This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Are these images from the French government OK to transfer to Commons? Site mentions "Sauf mention contraire, tous les textes de ce site sont sous licence Creative Commons." Does "textes" in this French sentence cover images? The photo captions state "Photo: Florian David/Matignon" which would have to be included if trasnferred to Commons under a CC license.
"Texts" don't include images. The website specified, between March and circa 23 September 2014, that "videos, texts and infographics" were under CC BY 3.0 FR, which is why template:gouvernement.fr can apply to images from videos that were available there and validly copied somewhere during that period. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
RJSpink
Could someone have a look at the uploads from RJSpink (talk·contribs) please? This and this are clearly screengrabs from a website. Other uploads may or may not be suitable for Commons, but are tagged as 'own work', which they are clearly not. Thanks, Nzd(talk)01:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
2019 undeletion issues
Hi, I am encountering some issues while undeleting files. The following were mentioned in Category:Undelete in 2019:
Wouldn't the Max Barneaud sculpture still be copyright in the USA? Or can we ignore US copyright for PD foreign sculptures, like we do for FoP foreign sculptures? --ghouston (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
This needs a date of publication. License may be changed to PD-Art, as we don't have a permission from the museum. If the first name is Jacob, the category and creator template should be renamed. Yann (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
US copyright law is complex, and there were many holes to fall into prior to 1978 (and less so 1989). A film published without a copyright notice in that time would lose any copyright. In this case, it's the trailer, which is separate from the movie--if the trailer was published first, the movie may be legally derivative of the trailer. A lot of trailers went into the public domain, but some of them didn't, so one would need to check the trailer for a copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I've checked, and there is one, which is sufficient for any post-1963 work to still be copyright in the US. Nominated for deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm a touch confused about uploading images released into public domain onto the commons. I've uploaded an image in the past from this user and had it deleted because... I can't recall exactly, they aren't the government or something. They appear to be the photographer of the image in question (I can't find any evidence they aren't) so why does them choosing to release an image into public domain as opposed to a CC mean we can't use it? TLDR: I'd like to upload image, what's stopping me? Sabine's Sunbird (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
it is the dreaded "you are doing it wrong, and we won't let you play in our sandbox, until you license images the way we want." seems like a good faith nature photographer trying to release to Public domain. any camera data to suggest flickr washing? if not then they should stay. and over 1000 so maybe some will get deleted there. but given the assumption of bad faith here, you should not expect undeletion any time soon. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge11:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
So, reading the closing comment on the rfc, if I ask the guy to confirm that he releases it on PD it's good? I second Slowking4's comment about telling people they've released it wrong for reasons that are esoteric in the extreme. Sabine's Sunbird (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, if they release it to the public domain it's fine, although it's easiest if they use the CC0 release. Otherwise, it's hard to find the right Commons template, since most include a "fall-back license" that should only be used if the author has agreed to it. --ghouston (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
"easiest" except the bit where you have to try and explain to someone why you need them to change the license, right? "Because of esoteric Wikimedia ass-covering bullshit I barely understand" doesn't cut it. Sabine's Sunbird (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Wave Video purchased license for commercial use, appears to be an important video I'd like on commons
HI I have purchased the full commercial license of the music and the video and the last image is already mine on the commons for the following video available at www.change.news - it is being engaged by thousands and thousands in just a few hours, growing as we speak. I'd like it on the commons, is anyone able to help me with whether the relevant licenses are OK? --E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). I sometimes don't understand rules, and I think abstractly. [3]
So wave video states that my license is : Unlimited usage of 500,000 videos, images and sounds included in your plan
30+ video publishing formats
Unlimited video projects
Library of over 200,000,000 premium assets available for purchase
Upload original video footage
Custom watermark
Custom brand presets
1 brand
25 brands
150 brands
Max video duration
5 min
15 min
15 min
3rd party resale rights
I then purchased the 5 premium videos for the video in question.
I used my text and the music is under the follwing license which I have a certificate for:
License: Standard
License description: Online use: Youtube, Facebook, Twitch,
advertising, podcast, product presentation,
crowdfunding, corporate, personal, student
project, charity... Includes on-hold melody for
phones and answering machines
Duration: unlimited since 10/11/2018
Territory: International & Internet
Title: A new hope (Cinematic | Epic Music)
Artist: Nico Maximilian / Composer
I'll proceed to upload as I would like it hear, please inform me via a standard deletion request if there are any problems. I will share it under CC BY 4.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.3 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
--E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). I sometimes don't understand rules, and I think abstractly. [4]10:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
You seem to have bought a license to use, correct? That is not the same as having the right to change the license of the material itself. Changing something from standard license to CC-license is something only the copyright-owner can do. //Vätte (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I own the copyright and can sell it, as I have the agency account shown here now - only cost $6 to upgrade for that video. I therefore suggest that since I own it and can sell it, I can release it to under a commons license? --E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). I sometimes don't understand rules, and I think abstractly. [5]02:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
No, you've bought a license to the work (or actually a fee to get access to the files, and been granted specific permissions of use), not the actual copyright of the work. You are not allowed to sub-license the copyright, only the usage rights. THis is similar to Getty Image's Extented Use License. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I dont think its like that their enquiry line just wrote back the following : " Hi there,
Any video you create with a paid subscription is yours to use. All content provided is royalty and copyright free. Agency users may also sell their videos to 3d parties.
Does this answer your question? " --E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). I sometimes don't understand rules, and I think abstractly. [6]21:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. Are we allowed to upload material from the website of the Museum of Fine Arts of Boston? I found this link on their website,[9] hence I was wondering if someone could shed some light on this. For the sake of having an example; you're "interested" in this coin from their website. - LouisAragon (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, In brief, no. There is no mention of a free licens in the Terms of use linked above, so all content is under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Answer was: Have first author send in permission statement from his own email to OTRS, and CC the other author, then have that other author "reply all" in a second message, causing both to arrive at OTRS the same way.
Discussion:
I have a file (a photograph, taken in the United States, recently) of a subject (person, male) whose costume is an original artistic creation and copyrightable, and a photographer (woman) whose photo of that outfit is also copyrightable. They both need to agree to our licensing terms before their image can be used, yes? Question: if they both have to agree to the permission statement, how can they both "send" it in? The artist only has a gmail account, but the photographer has a professional account. Could he sign the statement, send it to her, and then have her foreword it on to OTRS? Would this be sufficient to verify his identity? Is there some other way to handle works with multiple authors? Also, when he uploads the image, he is going to be asked if he created the work himself. He wants to say "Yes", because the costume is entirely his. Should he select, "No, this is not my work"? Because THAT seems patently wrong too. Please advise. Thanks. A loose noose (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Update: the subject of the photo now has access to a domain-name email and can send in his permission statement from there. This still leaves open the question of how two people can send in different permission statements for the same work on which they share copyright. Am still hoping for some guidance. A loose noose (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
About Google Images and Public Domain
Hi, I've received a message about a picture which it's copyright status might be unclear.
Here's the picture:File:Dreamt_for_Light_Years_in_the_Belly_of_a_Mountain.jpg
I found it with Google Images with the "labeled for non-commercial reuse" filter.
I provided the link to the page when I uploaded it in Wikipedia Commons.
I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and being honest I still don't understand some things about image licenses.
I want to learn about it, so any help about it would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodriguez425 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
For Wikimedia Commons, files must be free to use for any purpose, including commercial use (see COM:L). Beside, this is a derivative work, and we need a permission from the cover designer and/or producer. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
In looking at the video, it seems that there is a possibility that new material was added to a specific release of the movie. This may pose copyright issues. In particular, the video appears to open with a "New Line Cinema" intro of sorts, followed by a screen showing a pair of glasses and a message about "Harold Lloyd Entertainment Presents," which is followed by a screen with a message about the music having been composed by Carl Davis. After that, there is a screen that is mostly likely the the title screen for the movie itself. The question arises as to whether some or all of the material that comes before the movie's title screen may be copyrighted even if the movie itself is out of copyright.
At the end of the movie (or possibly after the movie's end), there is a screen about the music composition and orchestration credits for the movie, and then a screen with copyright information about the movie and the copyright for the "Special Contents of this Edition." Once again, there is the question of copyright for the material that comes after the end of the movie, though some of the screens may be below the threshold of originality. If it is the case that new copyrighted material has been added to a specific release of the film before or after the actual movie, it would seem to be possible to re-upload the video after editing out the copyright-restricted material.
Another note: Though this may not apply to this video, there is a note under COM:TOO#United States indicating that a newly created "pan and scan" conversion of a widescreen film can be copyrighted even if the existing widescreen film is out of copyright. --Gazebo (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The trimming looks good. There is the question as to whether at least some of the new material that was added may have been below the threshold of originality, but the film should be all right with all of the new material removed. At the risk of seeming obsessive, a possible copyright issue that comes to mind is if an uncopyrighted film is subsequently put through a visual retouching process that generates a new copyright after which the retouched film is released. I do not know if this issue applies to the specific release of the film that was released by New Line Cinema (from what I remember.) --Gazebo (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Never previously published files with author unknown
Hi, I couldn't find any reliable information on this topic, but I often encounter some files that have never been published, but are uploaded to Wikipedia under different free licenses with the source stated as a "personal archive". Are these accepted on Commons? Or should they be deleted if "fair use" cannot be applied?
If an old photo was taken from a KGB archive, and was never published before (or such a publication isn't known of), or was published recently, can it be considered a public domain or is it still copyrighted?
If the author is known, but died before the first publication of his work and 70 years have passed since his/her death, but haven't yet passed since the first known publication, can such a file be uploaded to Commons? What if these cases aren't mentioned in the appropriate copyright law of the file origin country? What policies or practices should be applied?--Piramidion (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
What are the dates of creation and first publication? I assume it was created in the USSR, but where was it first published? ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 16:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: The photo was taken on 12.12.1941. The author was some news agency photographer and reportedly died in 1943 (but it's dubious). The earliest known publication date (of which we're unsure either and might have to check) is 1956. It is speculated that the photo could be publicated in some newspaper much earlier, by the author himself, but if it was, we're unaware of it. I'm asking all these questions, because there're a lot of files with somewhat similar issues, and I don't know if I may mark them for transfer to Wikimedia Commons.--Piramidion (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
You did not answer where was it published. At least the publication you are sure about. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 06:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: The file has been transferred to Commons, so you can check it for yourself and do whatever you consider necessary: File:3 div opolcheniya.jpg. There's an encyclopedic article it cites as a source: here. It's a Russian language version, and there's an English one, which you can enable on the top left corner, but for some (technical?) reason it doesn't immediately display the photo mentioned here. The article cites two books as its sources, ans I assumed (didn't confirm) that one of those books could be a source of the photo itself. This source states that the author of the photo (А.А. Михайлов) had died in 1943. --Piramidion (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Question
Is there a compelling argument to presume this photograph curated by the National Museum of the U.S. Navy is indeed in the public domain in the source country (that is, the United States), establishing therefore a valid rationale to upload the pic here? The description states "Photograph released July 25, 1957". Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
there is an ocean of lower resolution scans which we could research and scan at NARA, since they gave us the record group, RG 330-PS. but it would take some legwork, in the meantime, do not see any reason to doubt it is PD-US Navy. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge04:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Photo taken before 1906, but no other info known
W. J. Craig (1843–1906), an Irish Shakespeare scholar that edited the first edition of The Oxford Shakespeare, and inspired a Japanese student to create one of the most ambitious literary theories.
I have a photo of W. J. Craig (1843–1906; he's the bearded gentleman in the bottom picture) that, based on Craig's death, must have been taken before 1906. But I have not been able to find any information about the photographer or where, if anywhere, it was published and when.
Now, I'm pretty sure this photo was 1) taken well before 1906, 2) was published in a book or newspaper around the time it was taken, and 3) it is exceedingly unlikely that the photographer was young enough at the time for their pma. 70 to be a concern. That is, I believe that were these datum known we would determine that the image is in the public domain both in country of origin and in the US.
Given that, would the photo be acceptable for hosting on Commons, and what kind of license tags would be correct for it?
I suspect, but I'm a little fuzzy on the details here, that in this situation the absence of evidence triggers the precautionary principle; and especially as a result of the uncertainty relating to its publication, since that might conceivably mean the photo is actually in copyright somewhere until 2018+70 years (anonymous work first published in 2018 in the article linked above). But, again, I'm not up on either legal or Commons practice on this, so advice or correction would be much appreciated.
And provided I'm eventually able to dig up more information on this photograph, what would be the most critical datums to find? Date and place of first publication, I'm guessing? Followed by identity and years of photographer, followed by date the photograph was taken, and in roughly that order? Anything else that would be obviously critical to find out? --Xover (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Um, this is just wrong. When a child country splits from a home country, they inherit all the copyrights, and their rules apply (both legally and by our standards). We don't apply PD-UK to works from 1940s India, for example. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
True, but given that the subject moved to London in 1874 (at 31 years old), and this photo is obviously later than that, the photo is most likely a UK photo anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
There's this image too, which is much higher resolution and should clean up quite nicely, the only thing spoiling it a little bit is the overexposed top-left of his head (I had a quick play with that, and you can tone down the glare in that area, but there really doesn't seem to be much of anything detail-wise to pull out for that patch) - but I haven't been able to find out much about its provenance with a quick search. The url says 'WJ Craig Belfast 1895', so presumably unitingconnections.org.au know something about it... --Begoon05:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe you are probably correct! Well spotted. Same name (WJ), very close birth/death dates, both Irish connections and to me they look fairly similar (at a different age) - must be the beard... With the connection being to unitingconnections.org.au, I did wonder why, but now it makes sense. Thanks for spotting that. --Begoon06:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I've fixed it. At best it was someone unfamiliar with proper attribution, but I think too many people sincerely believe that a simple crop equates original creation and gives carte blanche to claim copyright and/or change license terms. --Animalparty (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Question about CC0
I uploaded 3 pictures which are under the CC0 (the author marked them as CC0), but another user deleted them for being "not free", and left a message on my talk page. I've read the licensing page as he recommended I do, and it says that CC0 content is okay to upload so I don't understand what I did wrong. I tried to contact the user on his talk page to see if he could elaborate, but his page is protected so I can't message him. I'm hoping someone else can explain. Is CC0 content allowed? Vastoasis (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The CC0 licence itself is fine, so presumably the question was whether or not the licensor owned the rights to the image (and anything copyrightable depicted that may not have been covered by FoP, PD-Art, DM, or other exemptions) in the first place.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The template Template:PD-UEA licenses files under the public domain. In it is stated that this has been authorized by Osmo Buller, the general director of the Universal Esperanto Association between 1996-2001 and 2004-2016. It is unclear when this permission was given by him, there are no records for this. And besides that, there are a lot of works in this category that are not owned by Osmo Buller. He cannot give permission for works that he doesn't own. How should we fix this? Robin van der Vliet (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, usually, I do not take part in discussions and stay neutral when someone questions something I have uploaded. Alas, this uploads were a long time ago, I can't help any further. Kind regards Ziko (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Which license tag for "Copyright Expired"?
The Australian National University has many media classified as Copyright Expired, for example this one. What is the correct license tag for this? {{PD}} cannot be used anymore, but {{PD-Art}} also does not seem to fit.. What else?--Ratzer (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Here on Commons, we require file descriptions that explain why content is in the public domain in the source country and in the United States (where Wikimedia is based); see Commons:Copyright rules by territory. Unfortunately, other sites rarely provide any information on how they came to the conclusion that the copyright has expired or the extent to which that is true around the world, which greatly limits the ability to use the content. I have no idea why the Australian National University believes that a work believed to be created as recently as 1968 is in the public domain. {{PD-AustraliaGov}} would be a possibility, but it's a pure guess and not sufficiently supported to be used here at this time. They provide no information on how they arrived at that date, where it was published, who created it, or any other information that would be needed to determine the actual copyright status. —LX (talk, contribs)10:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Note {{PD-Australia}} D and especially E: Commonwealth, State or Territory owned photographs and engravings: taken or published more than 50 years ago. Assuming this map was a Commonwealth, State or Territory owned engraving published in 1968, then copyright has expired. --Animalparty (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I would rather assume {{PD-UKGov}} since the Solomon Islands, to which the mapped island belongs, were a British protectorate until 1978. But since I cannot prove this, I wrote to ANU.--Ratzer (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Why would you assume that? Did the British protect the Solomon islands from any Australian cartographers, or forbid publication in their home country? Maps of an island are by no means beholden to copyright laws of the governing entity. The containing folder states "Copyright expires 50 years after date of publication", and the fine print on this 1945 map indicates creation by Australian Survey Corps. Given the principle of parsimony, I think it safe to assume that when a research institute indicates copyright has expired, the copyright has expired. But kudos for taking the step to more get more authoritative information. --Animalparty (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The "country of origin" is the country of first publication, regardless of what it is depicting or where a photograph was actually taken (and even can be different than the nationality of the author). So if that is a map produced by the Australian government, it was almost certainly first published there, and {{PD-Australia}} would be the rationale. If an Australian website says "expired", it would always have to be one of those reasons -- so as long as Australia is the country of origin, that is the tag to use. Carl Lindberg (talk)
I have been tagging older unreviewed Flickr images for review by the bot and doing some reviews where the bot fails. Now Flickr is going to delete a lot of images in a month's time when it limits the number of images per user (unless they pay - After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit.https://www.flickr.com/lookingahead/?utm_campaign=flickr-lookingahead&utm_medium=PR). I am expecting that this will be a large cull, and many images that have never been reviewed will then have their source removed. I estimate (my bot search is complicated and not perfect) there are about 1500 images between 2007 and 2012 with no review (see User:RonBot/FlickrSource - some have been done down to June 2012). With time running out, should I jump into AWB and add a Flickrreview to them, to give time for the manual reviews that will be needed? Ronhjones (Talk)20:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Flickr has said they will not delete CC-licensed photos, even if a user exceeds 1,000 photos, nor institutional photos from Flickr Commons. Since Wikimedia Commons can only accept a subset of CC-licensed files from commons anyway (CC-NC and CC-ND licenses are ineligible), this change seems unlikely to significantly affect Commons, unless non-Pro users choose to delete their images. --Animalparty (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The Flickr bot would not have reviewed File:Prathat-offering.jpg, or there would be a banner. Editors are still uploading images every day and do not request a Flickr review (5 today, but it's often anywhere from 4 to a dozen or so) - they get a review as I am picking them up! It's good to know that Flickr won't be actively deleting CC images, but I suspect that might make some Flickr owners delete their old images to get space for some new one to be uploaded. Ronhjones (Talk)16:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Yes, the licenses are certainly not right. First, talk to the uploader. If no answer, other options can be looked at. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
These mistakes wouldn't happen that often if Commons would make a distinction between two fields: "author" and "uploader" (and the Upload Wizzard would make the same distinction and offer both options when uploading a file). This case is blatantly clear, so I will change the description of this file accordingly. Vysotsky (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I now see that Muratov himself added: Скан, дигитализация, to make clear he only scanned and digitized the photograph. Vysotsky (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
INTERPOL Red Notices and "approved for public dissemination"
The image File:AntonioAnglés.jpg has been uploaded under {{PD-author}}, based on the source statement "This extract of the Red Notice has been approved for public dissemination". My first instinct is that "public dissemination" does not equal "public domain", and the origin of the photos is not clear: they might be police mugshots, or they might be ID /drivers license photos or other contributed photos. Can anyone weigh in on the status of this and similar files? (File:Ablyazov INTERPOL Red Notice.jpg has erroneous authorship, yet is from Interpol). Note INTERPOL is not a part of the United Nations, per FAQs: INTERPOL is an independent organization and not a unit or part of any other national or international body., so {{PD-UN-doc}} or similar wouldn't apply. --Animalparty (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree entirely with your first instinct: for example “dissemination” does not include or imply either modification or commercial use, which must both be allowed in a licence that’s considered free here.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the Template:BMC reports the CC BY 2.0 license, while BioMed Central switched now to CC BY 4.0 license for the articles and CC0 for the data. Shall we update the BMC template or create a new version to use in the more recent articles? --Ruthven(msg)09:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This happens often with Open Access journals. I think a version= parameter should be mandatory for all journal templates now and future, see for instance {{PLOS}} and {{ZooKeys-License}}. It's likely that journals will continue to change their licensing over time, and it's unlikely that CC 4.0 will be the default/most current license forever. --Animalparty (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking about a "version" parameter as well… Maybe we should make the CC-BY 4.0 the default value, and change with a bot all the licenses in the files currently with the template to something like {{BMC|version=2.0}} @Ruslik0: The old articles haven't been relicensed (e.g. [10]). Ruthven(msg)21:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Previous publications are generally not re-licensed when a journal changes licenses. A bot move might be dicey: a human would need to verify at what date the journal started using a given license, and that all subsequent publications were under that license, then a bot would need to be able to discriminate what date (or volume) an existing image came from, which might be conflated with date of upload, or date of creation of the image. But then if the license changes in the future, a new default would need to be made. There is a lot of variation in sourcing: I try to use {{Cite journal}}, but sometimes just copy and paste a citation, linking the DOI to the online article, but I've seen text only citations as well, which could stymie a bot. Perhaps also a maintenance category for journal templates that don't specify version of license can be made. Just throwing ideas out. --Animalparty (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Changing attribution requirements on CC files
Is it acceptable to change the requested attribution on a Creative-Commons-Licensed file that's been on Commons for years (assuming that the file has been released under the same licence with both attributions)? I ask because of a couple of recent deletion requests (1, 2) where the author has found that having their usual name attached to photos is causing them trouble. I know that COM:OVERWRITE doesn't allow for overwriting a file where the new licence is different, but that's not quite the same. --bjh21 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The username has been updated at its source, so I've updated the files here, the author would like to be attributed under another alias.--BevinKacon (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Uploading a silent film still found in a 1993 book
I would like to upload some scene stills from The Life of Moses, a silent film released in 1909 by Vitagraph Studios. I came across these stills in the book Reframing Culture: The Case of the Vitagraph Quality Films by William Uricchio and Roberta E. Pearson (Princeton University Press, 1993, ISBN0-691-04774-X). The film itself is in the public domain because it was released before 1923. I'm assuming the stills are as well, because 1909 would be their "original publishing date". I just want to double check: is the original publishing date for these scene stills the release date of the film they are derived from, or the publication date of the book I found them in? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Unless they've been edited sufficiently to make a new artistic work - and if they have, why are they being put forth as if they were the original film? - it's the release date of the film. Do note that halftone promting can mean that you may get better quality if you can find screenshots online. Have a look at {{PD-Art}}, though your format is probably going to be the slightly undocumented {{PD-Art|PD-US-1923}} Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I found two images in this 1981 journal [11] that date from the 19th century. The journal says they were obtained from the Sharlot Hall Museum in Prescott, Arizona and the Arizona Historical Society, Tucson. Can they be used based on their age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
If they are unpublished images, this may be a problem. But if they were published in the 19th century, then you are safe to upload. Even when the year of death of the author is unknown, we tend to use 120 year rule (50+70). ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 16:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Well I don't know more than what I said above. Since they are exterior shots of very public buildings, I presume they were probably published in newspapers when they were taken. Since they are 120 years old, I will upload them and see if anyone objects. MB (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The linked file contains several pages of non-free content (the introduction, by E. Digby Baltzell, djvu document pages 10–45, listed in the images as pp. ix–xliv). The information in the document was copyrighted in 1967 and renewed in the US in 1995 (RE0000704229). The file, rather than being removed, should be modified to redact the particular pages of copyrighted content, so that the remainder of the document can continue to be used (especially, on Wikisource). This solution was suggested in the relevant discussion on wikisource. The problem is, I don't know how best to execute this solution. Could somebody walk me through how to do it, or do it themselves in the preferred way for handling such conflicts? Thanks, Mathmitch7 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, the rest of book was published in 1899 and the imprint does not count as a unique work, so the remainder of the pages are good to stay (as I understand it). Mathmitch7 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Is it okay to pass? Yesterday, I found and uploaded a video into here after I was searching on PeerTube instance and YouTube, and analysing an origin licence stated under libre/free Creative Commons licence. Also, his channel has one video. HarvettFox 96 11:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I contribute to the WikiProject Television Stations on English Wikipedia by improving articles about specific television channels based in the United States and its territories. Many of these articles feature logos of the channels described in them, but some of them (especially those about TV channels serving Puerto Rico) recently received warnings about images being nominated for deletion. Inspecting the logo images, I noticed that all of them were erroneously sourced by their uploader as OWN WORK, which I am sure is wrong because he/she did not create the logos, which were created by their respective owners and should have been sourced in the Commons as COPYRIGHTED along with a valid license and valid FAIR USE rationale for displaying them on their respective articles.
The logo images perfectly describe the articles in question, but their botched or shoddy sourcing is troublesome, especially for historical logos no longer in use by their channels. I want to upload at least one historical logo to the Commons for use on one of those TV station articles, but I want to do it the right, lawful way (that is, with proper licensing and valid fair use rationale); I would like feedback in this matter from someone who has previously uploaded TV logos here the right way and learn from his/her experience so I can too do the same things the right way.
@SilSinn9821: we do not host “fair use” images here; those have to go directly to enWP, with a rationale covering their use in (a) specific article(s). Many American logos are too simple to be copyrighted (see COM:TOO), though, and can be uploaded here tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} or similar. Others that were first published more than about 40 years ago may be in the public domain due to lack of copyright registration or renewal, but verifying such status requires some research.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
So those logos nominated for deletion, in addition to having shoddy/botched sourcing, were also uploaded to the wrong Wikimedia location. So that means: I would have to re-upload them to Wikipedia (along with PROPER sourcing and licensing, unlike the original uploader who wrongfully marked them as OWN WORK) and let the originals be deleted from the Commons. But what if I also want to display such logos in non-English articles?
For example, many of the logos are of TV stations in Puerto Rico, which officially speaks English and Spanish. If I properly upload the logos to English Wikipedia for use on the TV stations’ original articles in English, and then I translate the articles in question to Spanish, how do I then display the enWP-hosted logos on the Spanish Wikipedia? Would I have to re-upload them to esWP?
No licence is required for fair-use images, but of course proper sourcing is always a Good Thing. AFAICT esWP does not allow fair use or local uploads, so any non-free logos would have to be omitted from the Spanish versions. See m:Non-free content for a list of projects with their “exemption doctrine policy” (if any).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
This brings up a somewhat unrelated issue that's been on my mind. Why do different language Wikipedias have different Fair-use policies? Surely the Spanish Wikipedia servers aren't in Spain, nor the Russian language servers in Moscow. The laws of Portugal and Brazil differ, even though both speak Portuguese. Are fair-use images censored for, say, people reading English Wikipedia in England? --Animalparty (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Each project is allowed to have their own policy. Whether that follows "fair use" (which is a U.S. only law) or not is up to them. Typically they are more restrictive than pure fair use, though fair use is the U.S. law which would protect the usage legally here. If a language's target audience is mostly in another country they may take aspects of that country's law in mind as to allow more re-use in that country, I suppose. But each project can decide the exact limits on their own (other than Commons). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The UK does recognize something like fair use, under the rubric of “fair dealing”. Anyway, it’s not only the law(s) governing the majority of its users that shapes local policies, but also such considerations as the availability of personnel to explain & implement them. Anything not forbidden by US law would be possible in theory, but the projects’ mandate is not just to operate legally; their policies are intended to promote their particular goals and encourage participation from people who support them.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Lithuanian museum portal LIMIS.lt has thousands of exhibits. Under each item, there is a link to copyright policy, which states:
Digital content published at LIMIS portal could be used for commercial and non-commercial purposes. When using digital content, you must specify the following: author(s) of the item; title of the item; initial accounting number or inventory number; name of the museum what owns the item; URL to the item in www.limis.lt. If author of the item is unknown or anonymous, it must also be indicated. If digital image of the item is created by photographer, the name and surname of photographer must be specified.
The [Name] Museum is the owner of provided information.
Is this sufficiently "free" to use the images on Commons? If yes, what's the best way to tag the images here? Thinking that a dedicated template would have to be developed. Thank you, Renata3 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. They forgot to update it. I emailed them about a week ago because their Lithuanian version of the copyright policy under each image allowed commercial and non-commercial reuse and was contradictory to the English version which prohibited reuse. They replied that their goal is to allow reuse, and that the English version was not updated. Today I see that they updated it to what is quoted above. I will contact them again asking if they can update the page you linked to remove the last paragraph. Renata3 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Because, if I cut out these symbols from an image, the result will be a derivative work. However such works are not allowed, which means that freedom to create derivative works is restricted, which in turn means that it is not a free license. Ruslik (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
In the Category:Antonio Maria Nardi I placed several files with pictures of frescos (artist died in 1973) which are inside churches in Brazil. I assumed that the FoP for Brazil also applies to churches, since churches are locations with access to the public. Is this correct, does the FoP Brazil indeed apply to these frescos? JopkeB (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This IGN map of 1967 (IGN stands for Institut Geographique National - a French Government mapping authority) (and many more in the same repository) is classified as Copyright expired. What are the conditions for French Government works? For British government works, by comparison, there is the 50-year-rule ({{PD-UKGov}}), but I haven't found a corresponding French license.--Ratzer (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
This map is under a copyright for 70 years after publication, so not OK for Commons before 2038. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I made some research. There are old maps on the IGN website which are in the public domain, and available for download in high resolution: https://remonterletemps.ign.fr/ These are maps from the 19th century, but still very good for many purpose. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
If I look for this image through google, I find many who look like it very much: Google reverse image search
After seeing so many of them (uploaded through the Wikiportret website) I am beginning to think that these types of images do not pass the threshold of originality, so they can be safely uploaded as PD, like a standardized image for an ID. But I need to hear other opinions about this before I would decide to upload these kind of images in future.
@Ellywa: Any original photograph of a 3D subject certainly passes the threshold of originality. We can only consider photographs of 2D works to be under the threshold (see {{PD-art}}). This is because framing and lighting a 3D subject is considered sufficiently creative to qualify for a copyright. BMacZero (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thanks BMacZero. I thought the situation might be similar to photo's for passports, which have no originality and can be uploaded as far as I know. But I will refrain from uploading these. Elly (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know about the passport photo decision; that's interesting. Nonetheless I still assert that simply taking a large volume of similar photos does not make them unoriginal. BMacZero (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems that User:Incnis Mrsi can't fully understand english, on the template own it says "Use this to say that you personally created the entire original image by yourself". If he can't help I not see his reason to make things more difficult. --Santista1982 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Yet another instance of drive-by throwing of {{Copyvio}} by Patrick Rogel. Some of Exif data—such as timestamp—are obviously fake here. Experts, comment on the delreq, please. And more… I suspect that Patrick succeeded in sacking hundreds legitimate files with such quibbles. Will any motion against this be attempted? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
We could also just ask Patrick Rogel: did you tag a lot of images for this reason or just the one? Pretty bizarre for the camera manufacturer to insert themselves in the copyright holder field on photos taken with their cameras. BMacZero (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: ISTR a deletion discussion a few years ago over files with an ArcSoft copyright notice in their metadata. This presumably came from the image-capture or processing software that had been used in their creation, nothing to do with the authorship of the content.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I am the heir to Charles Hayden Coffin (my grandfather) and two of my uploads have become snarled. I used the Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs tag. But I am now being told that is not enough and I need to add an 'allowed license'. I thought cc-by-sa-3.0 was an allowed license and the heirs bit allowed me to upload it as if I had created the file itself.
There is obviously more to this than I understand - Can you help?
@Haydencoffin: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). You forgot to put double curly braces around "Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs" to form "{{Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}}" and transclude {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}}. Two of us have corrected that for you. If the print you photographed with your iPhone for File:1928ish photo of Charles Hayden Coffin with children Errol and Crystal.jpg also has such poor quality, perhaps you could scan the negative instead. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me14:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about both problems and my inability to get things right! Thank you both for explaining and fixing the issue so well and quickly. The photo is small and in a contemporary album without a negative so that is probably as good as is going to get unfortunately. I thought any info was better than none. Not a perfect world! Haydencoffin (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Mabbett: since the composer was English and died more than 70 years ago, all his works are public domain in the UK (COM:CRT/United Kingdom), and works published before 1924 are also public domain in the United States. Use {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1942}} (and possibly {{PD-scan}} as well).
This applies to scans of the original works. I'm not sure about the user-contributed recreations. In the US, they'd probably be below the threshold of originality since they appear to be faithful transcriptions of the original work, but the time and labor involved in creating them probably puts them over TOO for the UK. Some of them (like [13], CC BY-SA 3.0) have free licenses, so there's that. clpo13(talk)18:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@JopkeB: the images all have the template {{PD-Art}} without any parameters, which defaults to showing the text of {{PD-old}}. I don't see any way these paintings could be public domain unless the heirs of the artist relinquished their rights, which we'd need evidence of via COM:OTRS. clpo13(talk)18:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
What license tag(s) would you use for 'Nomination File' images from UNESCO WHS? (If they are even allowed on WP?)
What license tag(s) would you use for Nomination File images from UNESCO WHS? These images are free to re-upload and use the images as long as they "attribute the work to the copyright holder when they use it", but are not allowed to modify them "Re-users are not allowed to distribute derivatives of the work. Essentially the work cannot be modified".[1]
They also state that the images can be shared as part of their "Sharing License": "This licence can be shared with external audience".[2]
Note: this is Commons, and what is allowed is somewhat different than various language Wikipedias. Per COM:Licensing, media with non-derivative or non-commercial licenses cannot be hosted on Commons. Similarly, per WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT, media with non-derivative or non-commerial restrictions cannot be uploaded to English-language Wikipedia unless it meets the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. So CC-ND (non-derivative) media from UNESCO cannot be hosted here. --Animalparty (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Have no opinion on the merits of the mass deletion requests.... but there is an editor nominating a certain type of image for delet ion on mass. I'm concerned that we're being overwhelmed here... with hundreds of articles affected on English Wikipedia. Is it normal to nominate every image in categories? Needless to say it's overwhelming and very hard to respond to hundred of these. Is this disruptive or not....looks a bit fishy?--Moxy (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It is preferred to have mass deletions for similar grouped in a single deletion discussion, to save everyone's time, but I don't think there's a firm rule. That said, many of these nominations seem overly hasty, or a misunderstanding of what can be copyrighted ({{PD-ineligible}}), and de mininimis. There is nothing in File:Maximum 120 sign in BC.JPG for instance that can be copyrighted, except the photograph itself. --Animalparty (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy: 37 DRs so far, many are poor. I would speedy keep all of them because we shouldn't be wasting our time on this. If someone wants to make a substantiated deletion request for some particular image they can. @World's Lamest Critic: This pile is not worth it. Please save yourself the humiliation and {{Withdraw}} everything. - Alexis Jazzping plz06:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Samuel.dellit: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia has information on this. Most likely, {{PD-Australia}} is what you want. However, even if a serial was published before 1955, that doesn't necessarily mean everything in it is public domain (see table 4, row "Newspapers, magazines & journals" in your link, pages 8 and 9). Photographs taken before 1955 are public domain as well as anonymous/pseudonymous/unknown works published before then, but literary and artistic works (e.g. articles or cartoons) are only public domain if the author or artist died before 1955.
Additionally, you'll want to check that your uploads are public domain in the United States, per COM:URAA and COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law. Any works still copyrighted in Australia on January 1, 1996 had their copyright restored and won't be public domain in the US for up to 95 years after publication (see COM:HIRTLE and Copyright Restoration Under the URAA). Since the copyright term in Australia before 2005 was 50 years, this generally means that only photos taken before 1946, anonymous/pseudonymous/unknown works published before 1946, and artistic/literary works where the creator died before 1946 (or 1955 for pre-1924 works) are okay for Commons. Such images can be tagged with {{PD-1996}} in addition to the Australia tag. Anything published before 1924 (95 years ago) is definitely public domain in the US and can be tagged {{PD-US-expired}} in addition to the Australia tag. Commons:International copyright quick reference guide is a useful tool for this.
The cateogry has been through two rounds of deletion requests because there is no FOP in Belarus and the building is from 2006. The postage stamps were kept but others were deleted. More images have been uploaded after the DRs. Would someone with more experience be willing to look into it and start a mass DR? There are also some interior shots and I don't know if they're ok or not. -kyykaarme (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Are paintings in the Category:Nate Dunn in the public domain?
I see a lot of paintings in CategoryːNate Dunn (1896-1983)ː are they in the public domain? The painter did not die 70 years or more ago. In the files are no reasons why they are, and I have not enough knowledge of the complicated American copyright laws to see why they should be. Could someone look into this and mention the reason in the files or nominate them for deletion? JopkeB (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently seen reports about these amazing pictures. Since Henryk Ross died in 1991, they could not be upload to Commons for a long time (2062?), unless I am missing something: the Art Gallery of Ontario, which exposes some of these images, claims a copyright on all of them. It says that they are a Gift from Archive of Modern Conflict, if that helps. Is this copyfraud? What is their real copyright status? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
From the press coverage about the 2015 exhibition the Art Gallery of Ontario, press coverage probably dependent on the information the Gallery itself chose to provide in its press releases, it seems that the chain of events was this: the photographer Henryk Ross died in 1991, his son sold the negatives in 1997 to billionaire David Thomson's organization Archive of Modern Conflict, who donated them in 2007 to the Art Gallery of Ontario. Although details are not provided about the successive transfers of the copyright, it is possible to sort of guess that the Gallery's claim of copyright might be based on the idea that, at each step, the copyright was transferred together with the negatives. It seems that some of the photographs were published in the 1960s by the photographer, who then lived in in Israel, some were published between in the 1990s or 2000s by the AMC based in the United Kingdom, and most were published in the 2000s or 2010s by the AGO based in Canada. I don't know about the copyright of the photographs published early, but those published by AMC or AGO would probably be copyrighted by one of those organizations, if the the copyright was transferred. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Scan of photo from 1860
Depot
I uploaded this photo for use on the page en:Stone Mountain, Georgia. It was tagged for possible copyright violation. I have read the articles about copyrights, but they don't seem to apply. This is a scan of a photo taken in 1860. No one knows who took it. I do not know what information to add to be acceptable. Any guidance would be appreciated. --BobiusPrime (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@BobiusPrime: did you scan it yourself or did you find it online? If you scanned it from a publication, include the standard bibliographic details (title, date, publisher, etc.). If you found it online, include the direct URL to the website describing the image (not just the raw image). If you scanned an original photo from a museum, library, or your own family album, include as much information as possible (catalog number, provenance, history, etc.). If there is anything on the back of the photo (a stamp, signature, or any info that may aid researchers), scan that too. Creation of a work is legally distinct from publishing it. The more evidence you can provide, the better the chances of retaining the image (and the more likely it will be used by others as a verified, verifiable record). {{PD-US-unpublished}} might be applicable, but we need more information. --Animalparty (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say something that old is fine, but yes including as much source information as you can (if only to verify the age) would be helpful. There is no way something from 1860 should be speedy deleted, so a "no source" tag should probably be removed, or converted to a regular deletion request. I see the latter was done. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Corinphila denial of permission for Auctions scans
I have been trying to obtain explicit permission from Corinphila Auktionen (Zurich, Switzerland) for the uploads of print scans images - not from web! - of old stamps/covers (thus free of copyright). Their answer was essentially .. We are impressed by your dedication to philately and intention to present items from our auction house. .. Due to copyright reasons you are not allowed to use either images from the website nor the printed catalogue without permission. The copyright of publications from Corinphila expires after 100 years. We ask you to delete all your images of Corinphila Auctions from Wikimedia Commons and don't upload any in the future again. Please delete them until February 15. You don't have to be afraid of legal consequences, when you follow the instructions above. For your request, we hope you understand that we can't give you the permission to publish them.
The opinion of user Ww2censor is I understand that to clearly be copyfraud. Essentially the same as museums claiming copyright on paintings that are in the public domain. They cannot create a new copyright on such "slavish copies". By the way I noted that under the Swiss law (from the Wikipedia article Copyright law of Switzerland: all works made by authors deceased in 1942 or before are in the public domain in Switzerland. So the more for mere scans of scans!
I have already responded It has been a surprize to read your response. I have thus started the Deletion requests process. But your position is somewhat challenged by the Wikimedia licence specialists. I thus (respectfully) ask you to provide the reference to the text, basis for your copyright claim.
The original works have expired. They are fine in the U.S. per our {{PD-Art}} or {{PD-Scan}} policy. Whether the country you are in would protect such digitizations (or photos in a catalog) under a "simple photo" copyright, I do not know. The 100 year claim is definitely bogus, for these anyways. If you have a relationship with that company which would be damaged by your uploading them here, we have no idea. They are fine per policy, but could be deleted upon uploader request if you want them to be, for whatever reason you have of your own. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to note, Switzerland ruled en:File:Christoph Meili 1997-nonfree.jpg to be PD in Switzerland, so I'm not sure they have a "simple photo" term at all. Not sure how these could have copyright there. On the other hand, Switzerland is not part of the EU so they could have some subtleties in their law. But if they have rights in some other countries, they could sue in those countries, in theory. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Switzerland is in the process of changing its copyright laws btw. In December, the Nationalrat (the "big chamber" of their parliament) voted to, among other changes, change the protection of photographs by basically protecting almost all photographs in the future [14]. The Ständerat ("small chamber") still has to agree, but apparently nobody thinks this will be a problem. --Rosenzweigτ18:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
How do I add source/owner of the pictures in this picture collage? All of the pictures in the collage are my work, and the collage itself is my work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreeder13 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kreeder13: As a courtesy, and assuming good faith on all parties involved, I reverted the somewhat hastily-applied deletion tag, as source was clearly marked as {{Own}}. If all of the photographs in your collage were legitimately taken by you, then there is no problem with sourcing, and feel free to revert or challenge any other proposed deletions to which you are the legitimate copyright holder (although if any of your photos have been published elsewhere, online or offline, you might want to submit permission to OTRS). If you have uploaded individual photos used in the collage, you may want to link them as well. The one issue however, as Gone Postal mentions above, is if the Terracota Warrior statues pictured are copyrighted sculptures, then you would need permission from the sculptor (NB: they are apparently replicas of the Terracotta Army, created by artist Huo Bhao Zhu). If they have not been released to the public domain, or under a free license, then that image should simply be omitted/substituted in your collage. --Animalparty (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
This seems a bit pedantic and obstinate. Is there a requirement that all source images must be online first? But @Kreeder13: , please edit the source field to explain the source as fully as you can, to appease any purists. --Animalparty (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm still not sure how to edit this further other than leaving this as "my own work". As for the picture of the statues in the collage, I did take that picture, but the original artist of the works was Huo Bhao Zhu who gave the statues as a gift to Troy University. --Kreeder13 (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure about the licensing of this photo. The EXIF data give it's source as some Wikipedia-like website, but the same photo can be seen here and here. The file appears to have been uploaded to the EXIF data source in 2011; so, it's possible that's where the other websites got the photo. At the same time, this seems unlikely to be the uploader's "own work", and I'm unable to read the EXIF data source to see how the file's been licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The source website has a much higher-resolution version than those available at the other sites (and this one). The one here is the same as the image preview size on that site, so it was pretty clearly just taken from there. That one has a scan date of 2010, and an upload date of 2011 on that site. The subject died in 1988 though, so it's pretty clearly a scan of an earlier photo. With not much source information. I don't think there is any way to trust the license claim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@MiguelAlanCS: ¿Por qué crees que está en el dominio público? Los metadatos EXIF acreditan al autor GERMAN FALCON y al titular del derecho de autor MINISTERIO DE LA PRODUCCION. No aceptamos archivos marcados como PDM sin una buena razón por COM:PDM.
Why do you think it is in the public domain? The EXIF metadata credits Author GERMAN FALCON and Copyright holder MINISTERIO DE LA PRODUCCION. We do not accept files marked PDM without a good reason per COM:PDM. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me18:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Proper licence for scan of old photo from my personal collection
What licence would be the most proper way to tag a scan of the old photo, taken by unknown German soldier in 1941 in occupied Latvia, that is in my own photo collection now? I bought this physical paper photo at ebay.de. I made a scan file by myself. I'm the legal owner of the photo original and a scan file. --Artyom Makhlin (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Artyom Makhlin: Per COM:CRT/Latvia, if that soldier lived past 1948, the photo is still copyrighted until 70 years pma in Latvia, and if they lived past 1945, it is still copyrighted until 95 years pma in the US by virtue of URAA. If you don't know, you should wait through 1941+120=2061 to upload here. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me22:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Missing copyright template for Spanish works
Anonymous works published in Spain before before 7 December 1987 are protected 80 years after publication. It seems to me that we have not the appropriate {{PD-anon-80}} template. Or another one is suggested to be used in such cases? Ankry (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
We are probably missing some templates for Spain. I think there are subtleties -- I'm not sure it is as simple as all works got 80 years from publication. In 1987, Spain switched their terms from 80pma to 60pma (and anonymous works got a 60 year term from publication), but left 80pma for authors who had already died. The transitional section of the law did stipulate that older works of corporate authorship did get an 80-year from publication term, but I'm not sure they did the same with non-corporate works -- it's possible there was *no* term other than 80pma before that, but perhaps the 1987 law lowered that to 60 years from publication across the board, then the EU directive changed it to 70 years. I'm not sure I've found an article analyzing those aspects -- that is just from my memory of reading of their law. But at the very least there is definitely an 80-year term for anonymous corporate works where I'm not sure we have a tag for. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: No, I meant 60pma. Spain shortened their general terms from 80 to 60 in 1987. Then, of course, raised them back to 70 due to the EU directives a few years later. However, the transitional section of the 1987 law kept the 80pma terms for people who had died before that law went into effect, meaning they are still effectively 80pma. People who died after 1987 now have 70pma terms, but that difference won't start to matter until 2058. The original 1879 law did not have a separate anonymous works term, I don't believe, only mentioning 80pma as the general term. So it's hard to figure what the old term was there. The Berne Convention, by 1948, had established 50 years from publication as the anonymous term -- but I do not know whether a subsequent modification of the 1879 law explicitly enacted that for Spain. I'm sure there were many modifications, but I have not found them. The 1987 law gave an explicit term of 60 years from publication for anonymous works (Article 27(2) in that law). Per the summary here, the second transitional section at the bottom of that 1987 law said that legal entities which, under the Law of January 10, 1879, on Intellectual Property, had acquired original ownership of intellectual property rights in a work shall exercise the exploitation rights within a period of 80 years following the publication thereof. So, corporations which got a copyright before 1987 were able to exercise those rights for 80 years, and that still exists for pre-1987 works as it is longer than the EU terms introduced later. Thus, the 80-year term for your template I guess. But it's very possible that anonymous works where a legal entity did not acquire the copyright got a term of 60 years from publication in 1987, which was then raised to 70 years in 1996, where it remains today. Interestingly, it may then have been 60 years on the URAA date. But I'm not entirely sure what the status of anonymous works were under the pre-1987 law, so it's still a bit murky to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Does commons allow me to upload a CC-BY document that I found on the internet?
Carl Lindberg Thanks for the kind comment. I wasn't clear above, I should have clarified that my PROD tag to delete the file was removed on Wikipedia. Like you, I also feel that this commons version of the image should be kept. I wanted to initiate a deletion discussion on Wikipedia for the outdated Wikipedia file, but wanted to make sure that the commons file would be kept for sure, hence I started thread. --DBigXrayᗙ19:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I would move the dated one to Commons, so it's kept somewhere. Just because it was older, doesn't mean it's not educational. It's always interesting to look at historical logos, so it can still be useful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Pixabay updated their licensing on January 9, 2019. Stating that images from Pixabay was no longer under CC0, but under the "Pixabay License". Seems that starting from that day, images from Pixabay was no longer suitable for Commons. --B dash (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually my reading of it is that it is worse than non-commercial. One cannot even distribute the images non-commercially if the distribution is digital nor if it is physical but without "additional value". ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 13:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: you are right. Even posting an unmodified photo on your blog is not allowed by this license. If you do add value, you are allowed to post it to your blog or even use it commercially, but you still couldn't give the derivative a free license. - Alexis Jazzping plz13:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Similar to what Unsplash did. {{Unsplash}}. They are separating "sale", "distribution" and "use". I don't read anything the prohibits use of Pixabay images on one's blog. They are trying to prevent people hosting/distributing/selling the image for others to use (like Commons or Shutterstock) or simply selling posters of the image. As with Unsplash, there is a problem with clone sites who simply copy all the images, and attract donations to the scammers instead of the photographers. -- Colin (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Pixabay is in Germany so they could just use the sui generis rights to prevent scraping/mirroring. Claiming copyright on public domain images is a pure scam. Nemo12:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess they meant it's okay to post a photo to your blog, but if you were to put a Pixabay photo on your blog without context, you're not "adding any additional elements or otherwise adding value" so it wouldn't be allowed, depending on your definition of "distribution". Considering that posting MP3 files on your blog would be considered distribution, why would JPG files be any different? - Alexis Jazzping plz13:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
"sale or distribution of Images or Videos e.g. as a posters, digital prints or physical products, without adding any additional elements or otherwise adding value;" seems contradictory. If I print a photo from Pixabay on a coffee mug, how am I not adding value? So that's allowed or what? (rhetorical question) - Alexis Jazzping plz13:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the logic behind pixabay's move is to prevent other image hosting sites from copying and rehosting their photos. There are many unethical websites and people that solicit profit from these FREE images by posting the identical digital files or prints for sale, often making false claims of copyright/attribution. It is something Commons users fight too. So, I would say the files are still compatible with Commons, but pixabay does not allow Commons to simply host them. If a user makes a derivative (substantial crop/chaning the tone/apply special effects/montage/animation of stills... anything that requires some labour/skills) of pixabay's photos and uploads here under a PD/CC licence, then it is OK.--Roy17 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
A question: when images are public domain due to copyright expiration, e.g. published in the U.S. prior to 1924, does this apply to all non-derivative versions of the image? For instance, if a photographic print is reproduced in a newspaper or book with halftone printing, it will be of lesser quality than the original print: does that original print enter the public domain as well? As a case study: File:Charles Keeler, John Muir, William Keith, Francis Fisher Browne, and John Burroughs.jpg was published in 1916. Is the original print also now PD? I suspect the answer is yes, but wanted some assurance. And taking this a bit further, hypothetically for the sake of argument, is it possible that only part of an image could be in the public domain? For instance, the cropped File:Blindboonehisear00mrsm 0211 Blind Boone (cropped).jpg (below left) was clearly published before 1924, but let's assume the cropped version was the only version ever published, while the original, uncropped version (below right) lay hidden in a museum cabinet for a century until it first appeared on the internet last week. Theoretically, could the legs, hands, and cane of Blind Boone in this image be under copyright while his head and torso were public domain? Thanks, --Animalparty (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Theoretically, could this be PD...
...while this (or parts of it) is not?
For the first case, the copyright of the original image (and only that copyright) would apply to all prints of it, unless those prints had sufficient creative changes to qualify for their own copyright. Publication of any of those variants would, I'm sure, count as publication of the work as a whole. I'm not too sure about the crop. I suspect that the publication of the crop could be said to apply to the original image if (and only if) the published image represented a significant enough part of the original (in terms of size and content). In this case I think it does. BMacZero (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, i went ahead and uploaded the original. There are many cases where low-quality newspaper black and white newspaper scans can be found (e.g. Library of Congress), so I assume this allows those original gray-scale/color photographs, if they can be located, to be uploaded as well. I suppose copyright issues could arise if say, someone produced a new print using an old negative, in which case one could in theory argue that choices in exposure while producing the new print are sufficiently creative and distinct from the original, but that doesn't seem to be the case for most historic images. --Animalparty (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Help with copyright
I just upload some pictures of the "Brumadinho dam disaster" that were produced and released by the Brazilian Federal Government in its Flickr account. It was released under a license that I thought was compatible with Commons. However, the FlickreviewR 2 is warning me that the images are not compatible with Commons. I would love if some admin or experienced editor could look to my recent uploads to check what is wrong and what I'm doing wrong, so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future. Regards--SirEdimon (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Jared C. Benedict is en:User:Redjar. He uploaded the image but did not move it. The description shows when you click the image on Wikipedia, which is how I noticed it. Redjar last made an edit in August, I'm sure an admin could email him and find out if the licence is correct. Thanks. Uamaol (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
You can't apply a copyright license to a file unless it's copyrighted. If the file page lists a creative commons license, it is effectively making a claim of copyright in the work on behalf of whoever is offering the license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Correct, a CC license doesn't mean that a work is not copyrighted (see [16]). In this case, the file was originally licensed only under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) when it was uploaded to enwiki in 2004 (note: I'm an administrator on enwiki, so I can see the deleted page and its history), but during the 2009 licensing update, it became dual-licensed GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0. clpo13(talk)23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Such things always confuse me. It is work of NASA, but NASA published the photo on Flickr under CC-BY-NC-ND (just like many more photos). On the other hand, our {{PD-USGov-NASA}} says NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. So what "noted" means in this context? Isn't CC-BY-NC-ND tag on Flickr such a notification? Shouldn't the file be deleted? --jdxRe:20:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
It is a NASA-produced crew portrait, so it is {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. Any NASA-produced material would be similar, and hosted images produced by other space agencies would fall under their respective copyright policies. NASA cannot claim copyright where none exists, and similarly cannot disclaim copyright where they have no authority to do so. — Huntster (t@c)17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Portrait image to complete a Wikipedia article
We want to add a portrait picture to the Wikipedia article refering to this particular person. The image was quickly removed and deleted from Wikimedia commons because the image was already used on another webpage. However, the picture is private property of shown person and this image was provided to the other website by the owner himself.
How can we upload and use this image again. A second question refers to the mandatory CC licensing. Is it possible to add "nc" and "nd" to the rquired CC licence. We want to have the following licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathophysiologie (talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Pathophysiologie: The former question has already been answered on your talk page: "permission of the copyright holder must be send [sic: sent] via COM:OTRS". Commons does not accept images whose licences have NC or ND restrictions; these are not considered "open" licences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I have found that the font used in this logo is Kazura Mincho, which is an unfree font. Should we change it into Source Han serif or other free fonts in order to prevent possible copyright violation? Or there is no need to worry about it? --WQL (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I can see philosophical justifications. But typefaces aren't copyrightable in the US, at least not as bitmaps, and it would be surprising if any country made printed works a derivative of the font that was used for them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
For the U.S., since it's used in a bitmap file, it should be fine -- the shape of letters is not copyrightable there, though specific vector outlines and control points could be different. Less sure about other countries, though usually the protection for fonts is preventing the copying of fonts wholesale or making other fonts, not simply just using them like the above. User:Bastique made the font change, obviously intentionally, some years ago -- could ask them for the reasoning. If a better free font has become available since, that could be a reason to change. I probably would not make the change without some input from zh-wiki or the WMF. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Licence tag for public act of the authorities of Luxembourg
Hello,
Some files related to Luxembourg are currently using wrong licence tags even though they are public domain given that they originate from official acts of the authorities (according to the « Loi du 18 avril 2001 sur les droits d’auteur, les droits voisins et les bases de données », Part 1, Sect. 2, Art. 10 [17]) : « 10. Lorsque l’œuvre a été licitement rendue accessible au public, l’auteur ne peut interdire:
(...)
8) les actes officiels de l’autorité et leur traduction officielle, ainsi que les discours prononcés dans les assemblées délibérantes, dans les audiences publiques des tribunaux ou dans les réunions politiques. Toutefois, l’auteur a seul le droit de tirer à part ou de réunir en recueil ses discours »
Which literally means:
“10. When the work has been made available lawfully to the public, the author cannot forbid:
(...)
8) official acts of the authority and their official translation, as well as the speeches delivered in the deliberative assemblies, the public court hearings or political meetings. However, sole the author has the right to make profit from them or to gather them in a collection”
A template (Template:PD-Belgium-exempt) has to be used in such cases for Belgian acts of the authorities. Is it possible to create such a template for Luxembourg?
As I do not want to do it “wrongfully”, I prefer to ask it here rather than doing some (potential) cr*p on my side.
The first two images certainly seem {{PD-textlogo}} to me, so I think they are fine. However, while the box design may be ineligible, the photographer of the third image may have a copyright on the photograph itself. I think there is too much composition for it to qualify for {{PD-art}}. BMacZero (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, the existing photographs you showed are only okay because the photographers released their photos under compatible licenses. BMacZero (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I actually am really unsure about the Windows 95 box. It's not about the logo, it's about the phogoraph of the sky that was distributed with that operating system and is used as the background. It is the main aspect of the box besides the logo of Windows, and the box itself is the main focus of the photo, so it is as far from de minimis as one can get. As far as I am aware that photograph is copyrightable and is not released under a free licence. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 06:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I think some of these covers are above the threshold of originality. Of course I know the photographer has copyright if it is not a two dimensional reproduction of. I possess this item, so I'll take a picture myself. Darklanlan (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Usabaseball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appears/claims to be an SPA for USA Baseball. They've (just tonight) been soft-blocked. They uploaded 21 files, all but one being logos (presumably copyrighted) by the organization, claiming the source as "own work" ({{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}). However, as I understand it, "own work" should only apply to an individual, since multi-user/organization accounts are not permitted, and there's a separate process for an organization to submit its works. What should be done? —[AlanM1(talk)]—10:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
All non-simple images should be speedy deleted as copyvios, user blocked for inappriopriate username, and told to send proof by COM:OTRS, once proof is given, they will be undeleted.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
There is an image I am seeking to potentially upload. The link is here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/umcommunications/33492642673/in/album-72157683044896885/ It is of Bishop Karen Oliveto, the first openly lesbian Bishop in the United Methodist Church. I found an image on Flickr that I thought might be acceptable for putting it on her Wikipedia page. The Flickr image was posted by the United Methodist News Service, also known as umcommunications and was taken by Mike DuBose. I was interested in if it is possible to upload this image if proper permission is granted, and if so, how? I am wondering if this is possible because it said (Circle C) "All rights reserved."
I was unable to find something on there that said "Creative Commons Attribution (ShareAlike) 2.0/2.5/3/4" or "Creative Commons CC0 Waver," nor did I find (Circle C) "All rights reserved" on Creative Commons.
I have the email of UMNews Service, so it is possible I may be able to contact them to ask for permission for this image.
If I am able to have permission to use this image, am I able to use it and does it need a Creative Commons licensing tag or does the copyright tag prohibit any use or does it simply mean that I can only use the image if I have express written consent of Mike DuBose and UMNews Service? If I am granted permission to use this image would that give only me access to permission in this circumstance or would it be released to everyone via Wikimedia in any forthgoing circumstance (if I am understanding this right)? What would my next step be to indicate permission has been granted if it does end up being permitted? On Flickr, the viewing privacy of this image is listed as "Public" and the safety level is "Safe."
Previously User:BabylonKid attempted to add a picture (a different one than the one I am proposing) to the Karen Oliveto Wikipedia page but was prohibited from doing so due to copyright issues and it was discovered that a Conflict of Interest was going on (editing a page about herself).
Note: I am not trying to restore the image that was justly removed, nor am I trying to challenge policies over conflict of interest. I am wondering if this different image from UMNews can be justly added with the proper permission.
If this is possible, how do I obtain permission from UMNews/indicate to Wikim/pedia that permission has been granted? (I do have their email as it is public)
If it should happen that I can obtain permission from UMNews Service but they no longer have Mike DuBose as a photographer for UMNews and are unable to contact him otherwise, is it still possible to have permission granted? Does the subject of the picture (Karen Oliveto) need to also grant permission for use of this photo?
Are there circumstances that could enable UMNews and Mike DuBose to give me permission to use the image (and if so, how) and how does this work under copyrights and a lack of mention of "(Circle C) All Rights Reserved" on Community Commons?
I realize this is a long post, but it's complicated and I would greatly appreciate assistance on how to move forward and potentially use this image.
@TenorTwelve: You cannot upload that image currently to either Wikipedia nor Commons, as it is copyrighted with a non-free license, and photographs of living people generally don't satisfy English Wikipedia's Non-free content policies. Please see Commons:Licenses and a summary of Creative Commons licenses allowed on Wikimedia Commons. You can contact the photographer/copyright holder and see if they would be willing to irrevocably release the image under a free license. They must understand that they would be releasing it for anyone to use, not just on Wikipedia, for any purpose, including commercial, as long as one follows attribution and other terms of the license. If they agree, they could release the image as simply as changing the license on Flickr, allowing anyone to upload it to Commons. For more security, and to reduce the chances of misunderstandings (especially if the image has been previously published elsewhere), you could have the copyright holder read and follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS and submit a declaration of permission therein. --Animalparty (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty: I am in process of asking the news service and the photographer if they are willing to grant permission. Would I also need to seek the permission of the subject of the photo, Bishop Oliveto? Thank you, -TenorTwelve (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
One could try arguing under UK law, 1842 copyright act, that the copyright duration was life plus 7 years. This has some mileage as the 1911 act only applies to works published from 1 July 1912. The presumption that the 1911 act was retrospective for life terms is dubious, at least I have not seen the rationale of retrospectivity spelled out out in case law.
The other avenue is that publication was in New York, so there is no reason to presume that US law does not strictly apply to copies physically published in the U.S. --Fæ (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The UK 1911 Act (first schedule) applied the new terms to any copyright which was still existing under the older law. And of course the 1996 restorations were fully retroactive. If the book was simultaneously (within 30 days) published in New York though, that would change things, as the U.S. would become the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Good day! Are these photographs of paintings acceptable in Commons? They appear to be modern, so they are not likely in the public domain and the photos were taken in the Philippines which has no FOP. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
If a photo is more trying to take a picture of the interior of the museum, without real regard to the individual works, you might have a case for keeping. But if the purpose is to show the paintings themselves, which appears to be the case here, then no -- they are derivative works and we would need a license from the painter(s). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: If the purpose of the photos were to show "the interior of the museum", and assuming the photos would then depict discernible interior architecture of that museum, I think that wouldn't be acceptable either, given the lack of FoP in the Philippines (if it's a modern building and thus still protected by copyright). Gestumblindi (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Possibly, yes, if the point is to show the architecture, and the portion of the architecture shown is above the threshold of originality (and more than de minimis). Being from the U.S., I don't always have as good a feel for where photos of architecture cease to be derivative works (since they aren't at all here), nor do I know of interior photos ever being the subject of a court case like that to help us. If the photo is trying to show a different subject though, and some bits of copyrightable work appear (such as walls of a copyrightable building), they could well be incidental though and not cause something to be derivative. I mean, if it's just the walls of a square room, don't think that would be an issue anywhere. It's a pretty gray area though, where it's often hard to be sure. But photos which focus on a copyrightable work in particular are where the court cases we do have seem to have drawn the line, so if the primary subject is something else, there is at least a chance of it being OK, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Publish on Commons?!
Hello,
I have an article scanned from a french magazine, "L'officiel de la mode", no.98, 1929. The article was written by a writer named Y.-G. P. (a bit difficult to find his real name).
I would like to upload this image on Commons so that later to link it with an article on French Wikipedia. Is this possible or I will break the copyright law?
Certainly not a collective work. Unlikely to be pseudonymous. Typically, this kind of publication had a list of contributors at the beginning or end called "ours" where the full name of this contributor should appear. Unfortunately, patrimoine.jalougallery.com, which has complete scans of the period, is down at the moment. Yann's guess makes sense. — Racconish💬16:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
As the French National Library's entry linked to by Yann says rédacteur en chef de "L'officiel de la couture et de la mode" (1924) and given the not very common initials Y.-G. P., I think we can be 99% sure that it's indeed Y. Georges Prade, and as he died in 1992, his works are protected by copyright in France until January 1, 2063. So, you may publish that article in 2063, just have to wait a bit ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hindenburg zeppelin over Jerusalem
File:Zeppelin palestine.jpg is not own work as claimed by the uploader. (I updated {{information}}.) It is a 1936 photograph taken by an unknown photographer in Jerusalem. I couldn't figure out if it was published in 1936 or taken in 1936 but not published until later, perhaps recently. Depending on that, it could be PD in Isreal: Copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work lasts for 70 years from the date it was first published, or if not published within 70 years for 70 years from the date it was created, as long as the identity of the author does not become known in this period. In various places online it is claimed that the Arab Image Foundation holds the copyright. Maybe this is because of some restoration work? Thoughts welcome. (Should this be a DR instead of here?) — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC) On further review, the uploader (Osps7) has claimed {{Own}} on many older photographs this month, which I doubt is correct, so starting a DR might be needed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
This article suggests that many of the images archived by the Arab Image Foundation were from private family collections and albums, and so perhaps remained unpublished until rather recently. It's also possible that Palestinian law may apply, although I have neither the legal nor historical nor political knowledge to weigh in further. --Animalparty (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
That is current Israeli law, but was not always that way. See {{PD-Israel-Photo}}. Publication did not matter. It would matter for the U.S. though, but does appear to be a pretty old print. There are larger versions out there such as this (though mostly do seem to have the same basic source). The Graf Zeppelin is documented as having been in Jerusalem in 1931 but supposedly was almost exclusively on Brazil - Germany service in 1936. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Do we have a view on very old material, eg manuscripts from the Middle Ages, or hand-drawn maps from the 1600s and 1700s, that has never previously been published?
Such material would be considered copyright-expired in the United States, per {{PD-US-unpublished}}. However as the British Library notes [19] (and see also this flowchart: [20]) in the UK,
Under the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act many unpublished text and artistic works created by European Economic Area (EEA) citizens, and some sound recordings and films, remain in copyright in the UK until at least 31 December 2039.
Nevertheless, as the BL goes on,
For unpublished material created centuries ago, and out of copyright in nearly all other countries, the Library believes that publishing this material is very unlikely to offend anyone... As an institution whose role it is to support culture, research and all forms of access to knowledge, the Library has taken the decision to release into the public domain certain digitised images technically still in copyright in the UK.
Would the community be okay with such images being uploaded to Commons (in fact many probably already have been); and if so, how should they be tagged? Jheald (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
While we should follow UK law, I'm not sure that you can claim such works have never been "published", so I would tend to allow those yes. The UK used to have an infinite copyright on many types of works if they were unpublished (though not pre-1957 photographs), which was commuted to 50 years starting in 1989 if they were still unpublished as of then, which is what gives the 2039 date above. If there is documentation that a work remained in the same family for centuries without seeing the light of day, maybe that could create something more tangible, but short of that such potential copyright would be a theoretical doubt (of which we can create on most of our files) and not reason for deletion, in my opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: The material I have in mind has typically been in the BL for at least two centuries, and eg included in published catalogues from the 1830s. I would think it has certainly been "made available". But per the flowchart I linked above, [21], there is a distinction between "making available" and "publication", so I think the BL are probably right that this material may indeed be "unpublished". Jheald (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there is a distinction between publication and "making available" (in current law). But if it was available in the BL for two centuries, and people were able to make copies of it, is that not published per the law of two centuries ago? And how did the BL obtain them in the first place -- if not directly from the author, they may have been published by the law even then. If they were even protectable in the first place. We would need to know the full history of the work -- who owned it, who copied it from the BL over two centuries, etc. It gets a little silly trying to apply modern law to stuff made centuries ago -- if we have a court precedent to guide us, or something was quite clearly kept private to a family from creation until now, that could be different. Otherwise, it's playing theoretical what-if games to me. That does not rise (nearly) to the significant doubt threshold of COM:PRP, so I don't see a reason to not allow them. As apparently the British Library themselves seems to agree. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Does the copyright term only start running if the heirs to the anonymous mediæval authors give their permission for the use of the work? If so, how do you determine if this permission was granted? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Without a court case taking on questions like these and actually applying them for current law, I have no idea. So until we get such a court case, I would rather just assume they have expired one way or another -- such questions are not a significant doubt to me. The works may well have not been covered by copyright in the first place at the time they were created, so you may have to show that a later copyright law actually did apply to them, etc. And it may well be they were legally published about when they were created. What evidence is there for being unpublished, etc. It's not worth worrying about such things until we get some actual court guidance, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I don't think we can just wish the 2039 problem away, or pretend in some way that such works have been published, if they haven't.
The UK libraries and museum sector take it seriously, have access to the best legal advice, and have had extensive discussions about it with the UK Intellectual Property Office. Here's a September 2016 briefing from CILIP, the professional association for librarians in the UK: [22]. Note examples cited like letters to Elizabeth Gaskell (1810-1865) now held in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, or an estimated 9 million items in the National Library of Scotland. These are items that have been accessible in the manuscripts rooms of the libraries for decades, but are nevertheless considered unpublished.
The UK Government was sufficiently persuaded there was an issue here that it passed legislation in 2013 to enable it to change the law. In 2014 libraries and other institutions ran a major campaign to get the Government to activate the change ("Catch 2039"); but at the end of 2014 the Government decided not to do so.
The common understanding of everybody with an interest in this -- libraries, government, potential rightsholders, author organisations, etc, etc -- is that the legal position is that these items are under copyright in the UK, so we cannot just simply deny that. This is the case even if the items were created long before even the first copyright legislation. This CILIP note presents even a handwritten wax tablet from AD 57 as being in the category [23]
There are some options under the law for institutions to show items covered by the 2039 problem, even if they are under copyright. This paper discusses some of them [24]. None of them work for us. Option 5 is perhaps closest, as it allows some GLAMs to make the material available online, but it permits only the presentation by those certain institutions, not re-use; and it doesn't apply to maps and plans, which is a particular area of BL material of interest.
The BL is prepared to release this content, despite it being "technically still in copyright in the UK", on the basis "that publishing this material is very unlikely to offend anyone". But, not least for its own reputation, it would like the material's copyright status to be accurately represented.
So, again, I'd like to ask: is this material that we feel okay to take? (And IMO it would be sad if we ruled out material from the BL's medieval manuscripts, or early hand-drawn maps) And beyond that, if we do host this material, how should it be tagged, to accurately reflect the copyright situation? Jheald (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The AD 57 work is interesting. Doesn't the author have to be a citizen and resident of a Berne Convention country? The Roman Empire (the area south of w:Hadrian's Wall) never joined the Berne Convention, so wouldn't works from that country be ineligible due to lack of copyright relations with the UK? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The UK law applies to citizens of EEA countries and their predecessor states. Membership of the Berne Convention by the predecessor state is not a requirement. In any case the issue is really about the rights of present-day descendents in the never-published works. Jheald (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
And what is the successor state to the Roman Empire, then? I would have thought that it was Roman Empire → Eastern Roman Empire → Ottoman Empire → Turkey and Turkey is not part of the EEA. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I imagine the successor state would be any state that identifies and recognises succession of ownership ("title") established from the previous state. The AD 57 work is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, because how could anyone establish they are the legal heir of someone from that time (even more so, when we don't even know who that someone was). But that's the same question one could ask about many other items. If we allow the AD 57 tablet, we need to be clear what our basis for allowing it is; what other works would we allow on the same basis; and how shall we propose to indicate that? If it is our own assessment that there is no reasonable prospect of a copyright owner coming forward, when are we prepared to make that assessment? Alternatively, are we satisfied to rely on an institution's assessment that there is no reasonable prospect of a copyright owner coming forward, even though the items are in copyright (at least theoretically) in their source country? Is there a cut-off? (For example, heirs probably do exist for most of the authors of the 19th-century letters to Mrs Gaskell) Do we accept that, and merely note it as a possibility? Do we rely on what the institution is prepared to release? If the AD 57 tablet is okay, and/or folios from medieval manuscripts are okay, then we need to think how are we going to present their status, and what else is or is not okay. Jheald (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
If we know something was unpublished, I would not ignore that law. The UK (and EU) also has a 25-year publication right when publishing something for the first time, even that old, so there could be someone current with rights. But when determining "publication" gets to be virtually impossible due to lack of information, then I have no problem assuming publication long ago and PD-old. Something unpublished by the BL in the last 100 years does not necessarily mean it was always unpublished. They had to obtain a copy in the first place -- how was it not previously published? And if it was directly from the author, then the author should not be unknown, and maps would simply be 70pma with no 2039 problem (with known authors, only literary, dramatic, and musical works, plus engravings and post-1957 photographs, have the 2039 problem). BTW, there is a slightly newer UK chart here. If we get a DMCA request or DR which supplies further information, then sure we can revisit at that point. COM:PRP is for significant doubts, and stuff like this are strictly in the realm of theoretical doubts. For something like private letters held in a family for centuries and just made public, sure that is evidence for being unpublished and I would not ignore that. But we should need some provenance info to make that determination. If there is simply no known history, than it's hard to know it was in fact unpublished before. If there is a strong indication that something was indeed unpublished, then the doubts become significant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I emailed the BL's head of intellectual property to run what you said past him, and he agrees that it's only the unpublished images of unknown authorship that are in question here.
The items that may be at issue are one-off hand-drawn maps and drawings, that were collected in the 18th century, and then the whole collection was transferred to the BL in its entirety in the early 19th century. In most cases I believe there is no additional provenance information beyond what was written on the map or drawing itself, or what may have been recorded in early catalogues. The images I'm working towards have just been intensively re-catalogued, with every attempt made to establish their authorship, so if documentation establishing the names was readily accessible, the names ought now to be in the online catalogue (which is what we're using to identify the works of unknown authorship). The maps are likely to be unpublished because they are one-off and hand-drawn. Any subsequent publication in standard journals or reference-works might quite likely have been recorded in the recataloguing process, though it might not have been; the BL can't absolutely guarantee that publication might not have occurred triggering 25-year publication rights -- the BL apparently doesn't track what people do with images they have provided people, nor engage in pre-emptive publication themselves, nor ask people to disclaim publication rights as a condition of providing images. All the same, one might hope that most publication in modern times might have been picked up by the recataloguing exercise.
(Correction): According to the wiki article on Publication right, the right can be triggered in the UK through the publication if the material is being made available to the public for the first time. Since the material has been catalogued and available to consult in the BL for over 150 years, that would seem to indicate that presumably we have nothing to fear on this score.
(Second correction): The BL view is the fact of availability in an archive does not constitute "communication to the public" which what the law on publication right specifies (both UK and the EU directive). On the other hand, no publication right can arise if the works are still in copyright, so the question of publication rights is moot for the works being discussed in this thread.
In terms of the basic copyright, I put to the BL's head of IP: "if the author is unknown and from the 1700s or earlier, that would seem to make the prospect of heirs coming forward to assert rights pretty unlikely, so the chance of any copyright claim would seem improbable, even if one was taking a precautionary approach. Is that an assessment that you would concur with?"
And he replied: "Correct"
So pretty much in line with your thinking.
He would now like confirmation on two points (and I quote):
1. Will Wikipedia be happy to be supplied with in copyright images? i.e the anonymous ones.
2. It is important for us that the copyright status is accurately described to end users so it is made clear these are still in copyright in the UK (and Ireland too I believe).
A community sign-off is needed on how to proceed here.
If we agree that we are okay with taking these images, the question is how they should be marked. Various tags are available to express non-UK positions, including {{PD-US-unpublished}}, {{PD-anon-70-EU}}, {{PD-Ireland-anon}}; but we are going to need something to indicate the UK position.
We could perhaps use something like the "copyright uncertain" icon (right) together with a UK flag, and a message such as "This unpublished work by an unknown author will remain technically in copyright in the UK until at least 1 January 2040. (See [25]). However, given the age and nature of the material <Institution name> has released this material in the belief that there is no realistic prospect of anyone being able to assert this copyright", perhaps together with an OTRS tag.
For artistic works the position seems particularly odd, because if anyone does identify the artist for eg a work from the 1700s, that in itself would blow the copyright, which relies on the work being anonymous. So only a person or entity (or their heirs) that could prove it had been assigned the rights could assert the copyright. I suppose such a thing might be just about conceivable for a pseudonymous work that was assigned to a publisher but then never published. But for a sufficiently old artistic work by a simply unknown author, of unknown provenance, it seems beyond unlikely.
But it may be worth considering if we would extend the template to unpublished works with a textual element, where copyright would survive identification of the author. Jheald (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
In general, we assume good faith on uploads -- we have only the uploader's word on who the author is, etc. We similarly make assumptions on U.S. publication dates all the time (recognizing that the U.S. definition of publication, especially then, could be quite different, as could be the historical copyright situation). But in general, if the potential problems are less than those that we have simply by allowing uploads on good faith (i.e. problems where users claim "own work" when it's really someone unrelated), I don't have a problem allowing them if the available evidence points to them being OK. In either case, if more information becomes available (better provenance for ancient works, or finding a modern image on the Internet with a different author for "own work" uploads) then we re-evaluate given the new evidence.
More specifically, there are some UK law terms which could further help (or muddy) matters -- article 57 has this:
57 Anonymous or pseudonymous works: acts permitted on assumptions as to expiry of copyright or death of author.
(1)Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is not infringed by an act done at a time when, or in pursuance of arrangements made at a time when—
(a)it is not possible by reasonable inquiry to ascertain the identity of the author, and
(b)it is reasonable to assume—
(i)that copyright has expired, or
(ii)that the author died 70 years or more before the beginning of the calendar year in which the act is done or the arrangements are made.
This is defined in terms of "anonymous" instead of "unknown", but if the author's name is not present on the actual materials, that might still qualify for anonymous. And it sounds like it was not possible by reasonable enquiry to ascertain the name. The (b) part is interesting, because it uses the word "or" for the two conditions, meaning that only one or the other needs to apply -- so given that it is beyond reasonable to assume the unknown/anonymous author died more than 70 years ago, it may not be infringement (granted, if a valid rightsholder shows up, then we'd have to stop hosting at that point). That is not so much different than a DMCA request being filed which contains more detailed information than we had before. The above does not apply to Crown Copyright or international organizations' copyright. It's possible though that the use of "anonymous" instead of "unknown" means that the above only applies to published works. I'm not sure the law defines "anonymous" explicitly.
For other muddying stuff, there is section 13B(10); in that an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry; but if the identity of any such person is once known it shall not subsequently be regarded as unknown. So if the author was once known but the documentation since lost, would that still qualify as unknown? Also, does copyright still apply to works made before there were provisions in law to protect them? The original Statute of Anne protected only books; engravings were added shortly thereafter but it took another century to get sculpture and some other types; music etc. only happened still later in the 1800s. The older laws said they applied to any work where the author was a British subject or resident at the time they were made -- but if unknown, could that be determined? Were Roman times considered "British subjects" anyways? Most of the old laws, before the 1956 law anyways, don't mention unknown authorship or anonymous authorship at all. Did such old works only become protected with the retroactive EU directive, and thus based solely on its terms, but with stuff only from say the 1700s/1800s still potentially having that 2039 problem? There also were not any provisions in the laws I could find for people who were making use of such works that suddenly became illegal -- usually there are some temporary allowances for such stuff. Possibly that is because the scope was much smaller then, or maybe because it was not anticipated that old works would come up in court, but also possibly because the new laws only applied to new works going forward, or at least recently made. I really don't know. There are a zillion creative legal arguments which lawyers could make either way; without a court case to show which ones have substance it can be really hard to predict. It's theoretically possible there is still protection, but given that there is no actual precedent to show people when explaining a deletion, I usually prefer to keep in that situation, since we can't show it's a realistic problem either. As such I'm not even sure I would say "will remain in copyright until 2040", since we don't know that for sure either.
We do have tags like {{PD-old-assumed}} now, though that is for a slightly different situation (works from 120ish to say 170ish years old). But for many tags, we just use the tag we *think* it is. So you could just use the existing tags, then use the "Permission" field of the template to explain any uncertainty, if you want to give as accurate information as possible. I'm not sure it's a good idea to explode all of our tags with multiple variants giving various shades of doubt (because really, there could be some doubt cast on most all of them -- we almost never know for sure if something was first published in a particular country, changing the country of origin, etc.). But, if there is a particular (and somewhat common) situation you think is important, maybe a new tag could make sense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I think you've nailed it. According to Cornish (2015), Copyright: Interpreting the law for libraries, archives and information service, p. 45 (section 4.113), CDPA Art 57 applies including for 2039 works, and including for works that have since been "made available". (Cornish is a leading author of standard texts on intellectual property and copyright, and was copyright advisor to the British Library for 18 years, so if he says something is so, it's reasonable to give his statement considerable weight). I would therefore propose to create a new template {{UK-unknown-2039-noinfringement}}, which I will put up a draft of that we can fine tune below. Cf also Padfield p.139 / pp.49-50 where s.57 is described as "some relief from these long terms".
On the subject of "publication" and "making available" for interpreting the flowchart, it is useful to look at Padfield (2015) Copyright for Archivists and Records Managers, 5e, pp.99-106. (This is the standard work on UK copyright as it affects archive collections; Padfield was in-house copyright expert at The National Archives for many years. It is his flowchart that we have been referencing). It is important to note that for determining whether a work has been "published" and/or "made available" for the purposes of the law, the publication or any copying requires authorisation by the copyright holder. The provision of copies (eg by a library) does not constitute "publication" unless so authorised. Padfield does not commit as to whether providing access to archive material consititutes "making available" ("making available to the public is not a term that has attracted much commercial or judicial attention in relation to copyright"), but he appears not to rule it out, albeit "Even if availability in a record office counts as 'available to the public' for the purposes of publication and database rights (which is far from certain, see 4.1.11)..." (p.106). But also note Cornish's answer to Q10 in this post for CILIP that when when a work has been left as a bequest to a library, archive or museum by the author, the presumption is that the copyright is also transferred to the library, archive or museum. But no such presumption obtains is the work is deposited by the author during their lifetime; or is deposited by the family without any copyright assignment.
All of that may be relevant in other cases (and we should maybe look at it in the case of non-anonymous 2039 works); but it would seem we may not need to worry about it where CDPA s57 applies. Jheald (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly there was a saving made when CDPA s57 was last revised (enacting the copyright terms directive) [26] If I read it correctly, it may be sufficient that an anonymous author may be presumed to have died more than 50 years ago for 2039 works. Jheald (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
In light of the above, I'd like to propose a template, {{UK-unknown-2039-noinfringement}}, for cases of unpublished works by an unknown creator where it is reasonable to believe the creator died more than 70 years ago (i.e. works created more than 120 years ago, on Commons standard assumption):
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
It is believed that this work by an anonymous or pseudonymous creator, which has never been published with the permission of a copyright holder, and which satisfies certain other conditions, will remain technically in copyright in the UK until at least 31 December 2039. (See [27]).
However, under CDPA s57, acts will not be infringing if it is reasonable to believe that the unknown creator died more than 70 years ago. The Commons community interprets this to apply to works created more than 120 years ago.
Square brackets below are to paragraph numbers in the 17th edition of Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, the standard practitioners’ text.
Parentheses refer to the Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended
UK law in this area is complex, and we have to be very clear about question being asked to avoid being sidetracked on legal issues that may be interesting but aren't directly on point.
Background
There are at least three potential UK copyrights that need to be considered in respect of every file that we might want to host on Commons:
A: The artefact copyright – the copyright in the underlying artefact, such as in an original hand drawn map
B: The reproduction copyright – any copyright that has been created by virtue of the copying or digitisation process
C: Publication right - the 25 year protection granted to a person or organisation who publishes for the first time a previously unpublished out of copyright work.
Under artefact copyright, we need first to consider whether copyright originally subsisted in the work, when it was created, and if so whether that copyright still remains in force. If it is still in force, we cannot of course host the file, but if the copyright has expired we then need to go onto consider publication right.
For the purposes of discussion, here, we can ignore reproduction copyright provided that the original artefact is essentially two-dimensional, with the digitised version being a “faithful copy” of the original. This is a settled point so far as Commons is concerned, regardless of whether the reproduction was carried out by scanning or by photography: see for example {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-scan}}. Earlier arguments to the effect that under UK law the making of a faithful copy might generate a new copyright are unlikely now to prevail given the increasing influence of the European approach of looking for something that represents the author's own intellectual creation (this approach is considered by the UK IPO website as being the correct one). Just to be clear, we need to exclude from this discussion photographs or other digital representations of three-dimensional artefacts, no matter how old those original artefacts may be.
First question: was the artefact too old to attract copyright in the first place?
If there was no artefact copyright at the time the artefact was originally created, there is no subsequent UK legislation that has bought such copyright into being. There will for example be no artefact copyright on mediaeval illuminated manuscripts that were created before the concept of copyright was invented. There can be no publication right in respect of such artefacts, since publication right applies only where copyright did originally subsist but has since expired [17-18]. It should be safe to host such files on Commons.
Second question: could there be other reasons for a lack of artefact copyright?
This is an exceptionally complicated question, with the answer depending on the nationality and residence of the author, the applicability of international conventions, the date, and the specific type of work. Simplifying significantly, and restricting to the type of two-dimensional works that might be held by an archive, these are the works that Copinger and Skone James suggests would not have attracted British copyright on creation:
Unpublished original paintings, drawings or photographs created by a known British author
who died before 1855, or
who sold or disposed of the work before 1862. [17-24]
(All British engravings are entitled to publication right regardless of the date of creation [17-24]).
Unpublished original paintings, drawings or photographs, as well as engravings, created by a known foreign author:
So far as UK law is concerned, it should be safe to host all of these files on Commons. Anything falling outside these categories should be avoided as it may well still be in copyright.
Works of unknown authorship (‘orphan works’)
In some countries there are special rules for works which have deliberately been released anonymously. In the UK, such rules apply equally to all works of ‘unknown authorship’: where "it is not possible by reasonable enquiry to ascertain the identity of the author" (CDPA88, s9(4)). This does not apply, though, to works attracting Crown copyright. The existence or nonexistence of copyright doesn't depend upon whether the author is known or not, but the term of the copyright and the expiry date does.
If the identity of the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry, then the law allows the work to be used without fear of infringement provided that it is reasonable either to assume that the copyright has expired, or that the author died 70 years or more before the beginning of the current calendar year. (CDPA88, s57(1))
Once an author's identity has become known it cannot subsequently be regarded as unknown (CDPA88, s9(5)). So if an old map, for example, was originally published under the name ‘John Smith’, the map is considered to be of known authorship even if now nobody has any idea who that ‘John Smith’ might be.
Artistic works (except photographs) of unknown authorship that were made and published before 1 August 1989 continue to enjoy protection until 70 years after first publication. [6-60]
Artistic works (except photographs) of unknown authorship that were not published before 1 August 1989, and which have not since been made available to the public, remain protected for 50 years from 1 January 1990 (ie copyright expires on 31 December 2039). [6-60]
Works of unknown authorship created between 1 August 1989 and 31 December 1995 can, in principle, remain under copyright protection indefinitely if they are never made available to the public. [6-60]
Works of unknown authorship created after 1 January 1996 have a copyright term which expires 70 years from the end of the year in which the work is made available to the public (or 70 years from creation if it is never made available) (CDPA88, s12) [6-60]. Such works will not be available to Commons for many years.
UK copyright law makes a distinction between "publication" and "made available to the public”. Unfortunately, this is itself a complicated issue, as the definitions are not necessarily the same when determining the term of copyright, and when determining whether or not a particular act counts as infringement. Also, there have been multiple – and crucial – changes in the definitions between different Acts of Parliament, and the current definitions set out in CDPA88 do not necessarily apply to older works. Repeated use of transitional provisions means that some older works still rely on definitions that were set out in previous Acts that have now been abolished. Indeed, if you attempt to apply the current definitions of "publication" and "made available to the public” to older works, you quickly run into inconsistencies and contradictions. I will need to go back to the British Library to look in more detail at Copinger and Skone James before I can be definite on this, but this is my current understanding:
When considering older works, “publication" generally means issuing authorised copies of the work to the public [6-54], for example by printing or allowing people to take photocopies. The more recent expression "made available to the public" clearly covers publication, but is wider in that it also includes, in the case of an artistic work, authorised public exhibition and ‘communication to the public’ (CDPA88, s12(5)). ‘Communication to the public’ means communication by electronic transmission and is defined as “making it available to the public by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them” (CDPA88, s20(2))). So, an archive that makes a work available over the internet or allows the public to obtain hard copies is making the work "available to the public"; an archive that allows people to view the work without copying it, or allows viewing of a digitised version only on a computer within the institution does not. [cf 17-09]
It might be possible to start working up a proposed new template along the above lines. I’ll try to get back to the British Library to see if I can refine the question of "publication" next week. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Discussion (relevant UK law)
@MichaelMaggs: Thank you so much Michael for your research on this. Some questions & comments that arise:
The key bits of the analysis above rest on the assertion that there can be no copyright in works created before UK legislation brought such copyright into being. But is this contention correct? What are the citations for it? The counter view is that "Unpublished works of every kind, including books, letters, lectures, and photographs, were protected by the common law [i.e. not statute legislation] until the passing of the Copyright Act 1911" (Padfield, p.8, emphasis added) ... "Until the passing of the 1988 Act, most unpublished literary works and engravings enjoyed a term of copyright that was unlimited until first publication, irrespective of whether the author died in 1066 or 1966 ... a relic of pre-20th century common law protection". (Padfield, p.5). Similarly, the Government consultation paper in 2014 included the example of "an unpublished manuscript by William Shakespeare (d.1616)", saying that under current law it would be subject to copyright until the end of 2039. ([28] Example 4 (p.5)) -- despite 1616 being considerably before the Statute of Anne.
Where do we stand on CDPA s.57 ? Do we think this gives Commons (and reusers) sufficient cover to accept the works it applies to?
"making available". What you write above isn't right. The criterion for the public to be able to obtain hard copies might relate to publication (not sure); but it isn't a requirement for "making available", where a digital copy in the computer is sufficient. As regards "making available" more generally, beyond "communication to the public by electronic means", the CDPA only gives a non-exclusive list -- it's an open question as to whether providing reference access to material from the stacks counts as "making available" (Padfield, pp.105, 106). But apparently there's been essentially no case-law on this latter non-electronic meaning, not really even any academic discussion.
"orphan works" -- this generally has a wider scope than works of unknown authorship, typical being used to describe works with a known original author, but unknown or untraceable current copyright owner. Neither the new UK or EU provisions for orphan works appear to contain anything that Commons can make use of; but we can make use of some of the provisions for anonymous works. -- Jheald (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@MichaelMaggs: Thanks. Further on the first point, it was the Copyright Act 1911 that ended common law copyright (s.31), but provided that existing rights would be transformed into corresponding rights under the act (s.24); including that copyright would subsist until 50 years after publication "for a literary dramatic or musical work, or an engraving, in which copyright subsists at the death of the author". (s.17). It may be worth looking at texts at around this time to understand how the legal position was understood just before 1911, and after the introduction of the legislation. The Internet Archive has Copinger 4e (1904) [29] and 5e [30] (1915), as well as the first edition (1870) [31] and second edition (1881) [32]. Looking at the 4th and 5th editions may be revealing, given that we can't access the current edition today. Jheald (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
There's also what looks like it could be quite a nasty in s.35 of the 1911 Act: "'Literary work' includes maps, charts, plans, tables, and compilations". Under current law maps, charts, and plans are all considered to fall into the class of artistic works. But if they need be considered as "literary works" under Padfield's flowchart [33], that would put unpublished examples into the 2039 group -- and, if the creator is known, without the s.57 get-out... Sometimes you just wish you hadn't seen things :-( Jheald (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The take of K. Garnett, G. Davies, and G. Harbottle, ed., Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 15th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005), para. 2-17, was [In Millar v Taylor] the Court held that there was a common law right of an author to his copy stemming from the act of creation and that that right was not taken away by the Statute of Anne. The decision was finally overturned, however, by the House of Lords in Donaldson v. Beckett in 1774, a case which decided that copyright was the deliberate creation of the Statute of Anne and thereafter treated as statutory property. Thus, the effect of the Statute of Anne was to extinguish the common law copyright in published works, while leaving the common law copyright in unpublished works unaffected. (quoted with emphasis in [34]).
This assessment may or may not be secure (but may still be unchanged in the 17th edition?) -- see our article (which I have recently tidied up) for more. In terms of strict judicial precedent, Donaldson did not decisively find that a common law copyright existed. But due to loose later summarising of the case, a perception grew up that it had. Deazly, writing in 2008 in the link above, concluded that with Donaldson "the myth of a perpetual common law copyright in the author's unpublished manuscript was created". But that also probably goes too far. Subsequent research has weakened one of the key evidential planks of his argument, and the grounds for his interpretation of the decision. The case for taking the opinions in Donaldson to be a persuasive authority for the pre-existence of common-law copyright is probably not as strong as they were sometimes presented, but nor are they entirely negligible.
To complicate things, a later case (Jefferys v Boosey, House of Lords 1854) seems to have decided against the existence of common-law copyright (if I have understood it correctly). Yet this doesn't seem to be so prominently cited.
The strongest argument by the mid 1800s against common-law copyright seems to have been that if there was no common-law right to protect patentable inventions if they became known without having been patented, why should one hold that there was a right at common law in the content of manuscripts? The counter-argument seems to have been that a literary work embodied even more of a person's very essence.
The rhetoric in the opening pages of Copinger, from the 1st edition onwards, is very much for it to be natural law that a person should own their mental creation as property. So, at page 2 (4th ed) he asserts, This is natural justice and dictated by reason... consequently we may assume that though copyright, as a species of property, was in a strictly accurate sense unknown to, or at least was not by precedent established at common law, yet "the novelty of the question did not bar it of the common law remedy and protection".
I haven't yet worked through all of the authorities referenced by Padfield, but here are links to pages referencing them in Copinger 4e & 5e
Prince Albert v Strange (1848-9) -- 4e pp 8 et al -- 5e pp 4, 31, 39, 281
Mayall v Higbey (1862) -- 2e p. 375 -- 4e pp.337 (missing), 353 -- 5e 22, 23
Pollard v Photographic Co (1889) -- pp.373, 377, 383 -- 5e 21, 34
Stedall v Houghton (1901) -- 4e: (index page missing) -- 5e (none) -- news report
Hi Jheald, thanks for the interesting historical commentary. As you've shown, the history is indeed complex, and the current state of the law is not entirely settled, that being one of the reasons why many archives prefer to play safe and to deem pretty well everything copyright-protected. Another reason of course is that some hope to be able to monetise their collections.
The problem of historical writings and cases. You’ve suggested looking at some older versions of Copinger to see how the legal position was understood before and after the Copyright Act 1911, but although that's an interesting historical exercise it's unlikely to tell us much. What we have to determine is the law as it stands now, and that has to be determined by the specific wording of CDPA88 and other existing legislation, plus the wording of any earlier repealed Acts that may continue to apply via the CDPA88’s transitional provisions. You mentioned for example that section 35 of the 1911 Act defines “literary work” to include maps, charts, plans, tables, and compilations, but that's no longer relevant since section 35 has long been repealed without any explicit transitional or saving provisions which would allow that old definition to continue to take effect. For the artefacts we are discussing, we need to refer to the modern definitions in CDPA88, s1 of "literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works”.
There may be an occasional need to look at old cases, but the vast majority of those will no longer represent good law and are not really worth worrying about unless specifically cited by some recognised authority such as Copinger in respect of a particular point.
Common law copyright. Turning to the question of common law copyright, in spite of a few early cases that doubted its existence it is now pretty well accepted that such a right did exist prior to its final abolition by section 31 of the Copyright Act 1911. Any common law copyrights that still remained in force at that point were converted into statutory copyright. In practical terms, that meant the continuation of copyright in works that were copyright-protected and unpublished as at 1 July 1912 [6-29]. Not all unpublished works were still copyright-protected on that date, however: the copyright in many paintings, drawings and photographs had by then ‘probably’ (says Copinger) expired [6-35] (see further notes above).
In my commentary above, I said "if there was no artefact copyright at the time the artefact was originally created, there is no subsequent UK legislation that has brought such copyright into being". That is perfectly correct, although for simplicity I wasn't distinguishing between common law and statutory copyright (I did not assert, as you apparently thought, that "there can be no copyright in works created before UK legislation brought such copyright into being"; that would definitely be wrong).
An 18th or 19th century artefact such as a map could certainly have attracted common law copyright, and could if unpublished still in principle be protected by the continuing statutory copyright that has continued until the present day. On the other hand, an ancient mediaeval manuscript which was created before the principle of copyright had been developed by the English common law never had any copyright in the first place. Since such a manuscript was not copyright-protected on 1 July 1912, the 1911 Act did not apply to it. For existing works of the types we are concerned with, the 1911 Act merely continued existing protections; it never brought back into protection works whose copyrights which had already expired, nor did it generate new protections for previously unprotected works.
A difficult question to be answered is “when did the English common law first develop the concept of copyright as we know it?” The answer to that seems to be extremely vague, though if we are going to incorporate this into a new tag we will need to agree some sort of cut-off date. Copinger calls copyright "a comparatively modern concept [sic], born in the late 15th century, following the invention of printing…” [2-30], and he does recognise the existence of common law copyrights prior to the Statute of Anne 1710. There are earlier references to copyright, but only in the rather different context of royal charters that created monopolies. As far as Commons is concerned, we could I think safely say that there can be no continuing copyright on artefacts created before about 1450.
CDPA88, s57. I do think that section 57(1) is of significant importance to us, as it provides for the doing of any act whatsoever, without infringement, provided that its terms are met. This is partly covered already by {{PD-UK-unknown}}, but that could be made broader. There are two difficulties: (1) the requirement of ‘reasonable enquiry’, which is actually much more onerous than people think, and requires something much closer to a diligent search through all the appropriate [specialist hard-copy] sources than to a quick check on Google; and (2) the fact that this only provides freedom from standard copyright infringement, not from infringement of any publication right (SI 1996/2967) that might come into force after copyright expiry. However, as I mentioned above, quite a few old paintings, drawings and photographs don't qualify for publication right in any event, and I would hope that we can devise some Commons tags to capture that. Copinger comments that it is ‘somewhat unclear’ whether a third party's permitted publication of an anonymous work under section 57 would prevent any publication right coming into existence [17-16].
Orphan works: EU and UK schemes. As you rightly say, there are other provisions relating to orphan works beyond those that I mentioned above. However, I deliberately omitted those as they don't offer anything that is realistically useful for Commons.
‘Publication’ and ‘making available’. I think you may have misunderstood what I said. “Making available” is indeed much broader than ‘publication’, and includes making a copy available to the public by electronic transmission. The complexity seems to be that the definition of ‘publication’ for copyright purposes is different from the definition for publication right. We should be able to deal with that simply by writing the respective definitions into the relevant tags.
Going back to your original question, it should definitely be possible to draft some Commons tags to certify the PD status of at least some of the old material that you have in mind, particularly paintings, drawings and some photographs (that might include new tags for both known and unknown authors). We'd need further research and discussion about foreign works, as a significant proportion of the old material held in the major UK archives will not have been created in England. Even artefacts created in Scotland follow different rules, since the English common law has never applied there. I am hopeful, though, that that will be easier as there are a limited number of countries that have indefinite copyright for unpublished works.
I would suggest working somewhere else on the proposed tags (eg my userspace), and bringing the discussion back here once we're clearer what would work. (ps I'll be largely offline now until the end of this week) MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@MichaelMaggs: Thanks for this, and for dragging me back into the present day! Re the definitions, as you say the crucial thing is the wording of the transitional provisions. If they specify particular classes of works, then clearly the definition in question is that of the CDPA. But if they talk about maintaining existing protection, then the crucial thing will be what the definitions were and what they included when the protection came into being. So some research for me to do!
Not sure if I do accept that there was no copyright in a medieval manuscript in 1912... but identifying even in principle who such a copyright might belong to might be a challenge.
s.57 : In my case I think the 'reasonable enquiry' is probably covered by the recent re-cataloguing -- a 'reasonable enquiry' I think is exactly what that will have involved. But we might need to see whether the BL agree. But for possible general use of the template, yes this is something that should probably be flagged. As for (2), per clause 16(1) of the SI there can be no publication right in any work still subject to copyright -- which these would be. Yes, where our prior publication would leave things in 2039 is not entirely clear (are there any circumstances by which anybody else could claim publication rights at that point), but it's probably not something we need to worry about now, or indeed most likely ever.
Creation place is interesting. But under the Berne Convention jurisdiction may be more significant. Copyright tends to run on lex loci protectionis, so relevant law for copyright in England will generally be English law, for Scotland Scots law, etc. Will need to look at this. But for material from English archives, I think it's English law we need to look at, regardless of the original artefact source. Besides, all the 2039 material will be PD across the rest of Europe.
You were absolutely right about the transitional provisions, which is very good news. The relevant parts of the CDPA are s.170 and schedule 1, in particular clause 12. According to 12(1) the relevant definitions for interpreting clause 12 are those of the 1956 Act, ie those set out in s.48 of that Act. According to that section "any diagram, map, chart or plan" falls under "drawing"; and drawing under "artistic work" per 1956 Act s.3. This is not a class for which specific provision is made under CDPA sch.1 12, so clause 12(6) applies, and the copyright term is controlled by the regular CDPA ss.12-15, in this case CDPA s.12(2) --> life of the author + 70 years.
It's true that this doesn't bring attention to the possibility of a possible Publication right if the work was unpublished; one could perhaps warn about that, though for the BL works I suspect the risk is probably low, again given the recent detailed cataloguing for this particular collection. Jheald (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The other point worth underlining in view of all the above is that the key provisions in terms of copyrightability of unpublished works are 1956 Act s.3(2) for unpublished artistic works, and 1956 Act s.2(1) for unpublished literary, dramatical, or musical works; with copyright terms then defined by CDPA Sch.1 Clause 12.
CDPA Sch.1 Clause 5(1) provides that "Copyright subsists in an existing work after commencement only if copyright subsisted in it immediately before commencement"; but there is not (so far as I can see) any corresponding clause in the 1956 Act, so all unpublished works are potentially copyright, regardless of the 1911 Act, regardless of their status at Common Law before that, and regardless of when copyright may have first been introduced for any particular class of works.
The only limitation the 1956 Act makes is that the author must have been a "qualified person". The term "qualified person" is defined by the 1956 Act at s.1(5): "in the case of an individual, means a person who is a British subject or British protected person or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or (not being a British subject or British protected person or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland) is domiciled or resident in the United Kingdom or in another country to which that provision extends..."
So an unpublished work by anyone who had been domiciled or resident in the United Kingdom when the work was made would attract copyright, regardless of how early that creation was.
The corresponding definition in CDPA 1988 is given at s.154, which might be used to clarify any questions of interpretation.
But I think we have to assume that any unpublished work made at any time by anyone then resident anywhere in what is now the UK could attract copyright protection. Jheald (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
? — Racconish 💬 15:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment {{PD-US-expired}} looks fine. Yann (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Done I missed the CC0 mark @ the source. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Theoretically, could this be PD...
...while this (or parts of it) is not?.jpg)
Front of Windows 1.0
Front of AmigaOS 3.5
Boxes of Office 365 at store.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=File%3APolish+winged+hussar+by+TBenda+.jpg&wpdate=&tagfilter=){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Caversham,_Spring_2007_-_geograph.org.uk_-_814143.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Husaberg_logo.png&diff=prev&oldid=879855000){kind=link}
_(7042620053).jpg){kind=link}
_(7042621499).jpg){kind=link}
_(7042622427).jpg){kind=link}
_(6896528088).jpg){kind=link}
