since 1972 have a regular 95 year copyright. However, that is specifically for the recording itself -- that would not affect any character copyright, which must have been embodied in some other work. (The expression involved in actually making a recording is separate from the content of that recording, and typically nothing is derivative of it outside of samples.) I think a soundtrack as part of a movie is not considered a recording (just part of the movie). So yes, a Lone Ranger character copyright would only be embodied in those radio scripts, though figuring out when the copyright clock actually started on those might be a bit difficult from the sounds of it. Additionally, simply taping a radio broadcast may not exhibit enough originality to get a sound recording copyright in the first place -- as this circular says, a recording must contain a sufficient amount of production authorship. (It also says Short sound recordings may lack a sufficient amount of authorship to warrant copyright protection, just as words and short textual phrases are not copyrightable. Sound recordings captured by purely mechanical means without originality of any kind also lack a sufficient amount of authorship to warrant copyright protection.). So yes in general, that should not affect the length of the character copyright at all, though might impact when we can upload a recording of it (depending on who recorded it and how). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

thecollectivehk.com

This website's copyright notice at https://thecollectivehk.com/%E7%89%88%E6%AC%8A%E8%81%B2%E6%98%8E/ says

《集誌社》所有文章、資訊圖片均按「共享創意」（Creative Commons）的「署名」（Attribution）原則，即標明出處為《集誌社》的情況下，授權他方自由使用，以支持涉及公眾利益的新聞報道，能廣傳流通。

Which autotranslates as

All articles and information pictures of "Ji Zhi She" are based on the "Attribution" principle of "Creative Commons", that is, if the source is indicated as "Ji Zhi She", others are authorized to use it freely to Support news reports involving public interests that can be widely disseminated and circulated.

Should this be taken as a bad (possibly just badly autotranslated!) explanation of CC-attribution, or as the website deliberately extending the licence to exclude non-public-interest non-widespread non-news usage (meaning that it would be incompatible with Commons)? Belbury (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I read the original in Chinese and I've got two concerns.

One is that there's no version number stated. Per COM:VRT/CONSENT, You may choose another license from our list of free licenses if you wish, but you MUST state a license ... simply stating Creative Commons license, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, or CC BY (without the version number) is not. I'd imagine the same for here.

Another is that the notice says 所有文章、資訊圖片均按..., in which "資訊圖片" generally refers to "File/Stock photo". Point 4, however states 本網站及社交媒體的相片及影片，版權可能屬於他方，因此《集誌社》保留所有版權。 (The copyright for photos and videos on this website, as well as those on social media, may belong to others. As a result, The Collective reserves the rights for such media.) This means that we have to distinguish between those "Stock photos" and the ones that are not.

S5A-0043^Talk 08:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

U.S. Department of Transportation Flickr

Not sure if this has been discussed previously, but is there a reason why the U.S. Department of Transportation on Flickr has marked all the photos as 'Copyright' instead of Public Domain? Aren't all Government works free from Copyright? PascalHD (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, all (US Federal) Government works are in the public domain. But "all rights reserved" is the default on flickr. Don't worry, for files from this account, you can ignore this. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

What I figured, thanks for the clarification. PascalHD (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Telegraph to Mary's parents from Prime Minister Trudeau - June 11 1975.tif

I have serious doubts about File:Telegraph to Mary's parents from Prime Minister Trudeau - June 11 1975.tif I see that a letter written (or typed) by Pierre Trudeau is somehow marked as VRT approved. I cannot see what exactly the VRT ticket says, but I am certain that this would not be acceptable, unless the Government of Canada was the one who granted permission. This letter was issued by Trudeau while performing the duties of PM in 1975, and the Crown would hold the copyright on this letter - so PD 50 years after Publication. Did the Government of Canada really grant permission for this? I find that hard to believe as they normally grant restrictive permissions for their works under copyright [11]. Epically in regards to Commercial usage as "Permission is always required when the work being reproduced will be distributed for commercial purposes", which may conflict with rules at the Commons. Whomever the letter is addressed to is NOT the copyright holder. Anyway, before nominating, I was hoping someone with the ability to see the ticket could verify for me who gave permissions, and confirm that the Government of Canada/PMO office granted those VRT permissions. PascalHD (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

As stated on the file page, "If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the VRT noticeboard." Asking for help on this page is less likely to give you an answer. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, I’ll take it there. It’s a just a habit of mine to bring my copyright issues here! PascalHD (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement... by me.

Hello, I uploaded a lot of time ago a series of mythical creatures or cryptids, drawn by me but directly copied from possibly copyrighted images found on the web. I was not aware at that time of this possibility. I think they should be deleted, just like happened to my Altamaha-ha.

• 
  [1]
  (original version) [2]
  (version by me) [3][4]
• 
  [5]
  (original version) [6]
  (version by me) [7][8][9]
• 
  [10]

Thanks.-- Carnby (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Carnby  Question There are from random websites? Don't you remember the source for these pictures? Ruthven (msg) 12:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Follow the links below the images.-- Carnby (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Carnby: For the images on Wikia, please also include the pages they appeared on.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthven and Jeff G.:  Done-- Carnby (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Carnby: Thanks. Each page of It's Something Wiki (and most wikis on Fandom) says "Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted." That page indicates "the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported) (CC BY-SA)" or {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Please license your contributions sourced from that wiki with that license or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and indicate the sources for all your uploads per COM:EVID.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthven and Jeff G.:  Done--Carnby (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Carnby: Thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's proceeed in order.

• The first two files are settled: source is in CC BY SA 3.0. I just mentioned the original authors as the license requires.
• Honestly I don't think that File:Nahuelito_(artistic_rendition).jpg represents a DW, it is also very different from the low resolution original photograph[12].
• File:Ningen.jpg should be deleted, as the original is under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License. Ruthven (msg) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• File:Thunderbird_(artistic_rendition).jpg is distributed under a no-commercial license, as all the contents of the https://comicvine.gamespot.com/ website: "You must obtain our written permission for commercial use of the Content or the Services."
• The photo from NBCNews credited to "Oxford University", comes in reality from Tiwari J. K. & Sillero-Zubiri C. (2004), Unidentifiedcanid in the Danakil desert of Eritrea, Horn of Africa. Canid News, 7(5), which is Copyright © 2004 by the IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group.

I'll the delete the ones that we cannot keep here. Note that some might be usable under fair use in certain porjects. Cheers Ruthven (msg) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 12:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Portrait_head_of_Barry_McGovern_(Imogen_Stuart).jpg

Am I missing smething that explains the copyright status of the bust? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you're missing anything. Even if the free license for the photo is correct, we can't keep it since it since the photo is a derivative work of the sculpture Portrait Head of Barry McGovern created in 1992 by the still living artist Imogen Stuart. I can't find any indication that her works, or Portrait Head of Barry McGovern in particular, are freely licensed. —RP88 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, nominated for deletion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting SOHO warning (in template talk)

Hi all. I recently opened a discussion Template talk:PD-USGov-NASA#Revisiting SOHO warning: redux pertaining to the copyright of data/images from the w:Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. I would appreciate if someone could weigh in. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Public domain camera footage

It is listed on {{PD-automated}} and {{PD-CCTV}} that footage captured on a bodycam, CCTV camera, dashcam or traffic enforcement camera without creative input is in the public domain in the United States. Does this also apply to footage from a doorbell camera, photo booth camera or webcam? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably it does, though it is my personal opinion. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that footage from a doorbell camera is analogous to a security camera, and as such would likely be below the threshold of originality (TOO) in the US. The term "webcam" is pretty context dependent. A webcam that is an outdoor camera with fixed framing is probably below the TOO in the US, but one that can be remotely pointed by the user may not be. Similarly, I could easily see someone paying close attention to a desktop webcam's framing, lighting, and maybe even the background before an setting up a videoconference call — this would probably be above the TOO in the US. With regards to photo booth cameras I've actually seen and read lawyers familiar with US copyright law argue both for and against there being sufficient creative input — so this situation is likely dependent on context as well, particularly in the case of manual trigger photo booths. —RP88 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

réutilation d' un fichier Wikipedia dans un livre papier ?

Bonjour Actuellement dans l'écriture d' un ouvrage papier sur une série de locomotives (aux Editions La Vie Du Rail -Paris) , je souhaiterais éditer dans cet ouvrage la photo suivante. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jungang_Line_Baecheok_Bridge_and_Spiral_Track_with_Electric_Locomotive_Pulling_Passenger_Train(Late_1970%27s_-_Early_1980%27s).jpg

Après recherche, l'auteur Konarail ne semble pas avoir de lien direct pour le contacter. Les réponses sur la FAQ concernant les droits d' utilisation ne comportent que des réponses qui concernent une republication internet. Pourriez vous me donner les précisions pour un livre papier. La mention de l'ensemble du lien comme pour un repost internet suffit t'il ? Cordialement. Bruno LEGOUEST Bruno Lgst (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Vous devez suivre les directives de CC BY-SA 4.0. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years

Apparently this is one the license templates which are too complicated for many uploaders. Looking at the hodgepdoge of files in Category:PD Switzerland (Individuality 50 years) which is populated by the template, I think the vast majority of the files, probably all of them, don't qualify for the template, which is for photographs of three-dimensional objects where the photographic depiction was created at least 50 years ago and the reproduction has no individual character, to paraphrase the template text. Most are either showing people (or animals), landscapes, street scenes or railway cars and locomotives out in the wild. The few which might actually be non-individual photographs of 3D objects appear to be less than 50 years old.

Do you agree with this assessment? And what should be done with the files? Delete the lot? --Rosenzweig τ 16:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The template might indeed be too complicated, and I might have misunderstood it. Reading up on the official explanation for the 2019/2020 change in the Swiss copyright law, it appears they actually meant to include humans etc. as "3D objects". Are there any newer Swiss court cases about when a photograph has an individual character or not? --Rosenzweig τ 00:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Maybe this discussion is helpful? Basically, the template is the "spiritual successor" of {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} (my deletion request for the relatively few files still using that template, and where PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years isn't applicable, is still pending). Switzerland traditionally applies a very high threshold of originality for copyright protection of photographs, see the famous "Meili" decision by the Federal Supreme Court: A photograph of a man posing with documents was deemed to have no copyright protection whatsoever, as it lacked "an individual expression of thought" (in contrast, an expressive photo of Bob Marley was deemed copyrightable a year earlier). And as Switzerland didn't have an extra protection for simple photographs (unlike Germany's "Lichtbilder"), that photo was completely unprotected by copyright or related rights. As this was widely bemoaned as unsatisfactory by photographers and press agencies, the 2019/2020 law change introduced a new protection for such "unoriginal" photographs lasting for 50 years after creation of the photograph. So, the Meili image presumably is now protected by this new related right until 2047 (year of creation 1997 + 50 years), but still not protected by the full 70 years p.m.a. copyright, as the new protection for photographs was introduced for exactly this kind of case. So, the assumption for the template is that everything comparable to the Meili image which we previously wouldn't have seen as copyrighted in Switzerland at all has now that 50 years protection, but for older "Meili-like" images, the new template is applicable. As the law change came into effect only in 2020, I doubt there are already newer cases, at least I know of none. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: Was there ever a discussion about the US copyright status of these photographs which were not protected in Switzerland? One might think that because they were not protected on the Swiss URAA date in 1996, the URAA did not restore their US copyrights. But actually, only the US copyrights of works which had an expired copyright in their source country were not restored by the URAA (en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Five-point test: “Had the copyright expired in the source country on the date of restoration?”) and [13] “The work is not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection.”) The copyright of those photographs had not expired however, instead they were never protected. As photographs are generally copyrightable in the US, the URAA might have restored the US copyrights of these photographs after all. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: This is nearly a philosophical question. If a photograph had no chance of its copyright protection ever expiring in the source country because there was no protection to begin with - is it really intended by the URAA (""teleologische Auslegung") to grant creators a protection they never had in the source country? However, the Meili image (shown in English Wikipedia as fair use) was actually deleted several times here on Commons on grounds that it would be likely protected in the US, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg. I, too, argued in the latest deletion discussion - only ten years ago, how time flies ;-) - that "it's probably protected in the US indeed, so it does seem to go against Commons policy". That being said, there might be files using {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} that are PD in the US, too, for different reasons. For example, File:Delegation mit Titel.jpg is a 1928 photo, so it would be {{PD-US-expired}} by now. Or File:Feldbahn im neutralen Gebiet zwischen Belgien und Deutschland (Ans 05358-015-AL).jpg, a 1915 photo (btw, I don't see why this should be considered a Swiss work - it's from a Swiss collection, but apparently taken in en:Neutral Moresnet - anyone familiar with Neutral Moresnet copyright law? ;-) ) . So, if we should arrive at the conclusion that files using PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years should be deleted even if they were not protected at the URAA date in Switzerland (due to lack of originality instead of expiration of protection), we need to assess all files using that template individually. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Basically, this would mean that this template would need to be kind of "tied" to the PD-US-expired template, and we would accept "simple" Swiss photographs if they are at least 95 years old. And sure, we would have to look at all 200+ of them individually. I've already added CC-BY licenses to some of them (that were from the ETH library) and nominated one for deletion which wasn't even a photo, but a drawing. Some others are probably not even 50 years old, and I saw at least one other file which didn't seem at all "Swiss" to me. --Rosenzweig τ 21:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I also just now nominated one for deletion that is from 1978. No objections to individually reviewing them. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's my thought on this. I think that the photos that were subject-matter ineligible in Switzerland would not be eligible for URAA restoration, for the following reasons, in addition to the fact that the term of copyright was zero:

1. The clear intent of Congress at the time was to have minimal compliance with the Berne Convention's provision on the restoration of foreign copyrights. This meant both not extending protection to any work that was simultaneously a US work, as well as any work that was in the public domain at its coming into effect.
2. The ownership of a restored copyright "vests initially in the author or initial rightholder of the work as determined by the law of the source country of the work." But this is impossible when there was no author or rightholder according to that country's law. Since there is no owner according to Swiss law, there is no person who can become the first owner of the restored copyright.

However, the Meili photo is definitely not in the public domain in the US, since it was created after 1989, and no formality would be required after that date. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: Thanks for these thoughts. If we'd follow this line of thinking, we would have no URAA issue with PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years (provided the individual photos are indeed lacking "an individual expression of thought") until 2039, as all photos currently using that template (unlike the previous PD-Switzerland-photo) should be created before 1989 anyway, as they need to be older than 50 years. Only starting in 2040 we would get photos that are older than 50 years but created after 1989 and therefore would have protection in the USA. - What do you think, Rosenzweig? Following that approach, we could add an appropriate PD-US tag to PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah with the proviso that the photograph must have been published on February 28, 1989, or earlier, that Switzerland must be the country of origin under the URAA and that the US formalities must not have been fulfilled. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm. Sounds intriguing, but let's ask someone else well-versed in US copyright to be sure :-) @Clindberg: Can you agree with this approach? --Rosenzweig τ 11:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Now, the counterpoint is that the "expiration of the term of protection" clause is, according to many interpretations, intended to prevent works which were in the public domain in the source country due to a failure to respect formalities from being in the public domain in other Berne countries, on the basis that the term of protection had not expired. This has been used to argue that (for instance) a US work which is in the public domain in the US due to a failure to renew its copyright would not be in the public domain in countries that apply the rule of the shorter term to US works.

However, I will draw a distinction here. In those cases, we would be talking about a work which could have had a 95-year term, but which failed to get it in the US due to the failure to comply with formalities. Nevertheless, such a work would be of the type that could receive such protection. The Berne Convention presumes that different kinds of subject matter may be subject to different term lengths. One type of subject matter in question is photographs, which, under Berne, must receive a 25-year term (at least to the extent they are protected as Berne Convention works).

Compare, on the other hand, the EU copyright directive, which says: "The protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes. A photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account. The protection of other photographs should be left to national law." Switzerland, of course, is not part of the EU, but its copyright law has close ties to that of its neighbors.

We can say, looking at Switzerland (and other European countries, which themselves were the most influential on the actual creation of the Berne Convention, and in light of whose laws the Convention should be interpreted) that, much as some categories of work may receive longer or shorter terms than others in general, these countries have decided (where there is a dualistic system) that there is a category of work (original photos) which receives one term, and another (non-original photos) which receives another. In some countries, such as Italy, the latter term was non-zero. But Switzerland set the term for such photos (at the time, anyway — and only the law on January 1, 1996 is relevant) at zero intentionally and as a category; there was no formality which had been missed. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess I had always taken "expiration of the term of protection" to mean that works that lacked subject matter protection could get restored in the US. But maybe that was simply the language in the Berne Convention so it was repeated in the law, letting courts decide what it meant if anything. Clearly, the Berne Convention did not require protection of photographs like that in the first place (they were not "works", though countries which adhered to Berne in the 1920s could grandfather their old treatment and were not subject to the minimum 25 year term). I would agree that the U.S. strived to only restore works which it absolutely had to per Berne, and used every clause in the Berne text it could to avoid restoring works. So maybe the "expiration of the term of protection" isn't particularly meaningful, and it would require that a term of protection existed in the first place. The interpretation of it referring to other formalities... maybe, but that was ignored in an actual court case -- in the ones mentioned at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/01#URAA_revisited_in_2019, there was a case where a few films were ruled not restored because they had been public domain in Mexico since 1948 due to failure to register per Mexico's old requirements. Berne did not require a country to restore its own works, just foreign works, so those remain PD in Mexico. Alameda et al v. Authors Rights Restoration Corporation et al. So, not sure we should take it to mean that either -- following the logic of the court decision would seem more authoritative. After all there was a term of protection, it was just not extended. We have always been resistant to delete the Melli photo for whatever reason (maybe illustrating the old Swiss law was important enough), though if it was after 1989 then it's always had U.S. protection for sure. But, I could buy that works not protected at all in the country of origin just have what protection the U.S. would normally give, which was subject to formalities before 1989. In the end, our policy on the URAA is a little reversed in terms of "proof", in that to delete we need to show something was restored, and so in that particular instance we have tended to keep works which are in legal gray areas, as we are not sure if they were restored -- thus keeping if they are PD in the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely the language used in the Berne Convention that is the direct source of this phrase. The other issue is that there is no owner under local law in which the restored copyright would vest. In any case, I doubt a US court would recognize the existence of a restored copyright in a Swiss photo that had no copyright in 1996.

The Meili photo is from 1997. It might be fair use to show it in the context of discussing Swiss copyright law, but its status in Switzerland has no bearing on its status in the US. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure a court would find a way to get to a copyright owner -- the same one which would own a work below the threshold in the source country, but above the threshold in the U.S. The Berne condition may be there for that situation, when the threshold is different between countries -- you can't use the rule of the shorter term to not protect such works in your country, if they are not protected in the foreign country -- you should protect them in yours, if you protect them for your own citizens. I don't know which way a U.S. court would go on that; make sure they get the protection they should have gotten under Berne, or (since such works were outside the scope of Berne in the first place) just allow the U.S. protection which existed (and required formalities). I don't think we should delete works in that area unless we get a court case, if they are PD in the country of origin. Agreed that the Melli photo we can only use under fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really want to discuss specifically the Meili image anyway. @Clindberg: As discussed above, it's actually deleted on Commons since 10 years per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg), I brought it up to illustrate the high threshold of originality requirements for photographs in Switzerland. In en:Copyright_law_of_Switzerland#Lack_of_originality, it's certainly used appropriately under "fair use" as an English-language Wikipedia local upload, as well as the Marley photo which the Federal Supreme Court found to be protected. This discussion is about images that are similar to the Meili image and therefore lack an "individual expression of thought" (will be hard to judge in many cases!), and are older than 50 years (date of creation, not of publication) per the recently amended Swiss law. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah right, forgot that had been deleted a while ago. I honestly don't know how a U.S. court would treat this situation, and seems fairly unlikely to actually happen for us to find out. Given our current URAA policy, that would make me lean keep on those, provided they were published before 1989 without notice, since we can't really say if the URAA restored them or not. There are some good arguments either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, so the preliminary consensus, in the absence of a US court decision, is apparently that either the URAA did not restore the copyrights of simple Swiss photos before March 1, 1989, or that at least as of now we should not delete them. What would be the best way to handle this in terms of license tag templates? Just add {{PD-1996}} to the files which are ok for the Swiss template? --Rosenzweig τ 13:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a specific template for such a case? PD-URAA-simple-photo? Arguably this should also be applied to other photos which weren't treated as Berne works in the source country. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Eh, not sure we have specific backing for that. PD-1996 would explicitly work for most "simple photo" situations since they often did have a term, which would have needed to expire to use that tag. I would just use PD-1996, I think, unless you want an explicit PD-1996-threshold tag for this situation in case we ever do get a test court case. Not sure it's worth it, as the PD in country of origin tag would also have to be there, and that may document the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Booth Pictures" and U. S. Threshold of Originality.

I just closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg as delete because it was not a FBI-created photograph per license on the template. User:Yann raised a point that I hadn't heard before, that "booth photos" (like those created by a photo booth or passport/driver license photos) are below the ToO in the US. I have heard that in some European countries, simple photographs have a much more limited term of copyright protection that artistic ones (Italy comes to mind, which is 20 years from creation for simple photographs, and PMA 70 for artistic ones). So I figured I'd ask about whether "booth photos" should be considered {{PD-ineligible}} in the U. S. @Clindberg: @Jmabel: @Fourthords: @Feoffer: @Jeff G.: Abzeronow (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

So, a few points.

• I don't know of any US court decision which specifically deals with ID photos; however, there is some pretty strong precedent which indicates that it may be possible for such photos to be uncopyrightable (see below).
• If the photo was taken by a machine without human intervention, it may have no human author.
  • You might be familiar with the machines in use at airports in certain countries which automatically take a picture of the subject. Such photos have no human author and are ineligible for copyright. However, passport pictures are not taken purely automatically.
• Some photos are taken in photo booths or using similar static setups, with plain white backgrounds.
  • I recall that for my (Hungarian) passport, I had my picture taken in such a booth — I think I pressed the button myself.
• Some photos are taken by a photographer holding a camera manually, but the content of these photographs is still determined almost entirely by the specified requirements for a passport photo.
• In any case, if a human still determines the timing of the photograph by pressing a button to take it at a particular time (which is normally the case for passport photos), then the minimal creativity requirement might be satisfied.
• Still, the act of authorship, as defined in Feist, seems to require some modicum of choice. The taker of a passport photo has very little ability to make choices about the content of the picture, unlike the taker of a photo in any other context.

However:

• Examine Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony. This is actually one of the earliest cases involving (as it would turn out) photography and the threshold of originality. This is also still good law (and is cited by Feist in the discussion of why there is a threshold of originality based on a "modicum of creativity"). Burrow-Giles leaves open the possibility that certain photographs may not be copyrightable (for lacking creative content). To quote the decision:

But it is said that an engraving, a painting, a print, does embody the intellectual conception of its author, in which there is novelty, invention, originality, and therefore comes within the purpose of the Constitution in securing its exclusive use or sale to its author, while a photograph is the mere mechanical reproduction of the physical features or outlines of some object, animate or inanimate, and involves no originality of thought or any novelty in the intellectual operation connected with its visible reproduction in shape of a picture. That while the effect of light on the prepared plate may have been a discovery in the production of these pictures, and patents could properly be obtained for the combination of the chemicals, for their application to the paper or other surface, for all the machinery by which the light reflected from the object was thrown on the prepared plate, and for all the improvements in this machinery, and in the materials, the remainder of the process is merely mechanical, with no place for novelty, invention, or originality. It is simply the manual operation, by the use of these instruments and preparations, of transferring to the plate the visible representation of some existing object, the accuracy of this representation being its highest merit. This may be true in regard to the ordinary production of a photograph, and that in such case, a copyright is no protection. On the question as thus stated we decide nothing.

The third finding of facts says, in regard to the photograph in question, that it is a "useful, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture, and that plaintiff made the same . . . entirely from his own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit." These findings, we think, show this photograph to be an original work of art, the product of plaintiff's intellectual invention, of which plaintiff is the author, and of a class of inventions for which the Constitution intended that Congress should secure to him the exclusive right to use, publish, and sell, as it has done by section 4952 of the Revised Statutes.

and, citing some persuasive British authorities of the time:

Brett, M.R., said in regard to who was the author: "The nearest I can come to is that it is the person who effectively is as near as he can be the cause of the picture which is produced -- that is, the person who has superintended the arrangement, who has actually formed the picture by putting the persons in position, and arranging the place where the people are to be -- the man who is the effective cause of that." Lord Justice Cotton said: "In my opinion, 'author' involves originating, making, producing, as the inventive or mastermind, the thing which is to be protected, whether it be a drawing, or a painting, or a photograph," and Lord Justice Bowen says that photography is to be treated for the purposes of the act as an art, and the author is the man who really represents, creates, or gives effect to the idea, fancy, or imagination.

• A later case Aalmuhammed v. Lee has to do with what we might call contributions which fall below the level of authorship. Aalmuhammed made what might be copyrightable contributions in themselves, but, because he was not the mastermind of the work (with the ability to make the ultimate choices), he has no authorship.
• We could conclude from Burrow-Giles that the person who takes a passport photo acts solely according to the uncopyrightable and precise instructions for how to compose and light the photo. They are, in this sense, not an author with the ability to make creative choices, but more akin to an amanuensis taking dictation, or a someone following the instructions of a director. The person who presses the button in such circumstances does not superintend the work, does not have the ability to make a creative choice and does not engage in an act of authorship. The photographer has no artistic control over the photograph, despite pressing the button, because the photographer must follow the instructions exactly. (However, this particular line of reasoning would only apply for photos taken in accordance with ID photo instructions — because there is no act of authorship. Another photo that is sort of like an ID photo but where the photographer has the creative latitude to determine whether or not the photo should be like that is different.)

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to also point out that in Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel's case the photo was taken from here, the FBI Multimedia database, and as the footnote at the main page states, "These images are for your use in publicizing the FBI and may be used without cost or permission. Please credit the FBI or the appropriate individual/organization listed in the description field.". So since FBI confirmed this photo is free to use and it's a booth photo and there is no appropriate individual/organization listed in the description, therefore we can treat it as official confirmation that booth photos are PD-ineligible. --Czarnybog (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • The FBI will get any good photo they can. It was probably a passport photo. It would be fair use if used for the purpose of apprehending a fugitive. Use in other situations, not as clear. But, the FBI would not own the copyright (if it exists) so can't license it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

In France that may be true -- they may not have any copyright for "simple" photos. There are Switzerland rulings along those lines. In other places, not as sure. If it's a true photo booth, where everything is under control of the person being photographed (posing themselves etc.) not sure it's much different than a selfie. Unless there were contracts signed, I would imagine the people pictured would own the copyright. For a perfunctory ID photo, where there is a fixed camera and the subject is just positioned to be in the frame, it's quite arguable there is no creativity -- there isn't much framing, and the angle is straight on, there is no posing of the subject, etc. But, I'm not sure there is a court case or Copyright Office guidance which could help us. User:D. Benjamin Miller gave one of the foundational decisions on what constitutes "copyrightable expression" in a photograph -- angle, framing, lighting, posing the subject, etc. When all of those elements aren't there, or maybe most of them, it can be ineligible for copyright (such as the photographic reproductions of paintings). It does get down to some very technical on if we can identify any authorship in such photos. Of course, it's virtually certain that such photographers would never sue for copyright, so it's unlikely we'll get a court case on them. It may be a difficult rule for us, if we don't know the circumstances of how the photo was taken -- a selfie cropped to conform to passport or other ID standards may well be copyrightable, but a perfunctory photo taken by someone else may not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think conclusion of Burrow-Giles is that a photograph produced according to a specifically delineated uncopyrightable procedure would not be eligible for copyright. Much like in Bridgeman, there is no opportunity for creativity. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If I had to guess I'd say you're right. I do think an actual photo booth, where the subjects pose themselves, may actually have some copyright. If the arrangement of the subject is part of the photographer's expression in a studio portrait (which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, [...]) then I don't see why folks can't have the same copyright in posing themselves. It's basically a selfie. But dry ID photos taken by someone else, sure. Maybe booking photos too. Knowing the difference could be a bit difficult in some situations. Without a precedent, we are just guessing though -- we have no decision or guidance from a government authority to stand on. Whether that passes the "significant doubt" threshold is the harder question, and may be up for debate. I would not vote to delete such photos (though I may not upload them, either). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that there can be a copyright in photos taken in a photo booth, just as you say — in instances where there is creativity exercised by a human author who determines the content of the image. So I think that "booth photo" is a poor choice of phraseology to refer to the kind of photo that can't be copyrighted. The key element is not the tool that is used to express the creativity (that is, whether or ont a physical photo booth is involved). It's just whether or not there is an act of human authorship. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is not only the fact that the picture is taken by a machine, but also that, at least for some official ID pictures, there is absolutely no possibility of originality or creativity. No accessory (hat, glasses only if the person wears usually them, etc.) is allowed, makeup should be minimal, facial expression should be neutral, place of the head in the frame is strictly defined. See the rules for France: [14], [15]. Yann (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

IK they're public domain in France, but in the vast majority of situations even in America ID photos and passport photos and the like would fail the minimum creativity aspect, given that the vast majority of photos are taken in an extremely strict formulaic manner with little or no room for creativity, except in some very strict countries. Are there really no rulings on this kind of thing in the US? Has anyone ever sued/won/lost over mugshot/ID/passport photo copyright? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Files from Junta de Andalucía Flickr stream

I came across this photo of a lynx and translated the description to get a better sense of where it was taken. I noticed, however, that the description says: La fotografía no puede ser manipulada de ninguna manera y no se puede utilizar en materiales comerciales o políticos, los anuncios, productos, promociones que de alguna manera sugieran aprobación o respaldo de la Junta de Andalucía. It was uploaded to Flickr with a CC BY-SA 2.0 license, but the very same Flickr page includes this notice. Clearly it was intended to be CC BY-NC-ND, which of course is not compatible with Commons. I checked a couple other photos in the category, and both had the same notice. There are 7,674 photos in the category, and it seems like perhaps they should all go to DR. Posting here, however, on the off chance there's a strange Commons precedent to consider. Also pinging the uploader (of the files I checked, anyway), Killarnee. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I went through some images in the category and the text isn't in the description for all images, but it is in the description for some.

You could say that once there is a CC license, the license is valid forever and the text was added later and thus is void. But you probably can't prove that.

Or if there are two licenses available you can choose one. Strictly speaking, the text is also a license. Just because one license says something different doesn't mean the other license is invalid. Killarnee (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The presence of that notice outside of the license is not relevant. As the CC BY-SA 2.0 license says, "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here."

The existence of a separate license offer with different terms does not in any way invalidate the CC BY-SA 2.0 license offer. Incoherent multi-licenses are not that uncommon, even if they don't make a lot of logical sense. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

the text was added later - We don't know which was added first. It was there with the earliest version of the file, which means when the License Reviewer approved it, they saw the text "can't be used for commercial purposes" and approved it anyway. That is a failure of the license review process IMO. Of course, in this case, FlickreviewR 2 is a bot that only looks at the license field. I'd like to think if a human reviewer saw it, we would've been here discussing what to do instead of rubber stamping it.

Looking through the Flickr stream, it looks like the oldest photos do not have the text, but newer photos do. This suggests to me that they instituted a new policy but didn't update the license parameter in Flickr.

with different terms does not in any way invalidate the CC BY-SA 2.0 license - this presumes the BY-SA license was first. What evidence is there of that? If the entity's policy is noncommercial, when the photographs were created they were contractually licensed as noncommercial. If the employee who then uploaded them to Flickr chose the wrong license, that doesn't invalidate the existing license. Now, it's also possible the order is the other way around, in which case yes, we'd have an irrevocable BY-SA license. But that's not clear.

At the end of the day, we effectively have a statement along the lines of "this image is licensed with a CC BY-SA 2.0 license, which means it cannot be used for commercial purposes or modified without permission". i.e. obviously someone clicked the wrong license, didn't understand what they were clicking, or there are exceptions to the text. In situations like that, we typically err on the side of caution. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

News re the long-running claims over Crown Copyright from the IWM

Can the IWM *really* claim © on Crown Copyright images etc where copyright has long expired?

https://twitter.com/ReassessHistory/status/1756642082905542955

Interesting long Twitter thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Short answer: no. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a royal decree would stop them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why doesn't s163(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 [16]:

(3) Crown copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work continues to subsist—

(a) until the end of the period of 125 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or

(b) if the work is published commercially before the end of the period of 75 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was made, until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was first so published.

apply? I'm aware that COM:CROWN says otherwise, as does the National Archives' flowchart depicted there. But why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Because when the law was modified, it was specified that the Crown Copyright term would only be applied for works that were created after a certain date, with a different term applying for older works.

The claim of the IWM here is not that the original photos are still protected by copyright. They are instead claiming that the digitizations have their own separate copyright (which is BS and has been rejected by British courts and the British IPO). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but where does it say that? (I'm not defending the IWM position - far from it - I just want to be well informed when someone else does). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Here D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: Which section? What date? What term for older works?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the details which are given under "Crown Copyright." Then you need to check the6 and 1911 acts where their rules are applicable. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)5

1 D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Schedule 1, paragraph 41 [17] Nthep (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Rhapsody in Blue

Happy Birthday to Rhapsody in Blue, premiered 100 years ago today.

BBC Radio 3 just played a recording of George Gershwin's own performance of the jazz band version of his Rhapsody in Blue, with Paul Whiteman and His Orchestra, from a 78 RPM gramophone record (according to their website, from a NAXOS release).

Is that recording now out of copyright? Can we find a version we can upload? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No, the recording is not in the public domain. The first recording was released in 1924 and thus will be in the US public domain in 2025. (By the way, the recording of the 1924 jazz band arrangement by Ferde Grofé, the first of a handful of arrangements Grofé made of the piece. While the copyright in the recording has expired in many countries, since Grofé died in 1972, that arrangement is not in the public domain in any life+70 countries.)

There are no earlier recordings of Rhapsody in Blue than that one. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What Benjamin Miller said, happy 100th birthday to Rhapsody in Blue. Can't wait for the 1924 sound recordings to enter public domain next year. By the way, a version that people are familiar with was arranged by Grofé in 1942, and that arrangement enters the U. S. public domain in 2038. Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

New York Scale Model of New Amsterdam in 1660, Museum, c1930

Hello, this is a postcard of a scale model of New Amsterdam in 1660. The scale model was at the Museum of the City of New York in 1930-1933. There's a few more postcards of the same such as this and this one. Can it be used on Commons? -Artanisen (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Artanisen: The postcard was published ca 1930 without formalities, so I think it's PD now.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

US election campaign graphics

User:Born to Endless Night has uploaded many hundreds of US presidential campaign graphics recently. Some are correctly tagged as {{PD-shapes}}, but others (such as File:Dean24-Healthcare.jpg) feature photographs and other complex graphic elements which are clearly not just "simple geometry".

Would these all fall under {{PD-USGov}}, or is campaign material technically outside of that? Belbury (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not just "technically." Campaign materials are not PD-USGov — simple as that. PD-USGov only applies when the work is being done by someone in an official capacity. Campaign materials are not included. However, some materials are not eligible for copyright. For these posters that feature photos, the question is, who made the photos? If the photos are from federal government sources, then a poster like this is not eligible for copyright. However, the photos probably do not come a federal government source. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I took a scroll through, I see a lot of White House published material which would fall under {{PD-US-Gov}}, however the campaign material could possibly be copyrighted. As @D. Benjamin Miller stated, anything not eligible for copyright is fine. I do see some campaign material that is most likely under Copyright and should be deleted. Also, there are no source links for anything that has been uploaded from what I see. PascalHD (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes: White House (and Congressional) materials are fine. Campaign stuff is not. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

remove logo from his girl friday

Could someone please remove the Criterion logo from this edition of His Girl Friday? SDudley (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@SDudley: I suggest you ask for this at Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. Also (explain this there, not here) I would guess you mean you just want to remove the first several seconds of the video, but whether you mean that or something else, please be specific when you make the request there. - Jmabel ! talk 07:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the instruction. I’ll hold for now since it seems @D. Benjamin Miller will be working on it. SDudley (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This video is ridiculously smoothed out... I will prepare, encode and upload a much better version. Will need a while to do so, however. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: I have a 4K version from the same source, but it is over 4 GB, so it needs a COM:SSU. Yann (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have only the 1080p version, albeit in much better quality. Can you upload your 4K source to archive? My source file is a 25GB h264 rip. I will trim the proper frames + give it the HQ AV1 treatment to get it under 4GB. Compare with this 3.5GB file representing one of my encodes - https://ia601305.us.archive.org/12/items/cyrano-de-bergerac-1950_202402/Cyrano%20de%20Bergerac%20%281950%29.webm (which I'm currently trying to upload). I find that doing a manual encode produces much better quality results (smaller + higher quality) vs. using video2commons conversion defaults. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. May be you could suggest changing V2C with your parameters? Here is the request: phab:T357218. Yann (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Here are a few tips. The main thing is that I am using AV1 (using libsvtav1 in ffmpeg). Video2commons encodes to VP9, which is not as good a codec as AV1. (Actually, I think one problem is that — correct me if I'm wrong — video2commons thinks it needs to transcode AV1 WebM files, while it will accept VP8 or VP9 WebM files).

We also have a lot of files which use VP8, which is far worse than VP9. See File:Cyrano de Bergerac (1950).webm, which is a 1.32GB file (frame-matching my Cyrano encode here, except I properly blacked out the logo in the beginning). That is a 1.32GB encode for a 720p version, while my encode, about twice the file size, is a 1080p version.

However, I always tune svtav1 to the video I am using. One thing AV1 is very good at is grain synthesis. We can set the grain from the video to be encoded in a separate layer from the underlying content. Look at the grain in this video, and compare it with the unnaturally smoothed-out VP8 encode we have here. This is simply not possible with VP9.

However, not all videos are going to benefit from this setting. The grain separation settings depend on the source. If you have a clean video shoot with a digital camera, or generated using presentation software or 3D animation, then the proper settings would be different. AV1 is very good, and you can squeeze a lot out of it (as you see here), but it works best when you have specifically tailored settings.

Perhaps the best way to set this up would be to have av1 used as a baseline, and let the user set custom svtav1 parameters (or really, just choose between a few different preset profiles: let's say, between "grainy old film" and "non-grainy/generic video") in video2commons. (We would also need to set the bitrate or rate factor to come in under the size limit. For best quality, I prefer to use CRF and then estimate after letting it encode a few minutes of representative video. I also set the encoder to a relatively slow speed.) There are some improvements that could be made, for sure. Still, the best results will always come from you have the opportunity to mess around with the encode locally and see what gets the best results. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, looking at this file... no, no, this is an extreme AI-denoised+upscaled version of the film. I have a much better source... I can even render to 4K with a better upscaler than this, although it would not really make sense to do. — Indeed, the YouTube source says "This an upscale from 1920x1080 to 4K using Topaz Video Enhance AI with Artemis Low Quality." If I am going to do a 4K upscale, I will do it using DaVinci, which is much subtler, but even then, I think I will skip that and just do an actually good 1080p encode. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Btw, afaik, 4GiB is the hard limit, even for SSU files. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Now the limit is 5 GB: phab:T191804. Yann (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nice! I can use a higher bitrate in future files, then. Still, using chunked uploads, I am unable to upload more than ~1GB with any reliability these days... I put in my server-side requests, but there's always a wait for that. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a much better version already cut. The encode will be finished by the morning (Montreal time) and I'll upload it tomorrow (probably just to archive, because chunked uploading is not really working for me now...). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@SDudley @Yann Here is a better encode I made of the movie. I'm going to have to put in a server-side upload request. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Looking forward to seeing it get on the page. SDudley (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Abuse detection related to fake copy file

The copyright of prof mehrdad R. Izady has been violated by tampering with the map file named Iranian languages, which belongs to prof mehrdad R. Izady, by the Wiki user named Ispah and falsely presenting it as his own research. original: https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Iranic_Languages_lg.png Mustafa urgun (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mustafa urgun: To which file on Commons does this refer? Is it File:Distribution of Iranian Languages.png? Why did you revert that file to an earlier version? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I accidentally converted to an older version while trying to fix it. Yes, the file that needs to be fixed or removed is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Iranian_Languages.png

The dossier was falsified by misappropriation of Prof Mehrdad R Izady's research. Mustafa urgun (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Original File:Iranic Languages.png Mustafa urgun (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The uploader credits Izady as one of his sources. I see no copyrightable expression copied; none of the outlines match the other image you gave (so data from other sources is used as well), and the style/color/etc. are all different and not copied. You can't copyright facts. Obviously the two maps are of the same concept, so they will look vaguely similar, but that is not copyright. Azady has a copyright on his particular map (meaning we can't copy it here without a license from him), and maybe even his particular language area outlines, but I don't see anything which is copied. This other seems like an independent map to me, with a slightly different interpretation of areas, and I don't understand what you think needs "fixing". Others are free to make their own map of the same idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Kurdish dialects are shown as separate languages ​​on the map, but this is not the case, Prof. Izady showed it as a single language in the red area, the outlines of the map are the same, but ethnic languages ​​and groups are shown incorrectly. I think this is sufficient evidence that it is a copy file and it should be removed. Mustafa urgun (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have utterly no knowledge of this area, but from afar it seems like different scholars can have different opinions on such things -- at Commons we would try to have images showing multiple sides if there are scholarly disagreements. Or even older theories which were once held, even if proven false later. It's true that Wikipedia does have the Kurdish groups as dialects and not separate languages, but the distinction can be arguable (Kurdish languages does say Kurdish is a language or a group of languages indicating there is some disagreement), and maybe the file could simply mention that aspect in its description. I see no reason, at all, for deletion or even reverting to an older version -- this file seems to be as the uploader wanted it, based on the sources they were using. If the file is accurate per its sources, it would seem to be fine. You can put a {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} tag on the image to explain the above and discuss with the uploader. But disagreements of this nature are never reasons for deletion -- perhaps more explanation in the description, on which sources say what on the matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but this research and effort belongs only to Prof Mehrdad R. Izady, it is definitely not the right attitude, it is clearly an action against ethical principles. In order for Wikipedia to be a reliable source, it must be treated sensitively. Thank you Mustafa urgun (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Your specific complaint above was that it wasn't copying an opinion from Izady. In terms of research, the resulting facts and data are not copyrightable. Claiming the research as your own is unethical, but I thought I see Izady among the sources credited; the map from my perspective appears to try to be a synthesis of several sources, with Izady being one of them. The copyrightable "work" in question is the specific representation of the map, which was not copied. Ideas are not copyrightable (nor is effort; see Sweat of the brow). Izady cannot prevent someone from making a similar type map; he can only prevent the copying of specific expression from his own map. There certainly could be something that I'm missing here, and maybe it's hard to explain, but it would need to be explained to justify reverting the file to an older version (let alone deletion). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, reverting to the old version was just a keyboard error. I'm trying to prevent Izady's efforts from being exploited by others. Mustafa urgun (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That's part of research, having other researchers build on top of it. I'm just not sure what is being exploited here. Copying Izady's specific map (or substantial portions) is not allowed, but using any facts he uncovered (or his opinions or ideas, if credited) is normally quite valid. The facts, opinions and ideas are not subject to copyright though and thus are not a reason for deletion (they would however be a reason to update the description to credit them properly, if not already done). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, if that's all we can do, I won't try. Thank you for your attention Mustafa urgun (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mustafa urgun: How do you know Izady?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 22:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Dr. I know Mehrdad Izady indirectly, I can say that this is his wish. Don't you think it's outrageous enough to falsify someone's research and cite the researcher as a source? (even if everything is fine) Prof. Dr. Mehrdad is a very valuable research historian and a very conscientious person. Mustafa urgun (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What research is falsified and not credited? That would certainly be bad, and I could be missing it, but it seems as though the file in question is combining the opinions of several researchers. It would stand to reason that some aspects will be different than Izady's, if that part is drawn from other researchers. It would certainly be valid to mention the dialect/language question on the Kurdish portion in the image description, particularly if citing which researchers argue for which side. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@AndyMabbet Mustafa urgun (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

High quality image of Conquista-de-Tenochtitlan-Mexico.jpg

This image of Tenochtitlan is a low quality version of the original. The original image is located here. This illustration is from 1900, in a picture library of Agostini. Here's a link to Getty images. However, since it was made in 1900 it should be in public domain. The low quality version has been used on Commons since 2013 so it should be allowed to use the original too? -Artanisen (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can use a better copy of the same picture. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please Help

I added some image files licensed according to the law in force in my country, as more than 50 years have passed since the images were published in newspapers, so the images became free according to Iraqi law, and there are those who added in the same way and were able to publish them here and they were not deleted, and I have no experience in explaining this License according to the law before deleting the images.

These are the files I added and I was warned to delete them after 7 days:

• File:Minaa1953.jpeg
• File:Minaa1950.jpeg
• File:Minaa1954.jpeg
• File:Minaa1951.jpeg
• File:Minaa1948.jpeg
• Here is the license in effect in my country, according to what was published by one of those who added similar images, and it was accepted because he knew how to add the license.

Please help me add the license before deleting, or guide me if there is something I don't understand. SonOfBasra (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@SonOfBasra: unfortunately, theses also have to be public domain in the U.S. (where Commons is legally located). The URAA copyright restoration in 1996 would have given these U.S. copyrights good for 95 years from initial publication, so the first of these will come out of copyright in 2049, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Iraq is not subject to URAA. They are not currently a Berne signatory, and we don't have reciprocal copyright agreements with Iraq. They may be subject to URAA in the future, but these would not be restored by URAA as there isn't an URAA restoration date with Iraq yet. Abzeronow (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Iraq doesn't have copyright relations with the US, so the URAA doesn't apply. If/when such relations are established, these photos would be URAA ineligible, since they're in the public domain in Iraq, assuming Iraq does not retroactively extend domestic copyright to these items before the hypothetical future URAA date. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@SonOfBasra: The licence was added in this edit, for example. I made some further changes here. Thank you for your contributions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: thank you very much, Andy. This is the first time someone has helped me seriously. Thank you again. SonOfBasra (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@SonOfBasra: However, one other thing is that there is no source for the image, so please add the newspaper they cam from and if possible the correct date in the source and date fields. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realize there were any significant countries that were still not signatories to the Berne Convention. Do we have a list of what other countries are not subject to URAA? - Jmabel ! talk 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

PD-Iraq lists "East Timor, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan." But en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights only lists Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nauru, Palau, and Somalia. The Wikipedia page assumes East Timor (Timor Leste) inherited its Berne signatory status from Indonesia, Somaliland is unrecognized, and I bet South Sudan was not added to the Wikipedia page or inheritance from Sudan's Berne status was assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: At least in English, {{PD-Iraq}} transcludes {{Copyright notes}}, which has our guidance re the USCO's Circular 38a, indicating all the exceptions. We are waiting at Template:Copyright notes for the USCO to update that circular (last update 11/2023) if and when East Timor enters into bilateral (with the US) or multilateral copyright treaties.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Can this photo of Elvis be overwritten?

I've seen old photos like this one of the Beach Boys (originally in B&W, now in color thanks to a more recent upload) be overwritten with better versions found somewhere on the Internet. Now, there are better versions of this photo of Elvis Presley from 1958 (for example: [18]) that I'm not sure if are also in the public domain or allowed in Commons, because of differences in color and such. The license template reads that the photo is "in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1963, and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed". However, I'm afraid that was also the case for this image of The Beatles, deleted in January 2024 (which had also been overwritten with higher quality versions).

So, to put it short: What would be the rules (or prohibitions) to upload a better/different version of this image of Elvis or similar cases? JBOOK17 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Normally, it should be the same photo at a higher resolution (or color vs black and white), with the same crop, and the same copyright status. A black and white photo which is colorized (versus a color photo simply published in black and white) may have a copyright difference; those should not be overwritten. In most cases, we don't overwrite. The guidelines are at Commons:Overwriting existing files. The Beach Boys photo was overwritten by the original uploader a month after the original upload. Normally, we'd want both versions to be available as a choice (one is a bit of a wider crop) if the copyright is fine. The Beatles image was from after 1963, so does not qualify for the no-renewal tag. It was uploaded under "published without notice" logic. Someone then found an earlier publication with notice. But... all copies had to have a notice, so they may have still lost copyright on that photo with a later publication without notice. Courts did rule that forgetting notice on a "relative few" copies was OK, and did not lose copyright, but not sure how widespread the ad was. So that may have lost copyright, and the deletion not quite right. As for the Elvis photo... it's best to stick to the versions that were actually distributed. If there is another version of the photo with a wider crop, other portions of that photo could have technically been unpublished for longer, and may have a different copyright status. See some of the info on this page. If you want to crop that other photo to the same boundaries which were in the original magazine (which was not renewed), that should be OK -- but don't overwrite, upload as a separate file as the source would be different. Just note the intentional crop to the published version. But if you have separate evidence of the wider crop also being distributed without notice (or not renewed itself), then it could be uploaded separately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! But to get sure I understood your point: If I upload the linked B&W picture of Elvis, but cropped to the same dimensions of the magazine version from 1958, it won't count as copyright infringement in case the HQ version turns out to have a different copyright status? JBOOK17 (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that would have the same copyright status, yes. Not sure I could identify any copyrightable expression in there which was not present in the magazine version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If the source reads "John Springer Collection/Getty Images", does it mean the copyright was renewed? Or is it just source attribution? JBOOK17 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@JBOOK17: It probably means that the heirs of John Springer are having Getty Images manage rights they may not have.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

John Springer was a collector of photographs, not a photographer, so neither Springer nor Getty would have owned copyright in the first place. For example, this photo is from that same collection, but the actual photographer was John Engstead. Per here, John Springer (1916-2001) was a New York film and theater press agent, producer, film historian, author, and collector of publicity film still photos. That is circumstantial evidence this photo was distributed as a print without notice, as otherwise Getty would have no rights to sell it from the sounds of it. The Getty page is here. That may not stop some automated photo detector of theirs from flagging it, and without seeing a copy of an actual print not sure it's proof of publication without notice itself, so I would still keep to the known-published version. Make sure it's the same photo as the one published, not a very similar but different photo from the same session, which would have an independent copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Carl Lindberg With all things considered, I think I'll refrain from uploading the better photo. Although it is a really nice looking picture (and it might indeed be suitable for Commons), I get the feeling it might one day be marked for deletion because of the unclear copyright status. However, I learned some valuable information from this thread, so I thank you for all your responses very much. JBOOK17 (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Licence

Bonjour,

Est-ce que quelqu'un peut me donner la licence de cette image

S'il la trouve...

Merci

Hello

Can someone give me the license for this image

If he finds it...

Thank you Elrohir de Fondcombe (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Elrohir de Fondcombe: Hi, and welcome. The images there are still copyrighted by the estate of J. R. R. Tolkien through 2043 per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Hobbit, so you may not upload them here until 2044 because they are nonfree.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok Thanks Elrohir de Fondcombe (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous change of a file

Someone anonymously put a screen in front of the lower part of the uploaded file „Saint Patrick's Day in San Francisco, 1970, 005.jpg“ How can I find out who is the author of this change, to tell me the reason why. In particular I would like to know why I was not given any notice about the change. Best regards Foeniz (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Foeniz: File:Saint Patrick's Day in San Francisco, 1970, 005.jpg was uploaded by you yesterday and no one has changed the image. If the solid grey bar at the bottom of the image is not intentional, it is possible that there was an error in uploading the file or the source file was corrupt prior to upload. As a first step, I'd suggest using the "Upload a new version of this file" option on the file page to see if that fixes it. You may need to purge your browser cache after reupload, as your cache will try to show you the original upload. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The new upload was successful! But as you presumed, when I try to open the file from "the bottom" it shows the old version. So: how do I "purge" my "browser cache"? Foeniz (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Foeniz: You should see your new version at the top of the page and then lower down the screen there should be a table showing both the old and new versions. If you are seeing something different, try the guidance in Help:Purge. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It's all right! Thank you! Foeniz (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Double-checking that Template:PD-CAGov applies to a California Secretary of State video

The California Secretary of State published a bilingual YouTube video with American Sign Language interpretation and English voiceover covering an aspect of 2024 California elections.

I wanted to double-check that this video is OK to upload to Wikimedia Commons under Template:PD-CAGov. Lovelano (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Are CCTV images PD in Turkey?

Just curious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're meaning the television-related CCTV, Clearly-Than-God wrong, they are absolutely and exclusively copyrighted by the China Media Group. If you mean the surveillance cameras, that could be an interesting thing on whether they're human-controlled or not. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean surveillance cameras. We have {{PD-automated}} which I think would hypothetically not get the file I'm thinking about speedily deleted, but I have no idea what the precedence for this in Turkish law would be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone have any disagreements? Would I be good? It's a single frame of a CCTV in an airport in Turkey. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Could someone check this photograph?

Please look at this: File:Potrait of Yu Yin-pei.jpg. Does anyone share my feeling that the photograph looks like it came from a slide?--125.230.66.175 09:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Impossible to tell, because it is full of diagonal striping artifacts. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not a reproduction of a slide but it does look like a photograph taken of some sort of video display or other type of screen. The own work is likely just them photographing the screen but who is the creator of the image on the screen. Without better information at this stage I would concur with the deletion nomination. Ww2censor (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

looks like a screenshot of a computer screen/monitor..since VRT has ignored it for 6 months, speedy it. Stemoc 06:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Stemoc: I'm not sure what you mean by VRT ignoring it for 6 months as it was only linked to a VRT ticket about 4 hours before your comment. We should let this one play out with VRT for now. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Where these are from?

• File:Lair ribeiro.png
• File:Lair Ribeiro.jpg
• File:Lair Ribeiro (cropped).jpg
  

Does anyone know where these images are from? They seem like copyright infringements. Enaldo(discussão) 19:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@EnaldoSS: The first one was probably captured from this video without license.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Book cover by J.H.Dowd

When can File:People of Importance - cover by J.H.Dowd.jpg be undeleted? The illustrator died in 1956. It seems to be reused from a book published in London in 1934, but I don't know of a US edition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If the cover is a faithful copy of the London publication in 1934, it can be restored in 2030. Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

License clarification for Template:MSC

Hi. Please see the discussion at Template talk:MSC#License clarification. A clarification for the license is required. Thank you! -- DaxServer (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Musixmatch logo

Might File:Musixmatch-logo-panoramic-Brand.png qualify as PD-ineligible? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't say what country, but I'd think no problem in U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Screenshots from Italian films (revisited)

If a 1969 Italian film was released without copyright notice, was screened in the USA in the 1970s, and was belatedly registered for US copyright in 1990, are screenshots from that film allowed on Commons? Or is this going to fall foul of COM:URAA? I refer specifically to these screenshots from Boot Hill. There have been previous cases where other Italian film screenshots were deleted - but those were more clear-cut because those films did have a US-compliant copyright notice. Muzilon (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muzilon: URAA restores all works that were still in copyright in a country on its restoration date regardless of whether it complied with U. S. copyright formalities or not (U. S. copyrights for Alfred Hitchcock's The 39 Steps and Fritz Lang's Metropolis had been expired for years before URAA had restored copyrights for them. Metropolis is once again public domain in the U. S. but is still copyrighted in Germany since Lang died in 1976.) So it basically comes down to whether the 1969 Italian film was in copyright in 1996, which it would have been. Abzeronow (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe the confusion on Commons arises from {{PD-Italy}}. Italy has an unusual copyright law regarding "film frames of film stocks" (i.e. production stills), which uploaders are interpreting (rightly or wrongly) to mean "screenshots". Stills are copyrighted for only 20 years in Italy, even though the entire film they are sourced from is copyrighted for "Life+70" of the film-maker. There have been many such Italian screenshots uploaded to Commons on the assumption that this is OK. However, these screenshots may not be public domain in the USA as required by COM:Licensing. Muzilon (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

But since it would only be 20 years, the still itself would have not been under copyright in Italy on the URAA date, no? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The film itself is still under U.S. copyright though, and thus we cannot host the film still here. Abzeronow (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I think Commons will need to take a long, hard look at the plethora of screenshots from Italian movies. Muzilon (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Doubt about the rights of an image

Hello! I'm from Argentina, sorry in advance for my English (I'm using a translator). I have doubts about whether I can upload the image found on this website (http://luzyfuerzapa.com.ar/institucional/hugogiorno.aspx) since there is no information about its permissions. Thanks! -- Máxsipoz (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Since images by default are protected by copyright, lack of any licensing information == the image cannot be uploaded. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay! Thanks for the information. Greetings! -- Máxsipoz (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Máxsipoz: Por lo que vale, las preguntas en español, alemán y francés tienden a obtener respuestas bastante rápidas aquí. No dudes en utilizar el español.

Según el Convenio de Berna, cualquier cosa que pueda ser protegida por derechos de autor, es protegida desde el momento de su creación. Hoy en día, ese es el caso en prácticamente todos los países importantes del mundo, por lo que cualquier cosa creada en las últimas décadas, casi no hay posibilidades de que sea de dominio público. Si no ve una licencia explícita, Commons no puede usarla. (Hay unos pocos gobiernos que colocan su mismo trabajo en el dominio público automáticamente, pero incluso allí, la mayoría no lo hace). - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Aahh, genial! Muchas gracias por la respuesta y la información. Un saludo! -- Máxsipoz (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Annalisa logo

Hi, is there a free font matching more or less Annalisa official logo in order to upload it as an SVG {{Textlogo}}? Otherwise only the initial letter A. Thanks.-- Carnby (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

PD-US-1978-89

I just discovered {{PD-US-1978-89}} at File:Dave Jamerson 1989 01 (cropped).jpg. Does this mean you can crop images out of newspapers between these dates for use on WP? I am looking for an image for w:Gary Bossert. I was wondering if I could just clip an image from the sources in the article (sources 1,2,8,14,25 all have images of him between these dates, with the first couple being the highest quality).-TonyTheTiger (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

If a file has a legitimate PD "licence" template on Commons then you can do anything you want to it (while following COM:OVERWRITE). If you are asking a broader question about any newspaper in that period, then no. You would first have to establish that what you want to upload qualifies for being Public Domain (or has been released under a free licence we can accept). From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you can't just crop images out of newspapers from that period. The newspaper needs to be (generally) first published in the US and not have a copyright notice anywhere in the paper, or the photo needs to be shown to have been distributed to newspapers without a proper notice.

As noted here, there was no copyright notice for the newspaper itself, so the photo is PD-US-1978-89 as a result. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

What are the odds images in w:Buffalo Courier-Express (sources 1, 2 and 8) or w:Tonawanda News (source 14 and 25) qualify for PD use?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Always low, because there just had to be a copyright notice for the newspaper as a whole, and most did, especially by that era. But you'd need to see the entire issue to tell -- usually around the masthead, but publisher credits could be elsewhere. Advertisements did need their own copyright notice, and could not rely on the overall notice ({{PD-US-1978-89 advertisement}}). If the newspaper did not have a notice, and the article/photo was from a service like AP or UPI, then I'm also not sure it lost copyright (copyright was not lost on a "relative few" copies without notice, and it's likely those were published in many more newspapers which did have notice). Newspaper renewals happened less often, but that can only help with issues before 1964 -- you can look at UPenn to see about renewals for periodicals. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The Courier-Express did have a copyright notice in their masthead, looking at source 1. Can't see the full newspaper on the other one given the source links. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The images in the other one are pretty poor.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about the copyright of a photo which is in the public domain ?

Hello everyone,

I have a question about a photo that I had imported into Commons and which has just been deleted. I found this photo on the website of a Russian museum. It was taken over 70 years ago and the author is unknown. In my opinion, it is free of copyright, however, the photo was deleted for the following reason: everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here.

My question may be easy to answer and I am sorry in advance if i did not understand something which is basic for experienced users. Thanks Penastal (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the cases on your talk page, I am guessing this relates to File:Gorbatchev 1950.png. The justification for deletion was given as, "Copyright violation: Wrong license, the source is non free." Only administrators can see the details of deleted files but if you can reply here with a link to where you found the image, a non-administrator may be able to provide comment on why it was deleted. Alternatively, an administrator may be willing to take a look at it for you. There is also a formal process to request undeletion but, if this is an "obvious copyright violation" as tagged, the formal process will be a waste of everyone's time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for answering.

I didn't want to start the process because yeah, it's probably obvious why this was removed and it would be a waste of time.

What is strange about this story is that this morning when I tried to go to the URL of the source of the image (the one I wrote on Commons), the link ended up on the new version of the museum website, and the article in question no longer existed.

It looks like the site has changed during the same time period that I uploaded the photo (weird?)

Despite everything, I managed to find a version of the page with the Wayback machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20221021010400/https://stavmuseum.ru/news/?ELEMENT_ID=34516 Penastal (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that it was still under copyright in Russia in 1996, the U.S. copyright would have been restored and probably exists for 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation, if shorter). That is regardless if it has since expired in Russia, which is possible but not a guarantee. If the photographer is known, the term could be based on their lifetime. Determining public domain status can depend on date of publication, and if an author was named on those earlier publications. From the looks of it, guessing probably a college yearbook photo or something like that, so we could probably assume publication in 1950 with an anonymous author. Unless the author became known, that has just recently expired in Russia by the terms of {{PD-Russia}}, but copyright would still last in the U.S. until 2046. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg

which amounts to saying that regarding photos by anonymous Russian authors, it is not possible to import photos more recent than 1926 (1996-70)? Penastal (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, a work first published in Russia by an anonymous Russian author in 1927 or 1928 would now be in the public domain in the US, because even if the US copyright was restored in 1996, the US copyright has since expired. That is the difference between {{PD-Russia-expired}} and {{PD-Russia-1996}}. —RP88 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sort of. The Russian term in 1996 was 50 years, so anonymous works published (or made available to the public) 1945 or earlier had expired before the URAA date and would be OK (they got retroactively restored to 70 years in Russia after that, but the U.S. status was unaffected). But yes, some countries (mostly in Europe) were 70 years on the URAA date. The U.S. limit is 95 years from publication, so that line that line is now 1928 or earlier, moving up one each year. So say an anonymous German work first published in 1926 did get restored by the URAA in 1996, but would have re-expired in 2022. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT not clear

Kaushik.atulya (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - Last first 4 files' licensing seems unclear as per source as the source did not give proper licensing. What to do in such case? ~AntanO4task (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I see only four current files uploaded by this user. Two are marked with {{No permission since}}, one has VRT pending, and the other is File:Delhi Meerut RRTS and Metro Map.png. Based on the link, that last appears to be eligible for Commons, but the wrong licensing template was used, which I will fix. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs by Lewis Carroll

Hi, I just came across this old DR, and the closure as Delete seems weird to me. There are two facts which didn't seem to have been taken into account: 1. The impossibility that these images from the 19th century reached the editor of these books if they were never published until 2001 or 2002. 2. That, in case of 2 or more countries of origin (UK vs. USA), the Berne convention says the shorter term prevails. Yann (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I think the conclusion was a solid one, the UK has a 2039 rule for unpublished works and these could have been closely held by the Dodgson family until they agreed to have the editor publish the photographs in 2002. Abzeronow (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The Berne convention says that the country of origin was the country where the work was first published. The rule under Yann's #2 applies only if the work was simultaneously published in two countries. That's not the case here -- they were first published solely in the US. Some of the works in the DR may have been published earlier, if so the comments above do not apply, but it is my understanding that all such works were removed from the DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Assuming they were never published, these files were {{PD-US-unpublished}}. How can a publication makes them under a copyright again? Yann (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The template you cite applies to works first published after 12/31/2002. We are told above that the family published these in 2002, so they are copyrighted until 12/31/2047. See the third box on File:PD-US_table.svg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

US Painting Copyright Q - Do exhibition pamphlets count as publication?

Wondering whether reproductions of paintings produced in pamphlets distributed at an art exhibition count as publication. Sam Gilliam painted Red Petals in 1967 and first publicly displayed it at the Phillips Collection in Washington, D.C. the same year; it was reproduced in a black and white photograph on the cover of a single-sheet folded pamphlet distributed at the exhibition, which I viewed in a library - there is no copyright notice on the front, verso, or interior of the pamphlet. The pamphlet does have an OCLC number (I viewed it in a different institution than the single museum listed on WorldCat), but I'm just not sure if this would constitute publication - the work was never registered but republished many times since its first appearance, often with a claim of copyright. Any insights? Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly publication of the black-and-white image in the pamphlet, but presumably not of the underlying work.

Whether exhibition at that date constituted publication under U.S. copyright is a separate question, and I don't think it has ever been well settled. - Jmabel ! talk 07:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh, so black and white reproductions of a 2-dimensional work of art don't strictly count as "publication" of the underlying work? Do they have to be full color to pass that threshold? If it's way more complicated than that, don't feel like you have to dive super deep, I'm happy to do some more reading if you can point me in the right direction on these more nuanced technical aspects of what constitutes publication. Thank you so much! 19h00s (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's publication, but only of the expression seen in the distributed pamphlet. If there is expression in the painting which is not in the pamphlet (color, details visible at higher resolutions) then the pamphlet did not publish that. So we should be free to scan the image from the pamphlet and upload it. Usually the color is not part of the expression when it comes to photographs (that aspect is not part of the human authorship), but in theory if only a crop of a photo was published, the cropped-out portions could remain unpublished. Or for an unpublished screenplay, everything that ends up in the movie was published, but if there are parts of the screenplay not in the movie, those remain unpublished. For paintings though, everything you see is part of the human expression. The painting itself may count as published from that point, but losing copyright required distribution of actual copies without notice -- so only the expression in those distributed copies was without notice, and only that expression lost its copyright protection. If the painting was permanently put up in public before 1978, then a notice on the painting itself would be required. Some further details at copyrightdata.com. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

El Gráfico images

I was checking the images taken from El Gráfico archive, an Argentine sports magazine. A lot of them have a heavy watermark covering part of them. Do you think they should be tweaked, deleted or left as they are?

An example:

-- Carnby (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not deleted, unless we have a clean copy without the copyright to replace it. - Jmabel ! talk 07:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, this image should be deleted, albeit for a reason that has nothing to do with the watermark. This 1988 image (uploaded in 2019, long after Golan v. Holder) is certainly under copyright in the US (even going by the 25-year term provided in Argentina, it was copyrighted in 1996). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum, the watermark should be replaced with a solid block of one colour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

What about a {{Watermark}} tag?-- Carnby (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson interview with Vladimir Putin

Hello, I am unsure as to whether I can upload the recent Tucker Carlson interview with Vladimir Putin. I do not know about its copyright status and couldn't find anything about it. Thank you for your help. Sussybaka6000 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sussybaka6000: , please read COM:L. If you don't know its copyright status, then it is very likely unfree and therefore we cannot host it on Commons. It would have to have an explicit free license, and I doubt Tucker Carlson would grant one for his work. Abzeronow (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. I hope you have a great day. Sussybaka6000 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

OpenAI generated videos

OpenAI has released the first news of Sora, their text-to-video generator [19]. I would believe that anything it generates would generally fall under {{PD-algorithm}} and would be okay to upload at the Commons? However, it makes me wonder how much of these demonstration videos were trained on existing copyrighted stock/video footage. PascalHD (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you think OpenAI has addressed the issue of potential copyright infringement in their training data, or is there a risk of uploading copyrighted content to Commons unintentionally? 70.68.168.129 03:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the answer is the latter, please read Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem > Experiments with Midjourney and DALL-E 3 show a copyright minefield, by Gary Marcus and Reid Southen.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank god it's not our problem what training data they use Trade (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Trade: Oh, but it is, see COM:VPP#Ban the output of generative AIs, extrapolated to videos.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Question

The source site of this PDF says "Licença: Domínio público" but it also has the CC BY-NC logo at the bottom. The PDF's first page says "1. Você pode utilizar esta obra apenas para fins não comerciais". But the file is also just a facsimile of an old book (in public domain, for sure). This other file is in a very similar situation. Should they be deleted? Enaldo(discussão) 18:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The first file is dated to 1648; I am not aware of any legal jurisdiction in the world that would retain copyright from so long ago. The website's claim to release it under a Creative Commons licence would only be valid if they have altered the work to make it a derivative of the original.

The second file appears to have been published in 1903, so is PD in the United States. The author appears to have died in 1934, and the country of origin licence template says the copyright only lasts 70 years after death, so PD in the source country in 2005. Again with the first file, the only way a Creative Commons licence would be valid is if they have altered the work to make it a derivative of the original. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: On possible alterations, they say: "Trata‐se de uma referência a um documento original. Neste sentido, procuramos manter a integridade e a autenticidade da fonte, não realizando alterações no ambiente digital — com exceção de ajustes de cor, contraste e definição." (Pinging @Erick Soares3) Enaldo(discussão) 01:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore In Brazil, who died in 1934 entered PD in 1995, due to the 1973 copyright law (Life + 60 years - the maximum death date for this earlier law is 1937). The 1998 law extended protection into 70 years after death, suspending PD from 1999 until 2009, the year the PD releases restarted. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Sulambek Susarkulowitsch Oskanow.png

Ladies and gentlemen! I've recently uploaded the above mentioned file. I got two questions concerning this file: - Is there anyone at Wikimedia that knows about russian copyright law? I created this file in consideration of all the legal information i could find on Commons, but i'm only 99% sure this file is actually not an object of copyright even though denomination and country name are preserved. - This file is an adaption of File:Sulambek Oskanov (marka).jpg. I'm not sure i uploaded my file as intended. If i made any mistakes concerning the upload, please let me know. Thanks a lot, greetings from Vienna - Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You should read the last warning on Template:PD-RU-exempt page. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü: Ah, I'd never noticed that either. So even with the cleanup I did, this is probably still not valid. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my question, cause Template:PD-RU-exempt clearly states concerning stamps: "denomination and country name must be preserved on postage stamps". Is the file still violating copyright? - Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Sulambek Susarkulowitsch Oskanow.png. It looks like you preserved the denomination, but not the country name. @Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü: You'd have to restore the upper right portion of the stamp to make this legal in Russia. - Jmabel ! talk 23:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If you click on it, you can see i also preserved the country name. It's only badly visible since it's white. Will upload a new file tommorow. Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ruslik0 @Jmabel I just uploaded a new version of the file. Could you please reevaluate? Please mind: Due to some technical issue you need to click on the file to see its blue background which is important for the visibility of the country name. Please either delete the file due to copyright violations or reply here. I'm very thankful for your help, best regards - Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea whether duplicating the text of the country name in a different color, etc., complies with the law or not. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright statues of magazine advertisement for Head-On (1979 arcade game)

I'm curious if under American copyright law this ([20]) magazine advertisement for the 1979 arcade game Head-On would be public domain due to a malformed copyright notice. The copyright disclaimer reads "MULTIPHASE and HEAD-ON are 1979 copyright names of Gremlin/Sega" which sounds to me like it is referring to the trademark status of those particular phrases rather than the copyright status of the advertisement. I understand American copyright notices had to follow strict formalities back then, but it's unclear to me if this meets those formalities or not. Suspiciouscelery (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on what I see, if it is infact considered an advertisement - I would say that notice is probably not suitable to cover that ad. It appears that copyright is being claimed on the names "Multiphase" and "Head-On" - not the AD. Short names cannot be copyrighted, only trademarked [21]. The notice doesn't appear to be applying to the ad itself, and may not stand in a court of law. On page 2, the Midway ad gives an example of a proper notice. Can give a read through Ch 2200 about Copyright Notices, might be of help! If it is PD the correct template would be {{PD-US-1978-89 advertisement}}, will also need to see if it was registered within 5 years. The rest of the magazine outside of ads, is covered by Copyright as seen on page 3. PascalHD (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Are photographs of UK police crests derivative works?

Hi all, finally got a picture of (the side, at least) of a Humberside Police van today with their new force crest - see the Wikipedia page infobox for reference. This features the CIIIR cipher with the Tudor Crown, and I think it might be a good fit on Wikipedia for articles relevant to the new cipher/monarch transition such as Tudor Crown (heraldry). The thing is, though, would photographs focused on UK police crests on the side of a police vehicle be considered a derivative work?

I read somewhere that police crests were protected by Crown copyright, and I'm also assuming they are copyright to the police force themselves, yet I'm finding photographs of British Transort Police crests (File:British Transport Police (3932766140).jpg and File:British Transport Police (3932766204).jpg) seem to have been uploaded fine onto the Commons. Technically, being on the side of a marked vehicle, would that would mean they are in "a public place"? Can't seem to find much precent anywhere else, but I know for sure for how close up the photo is, it certainly isn't de minimis. Hullian111 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If I use a published photo (e.g. from a magazine) as a reference object when I create of my painting, how should I give credit to that photo when making a submission to publish my painting in Wikimedia?

As an artist, in the creation of my painting, if I use a published photo from a magazine, newspaper or encyclopedia as a reference object, how should I give credit to that photo when making a submission to publish my painting in Wikimedia? Please note I am not including any part of the photo in my painting, and photo is not published in the Wikimedia Commons. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Erol Karacabeyli (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Help with dating

Hello, I found this picture of the Lot Smith Cavalry Company (third picture in the article), but I can't tell if it is in the public domain. I am still new to uploading pictures to Wikipedia and could uses the help. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@LuxembourgLover: Sorry, it appears that painter Frank Thomas allowed editorial use of his modern painting on this page, so you would need permission from him or you could make fair use of it on projects that allow it (Commons doesn't).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that at least at one point the painter Frank Thomas was an official artist for the US Army, as a US Federal Government employee. The paintings he made as a federal government employee are in the public domain. Whether or not this painting is one of them, I don't know. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

What would be the best way to find out who made the picture? LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What counts as "with notice" for the cover art of books?

My basic assumption would be it has the same copyright as the book but I'm not sure if this is the case. What counts as giving notice for a 1970 American book cover? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nobody would provide a separate copyright notice for a book cover. So, this is the same notice as one for the book. Ruslik (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

But I believe a book jacket (a physically separate object, removable from the book) required a copyright notice of its own. Does anyone know something definitive on that? - Jmabel ! talk 07:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'm referring to art that was on the jacket. Just curious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

See File:Jaws illustration copyright decision.pdf.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

So anything where the art is on the dust jacket without notice (so not paperbacks) and was published in the period where notice was required, public domain? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh? That case is about a paperback. This won't apply to every work; if it wasn't a US work, the URAA would have restored the copyright, and it's possible a copyright notice for the book includes the cover, if the claimant was right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oops. Yes I am by default assuming US works (URAA overcomplicates everything so I'm not even going to try to look for files that it might apply on). What is the distinguishing factor for when the notice does/does not include the cover? I'm having trouble figuring that out :/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Help needed with Public Domain Mark

I transferred some images from Flickr via Flickr2Commons that are licensed under the terms of the Public Domain Mark; the images can be seen here. Could someone check if I handled the license tags correctly? I presume if I did so, the "No license since" tags can be removed. Also, the license information in the metadata of the files seems to differ from the license information on Flickr. Is that an issue? Carfan568 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the "no license since" tags can be removed. The metadata does indicate the Flickr uploader is the photographer (and there was a license change in the Flickr license history) and doesn't contradict the Public Domain Mark status. Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Commons position on scale (ship) models

I've been writing about maritime history for a while and have run into quibbles about the copyright status of accurate scale models, specifically of real ships, of which we have plenty in Category:Models_of_ships. The complaints have been primarily from English Wikipedia, but it's unclear whether they actually match Commons' policies, or if we even have a policy for this.

What exactly is the rule to be applied here, regardless of country of origin or whatever? What's actually required for someone to hold copyright on the construction, painting, assembling, design, etc. of an accurate scale model? I'm thinking especially if they're intended to be faithful reproductions of real ships.

For example, I've just recently witnessed users raised concerns over photos over images like this[22] and even suggested we need to get consent for the model copyright. At the same time, we have FPs like these,[23][24] one of which has been nominated for deletion but which is currently being voted for as a keep because it's a "slavish copy".

Whether we can host images of accurate scale models is pretty damn important because I see it conceivably affecting just about any scale model not covered by freedom of panorama where the creator hasn't been dead for more than 70 years, or is unknown. Peter ^Isotalo 19:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Shades of de minimis - does this cross the line?

Specific photo question; a picture of Sam Gilliam's painting installation Yves Klein Blue is currently in use as a fair use image on English wikipedia (photo). There is a much broader thought experiment to be had about the way Gilliam's Drape paintings present physically (each installation is different, and you never see the full surface of the copyrighted 2-dimensional canvas), but in this specific case: would the amount of painting in the image be enough to pass beyond de minimis? It's like half-blocked by a tree and far away, but I don't want to just presume it's OK and bring a higher quality version of the image to Commons. The image could be variously interpreted as either of the painting, or just of the scene. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It's less a matter of de minimis than of the threshold of originality. Sometimes I think paintings like this are thought experiments about what is art and what is copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there's an almost inarguable case to be made that the paintings themselves are copyrightable as 2-dimensional abstract paintings (there's no real way in my mind that the copyright office would look at the painted canvases laid out flat and interpret them as below the ToO, just as they wouldn't say a Jackson Pollock painting were inherently ineligible, to draw a random comparison to a notable abstract painter around Gilliam's early era; in this case we're talking about a painting from 2017, so there were no copyright registration/notice technicalities to follow here, the moment Gilliam finished painting it flat in his studio in D.C. it was theoretically a copyrighted 2-d painting, if I'm understanding that correctly). When I say that "each installation is different," I mean that it's inherently impossible as a human to drape a large canvas exactly the same twice, and the folds will always show slightly different individual parts of the canvas' surface; so technically only like 4/5 of the painting's actual surface is visible (which, as a 2 dimensional painting, was theoretically copyrighted the moment Gilliam completed painting it). Does the inherent way that Gilliam presented these paintings (and the way museums present them) - that is, draped in such a way that a large portion of the actually copyrighted material is not visible - change the way a third party could theoretically license their own image of these works in situ? 19h00s (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Is File:H.G. Wells by Beresford.jpg public domain?

(Copied from en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where I initially brought this up and was told to ask here.) The question came up at the FAC for en:George Griffith a few months ago. Both File:H.G. Wells by Beresford.jpg and the cropped version File:H.G. Wells by Beresford (cropped).jpg are tagged as being public domain due to the author George Charles Beresford having died in 1938 and the photograph being published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) prior to 1929. I have been unable to track down the publication history. The cropped version used to appear on the George Griffith article; the FAC issue was resolved by simply removing it from the article. Nevertheless, the uncropped version is used rather heavily across various Wikimedia projects, so we should probably try to get this resolved. TompaDompa (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's public domain. The NPG source states it is a black and white glossy print from 1920. https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait.php?search=ap&npgno=x13208&eDate=&lDate= It was published with the consent of the author George Charles Beresford in 1920, and this was the time it was publicly revealed which would have satisfied U.S. definitions of publication before 1978. Abzeronow (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, 1920 is the date of publication? I thought it was the date of creation. I couldn't figure out when it was published beyond that NPG apparently purchased it in 1939. TompaDompa (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, 1920 is the date of publication since it is a print, and prints are published photographs. Abzeronow (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, splendid. Thank you very much indeed! TompaDompa (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about copyright and terms of use

I don't know if this is the best place to ask this, but a prior section written here (Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#Wiel van der Randen (fotograaf 1897–1949)) inspired me to. I have bought a CD containing 1924 recordings by Carlos Gardel published by Ediciones Altaya under license from EMI Odeón (to be more specific, this one has the right cover, but this one has the right track list) which will enter the public domain in the United States next year (with the situation varying overseas per song). I don't know if I will keep the disc in the future, and I would like to know if I can upload the tracks now, mark them for deletion request and have them being undeleted in the proper years without this having an effect in my account. Lugamo94 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if you have only a limited period to do this, that is acceptable. Otherwise, you could presumably save the files locally and upload them a year from now. - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but some recordings have their underlying music and/or lyrics not expiring in Argentina in several decades. For example, works by José Bohr (composer of Cascabelito) won't enter the public domain until 2065. The likelihood of myself keeping this particular copy for so long (or that it survives for that long) are very dim. Lugamo94 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lugamo94: If you're uploading files specifically to be deleted again soon and then undeleted in the appropriate year, there are no negative effects for you or your account. There are some other users doing this. Just make sure to request deletion of the files after you have uploaded them. If there is a regular deletion request page, the correct undeletion category (like Category:Undelete in 2065) should be added to that DR page; if there is no regular DR page (in case of speedy deletions or similar), the files should be directly added to the text of the category page. --Rosenzweig τ 12:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"the files should be directly added": that is, an internal link to each file should be added. - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig Good to know, thanks. Lugamo94 (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Pictures of the destruction of Yarmouk stadium

Hello everyone. I am looking for a proper picture for this article. Can the pictures published here about the Yarmouk Stadium be linked to the IDF and said they are free? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright of buildings commissioned by italian public administrations

Here I've made a suggestion to modify the present guideline basing on new evidence that I found. Opinions and suggestions are welcome. Friniate (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Can this media file from archives.eure.fr be uploaded to Commons?

Following is a scan of passport application from around 1949. The page says "NC Vérifier les délais" under 'Rights' but I am not sure what that means. https://archives.eure.fr/ark:/26335/a011589182908x9qlRL This person passed away in 1999 and was eminent aerospace engineer (Karl Heinz Bringer) and there are very few images of him from his working years. So I was really hoping we could get it on Commons. Ohsin (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this should be OK with {{PD-France}}. Yann (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann! Ohsin (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Changing a logo

I work for Microsoft and i wanted to update the PowerFX logo to the most updated version. How can I do that? Powerplatform (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Powerplatform: Within Commons itself, we don't exactly "change" logos, though it's OK (welcome, even) for you to note that a particular logo is outdated. I note we have both File:PowerFX logo.svg and File:Power Fx logo.png. Are those both outdated?

Is the new logo simple enough to be below the threshold of originality (TOO) for copyright? (If it's the one here, that looks right on the edge to me for U.S. TOO, and I'd appreciate if someone else weighs in.) If it is below the TOO, you can upload it (to a new filename) using {{PD-textlogo}} in lieu of a license. If not, we'd need a free license (though of course it still can be marked with {{Trademarked}}.

If your main concern is what appears in the English-language Wikipedia:

• If the rights issues are such that it can be uploaded to Commons, upload it here; then the article can be edited to use the new logo.
• If it needs a license from Microsoft and you are in a position to get that to happen, upload it here, have Microsoft start the COM:VRT process to provide a license and then the article can be edited to use the new logo.
• If it is over the TOO and you can't get a license, you should be able to upload it directly to the English-language Wikipedia using en:Template:Non-free logo in lieu of a license. Please use a name that does not conflict with any file on Commons. Then the article can be edited to use the new logo.

The only other caution is that if you are editing in a way related to your work, absolutely read the English-language Wikipedia's page on conflicts of interest before you get yourself in trouble on en-wiki. Not so much of a concern here on Commons, there is no COI problem with uploading an image that is so obviously in scope.

I hope that helps, sorry it's a bit complicated, and if you still have questions, feel free to ask. - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Update from Flickr about Creative Commons licenses

I sent an email to Flickr asking if they were ever going to migrate from 2.0 to 4.0 Creative Commons licenses. To my surprise, they actually replied to the email:

The change from Creative Commons 2.0 to Creative Commons 4.0 is something that we are currently looking into implementing and we’re actively meeting with Creative Commons to discuss a strategy for moving to 4.0 licenses. Although we do not have a current timeline, we’re hopeful this is something we can implement in the near future. When this happens, we’ll be sure to update our community of any changes.

Nosferattus (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Great work and I'm glad to see Flickr continues to show commitment to facilitating Creative Commons images. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This is good news. Upgrading licenses for Flickr to 4.0 will make things easier on reusers. Abzeronow (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ice show logo

Hi everyone! I'm currently creating a separate article for the 2018 ice show event Continues with Wings in Tokyo. At the top of the infobox, if possible, I'd like to add the show logo from the official website.

According to this section, the "copyright protection of fonts [in Japan] is limited only to those that raise artistic appreciation as much as artistic works do." Since the logo only consists of text elements and simple flourish, my guess is that it does not meet the threshold of originality. However, I'd like to hear another opinion before uploading anything.

In the case that the logo cannot be uploaded here, is it allowed to upload a low-resolution image of the logo (or the full show poster) to EN-Wiki, using the same license template as movie posters, CD-covers etc.? Thank you very much in advance! Henni147 (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It should be fine as {{Textlogo}}.

And, yes, en-wiki allows low-resolution non-free logos. There is no "license template" involved, because there is on license. Instead, you'd use something like en:Template:Non-free use rationale logo. But this is moot in this case, because the logo is not copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Excellent! Thank you very much for your quick and detailed reply! Henni147 (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I have another similar case to the one above: Prologue ice show logo. It is somewhat more "artistic", using a mix of Latin letters, Japanese katakana symbols, and some little drawings. Is {{Textlogo}} allowed to be used in this case as well or do I have to work with Non-free use rationale logo on EN Wiki? Thank you very much in advance. Henni147 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but if this is from Japan, I believe their threshold of originality is much lower, so I'd definitely go with the non-free approach. I'd say that even for the U.S. that one would be problematic, especially the feather. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Henni147 (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright ist kein Copyright ist Copyright ist kein Copyright, aber eine Rose ist eine Rose ist eine Rose

Das Uploaden auf Commons ist "fragil" (ein euphemistischer Euphemismus für "diese Site kann das nicht, wozu sie da ist"). Aber inzwischen wird tatsächliche daran gearbeitet (nach 10 Jahren!). Und das ist natürliche eine "Frohe Botschaft" (wie im Advent nur ohne Gott). Aber das geht natürlich nur, wenn es auch getestet wird, wenn es Testcases gibt. Unfreiwillig habe ich dazu beigetragen, indem ich zunehmend größere Fragmente einer Datei hochgeladen habe (und noch weitere hochladen werde). Diese Fragmente können in die History der richtigen Datei verschoben werden, oder vielleicht auch gelöscht (nicht optimal, aber geht auch). Nun wurden aber 4 davon gelöscht mit dem Löschkommentar "no license since".

Aber stimmt das denn? Bei diesen 4 Dateien steht die Lizenz bereits im Hochladekommentar (auf der Dateibeschreibungsseite zu sehen und leicht mit "Ctrl-F" zu finden) und in den Metadaten (mehrfach und mit link auf den Lizenztext) die ebenfalls auf der Dateibeschreibungsseite stehen. Es ist kein Template vorhanden. Und ein dummer Computer liest nicht die Lizenz, sondern fragt das Vorhandensein dieses Templates ab. Computer dürfen nachtürlich dumm sein. Aber ist es tatsächlich ok zu behaupten, eine Lizenz sei nicht da, die gut sichtbar da ist, und das als Löschbegründung anzugeben? Kommt mir vor wie alternative Fakten. Und auf jeden Fall stellt sich die Frage, wie ernst meint es Commons denn nun mit den Lizenzen? Wird hier einfach nur Lizenztheater gesspielt? Gelten Regeln nur wenn sie gerade in den Kram passen? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

much ado about what?

Was ist dein Anliegen? In welcher Commons-Prozedur besteht Verbesserungsbedarf? Wo bist du an der Benutzerführung gescheitert. Vielleicht sogar ein Beispiel. --Goesseln (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Beispiel: File:OBR Hannvoer 2024d.webm ‎File:OBR Hannvoer 202ed.webm ‎File:OBR Hannvoer 2024b.webm ‎File:OBR Hannvoer 2024c.webm ‎

Anliegen: Wird hier einfach nur Lizenztheater gesspielt? Gelten Regeln nur wenn sie gerade in den Kram passen?

In leichter Sprache: Kommt es darauf an, dass eine Datei korrekt lizensiert ist? Oder kommt es darauf an, dass ein Bot eine bestimmte Vorlage vorfindet? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what you did here, but at least for File:OBR Hannvoer 2024d.webm (I didn't look at the others) the entire content of the file page was a lowercase "a". The license info does seem to be in the edit summary, but most people (including most admins) are not going to look for it there. I believe it is actually a requirement on this site to provide a licensing template or PD template. often a human can cope with the absence of that and can fix it after the fact if intent is clear, but it's still pushing work off onto someone else, and bots are (appropriately) going to repeatedly flag a problem until it is done. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

AI song covers and PD-algorithm

Recently I uploaded an AI cover of Alexander Graham Bell singing Auld Lang Syne as these AI covers have become a fairly large internet phenomenon and it appeared to be the only one I could find on YouTube that is legally suitable for Commons to host. While the still image of Bell was generated with DALLE-3 (according to the original uploader) and is clearly covered by PD-algorithm, I'm less certain about the audio, which according to the video description did involve AI but appears to have been created with more human intervention. From the information available it sounds like the uploader downloaded a public domain sound recording, processed it with AI software to separate the vocals from the instrumentation, then processed the vocals with another AI model trained on public domain recordings of Bell to make him "sing" the song, then used some unknown software to mix them back together. My gut feeling is that the audio would still covered by PD-algorithm, and even if it isn't the video as a whole was released under a CC0 license, but since there is no precedent on Commons regarding these AI covers I feel there should be some consensus regarding this. Suspiciouscelery (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

URAA

Which is exactly the policy for images that are public domain in their source country now but weren't in 1996 and had copyright in the US restored by the URAA? Keep anyway? Nominate and delete after confirming the dates? Keep those already uploaded to Commons before a given date, and delete ones uploaded later? And if it is the third option, why make a difference? Cambalachero (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If an image which was published in a non-US country (and not published in the US within 30 days) had its copyright in the US restored by the URAA, it's not PD in the US via {{PD-1996}}, so in order for it to be hosted on Commons, it needs to be PD in the US for some other reason. Generally that reason would be that it was published over 95 years ago (before 1929), although some works published after 1977 might also be PD. Commons:Hirtle chart has more details on the subject. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The short version of what to check for this kind of case:

1. If the work was first published in 1928 or earlier, it's in the US public domain now even if copyright was restored.
2. Make sure the work was actually URAA eligible. A work is not URAA eligible if any of the following are true.
   • The work's first publication occurred simultaneously in the United States (that is, it was distributed or offered in the US within 30 days of its first publication in a foreign country).
   • The work was created by a US national domiciled in the US.
   • The work was in the public domain in its source country on the URAA restoration date (which is January 1, 1996, for most, but not all, countries).
   • (Rare exception) The copyright in the work was controlled by the Alien Property Custodian, and the owner of the copyright under the domestic law of the source country is a government or instrumentality thereof.
3. If the work was URAA-restored, then its copyright term is the same as it would be if the work were published in the US with all formalities observed.

With one theoretic exception, it's impossible for any URAA-eligible work first published after 1977 to have entered the public domain naturally. Works created in 1978 and later enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death — but even if someone died in 1978, that would place expiry in 2049. Works created before 1978 and first published between 1977 and 2002 enter the public domain in either 2048 or 70 years after the author's death, whichever comes later.

Thus, the only case where a URAA-restored work published after 1928 could be in the public domain as of 2024 is for countries whose URAA date is in 2003 or later, and where the source country had no pre-existing copyright relations with the United States, and thus the work only ever received US copyright upon the establishment of copyright relations — since, as you'll recall, the US hasn't had any formality requirements in the 2003—present period (and so only a lack of national eligibility could cause a more published so recently to be URAA eligible in the first place). The work would have to be created by someone who died over 70 years ago and have first been published in 2003 or later. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused; did you mean "published after 1978"? Many countries are still life+50, or were on their URAA date, and many countries have terms for photographs that is less than life+70. {{PD-Poland}} and {{PD-AR-Photo}} are both examples where recent photos end up in the public domain. (Films are often a flat X years from publication in life+X countries, but rarely less.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Be careful — I wrote "a URAA-restored work published after 1928." Works that were in the public domain in the source country on the URAA date weren't URAA-restored. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Generally the policy is to nominate files that were restored by URAA for deletion. There is an unofficial policy of keeping uploads from before the Supreme Court upheld URAA as constitutional in 2012. Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• According to the Hirtle chart and {{PD-1996}} Public domain: "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal" It appears that for a foreign image to be eligible for a US copyright, you still had to comply with USA copyright formalities. This would require copyright notice, registration, and renewal for those that are pre-1964. Not just made public prior to the 95 year mark. --RAN (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  That was only the case before 1996. Foreign images that were not in the public domain in the source country on January 1, 1996, or otherwise exempt (see above), were given retroactive copyrights by the URAA. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The URAA was specifically for restoring the copyright lost by failing to conform with the old formalities, as required by the Berne Convention, which the U.S. joined in 1989. (The U.S. initially tried to avoid restoring anything, but other countries held them to it, and the URAA process was worked out during a WTO meeting, and took effect in 1996.) The U.S. avoided restoring as many works as it could, using various exceptions in the Berne Convention (such as ignoring works PD in the country of origin on the URAA date), but if a work was restored, it gets the same term as a U.S. work published at the same time if it had conformed to all formalities. In other words, 95 years from publication. You are misreading the Hirtle chart; you want the line under "Works Published Abroad Before 1978" of Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date. So, a work could re-expired in the country of origin but still have a U.S. copyright. On the other hand, if a country retroactively restores a work after the URAA date, its PD U.S. status is unaffected. The PD-1996 tag is specifically for works which were PD in the country of origin on the URAA date, and presumably did not conform to U.S. formalities, so was PD and was not restored. For a work old enough to be PD regardless of formalities or the URAA, use PD-US-expired. If a work did conform to U.S. formalities, then it never lost US copyright and it naturally has the full U.S. term without the URAA (at which point there is no PD tag we can use). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Absolutely, this was just to counter that the only license for images published outside the USA was {{PD-US}}. We have the license {{PD-1996}}. --RAN (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Leo Ornstein (works and some recordings now released under CC BY 4.0)

Hello everyone,

Besides being an editor here on Commons, I'm the Head Librarian and Copyright Reviewer for IMSLP (that's my day job).

Some good news about Leo Ornstein. We've received permission from his son (and heir to his copyrights) Severo for us to release all of his father's compositions, as well as the recordings to which the rights are owned by him (i.e., various recordings made by Leo and Severo) under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. We have the scores up at IMSLP already and we'll have the audio files up imminently.

(Note: some of the earlier pieces by Leo Ornstein are in the public domain in the US naturally, but Severo Ornstein's license of course applies wherever the copyrights haven't expired.)

While Commons is not really a repository of sheet music, Commons is a repository of free audio recordings (among other things). And a number of these free recordings can replace non-free snippets on Wikipedia pages. So, once the recordings are posted on IMSLP's Leo Ornstein composition pages, they can be imported here under CC BY 4.0.

I'll be doing at least some of this myself, but I figured I'd mention it here, so anyone who wants to help out knows about this.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Exciting! Personally, I do think that sheet music for a notable composer is useful and in-scope for Commons even if we also have recordings—for pianists and musicologists, for example. Category:Sheet music has a lot of files. (Sheet music with words can also be transcribed at Wikisource, but I get the sense that's not relevant in this case.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

In scope, perhaps, but still, I would say that it is not really a sheet music site. (Still, go ahead and import any eligible sheet music if you'd like.) Also, Wikisource can host LilyPond sheet music as well. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the LilyPond sheet music uses scans for side-by-side proofreading, e.g. s:en:Waltzing Matilda. (This is only relevant to music that's meaningfully in a language, of course.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, and also just for sourcing transcribed music on Wikisource as well. But there are relatively few scores on Wikisource (and arguably it's not really a great platform/format for scores). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Costa Rican political party flags

I've been maintaining and adding to Category:SVG flags of cantonal political parties in Costa Rica for the better part of a year. I've been uploading the flags under PD-Costa Rica, as I thought the parties' statutes, which define the flags, fell under it as "other public instruments". After asking on the Discord server for comment, it seems that this is not the case. This means these images can only stay here because of their threshold of originality (PD-flag, PD-textlogo, etc.), as none of them are out of copyright otherwise (author death + 70 years. None of these parties are close to being over 40 years old, let alone 70). Many of the flags are, indeed, below any reasonable threshold of originality, as they are simple bicolors or tricolors (maybe even solid colors!).

However, some seem more problematic in my eyes, like Alianza por San José, Unión de Puntarenenses Emprendedores, Garabito Ecológico, among others, and I'm uncertain on whether they're too complex for a ToO argument to hold water.

What should I do? Are the flags OK? Rubýñ ^(Talk) 05:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

They would certainly be fair use, so they aren't illegal or anything like that. If you are drawing the SVGs yourself, that takes out some risk. If you are making the SVGs after a written flag description, they should be fine (your copyright). If you are slavishly copying (i.e. the specific lines and curves) of a copyrightable graphic design, then yes they are likely a derivative work, and Commons policy would need a license from the original work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

A couple have been drawn by retired RoboQwezt0x7CB (like previously mentioned Alianza por San José and Garabito Ecológico), so I've just reduced them using SVGOMG + hand editing, unless I've found accuracy errors, then I go in and edit (like Unión Guarqueño or Acción Quepeña, for the sake of an example). Others I have drawn myself, using both the description written on the parties' statute, mostly for things like fonts, proportions, and colors, and the flags shown on the Supreme Electoral Court's website, like this one, but never directly tracing anything, just eyeballing it. I don't know if that last point is problematic, though, specially for flags like Unión de Puntarenenses Emprendedores o Renovemos Alajuela, which are more complex than just stripes, stars, and text. I do avoid using non-OFL fonts, if that's helpful, instead switching them out for visually similar OFL fonts like Now, Kurinto, Liberation, etc. Rubýñ ^(Talk) 21:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I should say that by "a couple" I mean like around half of them. I have gone through every single one of them, though, changing inaccurate colors or proportions. Rubýñ ^(Talk) 21:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Loesje and the TOO

Example with the text "Ukraine. When democracy isn't working. People are, Loesje."

There is an international artist collective which calls itself Loesje that claims copyright ©️ on all their works, the style of the texts is simply black text on a white background with a signature below. The argument goes that "There is copyright on Loesje's signature, texts and ideas." but the text is usually only a single sentence, the signature is just the generic name "Loesje", and you can't copyright ©️ ideas. So why are we upholding this organisation's claims to copyright?

According to this article, in 2013 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled the 16 Juli 2013 lawsuit Endstra heirs vs. Nieuw Amsterdam Publishers that unusual expressions are not enough to warrant the creation of copyright. Neither are the fonts or styles protected by copyright in the Netherlands. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

For a related discussion, please see "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Personalised St. Valentine's Day message, Rotterdam-Centrum, Rotterdam (2021) 01.jpg", though this discussion is about the general TOO in the Netherlands and whether or not the "Loesje" artist collective has any broad claim to copyright ©️ as they state on their website (as the category just seems to take "Loesje" at their face value). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It is certain that these are not copyrightable works.

All the "works" by Loesje are short phrases/slogans.

• In the United States, the Copyright Office says, "Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases."
• In the Netherlands, the government says that works must be "original and personal" and "[not] similar to works of others." In line with CJEU decisions, the work must be an "intellectual creation of the author." A single-sentence slogan or phrase will not be copyrightable in the Netherlands either.

The fact that Loesje members may claim that catchphrases and slogans are copyrightable does not make it so. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

D. Benjamin Miller, thank you for your explanation. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

U.S. law is more complicated than that. An epigram may be very short, and copyrightable. I believe Ashleigh Brilliant has had copyright upheld for epigrams as short as seven words. - Jmabel ! talk 07:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

One judge in the 1970s (one time) found that there is a difference between an "epigram" and a "short phrase." Ashleigh Brilliant is, in the opinion of a Copyright Office representative on the record, essentially a copyright troll: his collections are copyrightable, but the individual phrases are not, they say. The Copyright Office has since refused registration of individual phrases and (as you see here) simple decorative tee-shirt designs featuring such phrases and clip art submitted by Brilliant.

But what Brilliant really is is a person who — as the Washington Post says — writes epigrams and claims copyright on them for the purpose of getting users of those short phrases to pay him money for their use (e.g., as titles of creative works). He threatens to sue, and people pay up. It's your classic copyright troll operation. The fact that he has won once is, to me, hardly a point showing that his contention is really so correct.

Even Melville Nimmer, who was more open to the idea of short phrases being copyrightable than the Copyright Office (and others who, you'll find, sometimes call the notion that short phrases are unprotectable is an "axiom" of copyright law), and upon whose judgment the reasoning in the one case that Brilliant has won was based, wrote that a short work, in order to be copyrightable, would need to show an exceptional amount of creativity in its few words.

In any case, a phrase like "When democracy isn't working, people are" is hardly exceptionally creative. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason I started this request was before the change, the category "Loesje's" description read like this:

"

English: Loesje is an international free speech organisation, mainly known by their posters.

Note: There is copyright on Loesje's signature, texts and ideas. Freedom of Panorama is not applicable because the posters have not been made to be permanently located in public places. So posters and poster images should NOT be included here unless there is express permission from the organization. See https://www.loesje.nl/informatie/copyright/ (in Dutch)

Loesje in 2020 explicitely released 14 posters that are used in pictures on Commons under CC-BY-SA-4.0: the information on the release is stored in Wikimedia's OTRS mailsystem, under ticket:2020080910004614.

Nederlands: NB Er rust copyright op de handtekening, teksten en gedachtegoed van Loesje. Freedom of Panorama is niet van toepassing omdat dit niet gaat om kunst die permanent in de publieke ruimte is. Dus posters en afbeeldingen van posters mogen hier NIET opgenomen worden, tenzij er uitdrukkelijk toestemming is van de organisatie. Zie verder https://www.loesje.nl/informatie/copyright/

In 2020 zijn 14 bestanden op Wikimedia Commons door Loesje expliciet aangemerkt, als dat de posters die erop te zien zijn gebruikt mogen worden onder CC-BY-SA.40. De mail hierover is beschikbaar voor vrijwilligers met toegang tot Wikimedia's OTRS mailsysteem, onder ticket:2020080910004614. "

Which seems to have just taken "Loesje's" claims to copyright ©️ at face value. Several users actually used "Loesje" as "the standard" for Dutch TOO simply based on the claims of this organisation and the admin who created this category claimed that this logo is "too creative to be below the TOO" and is therefore copyrighted in the Netherlands, essentially claiming that there is no such thing as a PD-textlogo in the Netherlands, so, I nominated it for deletion to get wider consensus on it as a large number of logo's deemed "below the TOO" from the Netherlands are way more complex than the Women's March Groningen and we typically use case law as a standard. The issue with copyright ©️ troll organisations and individuals is that they are very litigious while most of their lawsuits are almost always settled out of court. Several years ago a copyright ©️ troll by the name of Marco-something from Germany would upload educational content to the Wikimedia Commons and import his works from Flickr, then sue anyone for money if they made even the smallest attribution mistakes and while a lot of his claims wouldn't actually hold up in an appeals court most of the people he sued ended up paying up because it's cheaper to just settle out of court.

I actually went searching for any case law involving "Loesje" and despite their claims of often suing people I wasn't able to find anything meaning that they probably just settle out of court a lot with the people they scare into paying. Once people add bold claims of copyright ©️ to categories without bringing it up for discussion an informal standard is set that people will then follow. Even admins tend to follow this as I found that people prefer to work with precedent. As the European Court of Justice unified the European Union's threshold of originality I think that it's important to try to establish what this TOO is, as user "Eric Luth (WMSE)" pointed out here. With those United States we have clear examples but we haven't done this for the European Union yet. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It is at least somewhat (supposedly) harmonized by Infopaq, though the decision says "[something is protected by copyright if it is] the expression of the intellectual creation of their author; it is for the national court to make this determination."

Whether or not this is actually harmonized in practice is another matter. Here's a nice little article which discusses the question. In short, different national courts have continued to have different ways of interpreting this notion. See also (in German) Schöpfungshöhe, which discusses current German decisions on this subject.

I would suggest that the interpretations of the Infopaq decision and more recent CJEU jurisprudence indicate a high standard of originality, rather than a low one. The notion that a work must involve the expression of the author's personal intellectual creation through free and creative choices is the kind of standard found on the continent, far from being a low standard as was (formerly) applied in Britain. In British cases since Infopaq, such as SAS Institue v. World Programming Limited, it has been remarked that the Infopaq standard is higher than the old British one: "If the Information Society Directive has changed the traditional domestic test, it seems to me that it has raised rather than lowered the hurdle to obtaining copyright protection."

Or, as Advocate-General Mengozzi is quoted in this same decision I just linked (which is quoting Football Dataco Ltd. v. Yahoo! UK Ltd.)

It is common knowledge that, within the European Union, various standards apply as regards the level of originality generally required for copyright protection to be granted. In particular, in some EU countries which have common law traditions, the decisive criterion is traditionally the application of "labour, skills or effort". For that reason, in the United Kingdom for example, databases were generally protected by copyright before the entry into force of the Directive. A database was protected by copyright if its creator had had to expend a certain effort, or employ a certain skill, in order to create it. On the other hand, in countries of the continental tradition, for a work to be protected by copyright it must generally possess a creative element, or in some way express its creator's personality, even though any assessment as to the quality or the "artistic" nature of the work is always excluded.

Now, on this point there is no doubt that, as regards copyright protection, the Directive espouses a concept of originality which requires more than the mere "mechanical" effort needed to collect the data and enter them in the database. To be protected by the copyright, a database must—as art.3 of the Directive explicitly states—be the "intellectual creation" of the person who has set it up. That expression leaves no room for doubt, and echoes a formula which is typical of the continental copyright tradition."

Additionally, in particular, the fact that EU Copyright Directives imply the existence of categories of photographs, editions, etc., which would not be protected by copyright per se (but only by 25-year related rights, in some cases) implies that the threshold of originality is fairly high, in line with the continental traditions (e.g,. the German one) which draw such distinctions. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up after the discussion started with this deletion request and thanks @Jmabel: for your critical note. There is no doubt here, that the works of Loesje are the result of a decades-long artistic venture. The Loesje organization itself has rules these works as copyrighted, see also here. If we look at another such an artistic venture as On Kawara it is also clear that we don't just collect his work en masse because of the common sense around such works: Products of artistic ventures fall under copyright, no matter how minimalistic. -- Mdd (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The opinion of the Loejse organization is irrelevant. The fact that they claim that their "ideas" and the signature are copyrightable demonstrate that they cannot be taken seriously. Of course, every person who claims copyright in uncopyrightable things will rule that their works are copyrighted; Rural Telephone claimed that their phone book was copyrighted in Feist, too. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

In the Netherlands there is a consensus decision-making among social partners, called the Polder model, which stretches into the realm of culture as well. Here on Commons we have established good relations with mayor cultural players in the Netherlands in cooperation with Wikimedia Nederland, which brought us millions of images already. And if I am not mistaken such a connection has been made with the Loesje organization as well, who have given us permission to share some of their works here.

In order to establish more and more diverse relationships with cultural organization allows us to collect more images of cultural events, of which most are under copyright. I think there is an inter-dependency here, that we either respect the choices every organization make and profit, or reject their own choices. If I have learned one thing over the years is, that copyright is no exact science. There are different approaches toward copyright and copyright control. And different approaches to building respectable and enduring relations with cultural partners. -- Mdd (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What licenses are granted and for what is subject to relationship-building. Different approaches to licensing are one thing. If you are talking about repositories of copyrighted work, then to receive permission is important.

But that is when you are talking about about things which are protected by copyright. But what is and is not protected by copyright is not decided by consensus; it is a matter of law. We certainly do not have to respect assertions just because some organization has made them. As far as I am concerned, the most important thing we can do is to make it clear what is and what is not covered by copyright, just as it was in the NPG case. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Intermezzo: The use of analogy to get a better grasp of situation

St. Valentine's Day-wish posters in Rotterdam, 2021

On Kawara, June 19, 1967 from Today Series, No. 108, 1966.

In this discussion so far a couple of analogies have been made, or at least stipulated in the different comments:

• First previous to this discussion I made an analogy between the St. Valentine's Day-wish posters, see image, and the Loesje posters now a week ago, here.
• Second Donald Trung in his first comment made an analogy between the Loesje Poster design and the 16 Juli 2013 lawsuit Endstra heirs vs. Nieuw Amsterdam Publishers
• Third, Jmabel ! brough up the example of the work of Ashleigh Brilliant with "epigrams as short as seven words" of which no examples are present at Commons.
• And forth I brought up the example of On Kawara
• In between Donald Trung (18:09, 10 February 2024) brougt up the examples of a logo, a (fragment) of a Dutch municipal elections 2018 poster, and one talk item at COM:THRESHOLD

The reason for bringing up those analogy (or just making these compartments) is clearly to get a better grasp of situation. In general, we choose the most like analogy and its copyright regulation. However when false analogies are made, they can keep us of track.

Now I am telling all this, because it rather shocked me when I realized what kind of analogy or comparison Donald Trung made in his first comment. The 2013 lawsuit Endstra heirs vs. Nieuw Amsterdam Publishers is quite a famous lawsuit in the Netherlands, which made the news. It was related to the famous murder trail to get the notorious Willem Holleeder convicted of killing Willem Endstra. There were tapes made of him talking in the back of the car, and those where used as evidence. In order to get rid of that evidence, they tried to get them dismissed as evidence... because they where so called "copyright protected" and used as evidence without his permission, and therefor inadmissible.

Maybe people get the picture already. There is a very strange analogy made in the above discussion to begin with. (I will continue later). -- Mdd (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

From this perspective I tend to believe that this discussion made a false start to compare the Loesjes posters with a case of plain simple text, which is generally not under copyright. It is suggested that there are similarities with the work of artists, who have used text in their artworks. Yet so far this is neither confirmed nor denied. Therefor I see no reason to depart here from the standards set in COM:POSTER. -- Mdd (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The standard in COM:POSTER has to do with posters that have copyrightable content. For example, many posters feature photographs or drawings on them. It is not the medium of being a poster, but the copyrightability of the content, which matters.

By the way, no, On Kawara's writing of dates on colored backgrounds is not copyrightable, either. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: But COM:POSTER does not make an exception for non copyrightable content. So I read it as: "All posters are normally copyright-protected." The only exception that is made, is for "FOP not requiring permanence". JopkeB (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, that rule of thumb is poorly written. In any case, it makes (indirect) reference to the fact that some posters are in the public domain (by mentioning pre-1989 US posters). In any case, let it be made clear: a poster is just like any other piece of paper, and it is the contents of the poster itself which may or may not be copyrighted. (Of course, besides uncopyrightable posters, there are many old posters whose copyrights have expired.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Then I would advise to adjust this text, AFTER there is consensus about this matter, which has not yet been achieved. JopkeB (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The text says: "Posters are normally copyright-protected even if the artist is unknown. Thus, images of posters cannot usually be accepted." These qualifiers already imply that some posters are in the public domain. And moreover, it is not debated (and cannot be reasonably debated) that there are some posters in the public domain, whether via expiry of lack of copyrightable content.

The purpose of COM:POSTER is not to address a particular legal rule which applies only to posters (since there isn't one). The purpose is instead just to remind people that posters can't be copied simply because they're in a public place. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Intermezzo (2): Statements made on own authority

The above statement The opinion of the Loejse organization is irrelevant... D. Benjamin Miller (Overleg) 06:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) has puzzled me from the start and made me wonder if they where made on own authority or even are an other fallacy. Who is D. Benjamin Miller to say such things? After checking his given weblinks I found a thin website and thin X account with no further social media accounts, which made me realize D. Benjamin Miller is a pseudonym: It seems to be an anonymous Wikipedia user, who created that website and X account to maybe give authority or whatever.

Now I still could be wrong about this practice, and used to think that that is not allowed. Years of dealing with this kind of practice and practices alike made me realize they are actually holding up a mirror, bringing up things no one is prepared to say regularly. Personally I think there are more open and direct ways of bring forward those concerns, such as... "it is questionable... to take the position of the organization into account". But I will continue with this in my next comment.

If this would be Wikiquote I guess I would start a discussion whether this kind of possible deception should be allowed. I recently stated my opinion about these matters on Wikiquote, see here, that I would look into earlier contributions. But here I like to stick to the subject at hand. My conclusion about this particular intermezzo-matter is, that most likely these statements are not made on authority of a natural person, but on account of a anonymous Wikimedia Commons user. -- Mdd (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record, this is my real name and identity. To accuse me of creating a fraudulent identity is outrageous. If you really want, I could certainly verify that I am really who I say I am.

Moreover, it is irrelevant and nonsensical. Users on Wikimedia Commons can be pseudonymous or use their real names. Nothing I have said depends in any way on my identity, and users who use their real name are not considered more credible than those who don't. I've never claimed that anything I said above was true because I said it; I argued for those points based on principles and precedents. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for not been able to connect the dots before. I can explain some more, but you can start by that doing yourself. There is just one dead link in your Wikidata account, which can be replaced by the archive.org link. Your early graphic design is mentioned in an archive with your date of birth, and I would appreciate if you would or would not present that yourself. I am pretty sure that other people cannot connect the breadcrumbs you did present. People then jump to conclusion, to the false conclusion. Realizing your background gave me some more perspective. Thanks and good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

When arguing it's always important to try to stay at the top of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Further comment

With the two intermezzos I have tried to putt the initial discussion into some perspective. It made me realize that several statements by user:D. Benjamin Miller are shear denials:

• It is certain that these are not copyrightable works... D. Benjamin Miller (Overleg) 00:41. 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• The opinion of the Loejse organization is irrelevant... D. Benjamin Miller (Overleg) 06:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
• Kawara's writing of dates on colored backgrounds is not copyrightable... D. Benjamin Miller (Overleg) 03:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Now as I already mentioned before, I tend to agree with Jmabel !'s comment that it is "more complicated than that." Now I can add to this comment that there is a community-consensus that contradicts otherwise on all of these three points. Or at least there has been a community consensus so far. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mdd: You need to realize that people and organizations often claim a copyright which doesn't exist. And they pretend to give a license, free or for money, which they are not allowed to do. We have thousands of such files on Commons, copied from Flickr or elsewhere (i.e. [25]). See also Commons:How Alamy is stealing your images. What does matter is the law. Nothing more, nothing else. Yann (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up @Yann: . In the Netherlands and in the European Union as well you don't even have to claim copyright. You automatically receive copyright if you publish an creative product. The key question here is whether or not the posters by Loesje are a creative product. Now what determines a creative product? I can think of a thing or two:

1. A creative design process in which creative choices are made
2. A resulting product which explicitly expressed a certain threshold of originality

In these matters Wikimedia Commons sets their own standards, as any independent organization by law has to do, and upholds them and protects them after legal threads or whatever. This is all known, and general guidelines.

Now for example if we look at our policy regarding logo's, I guess we acknowledge that there always is a creative process, yet there is a lager part of logo's that don't express the threshold of originality in the graphic design itself. Now making the analogy towards the graphics alone of the Loesje posters, this can be the case as well, but this is questionable.

Now also these Loesje posters contain a text, a creative text, with 10 to 20 words in the center. The express an original thought which often comments a contemporary societal event or long standing state. This text is expressed in a non-trivial way, with twists of words you generally find in poems. Again an further analogy can be made with the copyright regulation and assessment made on this kind of artistic texts. For me this in evident that those texts fall under copyright, but again others may still stat that this is questionable.

Next there is the unique combination of both, which makes it into a unique mix which can be compared with minimalist works of art. And next those works have an element of performance art, that they are presented in open places in urban area's on certain moments in time. Take for example the Loesje posters which were left behind in 1989 on the Berlin wall. It is all part of an amazing societal adventure which I personally admire since the beginning in the early 1980s.

Now if we want to assess the copyright statements of these unique works, we cannot assess every element on its own and take an average. Well, maybe we can, but I think this is not fair. We should take it as it is as a whole: a creative product of group of people in Arnhem in café Meijers which came up with a plan to shake up the world. And they did. -- Mdd (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't claim that this case is more complicated than that. This case looks like simple copyfraud. I was just saying that the prior statement was an oversimplification. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: , sorry for misinterpreting your initial word. You are familiar with the Loesje organization operating since the early 1980s in the Netherlands, and since the 1990s international as well? Do you still think it is copyright fraud? And why so? -- Mdd (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Marginally familiar, but, yes, I think the assertion that (for example) their uncopyrightable logo is copyrighted is outright copyfraud; similarly for claiming to copyright formatting, simple sentences of no particular distinction, etc. Some of these things might be protected by trademark law, but they seem to me to be willfully misinterpreting copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this into perspective, I can relate to most of your assessment, all but "simple sentences." This is a part I double checked several times with the Dutch posters. The phrases don't pop up in any other text. -- Mdd (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

And take for example the first poster (see above) from 2005 that reads...!? Here is the thing, what does it actually reads:

• "Ukraine. When democracy isn't working. People are. Loesje"
• "Ukraine. When democracy isn't working. People are..."
• "... When democracy isn't working. People are..."

All of those phrases are unique. They are statements commenting on a specific societal situation in time and place. And for these reasons I presume copyrighted protected. -- Mdd (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The phrases may comment on a societal situation, but ideas are not copyrightable.

For instance, a political scientist may devise a theory explaining some societal phenomenon and write a book elucidating the theory. The book, as a work of authorship (writing), is copyrighted. The theory itself is not. Accordingly, Wikipedia can write an article about the political scientist's theory which includes the entire idea (but not the entire original text).

In order to be copyrightable, these sentences would need to convey an non-trivial amount of originality as writings, above and beyond and distinct from any idea or observation contained within. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Having said this all, I can also relate to the copyright-notification by Loesje claiming all of these copyrights. In the Netherlands the term with specific lettertype "Loesje" as a signature is so familiar, that everybody would think it originates from their Loesje organization. So I could image that they want to avoid this kind of in-personification. Also they don't want any printer starting selling birthday-wish postcards or whatever with their signatures. For these reasons maybe a de-minimis tag could/should be added with the posters presented at Commons. I am pretty sure their claim was never intended to be global for every situation. But now I am not sure if they have trademarked their name. -- Mdd (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

In the Netherlands the term with specific lettertype "Loesje" as a signature is so familiar, that everybody would think it originates from their Loesje organization. So I could image that they want to avoid this kind of in-personification. Also they don't want any printer starting selling birthday-wish postcards or whatever with their signatures.

Source labeling is a matter of trademark law, not copyright law. Yes, Loesje may prevent other people from selling products which are portrayed as having been made by Loesje. But this has nothing to do with copyright! D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Loesje posters are works of art and therefor under copyright

There is an amazing amount of denial in this discussion of which I just realized it started from the first introduction:

There is an international artist collective which calls itself Loesje that claims copyright ©️ on all their works, the style of the texts is simply black text on a white background with a signature below. The argument goes that "There is copyright on Loesje's signature, texts and ideas." but the text is usually only a single sentence, the signature is just the generic name "Loesje", and you can't copyright ©️ ideas. So why are we upholding this organisation's claims to copyright?"..

I guess there is a fragment in this initial introduction. I could/should have been written as:

There is an international artist collective which calls itself Loesje... of which their works are under copyright, as with the works of any artist collective. However they also claim copyright ©️ on all of the parts of their works. the style of the texts is simply black text on a white background with a signature below. The argument goes that "There is copyright on Loesje's signature, texts and ideas." but the text is usually only a single sentence, the signature is just the generic name "Loesje", and you can't copyright ©️ ideas. So why are we upholding this organisation's claims to copyright?"..

I guess the obvious has been left out here. My conclusion is that this discussion started with a false dilemma ignoring the obvious. Works of art are being framed as a sum of graphic element. With the statement you can't copyright ©️ ideas the existence of the art work is being denied, but framed a idea. -- Mdd (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

of which their works are under copyright, as with the works of any artist collective

Things are only protected by copyright if they are works covered by the scope of copyright. You have repeated over and over that it is "obvious" that the phrases on these posters are copyrighted works (as evidenced, you say, by Loesje claiming that they are). As @Yann, @Donald Trung and @Jmabel have said, that is hardly obvious. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Any organisation can claim copyright ©️ on anything, that doesn't automatically establish it, it just means that they claim to hold copyrights over it.

"The American Loesje" (see my explanation below).

First (1st) of all, regarding the "polder model" comments, that concept is neither uniquely Dutch nor it supersede any laws. The "polder model" is just the Dutch name for a process that is akin to the Wikimedian concept of "building consensus" and every culture has similar concepts, it's just that the Dutch have named theirs, that's not unlike many Chinese people thinking that guanxi is a uniquely Chinese concept despite being identical to the Dutch concept of a social kruiwagen. Regarding establishing consensus and the restrictions of copyrights this can only ever go in a single direction. Imagine if a collective of Dutch artists would all engage in "the polder model" and conclude that something that is protected by copyrights isn't protected by copyrights, then anyone following their consensus would be open to a lawsuit. Therefore, any implementation of "the polder model" can only benefit copyright ©️ trolls and the most litigious of artists. At the Wikimedia Commons we therefore always build consensuses based on the Precautionary Principle (PCP), that is "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. This doesn't apply in the case of "Loesje" as I just cannot stress enough how uncreative the underlying idea of "black text on a white background with a signature underneath it" is, now "Loesje" would likely have trademark rights on its signature.

I would also hardly call it "consensus" if only 2 (two) users add an organisation's copyright ©️ notice on a category page without discussing it with anyone elsewhere, that would in fact be the antithesis of "the polder model". That's also why I brought it for discussion here so it can enjoy wider scrutiny from members of the Wikimedia Commons community that more often deal with complicated matters of copyrights and related rights. that is "the polder model".

Trademark (™️/®) rights are independent from copyrights and don't protect the same things. For example, the United States Bureau of Investigation issued a request demanding to remove the seal, the full text from Wikipedia is "In July 2010, the FBI sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation demanding that it cease and desist from using its seal on Wikipedia. The FBI claimed that such practice was illegal and threatened to sue. In reply, Wikimedia counsel Michael Godwin sent a letter to the FBI claiming that Wikipedia was not in the wrong when it displayed the FBI seal on its website. He defended Wikipedia's actions and also refused to remove the seal. From this version of the page "Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation". While the FBI seal is definitely in the public domain it is protected by a fairly largely number of non-copyright restrictions, if someone were to make a t-shirt that read "Artists are dumb - Loesje" then "Loesje" could easily sue and win against this, but trademark ® restrictions aren't the same as copyright ©️ restrictions and the threshold for trademarks are significantly lower, in fact there is no creativity threshold to register a trademark. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the lay(wo)man the term "intellectual property" and "copyright ©️" are synonymous and this is why it's not uncommon for corporations and groups to claim that "they hold all copyrights" for a work that is only protected by other rights such as moral rights, personality rights, trademark rights, Etc. Even though Mickey Mouse ascended into the public domain last month the Disney Corporation still has trademark rights over the mouse and I highly doubt that we'll see any Mickey Mouse comic books produced by any non-Disney producers.

The concept of "it's art, therefore it's copyrighted" is too vague to work, anyone can call anything "art" and therefore claim copyright ©️ (in fact, as demonstrated above many already do). The art itself has to be sufficiently original in order to qualify for copyrights. Sentences and slogans are oftentimes not creative enough because theoretically anyone could have uttered them with minimal creative labour and most sentences or slogans that are legally protected tend to be protected under trademark law rather than by any form of copyrights. This is also why almost every "{{PD-textlogo}}" is followed by "{{Trademarked}}", "Loesje" has separate intellectual property rights that aren't covered by general copyrights and these should be respected, but those restrictions don't prohibit people from uploading those files to the Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

An addendum, even as taken as the sum of their graphic elements, "Loesje" posters are still simple short sentences on an empty background with a simple signature underneath it. This concept is just too simple, I'm not saying that it's not "artistic", I'm just saying that it doesn't require much creative labour to come up with this. It is an idea so simple that anyone can come up with this by mistake. People typically put their signatures at the bottom of a text, I have some books with a short message by the author and then their autograph, these messages look identical to the works of "Loesje". In fact, the whole idea behind the "Loesje" posters is that they look like a stereotypical quote, it was never an original idea to begin with. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No evidence or indication that Loesje posters are not under copyright and treated as such

There is a ton of denial, second-guessing every word and building lager arguments. Yet the bottom line is these are works of art & literature and are under copyright. Donald Trung uploaded two of those works last year (1; 2) without permission. And in such situations it is up to the uploader to prove they are free of copyright. In a recent other case the Loesje posters were mentioned as example. If he proves the first are legal uploads here, he can use that result for the second. Good Luck. I rest my case. -- Mdd (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this argument remains weak no matter how many times you reiterated it. I could write the word "renegade" 19 times in a row in a precise cursive hand and declare it a work of art, but that wouldn't make it copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Jmabel: for your explicit feedback, which I might mention in further discussion seeking second opinions (about the question whether or not these minimalistic works of art & literature generally fall under copyright, and should be treated as such here as well). I am well aware that on other larger recent copyright debates on Commons (for example [26], and [27]) and the Dutch Wikipedia (for example [28] and just last week here) I haven't been able to get through (yet) also. After resting this Loesje case here, I will move on looking at the bigger picture of creating more enduring circumstances for enduring collection building and government. I hope to present a more coherent vision by the end of the year or next year, but this all for the record. Thanks again. -- Mdd (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Some more about On Kawara

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oct 31, 1973 (Today Series, Tuesday) On Kawara.png.

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:One million years.jpg.

For here and now I am not going to talk about Loesje anymore, but I would like to say a few words about the works of On Kawara, his work and it's copyright status. First some personal references. I am familiar with his work since the early 1990s and saw a larger exhibition of his work in Rotterdam in Museum Boymans in december 1991 (source [29]) when I was studying at the Academy of Art that year. Earlier that year I had received my Engineering Degree (M.A.) at the TU Delft in a Control Theory and Business Administration direction which had offered a course on Law as well. Later early 2000s I self-studied the institute of law and the whole of Ducth law book for multiliple months. By the end of the 1990s I had also taken two longer Art philosophy courses with a group of Rotterdam artists under Antoon Van den Braembussche at the Centre of Philosophy of the Erasmus University (of which I made some graphics see here).

Here on Commons, Wikipedia and Wikiquote over 15 years I have been involved in many copyright disputes with related to all kinds of articles and sections of the Dutch copyright Act. In this particular case however I think it relates to the basics. the first article of the Dutch copy-right act in the Netherlands that reads:

Het auteursrecht is het uitsluitend recht van den maker van een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst, of van diens rechtverkrijgenden, om dit openbaar te maken en te verveelvoudigen, behoudens de beperkingen, bij de wet gesteld.

Translation: Copyright is the exclusive right of the creator of a literary, scientific or artistic work, or of his successors in title, to make it public and to reproduce it, subject to the limitations, at the legislated.

Now as Roberta Smith in the NYT, July 15, 2014 said: "On Kawara, a Conceptual artist who devoted his career to recording the passage of time as factually and self-effacingly as art would allow, died in late June in New York City, where he had worked for 50 years..." (source)

According to Dutch law On Kawara was an artist, who as any artist made works of art that automatically fall under copyright because On Kawara made them. In the Europe it works the same, and in the rest of the world also. Now I am aware that this a s sort of circular reasoning, but that according to me is how law can/should be applied. Now of course we can decide to not uphold the law, but that is no enduring policy. People can deny that On Kawara's work is art. People can argue that his works don't express the threshold of originality (as well). Then again we could/should go into determining what is art, what is threshold of originality, why does that apply to his work, what does his work actually do? Which will be a never ending story.

Earlier on I had stated that his works falls under copyright. In stating so I also made them on my own authority, yet having in mind I could bring up all of the things mentioned here and start from that. Now I have added these personal details here so that other people can put my words in some perspective as well, or get some background where I got my ideas. I am no lawyer myself. I used to think I knew little about this, and didn't understood how it works. All of my experiences here and now made me capable of connecting the dots here as I did. Again I could be mistaken, and I am open for arguments, and preferable real examples that share some more light on these basic matters of art & law. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) / 08:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Again you start with the premise that any art is automatically under a copyright, but this is not the case. Creative art is under a copyright. This may or may not be art, but it is obviously not under a copyright. Yann (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The main point is that copyright is not about what is artistic, but what is copyrightable. Many things that are not artistic in any way are nevertheless legally works of authorship subject to copyright, and a some things that are considered artistic are nevertheless not copyrightable works of authorship.

"Art" is a really broad word, and can be used in many ways. In particular, performance art and conceptual art often don't involve the creation of a work of authorship. For example, you mentioned the Berlin Wall earlier, and how posting something there may be considered a form of performance art under some circumstances. However, copyright law doesn't cover the notion of doing or posting something at the Berlin Wall.

It is not really necessary (as far as copyright goes) to argue about whether or not On Kawara was an artist, or whether or not his writing down of dates was a form of art. Copyright protects works without regard for whether or not they are considered artistic by their creator (or anyone else), and without regard for whether or not the creator claimed to be an artist or was considered to be one without someone else.

The test for copyrightability you've proposed here isn't really based on circular logic. It has a fundamental principle: identification. Essentially, if someone identifies something as art, it is copyrightable (which leads, naturally, to debates about what is and isn't artistic, as you say). There are jsshes with this test. But in any case, it is not the legal test in effect anywhere.

The deal test is whether or not a work has the elements which make it a sufficiently original work of authorship (that is, above the threshold of originality). The exact terms used for this vary, as do the properties such a work must have, depending on the law of each country. But the legal test, it must be said, relies in no way on whether or not someone (including the creator) views something as artistic, but instead on the content itself and whether or not it contains a non-trivial element of original human authorship.

Of course, determining whether or not this is the case is not always entirely straightforward. We can compare things with examples we find in legal precedents.

Not a work of authorship.

But for example, On Kawara writing a plain date is definitely not a copyrightable work of authorship, because the painting does not include any creative element of original authorship (nobody owns the date). Part of conceptual art can be rejecting the elements of creation found in conventional artworks. But not creating things is — whatever commentarial value it may have — is not a form of creative authorship. If it were, then anyone could claim to be an artist who makes minimal art and lay claim to exclusive ownership of basic geometrical forms, writing the date, etc. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The Colombian painter Jorge Calero in his studio in the Rue de São Bento, Lisboa near the São Bento Palace in 1990. Here he started with a new painting, with in the back a finished painting. I uploaded this work without his permission, because so little details of his artworks can be seen that they can be considered deminimis.

Thanks Yann, indeed this is my premises, yet I am struggling with that as well. So there is an element of struggling or uncertainty. Now first, I would like to illustrated this with a real example about the question if "any line" an artists draw falls under copyright. This example is It is about a Colombian artist (see image), which I met (in 1990) around the same time I saw that first work of On Kawara (1991). I will upload two more picture first to get the picture(s) and this story on one place. -- Mdd (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, de minimis is a different principle.

The basic idea there is that incidental copying, especially if that copying is not of much of the work, is OK (with a few different potential legal-theoretical justifications). Here, the photo is clearly of Calero, not a copy of his work overall, even though some of his work is visible in part. Since the artwork is particularly obstructed, not in focus and not the central part of the image, it is probably not an issue. The painting in question is still subject to copyright, but the way in which it is present is minimal enough that it is negligible. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, done. This example is about the time I was observing artist's real close, not knowing I was destined to become one myself. Now to set the scenery in the North of Portugal a Danish student, a German art-student and Jorge Calero (first image first three from left to right) around the campfire early evening. The next day we sat at the coffee-table of a local bar, were the German art-student was drawing in her dummy. I guess after Jorge spoiled some coffee, in some split seconds he took that coffee and started drawing the German artist as you can see only using his one finger. In those split seconds I was playing with my Canon camera noticing that scene. I took a photograph of Jorge drawing [2], the subject he had drawn [3] and his final drawing [4]. Now I cannot have been more then a few minutes all together, now 32.5 years ago:

• 
  [1]
• 
  [2]
• 
  [3]
• 
  [4]

Now I brought this up just to illustrated that I have been struggling for some time, if I could share one or more of these pictures here. It is clear to me that the forth image [4] is under copyright with he even signed... But I am struggling about the second image [2]: does this fall under copyright as well. There are just a few lines there, and only if you see the result, you can make it out. If I would have taken this picture earlier noting would have been seen. Now in my perception there can be such moments of uncertainty, where the situation remains questionable.

Now Yann brought up that "Creative art is under a copyright," suggesting we could make a division between creative and not creative art. This questionable. This example can also remained us that there is always a creator, which can be an art student, a young professional artist or an engineering student. If I am not mistaken in the picture [2] in the left side corner in the bottum there was also some drawing by me, which doesn't look like much. A bee of a bug maybe? I would not claim copyright on that part myself. Now by to the signature on the right bottom corner, Jorge did, or maybe I even asked him to sign it, before I took the photo. But there he did claimed the drawing.

For me this was an experience once in a lifetime, an unique experience. And that is an important aspect of art, that it is one of a kind. Original. Back to Yann's statement. I can agree with that "Unique works of art are under copyright". And that "all finished works of professional artists are under copyright". -- Mdd (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Legally, copyrighted works are not required to necessarily be particularly unique (although pure copies cannot be copyrightable). For example, under US law (and the law of at least some other countries), if two people write the same poem entirely independently, then they both hold a copyright to two legally distinct poems (even if the words are the exact same). Of course, this sort of identical independent creation is incredibly rare. There must be the ability for the artist to make some kind of choice which is manifested in the result, but it is more complicated than that.

As your last point: whether or not someone is a professional artist definitely does not matter under any circumstances at all. The works of amateurs and professionals are treated exactly the same under the law with respect to copyrightability. The macaroni art of a kindergartner is exactly the same, legally, as the work of a professional painter. The only relevant fact is that both authors are humans.

As for these photos, [4] is definitely a reproduction of a copyrighted work, fully subject to copyright, and must be speedily deleted, unless you have permission from the artist to release his work under a free license. [2] is less of a straightforward reproduction, but the work is still too central and the same probably goes for it (permission is likely required, unless the art is blurred out/removed). Photos [1] and [3] are both perfectly fine. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't matter whether or not a work of art is finished per se; it matters whether or not the work present in the copy is enough to qualify as a work on its own. Many works of art are never finished by their authors, but nevertheless have enough content such that the unfinished portion is legally copyrighted.

The test here (in the EU) is actually the exact same one given in Infopaq. Take, for example, a novel with 100,000 words: that's a copyrightable work. The first word by itself is not. Nor are the first two by themselves. At some point, there will be enough authorship to constitute a copyrighted work. The first 500 words of the novel are virtually certainly enough to constitute a work, and are thus protected by copyright, even though that would only be 0.5% of the full novel. Similarly, an incomplete artwork is subject to copyright if the portion in question has enough original authorship to be a work by itself. The first stroke in a painting, like the first word, is not copyrightable, but at some point, even an incomplete painting becomes a work.

The amount of the total work used can be a component of a fair-use analysis, but that's a different subject. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say reading your explanations along the way through this chat was so helpful for my broader understanding of these issues and principles, so thank you! I only wonder, on the topic of On Kawara, irrespective of his following or not following of copyright notice/registration rules: would examples of his date paintings not have been eligible for copyright under the assumption that the individual brushstrokes on the painting combined to constitute a sufficiently creative work? That's been the logic used by others in deletion rationales around images of work by Ellsworth Kelly, for example - the basic forms and colors Kelly used (simple geometric shapes often in monochrome) were inherently uncopyrightable, but because he hand-painted them the detail of his brushstrokes allowed for the works to be eligible. Feel free to ignore as this seems to have already been a long discussion prior to my chiming in. 19h00s (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Reading through the pages "Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Untitled' (2005) by Ellsworth Kelly -- Glenstone (MD) October 2018 (45168025595).jpg" and "Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Untitled' (2005) by Ellsworth Kelly -- Glenstone Museum Potomac (MD) October 2018 DSC 1502 copy copy (45168024205).jpg" I would argue that the works by Ellsworth Kelly discussed there are fundamentally different from "On Kawara", the "On Kawara" works are always simple dates with only a singular background, that is, the strokes of the brush made to get to these colours aren't unique or creative in any way, it is just a fully red or black background with a date written using white paint. The works by Ellsworth Kelly here involve significantly more mental and physical labour to produce. And as you noted in the latter discussion "Crucially, the notice says "sculpture in plaza," not just the sculpture itself. Given the context of Serra's original arguments against the government's decision and the timing of the filing, it seems like Serra may have copyrighted the site-specific sculpture, i.e. Tilted Arc when installed in the plaza, not just the sculpture itself. I have to think that's why the Copyright Office let it pass ToO muster if other similar simple sculptures have not been deemed copyright-able." which makes me wonder why this specific art piece is copyrighted but not similar pieces of art elsewhere. In some countries brush strokes fall under the "sweat of the brow" doctrine and I'm sure that "On Kawara" might be copyrightable in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I sincerely doubt that something as simple as a date on a background is copyrightable in any other jurisdiction. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'll be honest the case of Serra's Tilted Arc still baffles me as to how it was eligible for copyright, and it essentially feels like a "hinge" registration in terms of how it's used by notable minimalist and conceptual artists' estates as an "ipsto facto" for their own holdings' copyright status. But I was mostly referring in my comment here to user:Toohool's previous comment about the surface of the Kelly sculpture being painted. Point taken though, the On Kawara paintings are markedly different in the way they come together (or don't) as a "creative" work, defined under US law.--19h00s (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The Tilted Arc registration (1) predates Feist and (2) would not, if found to be invalid, be the only registration found to have been granted for an uncopyrightable work. I don't think that the existence of a registration for Tilted Arc should be taken to indicate a such a low TOO, especially given the current Copyright Office guidance in the Compendium. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

(another theoretical you can ignore if you're done with this thread) This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever asked on here, but could someone theoretically use a freely licensed high quality picture of Tilted Arc for something commercial, and then try a preemptive CASE Act filing with the CCB to establish they're not breaking copyright laws, thus possibly leading to the nullification of the Tilted Arc registration because CCB has to take into consideration Feist? (obviously only if CCB found in their favor, and presuming the copyright owner - Richard Serra - even agreed to CCB proceedings in the first place, which is certainly doubtful) I'm just wondering how something like this could ever get sorted out beyond federal court or like, waiting until the registration expires PMA. (again, all theoretical) 19h00s (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I can't really tell you how implausible hypotheticals would be resolved. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The UK does not accept the "sweat of the brow" principle, and hasn't since, at the very least, 2009, with Infopaq, which was incorporated into UK law and remains incorporated post-Brexit. UK cases since then have affirmed this. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a British case about an action taken post-Brexit, to see if their earlier definition now applies again. The one recent case I'm aware of made mention that the act under question occurred while the UK was a member of the EU. One would hope they would keep the EU definition to make trade easier, but not sure it's a guarantee. Still, that is probably the most recent relevant guidance we have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is a case from 2023. Also, Brexit incorporated the EU acquis (as it stood at the Brexit date) into UK law, except where explicitly excepted. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: That ruling says: Section 1(1)(a) of the 1988 Act must, so far as possible, be interpreted in accordance with Article 2(a) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (“the Information Society Directive”) as interpreted prior to 31 December 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. That seems to leave open that actions after 2020 may be judged by a different standard, though that may just be a reference to retaining the state of EU law as of 2020. I don't think the EU threshold language is actually incorporated into their law, so it will be interesting to see if they continue to accept CJEU opinions. That case was about events which happened pre-Brexit though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It's really saying quite the opposite: it is saying explicitly that the standard established by the CJEU before December 31, 2020 remains the standard in the UK even afterwards, while CJEU opinions from 2021 and later are not considered binding. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

By no means can the fact that he made a bunch of brushstrokes in itself result in a work of authorship under US law. Per Feist, the amount of effort put into something is irrelevant. The only factor which can be used for judging copyrightability is the amount of authorial creativity present in the final product. Whether the process for producing the painting was easy or hard is not really important: there is no question that the final product has nothing more than the basic writing of the date. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @D. Benjamin Miller: for your further response. However you brought so much interference that with my dyslexia I cannot make up the discussion any more. I will leave this discussion for now and copy/pasted the text to Category talk:On Kawara, and rearranged it in a form I can still comprehend. Also I will give my response to your comments over there. Thank you. -- 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdd (talk • contribs)

• Regarding "By no means can the fact that he made a bunch of brushstrokes in itself result in a work of authorship under US law. Per Feist, the amount of effort put into something is irrelevant." Just a note, this is true in the USA but not in many "sweat of the brow" countries (like the United Kingdom). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: The UK has rejected sweat of the brow since InfoPaq (2009) at least. See THJ v Sheridan. Also, even the worst "sweat of the brow" applications had to do with the sweat of (pseudo-)intellectual effort (compilation of facts, research, etc.), rather than having literally to do with the physical difficulty of reproduction per se. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Create custom template for images from MerrionStreet.ie Flickr account

Hello there,
www.MerrionStreet.ie is website run by the Irish government/state as a "Government News Service". On the website's copyright page , it notes that all

All the information featured on our website is the copyright of the MerrionStreet.ie unless otherwise indicated. You may re-use the information on this website free of charge in any format. Information and documents obtained from this website may be reproduced and/or re-used subject to the latest PSI licence available at www.psi.gov.ie.

Link to www.psi.gov.ie

A custom PSI template is already exists here on the Commons, please see Template:Oireachtas (Open Data) PSI Licence created by @Neveselbert // @Neveselbert (mobile)

As part of it's operation, www.MerrionStreet.ie runs a Flickr account, found here. Unfortunately for us, www.MerrionStreet.ie does not upload these images under a creative commons license. However, I believe they should be as part of the law stated on their own website. As far as I can see, everything created or upload by www.MerrionStreet.ie is a part of its purpose, which is entirely covered under the copyright section of their website. That section clears states it's all under PSI.

Have you contacted this agency about this?
I contacted www.MerrionStreet.ie directly several times in Spring 2023, both by e-mail and phone. While I was told that the agency would review their upload policy, they neither made any changes to the Flickr account nor informed me of a final decision. A classic case of kick the can down the road and hope it goes away. Look, the agency actually falls under the Office of the Taoiseach, the highest political office in Ireland, so it's likely extremely busy on a consistent basis and was never going to prioritise this request (sadly).

So
What I want to know is:

A: Can I upload content from the MerrionStreet.ie Flickr account directly under a Template:Oireachtas (Open Data) PSI Licence
or
B: If not, Can a custom template be created for the MerrionStreet.ie Flickr account?

I believe that either the current PSI custom template should be sufficient, or that a custom template in the exact same vein as Template:EC-Audiovisual Center should be created.

Thank you for your time and consideration, your insight into this matter would be really appreciated. CeltBrowne (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: I've just brought this thread was back from the archive; I'm still looking for answer here. CeltBrowne (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)