Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Community portal
Help desk Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Shortcut: COM:VP/C · COM:VPC
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Commons discussion pages (index)

Please note
  1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
  5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Can an image that is ineligible for copyright be changed to that template?[edit]

Found this image: File:Black.png that clearly is too generic to be eligible for copyright and makes sense to be in public domain. Can I change it if I am not the uploader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicdragon136 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Anybody can do this: I added a {{PD-ineligible}} tag. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I would just add the ineligible tag, and leave any free licenses. Copyright laws in this area vary greatly by country, and it's near impossible to be sure that something is ineligible in every country in the world. If there is even one country where a file is above the threshold, then the existing free license is useful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
True. In the UK for example very simple forms can already be copyrightable. Even if an image was created by (for example) someone in the US, someone from the UK will need the Creative Commons license to use it. In the case of Black.png though it seems safe to say that this is ineligible in every country in the world. - Alexis Jazz 19:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Everipedia using multimedia content from this project - redux[edit]

Evripedia's use of open-licensed "by" images, without attribution, has been discussed here previously.

There's a thread about this on Twitter, starting with my post at:

Sam Kazemian of Everipedia has replied, here:

with set of proposals for future action. He offers no explanation, much less an apology, for taking images without credit, in breach of the CC by-sa licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

COM:Everipedia should answer any question you have about this. - Alexis Jazz 16:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Pictures from The Huntington Flickr account[edit]

Hi. I've checked several pictures Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) upload from The Huntington Flickr account. It seems that every playwright picture does not belong to this theater company (some are already on Commons). I've not enough time to check them all so I notify Village pump. Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: I don't see the problem. You say the pictures do not belong to this company, but who do you believe they belong to? I don't find the pictures anywhere else. (granted I only checked 3) - Alexis Jazz 10:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Have you seen Ser Amantio di Nicolao talk page ? Ten have already been deleted and 16 others will be soon. The reason for deletion is mentionned on each one. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: can you update Commons:Questionable Flickr images and User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors? ID 59832923@N02. (is that list still being used? since FlickreviewR is blocked?)
Suggested reason: Shares photos they do not have the rights to. [1] even states "all rights reserved" in the description while having a CC-BY license.
- Alexis Jazz 13:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. Yes, it it is still used by the new flickr reviewer bot and maybe some other tools (upwiz) as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: in reply to [2] ("his strange comment from this morning in which he "doesn't see the problem" with files uploaded by Ser Amantio di Nicolao from The Huntington Flickr account, although 10 had been deleted, and @EugeneZelenko: had put a warning on 16 others at the time.") and the above "Have you seen Ser Amantio di Nicolao talk page ?".
I hadn't looked at the talk page of this user. I checked their uploads, did reverse image search on a few but that turned up dry, looked at the Flickr account which seemed legit at first glance.. So I didn't see the problem. When you clarified the issue, I did some things.
Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco has been created. - Alexis Jazz 21:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't seen that. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

FAL 1.1. and FAL 1.2 not compatible with CC BY-SA[edit]

I received an email from Creative Commons saying that {{FAL-1.1}} and {{FAL-1.2}} are currently incompatible with any version of CC BY-SA, yet RP88 said in last month's discussion that any version of FAL allows a licensee to comply with one of later versions, like {{FAL-1.3}}. --George Ho (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you confusing terms? Both "Only FAL-1.3 is compatible with CC BY SA 4.0" and "any version of FAL allows a licensee to comply with one of later versions" are true statements. All three existing versions of the FAL licenses contain the option to comply with the provisions of one of the subsequent versions and only FAL-1.3 is compatible with CC-BY-SA 4.0. When someone adapts a CC-BY-SA 4.0 work and applies the FAL to their contributions they can only choose FAL 1.3; FAL 1.1 or 1.2 can not be chosen as these licenses are not compatible with CC-BY-SA 4.0. —RP88 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is a little chart as an example to show the licenses that can be chosen for a modification to an original work licensed under a couple of licenses (this chart applies to adaptations, not unmodified distributions):
Original license Possible licenses for an adaptation
CC-BY-SA 4.0 CC-BY-SA 4.0, FAL 1.3
FAL 1.1 FAL 1.1, FAL 1.2, FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL 1.2 FAL 1.2, FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL 1.3 FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
RP88 (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... not according to email from saying that, if FAL is un-versioned, an FAL-licensed work can be adaptable. Otherwise, implicitly, if versioned, that depends. If version is either 1.1 or 1.2, then the works with specific versions would not be adapted into CC BY-SA works.
In other words, based on emails received from ArtLibre and Creative Commons, the table would go like this:
Original license Possible licenses for an adaptation
CC-BY-SA 4.0 CC-BY-SA 4.0, FAL 1.3
FAL 1.1-only FAL 1.1
FAL 1.2-only FAL 1.2
FAL 1.3-only FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL 1.1 or later FAL 1.1, FAL 1.2, FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL 1.2 or later FAL 1.2, FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL 1.3 or later FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL (unversioned) FAL 1.x, CC-BY-SA 4.0
If you still believe I'm wrong, you can contact and then Creative Commons for questions and comments. George Ho (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
But if forwarding their emails to the Legal team is necessary, then I guess I must do so. --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
ArLibre published the "FAL 1.1", "FAL 1.2", and "FAL 1.3" licenses. As far as I know ArtLibre has not published any licenses identified by the names of "FAL 1.1-only", "FAL 1.2-only", and "FAL 1.3-only". If you know of links to those licenses, I would appreciate it. For example, is "FAL 1.1-only" some sort of custom FAL 1.1 license with section 6 removed? With regards to versioning of FAL licenses, while both CC-BY-SA 2.0+ and the FAL provide an option to comply with later license versions, they differ in a significant detail. CC-BY-SA gives licensees the option to comply with a later version only when applied to an adaptation of the work. Unlike CC-BY-SA, the FAL gives licensees the option to comply with a later version of the FAL whether or not the work has been adapted. So, for example, if artist Alice creates a work “Artwork 1” and communicates it to artist Bob with the FAL 1.1 license, Bob may, under the terms of Section 6 of FAL 1.1, choose to use “Artwork 1” under the provisions of FAL 1.3. Now that Bob has elected to use “Artwork 1” under FAL 1.3, Bob can create a derivative work of “Artwork 1” (let’s call the derivative “Artwork 2”). Under the terms of section 2.3 of FAL 1.3 this derivative can be distributed under a compatible license. Since CC-BY-SA 4.0 meets the requirements of section 5 of FAL 1.3 (and CC extends reciprocity to FAL 1.3), it is compatible with FAL 1.3, so, Bob can distribute “Artwork 2” with the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. —RP88 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
As far as I understand this, -only in this context means that a work was published under FAL 1.x as the only license without the option of any later FAL versions and without parallel licensing under Creative Commons. De728631 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

W. & D. Downey - Licence header to delete or change[edit]

On this photo I added the living dates of the photographers. Youngest is dead since 1915. So can change the licence header? I have no idea where/who the right address is. Is there a button or Link? Maybe this ist the correct side? Thanks for answer. --Tozina (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You can add {{PD-old-100}} template to it. Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
If it's a corporate credit, technically it's anonymous, and {{PD-UK-unknown}} would also apply. Later on, one of the sons ran the company (though even he died in 1908). But PD-old is also fine to add. I added the creator tag of the firm. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Interpretation of Template:PD-PRC-exempt.[edit]

Dear experienced Wikimedia users,

Regarding Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010) [1] and Commons:Copyright rules by People's Republic of China. [2]
Would you please let me know your opinion whether the photo of the news is the part of news on current affairs?
Concerning the summary definition of News on Wikipedia "News is information about current events.
News is provided through many different media" (examples: printing, broadcasting; public Television or Public Radio, or electronic communication ) From my understanding of the definition of News, photo and text of the news should be also the part of the News. In the current multi-media era, it is logical that News includes not only text, but also Picture and Video files.
From the Template:PD-PRC-exempt, Defines news on current affairs as the mere facts or happenings reported by the mass media, such as newspapers, periodicals and radio and television stations.
As I understand Copyright Law in China, (Unlike the US, where copyright is so crucial), China might not be so strict about copyright, especially News, because it reports facts about the current affairs, so it does not apply to copyright.

  • Article 5 This Law shall not be applicable to:

The Copyright Law of China: Article 5 This Law shall not be applicable to:
(1) laws, regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature; and their official translations;
(2) news on current affairs;
(3) calendars, numerical tables, forms of general use and formulas. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The language "mere facts or happenings" indicates contents with no originality, whereas photographs are clearly works of originality and creativity, which are more than "mere facts or happenings" and thus not exempt from copyright. --Wcam (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Please refer to the actual court cases in China: "On the Meaning of "Current Affairs News" in "The Copyright Law".link here)

From my understanding, we should abide by the result of the current judicial practice in Chinese court as it would be the future reference of the other similar Copyright cases in China.
In summary,
1) If the photo is the actual fact of the News or enhancing the effectiveness of news, it is not protected by copyright law; no one has the right Claim copyright. Examples of cases) a photo of the "36th World Journal Conference", The photos of “Fan Bingbing Wedding Photographs News"
2) IF photos do not convey current events or the relevant facts are necessary, the photo is protected by copyright law, The photos of "Chen Guanxi arrived in Beijing Photographs News".
Regarding the the Copyright court cases above, I believe that the photos of "conference, meeting, congress, assembly, gathering, summit, or wedding News" is not protected by copyright law, as per the judicial practice in the Chinese court. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a spillover of my request to delete a photo depicting Xi Jinping met with Kim Jong-un, took by a reporter of Xinhua News Agency. I made my point clear there: in short, I agree with Wcam while opposing the thread starter. Reasons:

  1. Press photos don't constitute "mere reports of facts" as in the Chinese copyright laws or essential to convey the news on current affairs, thus eligible for copyright protection in China.
  2. The Article 67 of the Chinese constitution stated that rights to interpret Chinese laws belong to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, not Wikipedia or you. The NPCSC has made it clear that:
    News on current affairs, as a fact, is not subjected to copyright protection. Yet works derived from news on current affairs (like short press releases and press photos that is hard for ordinary people to take technically) are eligible for copyright protection, as they met the criteria to constitute subject of copyright protection. Creators of works derived from news on current affairs own the rights to attribute, modify, publish and monetize the work.
  3. Court cases that the thread starter cited are distorted - i) in the Edison Chen case the court decided that the photo in question reached the threshold of originality and is eligible for copyright protection, ii) other cases mentioned contradict the case aforementioned, and the legal opinion stated in these decisions are disagreed by some (incl. the author of the opinion essay cited above).
  4. Photos on assemblies (in China) are copyrighted. Previous cases in Wikimedia Commons are unfavourable to the thread starter's claim (see there).
  5. U.S. copyright laws are applicable in this case even when Chinese copyright laws are not applicable unless the Xinhua reporter relinquish his copyright claims in the U.S. Press photos are usually copyrighted and unacceptable in Wikimedia Commons since most Wikimedia servers are based in the U.S.--Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 10:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Images from India 1943[edit]

I'm having difficulty working out the status of images taken in India during the Bengal famine of 1943.

Commons:International copyright quick reference guide says "India has 50 pd for photos published before 1941, was PD on 1996 URAA date", but it doesn't explain why 1941. {{PD-India}} is unclear, but it does say "Photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation."

We're currently claiming fair use for File:Statesman j.jpg (author is The Statesman newspaper), but another image from the same famine, File:Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943.jpg (author unknown, but possibly also The Statesman), is on Commons with {{PD-India}} and {{PD-India-URAA}}.

Can anyone advise? SarahSV (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

India had a term of 50 years from creation for photographs. Their 1958 law changed that to 50 years from publication, but only for photos created from then on -- existing photos kept their old term based on creation. In 1991, India passed another law extending their general term to 60 years, so the intent was to increase the term of non-expired photos to 60 years from publication. Thus the 1941 line -- a photo created in 1941 or later had its term extended to 60 pd. A 1943 photo would expire in India 60 years after publication, however, that would have been after the URAA date meaning the U.S. copyright would most likely be restored. There is some argument that mistakes in the 1991 law left the original 50 year from creation term unchanged (in which case your photo would have expired before the URAA), but the clear intent of the legislators was to extend all existing copyright at the time. I don't think there has been a court case which ruled on the matter.
So, the statement "India has 50 pd for photos published before 1941" is close -- it was 50 pr (years from creation), not publication, and those photos would be PD in India and the US. The statement of "Photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation" would be either ignoring the 1991 law, or taking the position that the 1991 law did not change the old terms (which would have defeated the main purpose of the law, which was to extend copyright for a famous poet who died in 1941). I don't think there is consensus here to assume that, though any photo published before 1958 would still be PD in India anyways. Per the intent of the 1991 law, the 1943 photo would have been extended, and then become PD in India in 2004. So, PD-India is still correct for that photo. The US side of things though is not so sure. If the photo was published in the U.S. within 30 days, that would have avoided the URAA and it would be PD, but otherwise its U.S. copyright would exist until 2039. There is a bit more discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory#India. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Carl, thank you very much for this information. If I've understood correctly, you're saying that the PD status of File:Statesman j.jpg and File:Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943.jpg depends on whether they were published in the United States within 30 days. If so, what are we expected to do to determine that? We know that some of the images taken by The Statesman were published outside India, because secondary sources refer to their publication, but The Statesman published a large number of them, and we don't know which ones were published elsewhere or when. The only reference I can find to publication in the US is a secondary sources saying the images were circulated within the State Department in Washington. SarahSV (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Right, that is the hard part, determining that. If we find a newspaper or magazine with the photo within 30 days, that would do it (access to newspaper archives helps there). If the Statesman was documented to place all their photos on an international wire, or a general agreement with U.S. newspapers or the AP or something like that, that could get fuzzy as well. Otherwise it is hard to prove. There is some resistance to deleting URAA-restored photos here sometimes, so they won't always be nominated (or deleted if they are), especially when there are uncertainties in the foreign law (or 30-days status). There is the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag which can at least serve as a warning for U.S. users. A lot of times, the historical changes in a country's law were not always fully documented, so when the URAA ruling first came down there was a massive deletion request which would have covered a lot of images which were actually OK, so that was dropped in favor of individual DRs. Since then, there has not been much organized effort to purge such photos, though it does happen. I personally don't upload images which I think were restored by the URAA, but I'm sure we have a boatload. The Commons image you link above may be one of them, though if someone with access to say wants to search August and September 1943 issues to see what photos they may have, that could provide documentation to clear up the status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Help please: image of Lauritz Sand, 1945[edit]

I would like to add this image to the Wikipedia article of the same name but have forgotten how. Could a maven please help? Thank you! Shir-El too (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

If you mean File:Ukas_bilde-Photo_of_the_week_09-2012_(6791346900).jpg, you should add [[File:Ukas_bilde-Photo_of_the_week_09-2012_(6791346900).jpg|thumb|Caption]] to the article. Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

PD-US-unpublished confusion[edit]

Compare {{PD-US-unpublished}} to {{PD-old-auto-unpublished}}. PD-US-unpublished requires only one of the three conditions to be met. PD-old-auto-unpublished requires the author to have died before 1948 and for the work to have never been published before 2003.

? - Alexis Jazz 01:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

PD-US-unpublished says "This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003, and is currently in the public domain in the United States because it meets one of the following conditions: its author died before 1948; ..." I don't see the contradiction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The contradiction is that, apart from the publication date, the author having died before 1948 is the only and mandatory condition at {{PD-old-auto-unpublished}} while PD-US-unpublished requires one out of three possible conditions. De728631 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Right, I overlooked that. (and I made some mistakes in that case) They still differ though as pointed out by De728631. These templates should look the same. So does {{PD-old-auto-1923}} also apply when a work wasn't published in the U.S. before 1923 but only in the home country? - Alexis Jazz 02:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
No, they shouldn't look the same. A template that requires the deathyear cannot and should not look like one that include anonymous works.
Yes, PD-old-auto-1923 applies when a work was published before 1923 anywhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Okay, but they should look the same in terms of the layout. I made a suggestion at User:Alexis Jazz/sandbox. What do you think? - Alexis Jazz 04:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Disagree. PD-old-auto-unpublished is not a US-specific template, it should not have a "PD-US" prefix. Like PD-old-auto-1923 and PD-old-auto-1996, it is a combination tag for an arbitrary country of origin combined with a common US PD reason. I think the formatting of those seems fairly consistent (see {{PD-old-X-1923}} and {{PD-old-X-1996}}). The unpublished situation means though that the US term will likely match the country of origin term (if at least 70pma), so the terms are no longer completely separate like the other two tags. I don't see any problem the way they are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: So you disagree with the way it is now? Template:PD-old-auto-unpublished/core embeds {{PD-US-unpublished-text}}. - Alexis Jazz 18:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the templates are fine (and completely accurate) as-is. I think I was more referring to the proposed name on your sandbox page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: please tell me which name I proposed. I'm not aware of proposing any new names. - Alexis Jazz 01:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, maybe I misunderstood. But I still don't see the problem you're trying to fix. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I initially completely missed the 2003 date requirement on {{PD-US-unpublished}} because the order of the sentence is not logical. I have further clarified my suggestion and moved it to User:Alexis Jazz/PD-US-unpublished suggestion. Its largely housekeeping really. The current licenses are legally not a problem, I'm just trying to make them easier to read. - Alexis Jazz 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
One is a US-only template, which combines the 2003 unpublished requirement with the ways that unpublished works become PD in the US. The other one is a combined US and PD-old-70 tag, based on an author's known death year, where only one of the three unpublished conditions from the other tag makes sense. Otherwise they are the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
As for the publication question, in general if something was published anywhere in the world, it was considered published in the US. There could be edge cases on the technicalities of what constitutes publication I suppose, where it would meet one country's definition but not the US (or vice versa), but for the most part a work is first published just once, and that is it. The tag is mainly for situations where something was long unpublished anywhere, and expired due to PD-old-70 in its country of origin and via the unpublished limits in the US (which is the only situation where the 70pma term is relevant today, expiration-wise, in the US). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


This picture of a pamphlet seems to be a blatant copyvio. Am I missing something? 14:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong there. Did you read the licence template? It says that "... it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice". The pamphlet is from the 1950s (see description) and there is no copyright sign or notice, so it was never eligible for copyright. De728631 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I should add, that in the US copyright was not granted automatically until 1989. You had to fulfill some formal requirements such as attaching a copyright notice to make your work copyrighted. See also COM:Hirtle chart. De728631 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It isn't clear from that image if it is a complete representation of the pamphlet. There could be a copyright cropped out of the image, or the copyright could appear on another page if there is more to this tan just what is shown. The line around the image indicates to me that the source of this was likely a book and not a copy of the pamphlet itself. It is not safe to assume from this that it is not copyrighted. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right that it was a booklet of sorts, namely a pamphlet of six pages . It was apparently written by Myron C. Fagan and first published in 1959 (see No. 24), but even if there was a copyright, it wasn't renewed in the 1980s [3]. {{PD-US-not renewed}} De728631 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, De728631. That clears up any concerns I had. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

en:Maymie de Mena[edit]

I am wondering if Mayme de Mena’s photo could not be transferred to commons. How one does that I have no clue, but, the photo is labeled 1925 visa photo, thus it falls within the dates of 1923-1978, i.e. {{PD-US-no notice}} – published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1978 but without copyright notice. It is highly unlikely, as a visa photo that a copyright existed, and it would have been invalid as an id after 5-10 years anyway. Surely posting an image on a passport is “publishing” it? (And the author is unknown) The image is 93 years old and she died 65 years ago. I am unsure of what her citizenship was at the time of her death, probably British, but at the time the photo was taken, she was Nicaraguan by marriage. SusunW (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Several problems: 1) copyright attaches upon creation ("It is highly unlikely, as a visa photo that a copyright existed" is entirely incorrect); 2) publication has a technical meaning in copyright law ("the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending"); mere appearance of an image in a passport is not publication; 3) even if this were published, {{PD-US-no notice}} applies only to works first published in the US (it is unclear whether this is from a US, British or Nicaraguan passport); 4) in the US (works on the Commons must be free in both the US and country of origin, if different, so US law serves as a first "hurdle"), unpublished works with known authors have a term of life of the author + 70 years (the age of the subject is not relevant) and unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works have a term of 120 years from date of creation (or 1.1.2046 in this case); 5) that this is embossed may mean the photographer of the passport photo (i.e., the creator of the derivative) may also have a copyright which would need to be considered. This currently could not be transferred to the Commons. Эlcobbola talk 18:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I am baffled by all the technicalities, so always prefer to ask first. SusunW (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:WhatsApp screenshot rus.png[edit]

  • Recently, when I was surfing the files, I found File:WhatsApp screenshot rus.png, which was a Russian version of WhatsApp. I suspected the file is a fair use screenshot, but as the uploader has some seemingly OK reasons about that, I didn't use a speedy delete. After that, he give me some explanations, but looks like only effective on Russian Wikipedia. Could anyone who know well in copyright determine the situation?
  • The uploader's explanation:

The interface of this program consists exclusively of well-known elements and does not contain original author's work. According to the decisions of the courts for Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation and Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., protected are only those elements of the program interface that contain the original author's work. Their mutual location, the scheme of construction and operation of copyright are not protected. In Russian Wikipedia, where I work, there is even a template named "trivial screenshot".

廣九直通車 (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Are these photos "taken as part of that person's official duties"?[edit]

Camp Kaiser, Korea 1966-1970:

Are these {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}? There are some pretty nice photos there, like and (somebody had seen Dr. Strangelove Face-tongue.svg) - Alexis Jazz 18:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

On tour, so no time there was time off. -- (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe that's the rule. The question is, is it part of their official duties? If it's their own camera, their job title wasn't "photographer" or "journalist" or anything, and they kept the originals, I'd say it's almost certainly not PD-USGov. I've uploaded a couple of my father's Vietnam photos, and I'm completely under the impression that they are in fact still copyright by his heirs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, would have to agree. If their job title was photographer, or even if they were just asked by their bosses to take pictures a particular day, that would be part of their duties and a USGov work. Photos they take with their own cameras of their own volition would be theirs, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The opposite applies. On active duty on foreign soil in the 1960s, you would need permission to take photos. Unless released, all photographs would be subject to official government control or necessary censorship. The alternative would be chaotic, and put missions and military personnel at risk. -- (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Even if you would need permission to take photos, it wouldn't make the photos part of your official duties. My father never mentioned needing to get permission, and I've never heard of it elsewhere. In theory, the photographs would have subject to necessary censorship. I suspect my father's photos were merely raw film until he got back to the States; trying to censor photographs by returning vets or completely stop them from using cameras was probably considered unhelpful to morale and pointless to security. In the case of Korea, the Status of Forces Agreement talks about dependents, which means it wasn't considered a war zone duty. Once you've got the point of bringing in cars (also mentioned) and families, do you really think they could have banned cameras?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)