Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

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)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

UK graduation photo, circa 1930

I have a British graduation photo taken around 1930 (photographer unknown). Reading through Help:Public domain, I am not sure about its copyright status in terms of USA vs UK vs the URAA. Any suggestions? Muzilon (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

URAA applies since the UK was 70 PMA in 1996 (1925 was the cutoff year, but 1926 and 1927 works would be public domain in the U.S. now). As to the UK copyright, has a reasonable inquiry been made as to the identity of the photographer? (knowing more about the provenance of the photograph might tell us if the photographer could be found) Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The photo is in the possession of the family of the subject, but it's not clear whether the photographer was a family member or a professional studio. It might qualify as {{PD-UK-unknown}}, but would be it be considered PD in the USA? Or do we have to wait something like 95/120 years after the creation of the photo before it's considered PD in the USA as an anonymous/unpublished work? Muzilon (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• bump* @Clindberg: your input would be appreciated, as always :) Muzilon (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I would guess the family owns the copyright. It had become PD in the UK, but was restored in 1996 (and therefore in the US too). If it was first published in 1930, or only in 2001 or later, it is again in the PD in the UK, but will take a while for the US (shorter of 95 years from publication, 120 from creation). If first published before 2001 but less than 70 years ago, the UK copyright would still be valid. If it was a family photo, I would presume the copyrights were inherited by the family. If it was a studio shot, the law at the time said: where, in the case of an engraving, photograph, or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration in pursuance of that order, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright. So, presumably the family would have owned the copyright even if performed by a studio. I'm guessing the authorship is anonymous, thus the 70 year terms. If the family wants to license the image for the US side of things, I think it would be fine. Otherwise, probably PD in the UK, and not in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Thanks! I hadn't been aware that there were countries where the default was that when you commissioned a photo you got the copyright by default. Do we have any list (even partial) of what countries at what times have/had such a law? - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The US was divided (no law, but courts went both ways). The UK had that clause, and also in their 1956 law, but I think their 1988 law rolled it back some. Australia still has some flavor of it (though muddier), and I would not be surprised with other countries which were based off of UK law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

SpaceEngine licence question

Is https://store.steampowered.com//eula/1026970_eula_0 compatible with COM:LICENSING?

Reading it through it seems like a user of the PRO version of the software can reuse screenshots of the software commercially with credit, but I'm less certain whether they can release such screenshots under another licence (there are a number of uploads on Commons under CC-BY), for a third party to reuse in the same way despite never having owned the PRO software. Belbury (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to say, for screenshots specifically, it does seem like a free license. Agreed they can't re-license it though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What does that mean for Commons? Should there be a {{SpaceEngine}} template for these images (where the uploader confirms that they were made with a PRO account), and if so what should it say? Belbury (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Logo Partai Masyumi 2020.jpg

Even though File:Logo Partai Masyumi 2020.jpg is pretty much just text, Indonesia's TOO is apparently quite low per COM:TOO Indonesia. Can this file be kept as licensed since there's nothing to indicate it's been released as such per partaimasyumi.id? Should it be converted to {{PD-textlogo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Even with a low TOO it is hard to see how that could be copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 04:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

File:SasSquare Studio.jpg

I would like some input on the licensing of File:SasSquare Studio.jpg. It seems like it might be OK per COM:TOO United States, but it could be cutting it close. SadSquare Studio seems to be based out of Canada per its Twitter account, Kickstarter page and YouTube account; so, maybe COM:TOO Canada also needs to be considered. COM:TOO Canada says that Canada's TOO is similar to the US's but it might not be exactly the same.

Finally, if the file's licensing is OK, the file might need to be renamed because the studio's name is incorrectly spelled as "SasSquare Studio". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

UK government works from 1944

Hi, What is the copyright status is USA of these pictures? The copyright in UK expired, either because they are government works {{PD-UKGov}}, or because the author is unknown {{PD-UK-unknown}}.

• If PD-UK-unknown applies, they are still under a copyright in USA due to the URAA.
• If PD-UKGov applies, the copyright in UK expired in 1995, and they should be in the PD in USA. Or don't we consider government works in the public domain in the source country being also in the public domain in USA?
• Does the copyright notice on the back change anything to the copyright status in USA (lack of renewal?)?

Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that PD-UKGov applies as these were extremely likely to have been taken by people of the Royal Army Medical Corps in the course of their duties. The British government has made it clear that expired works of theirs are not subject to URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So what's the template for the US copyright status? Yann (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You can just use the PD-UKGov template since that template says "HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide" with links to document that. Abzeronow (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

All of these are in the IWM collections - search [1] by the B number on the back of the image. As many of the IWM image are already on Commons it's worth a search to see if they are already here. Nthep (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, but they can't be downloaded from that URL. Yann (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Even unable via web.archive.org?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Moment before Shinzo Abe was shot.png

This image was taken from a YouTube video made by New York Post, which according to their terms: "owns, solely and exclusively, all right, title and interest in and to the Services and all content contained and/or made available through the Services (“Content”)","The term “Content” includes, without limitation, all [...] photographs [...]". This mean that file violated the license.

What I should do now? 183.80.4.138 09:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know the original video wasn't taken by the New York Post. So they are probably reusing it because it's PD. Although I'd double check, but it should be easy to find the original, or at least a version closer to it that has a license. If not, then personally I'd just assume it's PD anyway considering the nature of the event and who was there filming at the time (mainly, if not exclusively, amateurs). --Adamant1 (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: why would the filming being by amateurs make it public domain? - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

At least from what I've seen with amateur videos of major events that are taken with cell phones like this one looks to be the person will release it on social media or similar under a free license. It's possible the New York Post got republishing rights to the video, but then I've seen that same clip in other places before and I'm pretty sure it's on YouTube in multiple places to. That's why I said to double check though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I assume they will just publish them on social media without any thoughts about licences, and people will republish them, without contemplating legal issues even for a second. That's the way everybody intends it to happen. Sadly, copyright law says otherwise. Any of those who filmed could sue anybody who uses the clips, and will win unless the reuser is able to produce a fair use rationale. We protect our reusers by requiring the legal procedures, which is awkward in many cases, but necessary for our mission with current laws. Hopefully some of those videos are indeed free. I don't think any country has a "clearly intended to be free" provision. The USA had one before joining the Berne convention (just don't add a copyright statement), but the system was awkward in other ways. –LPfi (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

They may release them to social media, and accept some copying, but a "free license" is a much more far-reaching thing that we can't assume without an explicit license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

File:IMG-20230603-WA0005.jpg

The file is auto-protected and thus couldn't be nominated for speedy deletion. From this article the image is attributed to en:Press Trust of India which didn't publish under compatible license for Commons. Thus, this should be speedily deleted. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

If we cannot be 100% sure that the image is compatible with Commons requirements, it should be deleted. The uploader has a previous instance of uploading a copyvio image. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The photo has been nominated for deletion in deletion requests. --C messier (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Government works of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian SSRs

[Added here 11:55, 3 June 2023 by Ibicdlcod]

(Originally asked at en.wp, get directed here) For example, Flag of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (1953–1990).svg. These works are always being tagged under the copyright laws of modern Baltic states regimes as their government work. Which is hard to believe, because of State continuity of the Baltic states. They don't view Soviet Republics as predecessors to them, thus the tags are incorrect and the copyright status of Baltic SSRs' legacys is unclear and should be discussed. ibicdlcod (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not know, but for me it is even harder to believe that everything which was created in these republics between 1940 and 1990 is PD. Their legal standing is probably that in this period, Estonian SSR did not exist, and whatever was created in the area was created in independent Estonia.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to drawings of flags and seals, the copyright tends to follow the particular drawing -- the government copyright should not matter (unless the government themselves made the drawing). See Commons:Coats of arms. But, whatever they consider the history to be, the current government is likely the legal inheritor of any SSR government copyrights. So, not sure why the current government would not control them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Suspected screen capture copyvio

At a Wikipedia thread, there was thought that File:Devon Conway (Cricketer).jpg might be a screen capture. In cases like this where there is no metadata and it is suspicious (new user, press conference, etc), is it better to use the "No permission link" or start a formal deletion request discussion? —Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No permission would mean that there is literally no permission. Here, since it is claimed to be an own work, a permission is present. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ruslik0: "Here, since it is claimed to be an own work, a permission is present": That's what is unclear about the own work claim, because {{File permission}} says

You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself

and {{No permission since}} has

This also applies if you are the author yourself.

So I was wondering if the "no permission" route was intended to be more lightweight, putting the onus on the uploader and less on the community.—Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If there is any question, I tend to prefer DRs. It gives a place for discussion, and a better record. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Question about North Carolina government copyright laws

Hello, while trying to find out about the VRT process regarding government documents published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, a fellow editor made a good point that those documents, and many like them, could be considered "public records" under Chapter 132 of North Carolina state law. Though, there is some confusion on the basis of what the statute defines a "public record" as (the public being able to view gov. records vs. the public being able to view and modify/reuse gov. records). If anyone knows something about state copyright laws, is there enough justification in this statute that could allow the creation of a public domain license tag on Wikimedia Commons for documents created by the government bodies in North Carolina? Thank you for your help and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Adding on to the above, this "Copyright Decisions" page from the Government and Heritage Library of the State Library of North Carolina says "Most of these [North Carolina state publications] are considered to be in the public domain, pursuant to General Statute 132-1b," which is the section of law which defines what constitutes a public record. Despite this, other state sources do not treat their files/photos/publications this way, as evidenced by the different licenses with which agencies' official Flickr pages will use, and other various references to some state works being copyrighted. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Moving discussion here after same discussion was unanswered and archived at Commons:Village pump. This same issue regarding NC copyright was also discussed all the way back in 2014. Consensus on this issue would be greatly helpful. Thanks and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There is also Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NCGov. Public records do not mean the same thing as copyright public domain, which is what we are after. It's possible the wording is strong enough to make such things public domain, but we would probably need a court case to come to that conclusion before accepting the rationale here (as there were in Florida and California). The Harvard state copyright page notes the public records law, and lack of clarification when it comes to copyright. In general though, every state has public records laws, but most don't really affect the copyright status (though many uses would more likely fall under fair use). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Polygone solution du "problème einstein"

Bonjour, J'ai importé sur Wikimedia-Commons l'image d'un polygone que j'ai réalisée à l'aide du logiciel Geogebra: File:Spectre de Smith.png. Ce polygone est une solution du "problème einstein" proposée par messieurs Smith, Myers, Kaplan et Goodman-Strauss dans leur récente publication sur ArXiv :[2]https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.17743.pdf A chiral aperiodic monotile] Évidemment ce sont ces messieurs et pas moi qui ont trouvé cette solution. Cependant la forme de la tuile de Smith est très simple, constituée de segments de droites d'égales longueurs et d'angles de 90°, 120° ou 180°. Une telle figure de géométrie est-elle soumise à droits d'auteur ? Faut-il demander aux auteurs une autorisation pour présenter cette tuile sur Wikipédia ? Merci de m'informer du statut légal de ce tte figure. Jacques Mrtzsn (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Non, {{PD-shape}} s'applique ici. Yann (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Guatemala

Greetings, how do we handle the restrictive freedom of panorama rules in Guatemala? I've been wondering about File:AntiguaGuatemalaBanner4.jpg, File:AntiguaGuatemalaBanner3.jpg and File:AntiguaGuatemalaBanner2.jpg, are they copyrightable or did the copyrights on the buildings lapse out of old age? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the age of the buildings, nor the age of the original photos, but you might want to research also older laws and transitory regulations, as FoP seems to have been abandoned only in 2006 (according to Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/11#FOP guatemala is all wrong, part 2). –LPfi (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, from the appearance it seems like all the buildings, cathedral and the arch are older than 2006. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: the 2006 cutoff date is the cutoff date of uploading, not of structures themselves. For structures themselves, the author (architect or sculptor) must have died more than 75 years ago for structures to be in public domain. If anonymous, 75 years from completion or publication, consistent with rules of {{PD-Guatemala}}. Older Guatemalan buildings by long-deceased architects can be tagged with {{PD-old-architecture}}, which is applicable to public domain buildings of countries with no complete FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

So what restrictions are there for a non-authorised pre-2006 photos of new (say 2005) architecture?

Of the linked three photos two are of the Arco de Santa Catalina, one of the Cathedral of Guatemala City. Both structures are old, but at least the cathedral was repaired after the 1917 and 1976 earthquakes (according to es-wp). I don't know whether there were changes that affect the copyright. All three photos are from after 2006.

–LPfi (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi: simple answer: {{PD-old-architecture}} applies. That template is specially designed for public domain architecture of no-FOP countries, with a sub-tag for U.S. compliance since Commons must also honor U.S. laws. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that is PD-old (70pma with no "deathyear" argument) combined with a U.S. specific tag. Guatemala is 75pma. Normally, for really old works (buildings or not) a simple PD-old is fine; even if there was no 1990 architecture cutoff the US copyright would have expired anyways. Secondly, images of architecture are not included in the scope of the copyright for architectural works in the U.S., so they aren't derivative works in the first place so there are no rights to recognize -- {{FoP-US}} is really the only tag needed, if that. PD-US-architecture would almost never be valid for a work that can be uploaded here. The license for the photo as given is probably just fine for this situation, given the age of the buildings. PD-old-100-expired would also work fine if you really wanted a tag for the architecture (and something like File:AntiguaGuatemalaBanner2.jpg would probably be fine anyways, as it's a photo of a wider subject). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: is {{FoP-US}} supposedly for post-1990 buildings physically located in the U.S.? Using the template for works of "no-FOP" countries like Guatemala, IMO, does more harm than good for the ff. two reasons: the categorization will make Category:FoP-United States populated with buildings from no-FOP countries instead of being confined for categorization of US buildings themselves; and some may claim that perhaps, through US freedom of panorama, we can do away with restrictive FOP of no-FOP countries and copyrighted buildings of no-FOP countries be tagged as such even if not so since the no-FOP of the source country needs to be taken into account (France/Greece/Ukraine may slap Wikimedia with take down demands if Commons would stick to US law).

The creation of {{PD-old-architecture}} that contains the PD-US tag is a response to claims by some users like @Ymblanter and Brainulator9: at this discussion that PD-US status must be taken into account as Commons must also comply with US copyright rules, not just rules of buildings' countries of origin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I said in that discussion literally the same as Carl Lindberg is saying here. Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

For photos of buildings, U.S. law is the same regardless of when a building is from -- they are either not in the scope of the architectural copyright, so they are not derivative works, or the architectural copyright does not exist, meaning they are not derivative works. I guess if it's a building not visible from a public place, there could be a 1990 difference. But normally for photos of buildings, we only need a US license for the photo itself copyright itself. Statues are different, but current FoP policy for those is to ignore a possible US copyright on the statue if the photo was taken in a FoP country, under the hope that the FoP law would affect how the US determines things. I don't think there are any precedents in US cases for that either way, but that has been long-standing policy. A DMCA request on such photos would likely be honored (i.e. photos deleted); that happened with some Claes Oldenburg works a long time ago. There is a {{Not-free-US-FOP}} tag we can use on photos where the statue/work makes the photo possibly not OK in the US; that tag is not necessary for buildings since they are not derivative. {{FoP-US}} can be used on photos of newer US buildings, in case the derivative aspect is questioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Copyright of photographing old manuscripts

Hello, would photographing a manuscript (which itself is in the public domain) such as in this case be eligible for copyright or would it be considered a "slavish reproduction" of a two-dimensional work and thus be able to be uploaded as per Commons:2D copying (photographing books, etc. with the intention of faithfully reproducing the 2D content)? ThethPunjabi (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The "slavish reproduction" is for a result which is essentially a straight copy of the original work. The court case was for a straight-on photo of a painting, cropped at the painting's borders. A photograph like the one above has additional creativity; a photo which is not straight-on loses that assumption (not to mention including other elements in the photo). If the underlying work was still under copyright, it would be a derivative work, but the photo still has its own copyright either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg I see, thank you for explaining. What about if one were to crop the image so that only the contents of the folios can be seen in the frame? Would such a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph be able to be uploaded? ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If you were to crop to only the original work, and try and undo the angle such that it shows more like it would have head-on, then yes probably OK. The only expression left is that of the original object, as such it is now more a "copy" and not a "derivative work". Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg Thanks again, you cleared up my confusion. :) ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Polygondwanaland.jpg

Per the description provided for File:Polygondwanaland.jpg, the band seems to have released the album into the public domain with the following statement:

"This album is FREE. Free as in, free. Free to download and if you wish, free to make copies. Make tapes, make CD's, make records...We do not own this record. You do. Go forth, share, enjoy."

However, I'm wondering if that includes the album cover art and also can be assumed to include commercial and derivative reuse even though it doesn't explicitly state as much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Marchjuly: From what I know of King Gizzard, probably they'd be fine with it, but someone should probably get hold of them to confirm that. - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Unpublished reports of the European Commission

I know that works produced by the European Commission are in the public domain under 'PD-European-Commission', but does it apply to reports that were commissioned but never published? I have a specific example that I'm interested in: a 300 page report titled "Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU" which was produced by the Dutch company Ecorys under contract from the European Commission. The Commission then never published the report but Felix Reda got hold of a copy through the freedom of information law and published it on his blog.

I want to know if any restrictive copyright restrictions apply to this report or if it can be uploaded here to Commons. Ciridae (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If the commission provided a report to a third party with permission to publish it, this I think can be regarded as publication. Ruslik (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No, the third party was contracted to create the report. It did that but the European Commission did not publish the report. An EU MP released the unpublished report on his blog. Ciridae (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

what code do I use to update profile photo?

I work for a celebrity who would like the profile photo updated. What code do I use to change the photo to a current one that she owns copyrights too? The photo has been used for publicity & merchandise & is on social media, etc. But I need to put a code in for Wikipedia or it gets removed. Just need to know which code. Thanks. Modsquad3 (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)