Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.

Hi, s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. is not mentioned in COM:PACKAGING. I think that more information is needed in our policy about when this applies or not, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg. This has recently come into several DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heinz Yellow Mustard packet (20213949971).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg, etc. Yann (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should be. That is saying that if the point of the photo is a larger subject, and the copyrightable element is incidental, i.e. unavoidably there but not the main focus, then the photo is OK. This is mentioned in Commons:De minimis although not really actually de minimis. The ruling is pretty much directly on point for copyrightable labels on otherwise utilitarian products. It can be difficult if the entire packaging is copyrightable, though. It's also still a problem if the photo is focusing on the label. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Quoting my rationale for re-nominating another file for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg:
While the photographer of the Fanta can has released their photograph under a free license, the image still constitutes a derivative work of the copyrighted design on the packaging, and Wikimedia Commons’ policies do not allow such works without permission from the copyright holder of the underlying design. The reasoning to keep the image based on Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. is flawed because that case addressed whether a photographer could claim copyright over their own product photographs, not whether the underlying copyrighted design could be freely reproduced by others. Commons requires stricter compliance with copyright law, and derivative works—such as images prominently displaying copyrighted packaging—cannot be freely hosted without authorization from both the photographer and the copyright holder of the derivative work (think photo of a 3D artwork). Unlike in Ets-Hokin, where the focus was on the photographer’s copyright claim, the issue here is whether the photograph infringes on the copyright of the label itself, which it does under Commons’ rules. Freedom of panorama does not apply to product labels or packaging, and keeping the image risks violating copyright law. Commons operates under the precautionary principle, meaning that any uncertainty about copyright compatibility should result in deletion, and the copyrighted design on the Fanta can creates legal uncertainty regardless of the photographer's intent. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I've written User:Josve05a/Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. about this. I'm very open for feedback on the subject, if I have misinterpreted the case law and/or Commons policies. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there is also the case of the Pokemon Jet with a similar situation. Yann (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think what has not been addressed is if the photos are derivaritive works at the first place. The essay centers around the limits of derivative works on Commons, which I believe misinterprets Ets-Hokin v. Sky.

It is true Commons requires photographs to be its own original work. If it is a derivative work, the underlying work must either be in the public domain or is freely licensed. Thus, the notion of whether the label on the bottle is a question of whether it is a derivative work or not; if so, it cannot be hosted on Commons. This is because companies have certain degree of control on derivative works.

However, in my view, there must be another reason why these images cannot be hosted. This is because the pictures are not derivative works.

For a work to NOT be a derivative work, it must pass a test, whether the original work is copyrightable. The 9th circuit effectively counters the claim that the pictures are derivative work. It rules that the picture is on the bottle, which is a utilitarian product that cannot be copyrighted, thus warranting copyrightability of the image. The bottle's labels do not matter, as "Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label." I.e. we are taking pictures of the bottle, not the label. Of course, this comes with trademark concerns, but that is beyond the scope of copyright. Commons is only interested in copyright and thus, whether a work is a derivative work.

Thus, it could be said that since any reproductions would not be a derivative work, it affords the author liberty to license and distribute the picture as they please, GIVEN that there is no modifications to close in on the lable to a 2d representation. This is quite in line with Commons policy, and should be added as an exception to packaging. Takipoint123 (💬) 12:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

First, the 9th Circuit's ruling in Ets-Hokin does not state that photographs of objects like bottles cannot be derivative works. Instead, the court specifically ruled on the copyrightability of Ets-Hokin's photographs of the Skyy Vodka bottle, not on whether the bottle's label or design was copyrightable. The court avoided deciding the copyright status of the label itself, noting that the "whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety," and thus granted copyright protection for the creative choices made by the photographer, such as lighting, composition, and angle. The case did not establish that product photographs can never be derivative works, nor did it address the implications of distributing such photographs under a free license.

Second, the assertion that bottles as "utilitarian products" cannot be copyrighted is only partially correct. While the functional aspects of a bottle, such as its shape for holding liquid, are not copyrightable, creative or artistic elements—such as logos, labels, and unique ornamental designs—remain protected by copyright law if they meet the threshold of originality. Commons policy explicitly recognizes this distinction and treats such creative elements as potentially copyrightable, meaning they may restrict the free use of photographs containing them.

Third, the idea that photographs capturing the "bottle as a whole" are immune to claims of derivative work because the label "does not matter" is not consistent with how copyright law views derivative works. A photograph of a bottle with a prominent label is effectively reproducing the label as part of the image. If the label or other decorative elements are copyright-protected, the photograph is inherently reproducing that copyrighted work. The question of derivative work, then, depends on whether the copyrighted element is sufficiently prominent and central to the photograph. This is where Commons applies its policies on freedom of panorama, threshold of originality, or de minimis use—not as an automatic exemption for product photographs.

Fourth, the conclusion that reproductions of these photographs "would not be a derivative work" misrepresents Commons policy. Commons does not evaluate whether a work is derivative solely on the utilitarian nature of the object depicted; instead, it assesses whether any copyrightable elements (such as logos, labels, or designs) are reproduced in a way that infringes copyright. Ets-Hokin does not grant carte blanche for photographers to freely license and distribute photos of copyrighted designs simply because the overall product is utilitarian.

Finally, regarding the suggestion to add an exception to packaging on Commons, this would conflict with Commons' precautionary principle, which requires that any content uploaded be demonstrably free of copyright restrictions. If the label or design on a bottle is copyrighted and prominently featured in a photograph, the image cannot be freely licensed without explicit permission from the copyright holder. This is distinct from the copyright protection granted to the photographer's creative elements (e.g., lighting and composition) under Ets-Hokin. Both the photograph and the underlying design must meet Commons' requirements for hosting.

TL;DR Please see https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/labels/ --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I am reluctant to accept this as a correct way to assume legal interpretations. Intellectual property law is inherently case based. Just because the case did not specifically say it applies to all cases does not mean it's inappropriate to take the case's interpretation that the bottle is not a derivative work. Court cases are vague for this exact reason. They "never say never" because every case is different; this doesn't prevent us from making reasonably close connections.

In fact, we don't go around deleting every file out there just because it might be an exception (Commons:copyright paranoia). It is quite clear the 9th circuit used legal methodology to dismiss claims that the work is a derivative work, and so is any other pictures of bottles out there. The 9th circuit did not comment on the label because it simply didn't matter, which they specifically point out.

I don't necessarily argue that bottles cannot be copyrighted. But, a regular clear PET bottle we see everyday is likely not, while a bottle that resembles Michaelangelo's statutes probably will. Nonetheless, this is out of the scope of the discussion for most cases.

Ets-Hokin (2003) specifically rules that the threshold of originality is very low for photographic reproductions of objects such as bottles[1].

I do believe the need for more community input on this matter, however. These are just my personal opinions. Takipoint123 (💬) 12:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Josve05a: FWIW, your conclusions are the exact opposite of what the ruling says. Now, the issue is whether these pictures meet the criteria: "the whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety", or not. I could agree that the objective of these pictures were to photograph the labels, and are therefore not OK, but that's a different reasoning. Yann (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Please help explain how I misinterpret it, I don't think I am? Also please read the bottom part of https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/labels/. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Josve05a: You say that the pictures are derivative works of the products. The whole point of the ruling is that it doesn't matter if the objective is to take the whole bottle. Yann (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The quote from the ruling:

We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works.

In other words, yes of course labels can be copyrightable. However the photo was not focusing on the label, but a larger work of which the label is on. The ruling in that case is that the photo is a derivative work of the bottle -- the element being focused on -- but since the bottle is not copyrightable, there is no issue there. But, the photo is not a derivative work of the label, regardless if it's copyrightable or not. The label is incidental, i.e. is unavoidably there when the focus is a larger subject. That was also in question with Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc, a photo of a motorcycle with a very copyrightable bit of artwork on it. That overturned a lower-court ruling where photos could almost never be derivative works, but did state: Further weakening defendant-appellees argument is the fact that the ZX-14 motorcycles were the subject matter and primary focus of Latimer's photographs. Latimer's photographs can best be described as being "based upon" the ZX-14 motorcycles, useful articles not subject to copyright protection. The fact that Hathaway's artwork appears in the photographs is merely incidental. The ruling ended up being on a more narrow contractual issue, so did not make a binding ruling on the matter, but it seems clear they ended up about where Ets-Hokin did -- a photo of a larger subject is not derivative of something unavoidably there. This is also about the same as the French ruling on the "theory of the accessory", where a photo of a street with a prominent skyscraper at the end was not derivative of the building. In all cases, a photo focusing on the copyrightable label/artwork/building itself would be derivative, but not if focusing on a larger subject. That seems to be the balance of photographer's rights versus other artists rights, where that artwork appears in public or everyday items -- not everything is a derivative work. Should the designer of a copyrightable sports logo be owed royalties for every photograph of an athlete wearing that logo? That seems to be roughly the best "line" that I have seen, given that there are not many cases like this -- most photographic derivative work photos are about a photo focusing on a particular copyrighted work. I'm not aware of counterexamples to that. If the photographer deliberately includes a copyrighted element for effect though, that can be different. There was a US case of a fashion photograph where the photographer had the model wear a pair of very fancy glasses even though the point of the photo was the rest of the outfit -- but in that case, the addition was completely under control of the photographer, and they were adding the expression in the glasses to enhance the photograph. When photographing a product, labels are there regardless -- they are incidental. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg: The interpretation provided overlooks a critical nuance: the extent to which a copyrighted element is central to the identity of the subject in a photograph. While cases like Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. and Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc. suggest that certain copyrighted elements may be considered incidental, this depends heavily on the nature of the product being photographed and whether the copyrighted element is intrinsic to identifying that product.

Take, for instance, a CD album where the entire surface is covered by an album cover design. A photograph of this product inherently captures the copyrighted design because it is inextricably linked to the product itself. Removing or obscuring the album cover would render the photograph unrecognizable as being of that specific CD—it would no longer represent the product in question but a generic plastic case. In this context, the copyrighted element (the album cover) is not incidental but central to the subject of the photograph.

Similarly, in the case of a Fanta bottle, the label is a defining feature of the product—it identifies the brand, the flavor, and the drink itself. If the label were to be Photoshopped out, the photograph would cease to depict a Fanta bottle and would instead show a generic PET bottle. This demonstrates that the inclusion of the label is not incidental to the photograph; rather, it is integral to the subject of the image as a product photo.

Contrast this with the examples provided, such as a motorcycle with a copyrighted artwork or a jersey with a sports logo. In those cases, removing the artwork or logo does not fundamentally alter the identity of the subject—the photograph would still depict the same motorcycle or jersey, albeit with less detail. The copyrighted elements in such cases are indeed incidental because they do not define the object being photographed.

The distinction, then, lies in whether the copyrighted element is intrinsic to the identity of the subject. If the copyrighted element is integral to identifying the product (as in the case of a labeled beverage bottle or an album cover), the photograph cannot reasonably be considered free of derivative work concerns. On the other hand, if the copyrighted element is merely an accessory or incidental to the broader subject (as in the case of a motorcycle or jersey), it may fall outside the scope of derivative work concerns. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The ruling makes no distinction like that. The ruling specifically says a copyrightable label would have been irrelevant to the ruling -- it was simply not a derivative work to begin with of the label, no matter the aspects that you list. US copyright rulings actually make sure to mention that the visual impact or symbolic importance is completely irrelevant to copyright. Things like "defining feature" are more trademark, not copyright. This is US law specifically -- a work must be "based on" another to be derivative, and the ruling was that it was based on the bottle and not the label, so nothing about the label could make the photo derivative. It does say a work focusing on the label itself would be an issue, or a photographer intentionally including an avoidable copyrightable work for effect can be an issue. I am aware of no court case that makes the distinctions you do -- do you have examples? If not, that seems like a distinction invented here; I prefer to be able to point to actual court decisions to show that things like that can be an actual problem. It's entirely possible that something where the copyrightable design covers the entire surface of say a packaging box may be different -- not sure we have a test case like that. But it may not, either. There are further US rulings that are harder to apply here, where if the point is to illustrate a product no matter what it looks like, the photo is not trading off the actual expression present in the design -- the photographer would have taken the photo no matter what expression the product designers chose. It's really where the photo is trading off the specific expression of the underlying work that it's a problem. A similar aspect to that can be damages -- the Baltimore Ravens football team once had a logo contest, and the final logo was based off of one of the submissions but they failed to obtain copyright, so they were sued. They lost -- it was clearly derivative -- but the damages were $1 or something because the judge ruled that all merchandise was sold due to it being the Ravens (whatever logo they chose) and not because of the specific expression in that logo (and the submission was not registered for copyright, so no automatic damages). Some of those questions get into fair use territory too, so are hard to apply here. But the two cases cited above, plus the French one, seem to come down around the same lines of what makes a derivative work -- and I'm not aware of any counterexamples. If you can show a court case where stuff like that was ruled derivative, then we can look at the court case reasoning. If not, then I'm not sure we should be inventing definitions that may or may not exist for real. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the arguments I find are very general concepts that could be broadly construed in nearly every case. In general, given all other circumstances equal, the most similar case shall prevail when making decisions on copyright. Concepts like TOO and focus of the image is a guideline courts use to make decision and when specific decisions are made, should not be used for "what if" situations when a specific judgement was already made. This case makes it clear that the 9th circuit considered relevant guidelines, and made a decision that the label didn't matter. Unless this decision is overruled by a higher case, I don't find it plausible to argue on whether this case is in line with other copyright principles: I'd put my trust in the judges. Takipoint123 (💬) 01:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

My last reply to this (promise), since I admit I now start writing in circle, and Carl above is far more knowledgeable than me with case law. But I still have another case to bring up.

The ruling in Ets-Hokin does not categorically rule out the possibility of a photograph being a derivative work when it incorporates a copyrighted element that is integral to the subject being depicted. While the court in Ets-Hokin determined that the photograph in question was not "based on" the label, this conclusion was tied to the specific facts of that case, where the focus was deemed to be the uncopyrightable bottle as a whole. However, this reasoning cannot be universally applied to all product photographs. For instance, in Rogers v. Koons, the court found that a sculpture was derivative of a photograph because the creative elements of the photograph—such as its composition and subject matter—were central to the resulting work. This demonstrates that when a copyrighted element is integral to the identity of the subject and meaningfully contributes to the resulting work, it cannot simply be dismissed as "incidental."

In the case of a Fanta bottle, the label is not an incidental detail—it is the defining feature that distinguishes the product as a Fanta beverage. Removing the label would transform the image from one of a Fanta bottle to that of a generic PET bottle, illustrating that the photograph is inherently "based on" the copyrighted label. This aligns with the standard for derivative works under U.S. copyright law, which considers whether the resulting work is substantially derived from the original copyrighted material. The argument that the focus is on the bottle as a whole does not negate the derivative nature of the photograph when the copyrighted label is integral to the subject.

Furthermore, while the counterargument claims there are no examples where such distinctions have been upheld, it overlooks the nuance in case law. In Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., for example, the court acknowledged that photographs focusing on useful articles like motorcycles are not derivative of incidental copyrighted elements, such as artwork on the motorcycle, unless the artwork itself becomes the focus of the photograph. This principle supports the idea that the role and significance of the copyrighted element within the work must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A Fanta label is far more integral to the product's identity than incidental artwork on a motorcycle, placing it outside the incidental-use doctrine.

Finally, Commons policy adds another layer of scrutiny. Even if U.S. copyright law were to deem the photograph non-derivative, Commons operates under a precautionary principle. Any ambiguity in whether a copyrighted element is integral to the subject or incidental should err on the side of caution to avoid hosting content that may infringe on copyright. As such, product photographs where the copyrighted design is integral to the subject, like a labeled beverage bottle, shoulld be deemed incompatible with Commons policy unless both the photograph and the underlying design are freely licensed or meet other exemptions.

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Rogers v. Koons was an example where the photographer had control over the composition of the photograph, not simply the angle and framing like snapshots. They specifically arranged the people and dogs; that is a "selection and arrangement" copyright, and it was that aspect which was copied into the eventual sculpture, and why the sculpture was derivative. That is copying of specific expression, to enhance the expression of the sculpture. This can happen in studio portraits too -- why those are usually considered "works" and not "simple photos"; they are creating particular poses and facial expressions. If the specific curves in a logo (i.e. the actual artistic expression) are the reason it was included in a photograph, and not a logo's symbolic value, then it could be arguable. But a photo simply depicting a product as it exists may well not be. Arranging a bunch of copyrightable toys on the other hand, is a photograph selecting copyrightable expression because it makes a better photograph -- that can be a problem. As for the precautionary principle, that is for significant doubts, not theoretical ones. Situations in the middle of gray areas of existing court cases, sure. Situations where we invent an argument that courts have not, then claim that is enough doubt to delete because a court in the future might theoretically rule that way, I think we should avoid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I think Ets-Hokin is over generalized. The opinion describes the label as only text and argues the minimal text is not copyrightable. Only after that argument does the opinion pronounce that it does not need to find that the text is not copyrightable because the label is incidental. It does not describe how much of the bottle was covered by the label. Skyy bottles do not have a large label. I accept that a small Nike swoosh on functional sports uniform should not produce a copyright claim, but I do not accept the notion that I can say I'm just photographing a utilitarian bottle and not the elegant floral design plastered on it. Glrx (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually no, it does not rule or argue that the label is uncopyrightable (though strongly hints that it is). Rather, it explicitly rules that even if the label was copyrightable, the photo is still not a derivative work. This is the paragraph of the ruling starting with We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable, quoted earlier in this discussion. This may be a somewhat technical ruling based on US law, but since the photo is "based on" the bottle and not the logo, it cannot be a derivative work of the logo. It cannot be construed to be "based on" the label, thus is not derivative no matter what the label is. Somebody other than the photographer put the label there, and they have a right to photograph the bottle, basically. This is about balancing the rights of a photographer versus other copyright owners -- the owner of a logo does not get to control photos of their products just because of a copyright in the label, it would seem. The Berne Convention is 150 years old and in all that time, you'd think there would be *some* cases out there which ruled something like this as a derivative work and thus infringement, if there was a likely problem here. Instead, we have three cases which have ruled along more or less the same lines -- the Roaring Toyz case was a definitely copyrightable design, and prominently on a motorcycle, but a photo of the motorcycle was likely not derivative (as again, they did not explicitly rule that but just strongly hinted). A photo focusing on the label itself is an issue, per Ets-Hokin, though -- at that point it is "based on" the label, so the copyrightability of the label then comes into play. I agree it may get harder when the entire item is covered by copyrightable work since it may be harder to distinguish what the photo is "based on", though again we don't have a ruling which definitively says that is a problem either, in say the case of livery on a plane where the photo is of the whole plane. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Argues but does not find. From the decision:

Turning next to the bottle's label, which the district court also cited in part in categorizing Ets-Hokin's photos as derivative works, we note that "[a] claim to copyright cannot be registered in a print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter." 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(b). Although a label's "graphical illustrations" are normally copyrightable, "textual matter" is not—at least not unless the text "aid[s] or augment[s]" an accompanying graphical illustration. 1 NIMMER § 2.08[G][2], at 2-136. The label on Skyy's vodka bottle consists only of text and does not include any pictorial illustrations.

Glrx (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph after that is the important one and the actual ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is just a picture of plane that I do not believe belongs on Commons:

• File:Transaero (Siberian Tiger livery), EI-XLN, Boeing 747-412 (21110098603).jpg

Glrx (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

That one is more arguable to be a problem. It's focusing on the artwork in particular, not the entire plane. That is probably fair use in most cases but would be a derivative work, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say so too. Most importantly, we're missing significant portions of the plane (i.e. the wings are mostly cut off). Takipoint123 (💬) 01:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, there are other pictures that show more of the plane.

Here's a better example: File:Shrinkflation.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shrinkflation.jpg. The shrinkflation photo is about the size of the Pringle's cans, and the cans are utilitarian objects. As I understand the claimed Ets-Hokin interpretation above, the can's label does not matter. I do not buy that argument. Glrx (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Glrx: Sorry, I missed your reply above for a while. This is the ruling:

We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works.

What is your interpretation, then, of why the judge did not need to decide on whether the label is copyrightable to rule if the photo qualified as a derivative work? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

ping Carl Lindberg

The opinion starts down a clear path. The recitation states that an ordinary wine bottle has a label. The label is just text with no pictures. The label is centered on the bottle. There are several colors and a background. The photographs were to advertise Skyy Vodka. The opinion finds that the ordinary shape of the bottle is utilitarian and not copyrightable. Then the opinion then examines whether the label has a copyright. The opinion cites authority that mere text is not copyrightable.

The opinion seems poised to end by finding the label is not copyrightable, but it veers off that path. The opinion says Skyy did not provide any authority "that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable". What nature is that? A bottle with a label that consists only of text and a colored background? Apparently, Skyy never argued that its plain bottle with its text label could have a copyright. The lower court merely found that the Skyy bottle was an existing object. The recitation does not say Skyy obtained a copyright registration or argued that its bottle or label was copyrighted. Skyy apparently argued only that a non-copyrightable object can create derivative works. The court need not decide whether the bottle has a copyright because the defendant never made that claim.

The world would be different if Skyy had claimed its ordinary bottle with its ordinary text label were copyrightable.

Ets-Hokin requires a derivative work be based on a copyrighted work.

The opinion describes the picture being of "the bottle as a whole" and not mainly of the label, therefore the product is not a preexisting work. I have trouble with that phrasing. The recitation is about the Skyy Vodka product shots, and the label has central placement. The opinion cites no other authority for the supposed view that a whole can ignore copyrighted parts. That viewpoint would confound the notion of a derivative work. The opinion gives no guidance about how prominent a copyrighted label need be. If the photograph were mainly about a copyrighted label, would the opinion go the other way? There is no clarity.

I think the paragraph just avoided making a finding that it did not need to make.

Glrx (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The ruling however, was that As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works regardless of the copyrightability of the label. Their ruling is trying to balance the rights of a photographer with that of other authors (also mentioned) -- your interpretation means that the artist of a logo deserves royalty rights over any photograph which contains that logo, even if just photographing a product it appears on, and the right to prevent publication of such photos, etc. That ruling says that no, if the purpose was to photograph the bottle regardless of whatever logo happened to be on there, it's not a derivative work. The photo needs to intentionally trade off of some underlying copyrightable expression. Simply photographing an everyday object where someone else made the decision of what logo to put on it, does not qualify. This is the same dividing line the Roaring Toyz ruling ended up with, and very similar to what the French case ended up with. I am not aware of any rulings which back up your interpretation that such photos are derivative works. The court doesn't necessarily cite an authority because they are the authority -- this is a ruling under common law, interpreting the language of the law. The ruling here states that photos of the label, or mainly of the label, could be derivative works (but obviously only if the label was copyrightable). The final ruling of not being a derivative work is there regardless of the copyrightability of the label, as the first sentence plainly states. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, thats not really what the 9th circuit says. The court only commented on the label because the defence counsel probably argued in that way. Courts work in a way that presents full counter arguments to every single aspect that has been argued to prevent misinterpretation and/or it going unnecessary to appellate courts. The court adds for further clarity that labels would not have mattered anyways. Us, as regular users (and not lawyers) should find the decision "as is" instead of making up potential nuances in the decision.--Takipoint123 (💬) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: who closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg as kept. Yann (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @King of Hearts: I apologize for taking your time, but I thought you might have a say as you used Ets-Hokins in your vote Takipoint123 (💬) 23:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably {{Useful-object-US}} may also affected? @Elvey, Stefan2, This, that and the other, Lojbanist, Jdx, and Jonesey95: I won't RFD any of derivate files of above, nor this template, but I'd also seek for a potential analysis (and probably modification) of COM:CSM#Utility_objects section. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg are exactly the same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, where Carl Lindberg says it should be kept. Could you please undelete these so that we could evaluate if Ets-Hokin applies there? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I've got nothing against someone requesting them to be undeleted following COM:UNDEL as per usual policy, but I will not reverse my own administrative action, since I don't think they should be undelted. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This may be of some help too. @Josve05a, Clindberg, Takipoint123, and Glrx: . It is noteworthy that Judge D. W. Nelson dissented in the court's decision to dismiss the analysis on the derivative works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Here is a current DR about packaging: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ketchup Deppenleerzeichen.jpg. But there photo seems to be cropped to avoid the most creative parts. Interessting enough that could perhaps be a problem. --MGA73 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  The focus of that photo is not the packaging, though, but the text because it shows a common typo printed in large letters on the packaging of a reputable company's product. Nakonana (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Logo de Wish Money (Lebanon)

Buenas ,se puede publicar el logo de Wish Money como este (si el logo es simple se puede publicar con {{PD-textlogo}}) (Líbano usa el mismo TOO de Francia porque Líbano se considera un estado de Francia antes de su independencia)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Glrx: any opinion (el logo whish es simple o complejo)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd put it below TOO US (I do not know what Lebanon would say). The logo is primarily a W with a few triangles attached. The triangles do not suggest something interesting. I take them for some common decorations on comics to show speed. (There is a name for such decorations, but I've forgotten it.) Glrx (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Glrx:Lebanon was a state of France so it’s the same TOO in France (google translate). AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Fanciful comics jargon from Mort Walker's The Lexicon of Comicana: horizontal speed lines are called "hites". Glrx (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo:any opinion? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Difficult question. Our guidelines in COM:FOP Lebanon are vague. I would say, that this is simple logo. Taivo (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Composers for silent films

For silent films without synchronized sound, are composers ever considered co-authors in the EU? The Copyright Duration Directive (Article 2) includes "the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work", which I've usually seen interpreted on Commons as applicable only when that music is part of the upload.

This question impacts several videos and images related to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (e.g. 1, 2, 3), but I imagine there are other silent films that are in a similar situation. hinnk (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the Copyright Duration Directive sets the same copyright term to the entire film, even if you don't use the soundtrack. However, I didn't realise that this was a silent film. I don't know if music for a silent film is counted as a part of the cinematographic work under the EU directive. I assume that the orchestra at the cinema theatre was meant to play the music when the film was shown. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, although people did not reliably play the official score. First-run cinemas would, but after that all bets were off. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• I think that the problem here is the term 'work', which is what is protected under copyright law. The copyright applies to the work as a whole, and so the copyright of the entire work expires at the same time. Therefore, it is necessary to know what the 'work' is. This can be compared to free licences which normally apply to a 'work' - a few years ago, there was a long discussion when someone asked what a 'work' was in terms of resized photographs.

Article 1.1 of Directive 2006/116/EC states that the copyright to a work expires 70 years after the death of the author. However, if it is a joint work, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last author, and this applies to the work as a whole, so the heirs of the author who died first benefit from this by holding copyright until 70 years after the one who died last.

Films were notoriously complex in EU countries with differing interpretations of who the author is and what the work is, so Article 2.2 seeks to address the copyright term problem by setting a common copyright term.

Under old (pre-1996) Swedish law, the cinematographic work seems to have been the plot as a manuscript in text form, whereas other aspects of the film such as music, decors, dresses and animation frames were separate works, each of them with separate authors and separate 50 years p.m.a. copyright terms. I don't know how other EU countries handled this, but it is my understanding that it varied from country to country. If you leave Europe and go to the United States, you will find that a film which was registered for copyright was registered as a whole, i.e. the script, music, decors, animation frames (if it's an animated film) etc. were not separately registered for copyright, and there may have been EU countries who under the old law regarded the film in its entirety as a single work instead of treating the film as many separate works. It is my understanding that other EU countries may have either more or fewer film authors in their old copyright laws. For example, is the cameraman an author?

Article 2.2 fixes this by deciding that the film as a whole is a single work and so the copyright to the entire film expires at the same time, 70 years after the longest living of the listed people, even if you only use a part of the film which might not contain any contributions by some of those listed in the directive.

Article 10.1 then unfixes this by stating that for pre-1995 films, the directive doesn't shorten the copyright term. This means that you first need to wait for the expiration of the work (i.e. the film as a whole) under the EU copyright term, and after that you need to check what the definition of a work and an author was in the source country before July 1995 and determine if the copyright term also has expired under the old copyright law (i.e. you might need to verify that additional people have been dead for 50 or 70 years before you can use either the entire film or a part of the film).

The people in Article 2.2 are not necessarily authors of the film, and Article 2.1 only touches on the topic of authors. The director is one of the authors of post-1995 films, but there may be co-authors which are defined in national law, and for pre-1995 films the directive says nothing about who the author is. The copyright holder of a work would normally be the original author, but to avoid problems, I assume that companies producing films normally arrange to have the copyright transferred to the companies so that they won't risk having hundreds of rightsholders who own the rights to specific parts of the film and who therefore have the right to prohibit distribution of he film.

The question of what constitutes the work in the case of a silent film is an interesting question, as I don't know if the music can be argued to be part of the film or if it is treated as a separate work which is separately copyrighted for 70 years from the death of the composer. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Gnom or Pajz: Do you want to comment something about this question? --Rosenzweig τ 17:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably. The award of coauthorship to film contributors varies considerably within the EU. See P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2016) 145 ("Another difficulty of film protection lies in the determination of the list of co-authors of the film. The problem with audiovisual works is that there are very different requirements among jurisdictions concerning the nature of the contributions to a joint work, which results in disparities in the list of potential coauthors."). The legislative intent is, however, fairly clear in countries like France, where the law lists various contributors as presumed film coauthors, including "the author of musical compositions with or without words specially created for the work" (L. 113-7 CPI). That seems squarely applicable to somebody who, say, composes and arranges music accompanying a silent film. The same is not true in countries like Germany, where there is no statuatory presumption and coauthorship always requires that "several persons have jointly created a work without it being possible to separately exploit their individual shares in the work" (Section 8(1) UrhG). Of course, just because a composition may have been made specifically for a film shouldn't prevent it from being separately exploitable; therefore, the general view in Germany is that composers of film scores are not coauthors of the film (see eg D Thum, "§ 8" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 32). On the other hand, the Federal Supreme Court has held that the Tonmeister of a film may qualify as its coauthor (BGH GRUR 2002, 961 – Mischtonmeister), so even in Germany the "sound portion" of a film is not entirely irrelevant when it comes to film coauthorship. // As Stefan2 notes, the coauthorship question in conceptually independent of the individuals named in Article 2(2) of the Term Directive. Across the EU, in a post-1 July 1995 film the term of protection ends pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Term Directive, no matter if the people named there are coauthors or not. Who the coauthor is would only matter when we have, say, a release under a free license because that would have to come from the coauthors (or their licensees). Germany takes the same approach for pre-1 July 1995 works with the caveat that if there is a coauthor not named in Article 2(2) who lived longer than the people named there, then protection would expire 70 years following their death (Section 137f(1) UrhG). I'm pretty sure other EU countries follow a similar approach. // I would also point out that when you talk about "images" (as in: single frames) of the film, then at least in Germany, the general view is that using those does not infringe the copyright in the film, so it doesn't matter who the coauthors of the film or the Article 2(2) individuals are. The relevant rights in these cases are solely the photographer's copyright in the image (or their related right in the simple photograph if the originality threshold is not reached), typically acquired by the cameraperson (BGH GRUR 2014, 363 [20] – Peter Fechter), and the related right of the film producer (Section 94 UrhG; Article 2(d) Infosoc Directive) (BGH GRUR 2018, 400 [19] – Konferenz der Tiere). — Pajz (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pajz: Thanks. Follow-up question: You write “Germany takes the same approach for pre-1 July 1995 works with the caveat that if there is a coauthor not named in Article 2(2) who lived longer than the people named there, then protection would expire 70 years following their death (Section 137f(1) UrhG).” So would a film like de:Der letzte Mann (1924) still be protected in Germany because the film's cameraman de:Karl Freund (Kameramann) (1890–1969) died less than 70 years ago? Also, the film's composer (music for a silent film) de:Giuseppe Becce (1877–1973) is apparently not considered a co-author in Germany (if I correctly understood what you wrote above) and therefore not relevant for the term duration (in Germany) because it's a film from before July 1995? --Rosenzweig τ 10:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig, first point: Yes. Second point: No, I guess the idea is that if the film was still protected on 1 July 1995, then the new Article 2(2) scheme becomes applicable (but can never lead to a shortening of the protection term). So, in your example, because the cameraman died in 1969 and is a coauthor, the film was still protected on 1 July 1995. Therefore, the term of protection is now the "old term" (longest-living coauthor + 70 years) or the "new term" (longest-living individual named in Article 2(2) + 70 years), whichever expires later. As a result, ignoring all other contributors, the Term Directive would have led to an extension of the copyright term of that film. I just verified and indeed Dreier (T Dreier, "§ 65" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 7) essentially gives this exact example (new rules led to an extension of the term "wenn einer der vier Genannten im konkreten Fall entweder keinen schöpferischen Beitrag geleistet hat und er von keinem anderen Miturheber des Filmwerkes überlebt wird, oder sofern er nicht als Miturheber des Filmwerkes angesehen wird (wie nach der hM der Drehbuchautor, der Verfasser von Dialogen und der Komponist der Filmmusik)"; internal references omitted, underlining added). — Pajz (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

For Swedish films, I have always assumed, possibly wrongly, that a cameraman is a photographer and so you apply the copyright term for photographs, which in the German situation probably also means the pre-1995 threshold for differing between photographic works of art and simple photos. In the same way, I have assumed, again possibly wrongly, that you should not use the death year of a child actor but instead the much shorter copyright term for performances. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stefan2, hm, in Germany, the cameraperson would be a photographer of thousands of photos (photographic works or simple photographs) as well as, at least potentially, a coauthor of the film. I say "potentially" because as always, a coauthor still has to actually make an original contribution to the film. If the director leaves no room for the cameraperson's creativity, they cannot be a coauthor. (They also won't win an Oscar.) It's definitely possible for this to happen: Think of routine sequences in a documentary, or of some assistant camera operator in a movie who has no creative influence of their own. But I would say it's fairly obvious that a cinematographer responsible for a fiction film as in Rosenzweig's example would pass the bar under German law. Back to the initial point: If, say, you play the film in a cinema, you communicate to the public both the film and the thousands of photos it is made from, even though they are not perceived individually by viewers of the film (BGH GRUR 2014, 363 [21] – Peter Fechter). If you take one frame from the film and put in on Wikimedia Commons, it would not be a communication to the public of the film (because the elements justifying the film copyright are not present in a single screenshot) but the cameraperson's rights in the individual photograph would still be infringed. So the cameraperson is definitely a photographer in Germany as well, just not only a photographer. Again, the situation seems heterogeneous within the EU. For instance the cinematographer is not among the presumed coauthors in French law and, according to Kamina, French courts seem reluctant to treat camerapersons as coauthors (even though they've done so); on the other hand, again according to Kamina, the (principal) cameraman is specifically listed as a presumed coauthor in at least Croatia, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland (P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2016) 174f). // As for the actors, they should typically not play a role for the copyright in the film (in their capacity as actors); I would be surprised if there is a EU country where this is different. — Pajz (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Pajz (talk · contribs) Thanks again. So basically, to determine the year in which German films from before July 1995 (and probably similarly in other EU countries) are free we have to a) calculate the term accd. to the EU Directive (last person with one of the four named functions to die + 70 years pma) b) calculate the old term (last co-author to die + 70 years pma) and then c) take the longer of those terms.

To do that we would need to know who can be co-author of a film (in Germany). The composer is not a co-author per the above. Director, screen writer and dialogue writer (all also mentioned in the EU Directive) would most likely be co-authors, as would the cameramen/-people and probably also sound engineers (Tonmeister) as mentioned above. Who else can be a co-author? Producers? Film editors? Makeup people? Production designers? There is quite a list of people who could be co-authors. --Rosenzweig τ 13:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This diverges enough from Article 2(2) that, whatever the answer is, we'll probably want to add a summary to COM:GERMANY and review all the PD-US-expired works in Category:Films of Germany by year. Cinematographers alone mean films by Fritz Arno Wagner, Karl Freund, Helmar Lerski, or anyone with an unknown death year would need to be deleted/transferred from Commons. hinnk (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, yes. Composers of music to accompany silent films like de:Willy Schmidt-Gentner (1894–1964) or de:Giuseppe Becce (1877–1973) are another group of people to be considered. --Rosenzweig τ 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

So probably everyone who made a contribution to the film which exceeds COM:TOO Germany needs to have been dead for at least 70 years before the full German film can be uploaded to Commons, whereas other rules apply for single screenshots? For Swedish films, I think that the corresponding rule is that all of the four EU people must have been dead for at least 70 years and that anyone else who made a contribution exceeding COM:TOO Sweden must have been dead for at least 50 years.

I didn't think that there would be any creativity in the cameraman's works. Maybe you are right about that. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig, I agree with your summary of the procedure. As for potential coauthors, the Federal Supreme Court remarked a few years ago, non-exhaustively, that "often, in addition to the director, the cameraman and the film editor may qualify as authors of the film work" (BGH GRUR 2011, 714 [58] – Der Frosch mit der Maske). I haven't done any in-depth research into this, but maybe this is a starting point just based on two or three legal commentaries:

(+) director (This is the only one that is de facto a given, as confirmed by the CJEU in C-277/10 – Luksan v. van der Let.)
(+) director of photography/cinematographer/(head) camera operator (If they had room for an original contribution. Some commentators say this is "usually the case" in a film work [JB Nordemann, "§ 89" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 21], others emphasise that this is usually the case in cinematic productions, but less likely in daytime dramas or documentaries [U Dobberstein, M Schwarz, and G Hansen, "Die Inhaber des Urheberrechts am Filmwerk" in M Schwarz (ed), Handbuch Filmrecht (6th edn. Beck 2021) paras 10ff].)
(+) film editor (If they had room for an original contribution. Nordemann [op. cit., para 22] writes that this is "usually" the case, according to Dobberstein et al. [op. cit., para 15] "many times".)
(+) sound designer/sound engineer/Tonmeister (If they had room for an original contribution. This seems to be treated by commentators as less frequently the case. The Supreme Court held that the Tonmeister can in principle be a coauthor [BGH GRUR 2002, 961, 962 – Mischtonmeister]. Nordemann [op. cit., para 23] writes that the individual has to "create a distinctive sound world" for the film, which is more likely the case in cinematic films, less so in daytime dramas. Dobberstein et al. [op. cit., para 23] write that coauthorship can arise "on a case-by-case basis".
(+) special effects supervisor/visual effects supervisor (If they had room for an original contribution.)
(+/-) costume designer/make-up designer (usually not but possible in certain cases when the costumes/make-up have a particular impact on the atmosphere of the film)
(-) assistant directors, assistant DOPs, assistant film editors, assistant sound designers/engineers/Tonmeister (not enough room for original expression)
(-) actors
(-) producer
(-) set designer (separately exploitable work, hence no coauthorship. Note of course that if, say, an architectural work is created for a film and the clip/screenshot/... on Wikimedia Commons shows that work, that would infringe the set designer's copyright in that particular work. Same goes, mutatis mutandis, for composers and screenwriters.)
(-) composer (separately exploitable work; see note above)
(-) screenwriter (separately exploitable work; see note above)

So my personal take-away from this would be that, in practical terms, the most relevant coauthors are (1) the director (whose year of death needs to be considered anyway for the Article 2(2) test), (2) the DOP/cinematographer/(head) camera operator and (3) the film editor. Others seem to be more of a case-by-case consideration and I have no idea how that could realistically be done on Wikimedia Commons as part of routine checks. I guess if, say, a sound person received an important award for their contribution, they perhaps should be considered. — Pajz (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Several of those roles only apply to photographic films with actors, but there are also animated films where some of the roles are different. For example, there are no actors, the 'cameraman' only does the simple task of taking photos of animation frames created by others and there are animators producing art. There is also computer animation, but not a lot before 1995 and all of those will remain protected for many more decades anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to editing COM:GERMANY to mention this, we should probably edit COM:EU and mention both Article 2.2 and Article 10.1 because Article 10.1 probably messes up the copyright term for films in several other EU countries too and the laws of all EU countries would need to be investigated so that we can find out where there is a problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I managed to access the 2002 edition of Kamina's book and took a quick look at it. On pp. 17-18, it is suggested that the 1901 copyright law for literary works didn't provide any protection for films at all and that films therefore only were protected as photographs under the 1876 law. The copyright to photographs expired five years after publication and there were copyright formalities. Does this mean, for German films, that we can ignore the old law if the film is very old (created before some change to the law)? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't really say, but will remark that the 1907 law de:Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie did protect photographs for 10 years, and in 1940, the Gesetz zur Verlängerung der Schutzfristen für das Urheberrecht an Lichtbildern extended the protection to 25 years (per de:Bildrechte). The 1965 law, de:Urheberrechtsgesetz (Deutschland), finally had specific rules for films. In the official Begründung (rationale, justification ...) for the law (see here, II.8 Besondere Bestimmungen für Filme it says that accd. to the previous laws, co-authors of the film are all persons which made a creative contribution to the film. So at some point in time the co-authorship rules must have come into play. --Rosenzweig τ 18:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking further into Kamina's book, it seems that protection of films was added to the 1908 revision of the Berne Convention. Probably something changed at that point.

The link you provided states that Wer zu diesem Personenkreis gehört, ist streitig. Sounds like problems in deletion requests as we won't know if we are looking for the correct people's death years. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm trying to apply the rules to a specific film, w:File:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920).webm. Do you think that I am doing it correctly? For credit see the first few minutes of the film.

Old rules

Ein Filmspiel in 6 Akten von Carl Mayer und Hans Janowitz: Not authors of the film, authors of a separate work. Full film: need to be dead for at least 70 years as the separate work is used in the film. Single screenshot: maybe need to be dead for 70 years (if the screenshot shows something creative from the script that they wrote). Died 1954 and 1944, so OK.

Hergestellt von der Decla-Film-Gesellschaft Berlin: A company is not an author, so OK.

Regie: Robert Wiene: Author of the film. Full film: needs to be dead for at least 70 years. Single screenshot: no creative contribution, death year does not matter. Died in 1938, so OK.

Dekorative Ausstattung: Hermann Warm // Walter Reimann // Walter Röhrig: Not authors of the film, authors of separate works. Full film: need to be dead for at least 70 years as the separate works are used in the film. Single screenshot: depends on what the screenshot shows. What if you don't know who did what decorations in the film? Warm died in 1976, Reimann 1936, Röhrig 1945. Reimann and Röhrig are OK, Warm is  Not OK.

Die Hauptrollen: many names: Not authors. They may have held rights as performers, but those rights expired many decades ago. OK

Photographie: Willy Hameister: Author of the film. Also created thousands of separately copyrighted photographs. Full film, film authorship: needs to be dead for at least 70 years due to being an author of the film. Single screenshot, film authorship: not relevant as the film is not used. Full film, single photographs: the copyright term expired 10 years after the film was made or published and you probably only use the old law here? Single screenshots, single photographs: Here you probably use the new law which says that the cameraman needs to be dead for at least 70 years? He died in 1938, so OK.

Giuseppe Becce, who made the music, isn't credited in the film. Not an author of the film, author of a separate work. Full film: only relevant if the music is included. Single screenshot: not relevant. He died in 1973, so  Not OK if the music is included.

EU rules

The cinematographic work enters the public domain 70 years after the death of the last to die of Mayer, Janowitz, Wiene and Becce.

Full film, with sound:  Not OK as Becce hasn't been dead for at least 70 years.

Full film, without sound: still  Not OK due to Becce even though his contributions haven't been included?

Question

The EU copyright term applies to the EU cinematographic work. What is the EU cinematographic work? Is it the same as the cinematographic work under the old law? In other words, are the separate works under the old law part of the EU cinematographic work or not? I don't see a definition in the directive of what a cinematographic work is. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• When is it that we need to consider the copyright of additional authors for a screenshot? Is it when it contains artworks (File:The Cabinet of Dr Caligari Holstenwall.jpg, plus the background of text frames such as File:Ende V. Akt Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari.jpg, File:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari intertitle.png and File:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari intertitle.png? Do we need to wait until all three of Hermann Warm, Walter Reimann and Walter Röhrig have been dead before we can host these four pictures? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion. It does look likely that Nosferatu, after all, will become public domain in Germany only in 2029. FYI, I posted a pointer / attempt at summary in German-language Wikipedia's copyright forum at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Nosferatu_reloaded,_oder:_Altes_Urheberrecht_für_Stummfilme. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Idea for taking a chunk out of Category:PD-Art (PD-old default)

I've been eyeing Category:PD-Art (PD-old default) for a while wondering if there's a way to get some of those files cleaned up. I wanted to discuss an idea for a bot that would, for each file in the category:

1. Try to read the publication date from the Artwork template.
2. Try to look up the author's death year (e.g. from a Creator template if present in the Artist field).
3. If both pieces of information can be unambiguously determined, replaced {{PD-Art}} with {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=XXXX}} or {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=XXXX}}, based on whether the publication date is pre-1929.

Does anyone see any cases whether this could cause a problem? One possible edge case is that the work might not actually be PD. I don't know if doing this would be sort of license-washing those files since it takes them out of this cleanup category. It could be restricted to a PMA of 120 years to be safe in any country if necessary. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If you can do that with a bot, very good, as doing manually over 134 K images is not fun. Yann (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's pre-1930, now, not 1929 (works published in 1929 itself just expired in the US). Seems like a good idea overall. You could do a bot run for dates > 120 years old and see how many that gets, and maybe ratchet down if a lower threshold would still substantially help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Filed Commons:Bots/Requests/BMacZeroBot 8 and ran a short test. I'm extrapolating that this method will be able to fix 2000 or 3000 files without assistance, and maybe a lot more with some manual help parsing dates and finding deathyears. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@BMacZero: I would start with the ones linked to Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding a Ukrainian monument

According to @Ahonc: here, the monument Прощання (image) is a 17-18th century object so it is claimed to be out of copyright. However, the Ukrainian Wikipedia list article on the monuments in Baturyn does not mention about this and simply states that it was installed in 2008 and (translation courtesy of Google Translate) "was created during the international stone sculpture symposium "Baturyn - 2008" with the support of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, which was held in the village of Sedniv. Sculptor A. Valiev." There is discrepancy here: who/which is telling the fact here? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Kiyanka as uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

What is on the photo is the 20th or the 21st century, not the 18th. Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

What about the "OTRS ticket No. 2013082910009471, app. 1" that Ahonc mentioned? Nakonana (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Here it's also claimed to be 17th-18th century (in Ukrainian "XII – XIII ст." for the entry "Заміська садиба І. Мазепи на Гончарівці"). Nakonana (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana I'll ping @NickK: here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The page you link says 2008. Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Where? The four first columns from left say (in that order):

• 74-203-0029
• Заміська садиба І. Мазепи на Гончарівці
• XII – XIII ст.
• Батурин

The "XII – XIII ст."-part stands for "XII – XIII століття" (XII – XIII century). (And I misread it as 17th and 18th century when it's actually 12th and 13th.) Nakonana (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

74-203-0157 Скульптура «Прощання» . In addition, anybody remotely familiar with Ukrainian and Russian art would immediately know this is not even close to the 13th century. This is really a modern sculpture. Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that there's two entries on that page for the same sculpture. File:Батурин_Прощання_2.jpg is the first listed (2008) and File:Батурин, Заміська садиба І.Мазепи на Гончарівці 01.JPG is the second listed (XII – XIII). They appear to be the same sculpture, down to the damage at the bottom, just placed on different bases. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The 12th century entry is for the estate, not for the sculpture, just someone decided to illustrate it by the photo of a modern sculpture. The entry I mentioned is specifically for the sculpture. Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears the district government of Bakhmach Raion is confusing the matter. Apparently, they sent VRTS correspondence that claims the sculpture is a 17th-18th-century object, yet as Ymblanter points out, the PD object being referred to is the estate itself. Or unless there is some weird statute in Ukraine that allows the estate to claim rights over modern sculptures and nullify sculptors' copyrights (which I doubt it exists, as it would lead to Ukraine violating Berne Convention rules). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Re-nominated the image file again. I'm not convinced it is an 18th-century sculpture. Perhaps the old part refers to the estate where it is situated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The sculpture is from 2008, not from the 18th century. Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Privy Seal of Wisconsin.svg

I'm going through the featured article process on English Wikipedia and a template in the article uses this image. I am told that it needs a tag for the original design. The original design is a work of the Wisconsin state government, created in the late 1970s. Wisconsin maintains copyright to its works unlike the U.S. federal government, and I don't believe there is any subsequent documentation declaring the seal public domain. Can anyone here help me with what tag should be applied to this image, or if it should remain on Commons at all? I've searched the US Copyright database for an entry matching this design but didn't find anything. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@M4V3R1CK32: Assuming they never gave notice, it's going to be either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but from just "the late 1970s" I can't tell you which. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

1977 was the year it was first used, so presumably no notice? M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Not so sure it needs that. If it's just using an element from the state seal, then the copyright is on that particular drawing of that element (and maybe the scrolls). Recreating the general design should not be an issue -- see Commons:Coats of arms. If you were copying the very specific lines of a drawing created by state government, that is where a graphic copyright would come into play, but seems more like this just lifted an element from another state seal SVG here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg I would agree that of the original elements in this design, two (the top scroll and the badger) appear to be lifted directly from the regular state seal. The bottom scroll is a fairly generic representation of a scroll. Supposedly there is a written description in the WI Secretary of State office, but I haven't been able to find it online. Any other representations of the seal not included in the source links that I have seen are clearly just this file reposted around the internet by crawler sites, so I am inclined to think this is a recreation of the drawing made by the state government. I'm not entirely sure this file is a 100% accurate representation, there could be additional elements on that bottom scroll that can't be made out in the source images. This one offers the best view. That said, whatever that is could be an artifact of the scanner and not a separate element. I'm not sure the answer here. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg @Jmabel just wanted to follow up and see if you had any additional thoughts on this question. I think, probably, the image is correctly tagged now. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's probably fine. I also think the stakes are low: I can't imagine anyone getting in trouble for getting this wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I generally think so to. Thanks! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Flickr

• File:President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo toasts with Prime Minister of Malaysia Dato Sri Abdullah Badawi.jpg
• File:President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sign the Declaration of the Road Map for an ASEAN Community 2009-2015.jpg
• File:President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sign the Declaration of the Road Map for an ASEAN Community 2009-2015 (02).jpg
• File:OPENING CEREMONY -- 14TH ASEAN SUMMIT.jpg
• File:5th BIMP-EAGA - GROUP PHOTO OPPORTUNITY.jpg
• File:Abdullah Badawi official 2009.jpg

I found several images on CommonsWiki that are tagged as being in compliance with Philippine copyright law. However, when I checked these images on Flickr, they are marked as "All rights reserved and may not be reproduced." Could you please clarify this discrepancy, as the Flickr posts do not indicate that these images are officially from the Philippine government? I will attach the images in question for your reference. Thank you for your assistance. 218.208.8.78 02:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If they were done by government employees, their law has a U.S.-inherited clause that prevents copyright on those works (though with an odd modification that seems to give a non-copyright right). Those photos are marked OPS-NIB, which I think is the Office of the Press Secretary and News and Information Bureau, part of the Philippine presidential office. If that is misleading and the photographer is not a government employee, they would seem to be problems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

File:204Jollibee Bustos 05.jpg

Are there any problems in this file? Packaging and other graphic work de minimis/incidental or not? IMO it's not incidental but other users may disagree. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The photo on the placard on the left is definitely not de minimis, neither is the paper crown in the front. We will have to delete this file. Gnom (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Could be incidental, if just photographing a scene. If all that stuff was put there and arranged by the photographer, less likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of two films

Hi, These two films may not be OK on Commons. If that's the case, I will move them to the English Wikipedia. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• File:Asphalt (1929) by Joe May.webm: German film, director died more than 70 years ago. OK?
• File:Manasse (1925) by Jean Mihail.webm: Romanian film, director died less than 70 years ago.
  • Asphalt is not OK, one of the writers János Székely died in 1958. The third writer en:Rolf E. Vanloo doesn't have a listed death date (was born in 1899, survival to the 21st Century was certainly possible). EDIT: German Wikipedia de:Rolf E. Vanloo says he died in 1946. Abzeronow (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Mananse is obviously also not yet for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  German Wikipedia claims w:de:Rolf E. Vanloo died in 1946, but the claim needs to be proven since enwiki "did not include" this information in their article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  It looks like the 1946 death has this as a source: https://stadtarchiv.muenchen.de/scopeQuery/Filepublisher/12/D61911.PDF I don't speak German so I can't really verify that myself. Abzeronow (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Page 177 has Schmidt Martin 2.4.46. Martin Schmidt apparently was his actual name. The PDF is one of the name indexes for the death registry of Munich, hosted by the city archive of Munich. --Rosenzweig τ 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the Enwiki page to include his death date, death place and that source. Abzeronow (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• The copyright term for films is determined by w:Directive 2006/116/EC.

Article 2.2: The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work.

Article 10.1: Where a term of protection which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive was already running in a Member State on 1 July 1995, this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State.

In the case of German films, Article 10.1 seems to have the effect that some more people, in addition to those in Article 2.2, need to have died at least 70 years ago, although it's not entirely clear how many people's death years you need to check. See #Composers for silent films above.

Article 10.1 also causes problems in other EU countries. Whether this is the case in Romania I have no idea. Probably the laws of all EU countries have to be checked so that we can determine where there is a problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Per the Composers of silent films thread above, for the term duration of a German film from before July 1995, the composer (even of a silent film!) and (usually) the director of photography are also relevant. The composer was de:Willy Schmidt-Gentner (died in 1964), the camera person was de:Günther Rittau (died in 1971). So it looks like Asphalt is still protected in Germany until (at least) the end of 2041. --Rosenzweig τ 01:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information. Films moved and added to Category:Undelete in 2034 and Category:Undelete in 2042. Yann (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this image compatible with Commons?

https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26789063

The copyright description states "This image may be used, copied and re-distributed free of charge in any format or media. Where the image is redistributed to others the following acknowledgement note should be shown : 'Sourced from LINZ. Crown Copyright reserved.'" the former part implies it is compatible with a CC licence but the latter suggests it is Crown Copyright [2] which forbids commercial use without permission. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Agree Yes, as crown copyright for the map expired in 1998. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 01:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

So it is public domain in both the US and NZ? Traumnovelle (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 05:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

1922 German photo

This photo of the philosopher Rudolf Carnap taken in 1922 while he was living in Germany does not have a known photographer (other photos in those archives have photographers explicitly noted). Would it qualify for Commons with a PD-anon-expired tag? Shapeyness (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

German copyright law essentially says that for pre-1995 works that if the photographer was ever known at some point (I'm paraphrasing User:Rosenzweig's words), the photograph cannot be considered anonymous. You could always locally host in on English Wikipedia (since it's PD in the US) until 2043 when PD-old-assumed kicks in. Abzeronow (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Abzeronow, do you know if the same kind of thing applies to Austria as I believe there are also some anonymous photos from after he went to the University of Vienna (after 1926). Shapeyness (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm less familiar with Austria's rules but I do know that pre-1932 Austrian photographs are PD in the US. Austria might be simply publication plus 70 years but research should be done to make sure photos are truly anonymous. Abzeronow (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of 1936 photo of US Senator

I have a portrait of a US Senator, it has a copyright notice of 1936 to a portrait studio. It is a photo he sent out to people because there is a standard "thank you for your support" message on it. Would this still be under copyright? I don't think it would fall under work of the US government, would it? Bubba73 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Copies of the portrait were probably published in 1936. The copyright notice would put the portrait under copyright until 1964. The portrait studio would need to renew the copyright with the Copyright Office in 1963, 1964, or 1965 to prevent the photograph from aging into the public domain {{PD-US-not renewed}}. See COM:HIRTLE. Glrx (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

How long would the copyright renewal be in effect (i.e. would it be out of effect now)? Would it be 28 years from 1964? It would be for 95 years if they renewed it. I have no way of knowing if they renewed the copyright - there is no more information. Bubba73 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Does the copyright notice have the name of the copyright owner? You can search in the "Artworks and photographs" sections for copyright renewals for th years 1963, 1964, and 1965 following links here. Ideally there would be an entry under the name. If we don't find any, it should be OK to upload -- just say who you searched for. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The copyright is by Jennings Studio. I did the search and didn't find it - thanks. Bubba73 (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried to upload it, but when it got to the field where it asks for "PD-US-not renewed", it showed some diagonal lines going through the field, it wouldn't accept it and I couldn't proceed. Bubba73 (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bubba73: "when it got to the field": can I assume "it" is the Upload Wizard? It's broken. See phab:T383415. Jmabel ! talk 02:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Anonymous photographer

Hi. If an anonymous photographer give his/her photo collection for another person and don't reveal identity until now, who can decide copyright of photo ? Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the country in which the photos were published, and if they were published. Would need more specifics if you want a more specific answer. Abzeronow (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

An anonymous photographer gave a collection for another photographer in the USA Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

When you say "for another person" do you mean that "other person" took the photos? This is a situation where you are going to have to be very specific to get meaningful answers. Dates would also help. E.g. "Person A, who is anonymous, took these photos between [date1] and [date2] and [published them anonymously in such-and-such year| never published them | whatever] etc." "Person A gave these photos to person B [with/without] assigning the copyright etc. …" - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Acutually, things are more complicated than that. I am mentioning to the N988VJ photo taken on 24 December 1968. Watermark show that it was taken by an anonymous photographer via Art Smit Roeters and Phil Brooks. This anonymous photographer gave it to Art Smit Roeters (who died in 2023) in a photographic slide transperancy collection by. Art Smit Roeters gave it to Phil Brooks. Since Art Smit Roeters passed away, I think that Phil Brooks holds copyright of the photo. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Possession of the physical collection means nothing about possession of the copyright. Unless the copyrights were explicitly passed, they would follow the bulk of the estate, not the specific bequest of the physical collection. - Jmabel ! talk 07:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Jmabel is right about that, physical ownership of photographs isn't the same as also possessing the copyright. Since that photograph was created in 1968, it can be hosted here in the public domain in 2089 (120 years after creation of the photograph by an unknown author since that's still earlier than its post-2003 publication online). Abzeronow (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

COM:Hirtle will help as date of publication is what is important. If these photos were published before 1930, they're PD. If they were published before 1978, they could be public domain by formalities but this would need to be checked. If they were created before 1978 but first published between 1978 and 2002, they are under copyright until 2048 or 95 years from publication/120 years from creation, whichever is greater. If unpublished or first published in 2003 or after, it would be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is lesser. Also I agree with Jmabel. Abzeronow (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Realidad Helicoide

Hi! I wanted to ask if this logo met the threshold of originality or if it was too simple to apply for copyright.[3] Many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

From which country is the logo? Different countries have different thresholds. Nakonana (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: From Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Might be a bit tricky to judge: COM:TOO Venezuela. Nakonana (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Many thanks <3 It's the first time that I see that section. I know that the logo of another group, Voto Joven, was considered too complex here. I'll wait for the comment of other users, but if there aren't problems I'll try proceeding with the upload. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Dustin Moskovitz Headshot.jpg

Can anyone confirm whether Asana, Inc. is the copyright holder of this image? The description implies that it was a headshot taken for the company, so it is probably owned by them. Qzekrom (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: The file's licensing was verified by COM:VRT. Is there are reason to think the VRT member who reveiwed the email that was sent in made a mistake? You could ask about it at COM:VRTN if you want, but VRT members can't really discuss the specifics of the emails VRT receives with anyone other than themselves or the sender of the email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm just curious as I'd like to make sure that I credit the correct copyright holder if needed when I use this work. Qzekrom (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The VRT verification happened back in 2012 (VRT was known as "OTRS" back then). It looks like someone tagged the file as a copyvio, but then the copyright holder email VRT in response. The VRT member who reviewed the file is no longer around, but they didn't make any changes to the file's description. If you're concerned about who to attribute, you can ask at VRTN and maybe a VRT member will tell you. You might also be able to get by by attributing Wikimedia Commons or by attributing both Asana, the uploader and the photographer. It possible the uploader and the subject of the photo are the same person, but VRT probably won't confirm that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Copyright notice on old US newspapers

I uploaded the image File:Charles B. Fisk working on an organ.png since the newspaper issue containing the image was published before 1977. I marked it as having Template:PD-US-no notice but now I am having doubts. As far as I can tell, the scanned newspaper(linked in description) does not display any form of copyright notice anywhere. But I was wondering if there might be a hidden copyright notice somewhere. I would appreciate if someone experienced with public domain newspapers can clarify. Thanks, Ca (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The law said that the notice should appear either upon the title page or upon the first page of text of each separate number, or under the title heading. In practice, many pages could be considered the "title page" or "first page of text", or the "title heading". In that link, the publisher information is at the bottom right of page six, which I think is one reasonable place for it. Or on the first page or masthead. In looking, I don't see one. The old Copyright Compendium[4], section 4.3.2, states the rules for periodicals at the time.

Be careful to only upload material originating in that newspaper. Material where this is likely just one of many newspapers to run (like API or UPI or syndicated stuff) may not lose copyright due to lack of notice in just this one newspaper. There is a copyright notice on a cartoon in there, so a contribution can have its own notice. But that one you uploaded seems fine, at first blush. U.S. newspapers (or any work) from before 1964 additionally had to be renewed even if they did have notice; you can look at UPenn's periodical renewal page to find out if they were. But that one seems fine to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight–I am glad because this image seems to be the only freely-licensed image I could find of Charles Fisk. Ca (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Template for expired copyright

If I'm uploading a image from a website whose copyright has expired (e.g. © 2011-2023), which template would I use for its licensing? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That just says that there are multiple copyrighted elements (or derivative works), some of which were copyrighted from 2011, and some from 2023, or somewhere in between. The US copyright term for a corporate work is 95 years from publication, so the older ones can be uploaded in the year 2107. For US works from more than 95 years ago, use {{PD-US-expired}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. I'll upload it next century then, assuming this site is still up. ;) Thanks for the help. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

sw:Faili:Klaus Barbie.jpg

I noticed this photo on sw.wikipedia and it was sourced to English Wikipedia and deleted in 2009. User:Magog the Ogre was so kind to check the original file page for information the original source but the result was a direct URL (link), and almost certainly the wrong author, then this Getty Images which appears to provide the wrong attribution. Magog also found a more reputable sources such as the Canadian Holocaust Museum. Since the photo is from 1930 per uk:Файл:Klaus Barbie September 1930.png it is now 94 years old so I wonder if it now be PD. For example {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. But I wonder if there are some good detectives out there who can find an author or more info. MGA73 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Getty credits the image to Gabriel Hackett. How do you know that this is incorrect? I have never heard of Gabriel Hackett before, have you heard of him?

Ukrainian Wikipedia claims that the photo is from 1930, but provides no source. Getty claims 1944 instead. The Canadian Holocaust Museum does not reveal when the photo was taken.

If the photo wasn't published before 1930, it is non-free in the United States as the copyright expires 95 years after publication. Whether it is free or unfree in the source country is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason I said attribution was wrong is because they list him as "staff" not photographer. --MGA73 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• German news website Deutsche Welle (DW) credits the photo to the "picture alliance / dpa" (dpa is the German Press Agency — Deutsche Presse-Agentur)[5]
• German newspaper Hessische/Niedersächsische Allgemeine (HNA) credits the Associated Press and claims that it is a 1943 photo, not 1930[6]
• Alam is crediting Pictorial Press Ltd [7] (I think we can ignore that)
• TopFoto credits itself (which we can probably also ignore) and claims that it's a 1938 photo[8]
• German news channel NTV credits "imago" (which we can probably ignore) and "United Archives International"[9] (from a German legal perspective, an archive or any other sort of organization cannot be a copyright holder; only a person can be). Imago itself credits United Archives International, claims it was taken around 1938, and that "this image can only be published in Germany, Switzerland and Austria" (for whatever reason)[10]
• Getty Images claims that it's a 1944 photo and that he's is wearing "army NCO uniform" (while the German sources say that it's a Wehrmacht uniform, and I'd side with them on this one due to the very Nazi-German looking badges on the uniform, but I'm no expert)

Whom do we believe?

Given that there are so many different entities that claim copyright for the photo, I'm tempted to think that it is likely PD (or generally assumed to be PD). Some of the sources like DW and the other German news outlets are usually reliable contentwise, but I don't see how an American Associated Press photographer could have taken this this photo of a Nazi in 1930-1944. I also don't see how a photographer of the Deutsche Presse-Agentur could have taken this photo because dpa was established after the war in 1949. And I don't know who or what "United Archives International" is supposed to be. Is it this company based in Cologne, Germany? The website doesn't seem to say when the company was established. There's no wiki article on it, and generally speaking, there are hardly any Google hits on this archive. But it looks like they are scanning / digitalizing physical photos, but not necessarily taking taking them. So, that archive's copyright claim is also not quite convincing from a German legal perspective where it is legally impossible for the photographer to reject or transfer their copyright to anyone else (they can only grant very generous using rights, but not copyright). Nakonana (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

1930? He was 17/18 at that point, so that is a "no". The Photo itself is somewhat famous and was evaluated by "Das Parlament" [11] some 20 years ago - the experts came to the conclusion, that it shows an army sergeant and has been taken between 1939-1945 and so - by circumstance - that it shows most likely not Barbie, also the resemblance is said to be staggering. Alexpl (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Well then this probably seals the discussion: if the photo was taken after 1930 then it's probably still copyrighted in the United States, if I'm not mistaken, and Commons can't host images that are still copyrighted in the US?

Also, interesting to see that so many German news outlets seemingly got it wrong. Nakonana (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Did some digging on Gabriel Hackett. Getty also has images from that time period on that topic area from someone named "G.D. Hackett" and since I couldn't find anything on "Gabriel Hackett" I tried "Gabriel D. Hackett" instead and found this Hungarian museum source. Going by this source Hackett also goes by the name "Hackett Dezső Gábor" where Gábor is the Hungarian form of Gabriel. The museum website also offers some biographical information on Hackett [12] which sounds quite promising as this guy has worked as a correspondent for several European news outlets / magazines (or similar stuff). Google translation of the short bio: "1923-26: József-Műegyetem, economics department - 1928: Genova, M. A. in humanities - Univ. de Paris (Sorbonne)1925-27: Italian correspondent of Világ, 1938-42: Paris correspondent of Pesti Hírlap, Mai Nap and Swiss L'Illustré. Founder and owner of the G. D. Hackett Studio and General Press Features press offices in New York". He was also working in France around WW2 as you can see, which may be relevant because Klaus Barbie is known for the crimes he committed in Lyon, France. However, if that's the correct Hackett, then the image would be still under copyright because he lived 1905-1990. Nakonana (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So to sum it up: Per the en:Military History Research Office (Germany) (which is cited at [13]), the photo does show some German army sergeant in the 1939 to 1945 period, but since Barbie never served in the regular army, it's not him. So probably out of scope as well as still copyrighted in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 17:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And btw, Wehrmacht is just the name for the German military forces at the time. Including army, navy and air force, but not including the SS. --Rosenzweig τ 17:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! So GDH were in France in 1938-42 so he could have taken a photo during the war. But not likely in 1944. But it seems strange that there are bigger versions of the photo out there sourced to someone else. And even if it is from that time we can't be sure that it really is Barbie. --MGA73 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That may well qualify for the Alien Property Exception to the URAA so it's not clear it's copyrighted in the US. But if it's not Barbie, not sure about scope. Unless we use it to help debug such usage. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

For debugging it's definitely useful given how widespread the misunderstanding is. Nakonana (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Heh, I meant debunk but must have gotten autocorrected :) Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would a random WW II era photo qualify for the Alien Property Exception? --Rosenzweig τ 16:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: I am assuming this was a German government photo. Nominally, the U.S. copyright to pretty much any German photograph would have nominally been "owned" by the Alien Property Custodian, since all copyrights were confiscated. The rule does say "owned or administered" so it may not have required copies actually being processed through that office (those would be "administered"). If the copyright of any such photograph would still owned by a government, it would arguably qualify for that exception. (The main goal of that exception was to prevent Nazi stuff from being re-copyrighted, and suppressed under copyright grounds.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence for this being a "government photo". Not every photo showing German soldiers in uniform was taken by official/state photographers. --Rosenzweig τ 13:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. It looks like a group military portrait, and the years were narrowed down to 1939 to 1945, so it would have been during the war. On the other hand, per policy a deletion under the URAA alone generally needs to show at least a high likelihood of being restored. If there is a good chance this is a military photo, it muddies those waters. It certainly appears to be treated as public domain by the rest of the world. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

But that would not make it necessarily public domain in Germany, would it? And Commons follows copyright rules in the US and the country of origin.

Does Alien Property Custodian only apply to photos or also other types of media? Nakonana (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Just read the wiki page on Alien Property Custodian and it confirms my assumption. For example, the wiki article states that APC owned the copyright for Hitler's book Mein Kampf. However, that copyright ownership was only valid for book sales in the US. In Germany, on the other hand, the copyright for the book was held by Bavaria and it was copyright protected until 31 December 2015. Nakonana (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The copyright for Mein Kampf is weird. In the United States, it somehow entered the public domain. In Germany, the copyright was confiscated and then somehow it later ended up being owned by the state of Bavaria. In Sweden, the supreme court ruled, when Bavaria sued a Swedish publisher decades ago, that confiscation wasn't a valid method to transfer copyright, and so Bavaria wasn't the copyright holder in Sweden; someone unknown was the copyright holder instead. The copyright has since expired in both Germany and Sweden. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It entered the U.S. public domain either by lack of notice, or when German copyrights were seized during World War II, or lack of renewal. Correct thought that it was only the copyright inside the U.S. that could be affected by that. However, it is precisely that copyright which could prevent URAA restoration via the APC exception. The UK similarly extinguished German copyrights in that country during the war, and similarly later returned any private copyrights to their original owners (though not government works). If the German copyright for this is in significant doubt, then that is a reason to delete. If the URAA is the only reason, I'm not sure that alone rises to a significant doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If government work when will copyright expire then? After 70 years? And from when? Death of the supreme leader Hitler? Or the date of the photograph? Or the date of the photographer (if known)? --MGA73 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In Germany? If the name of the photographer is known, 70 years after they died. Otherwise, 70 years after making available to the public (or creation if that was not done within 70 years). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Two copyright notices

The new version of the website of the Parliament of Moldova (https://parlament.md/) has two copyright notices in the footer:

• Parlamentul Republicii Moldova © 2025 – transl. "Parliament of the Republic of Moldova © 2025"
• ©Toate materialele de pe acest site sunt disponibile sub licența Atribuire - Partajare în Condiții Identice 4.0 Internațional (CC BY-SA 4.0). – transl. "All materials on this site are available under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license."

Without any other context, would it be ok to upload materials from this website to Commons?

Now for the context: this version has recently been launched to replace the old site – now hosted (for a while) at https://old.parlament.md. There is one copyright notice on that version and it's unambiguous:

• ©Toate materialele de pe acest site sunt disponibile sub licența Atribuire - Partajare în Condiții Identice 4.0 Internațional (CC BY-SA 4.0).

It served the basis to create {{Parlament.md}} here on Commons. To me it's clear that the Parliament intends to continue publishing their materials under CC-BY-SA-4.0. I want to import some useful photos from parlament.md (the new version) and I'd rather confirm here, now, that they won't be deleted because of this technicality. Gikü (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand that as a claim of copyright, and then releasing their copyrighted contents (which remain copyrighted even if licensed) under the CCBYSA terms. Bedivere (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You should probably find the small print somewhere on the website, and read it carefully. Russia has ministry websites that also have a notice that claims the website's contents are published under a Creative Commons license, however, in the small print or terms of service of the website it says that only the texts of the website are licensed as CC — images are explicitly not licensed as Creative Commons and thus can't be uploaded here. The parliament of Moldova might have a similar notice somewhere on the website. Nakonana (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Thanks for pointing this out. I am unable to find a page detailing copyright matters, on both the new and the old versions. Gikü (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good! Nakonana (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

More generally: you can only offer a CC license on materials where you own the copyright. So this is simply normal. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

In general, sign © (in combination © Name YYYY) and CC-license do not contradict each other. Former one designates copyrightholder and year of publication. Later one designates rules/terms of use.
At the same time, if combination © Name YYYY is accompanied with phrase "en:All rights reserved", then that complex combination and CC-license contradict each other - because CC-license uses conception Some rights reserved. Alex Spade (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" does not contradict either. That is basically the same thing as a copyright notice (but under the Buenos Aires Convention). Similarly, you had to reserve the rights in order to license them later. The CC licenses used that as a pun with the phrase "Some rights reserved" but it doesn't actually mean something isn't licensed as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It is better to qualify the terms in these cases (All rights reserved, or in Russian Все права защищены) for post-Soviet states, especially for Russia. The practice of Ru-Wiki shows, that cc-license had been withdrawn after qualifying request to copyrightholder in several cases. Alex Spade (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You needed a phrase like "all rights reserved" to preserve copyright under the Buenos Aires Convention. You needed a copyright notice to preserve copyright in the U.S. (and later the Universal Copyright Convention). Eventually, the habit was to use both of them together. It long predated Creative Commons and has no bearing on whether a license exists or not. But yes as always, authors should be aware of what a free license actually entails. If they were confused on the rights they were licensing, they should be given a chance to pull the CC license back. A government work and license though like the one in question, would be using that phrase in the long-understood meaning, and does not invalidate a CC license where they would be well aware of the full meaning. Amateur photographers, it's good to double-check, sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

USSR and post-Soviet states were not members of the Buenos Aires Convention (Panamerican treaty). For USSR and post-Soviet states the phrase All rights reserved / Все права защищены is short form (generalization) for phrases like Все права защищены. Использование допускается только с разрешения (All rights reserved. Use is allowed with permission only). Alex Spade (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what to do

I have uploaded an image from 1994 and it is from a book. The photographer is mentioned, and I have put the name of the photographer and referenced the book in the image page. I don't know if the photographer is alive, nor if the photographer has an email. Can someone help me understand why it is not accepted and what I can do to make it right? CosXZ (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You can do nothing, because there is nothing to do to get this image acceptable on Commons. Save for getting the permission from the actual photographer. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

After having taken a look at your talk page, CosXZ, I have to press the issue that you imperatively have to familiarize yourself with the concepts of copyrights, intellectual property and licenses. Read and understand Commons:Licensing, COM:NOT, COM:NETCOPYVIO and the remainder of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. If you do not understand or do not / can not comply with these elementary policies, you are, to put it bluntly, simply not fit for this project where respecting intellectual property rights is eminently important. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of a slightly edited photo of a 13th-century parchment

Question, good folk of the Commons. Does the use of an editing software to highlight a part of text on this image of a 13th-century parchment give copyright over the image to the person who edited it, or would it still be appropriate to upload a cropped version of the photo with the only the parchment (with the highlighted part) visible? Surtsicna (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: There is no way that drawing an orange rectangle gives you a copyright. However, the beads (or whatever they are) around the edges make the photo as is stands copyrightable; to avoid copyright, you'd have to crop those out. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I have uploaded it: File:Henry Symeonis as a witness.jpg. Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I've retouched that to try to minimize the highlighting. If you prefer the way you had it, please feel free to revert me. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Canadian Crown Copyright and public domain releases are worldwide

As part of a recent FA over on en.wiki, I learned that in order to claim PD status on most works, one has to have a PD marker for the original country and one for the US as well. In this particular case I was using a wartime Canadian photo and it did not have a US PD disclaimer so it could not be used.

In contrast, UK Crown Copyright materials that have fallen into the public domain are considered to be in the public domain worldwide, so no separate US release is needed. To solve my FA problem I changed the image to a very similar one from the UK.

Looking into this, I see that the difference in the UK case is ultimately because of a single email that was sent to the Commons where the Crown stated that the release was worldwide.

I wrote to the Canadian equivalent at Libraries and Archives Canada, and have received confirmation that the rule is the same in Canada as in the UK - Crown Copyright applies worldwide and those CC materials that have fallen in PD are also considered PD worldwide:

Please note that, like the UK, we consider our terms of use for Government of Canada materials to be worldwide

I would like to get the Canadian CC tag updated to reflect this. I am not sure where to start. Can someone tell me who I should forward the email to and how to get the tag updated?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz The {{PD-Canada-Crown}} template mentions that a given work is Public Domain worldwide. This tag should be used for Canadian Crown works instead of {{PD-Canada}}. PascalHD (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Sound Recordings

Hello! I've been doing a lot of research into sound recordings, and this year in particular I started to run into diverging recording and release dates relating to sound recordings. I think we need to be more diligent when uploading recordings, myself included, since the two things can often not line up with one another.

On this matter, I was wondering if there was some type of a Template we can create to utilize when uploading sound recordings similar to books/art. In it we can emphasize both the recorded date and the release date. I'm not as familiar with utilizing these templates in the first place since they don't pair well with the Upload Wizard. However, I'd be glad to learn since I am serious about having well documented sound recordings.

Also of note, are we able to do any cleaning up of the categories related to sound recordings? I know we have the Category:Audio files that we can use. And I have done some work with pre-1925 categories for the by-year sorting. I'm just curious if there is more we should do since these copyrighted sound recordings are distinctive from audio files.

Best, SDudley (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

These are incredibly complex things, and both times also tend to be VERY badly documented at the same time. Additionally, the flowcharts, especially when extrapolated to international situations get very complex and in many cases not even definable. The potential for legal trouble, while present, is still pretty low as long as we are responsive to people warning us about issues.

We generally assume that creation and publication are pretty close to eachother (for all media). Where this is not the case, both dates can be recorded in the date field. In the case of a publication date, you can use {{Published on}}. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I am aware they are not well documented. I am advocating for people to locate publication dates and not rely solely on recording dates since the publication date governs the copyright status. I still think it is important to have the recording date information available since it can showcase the discrepancies between publication and recording for people. By utilizing said template it might encourage people to thus look things up.

And yes the release is often close, but if something is recorded in December of a year it is likely seeing a release a few months later in a new year. Thus giving us a whole year wait for its public domain status.

In general, I think we are in agreement on matters, just going about it differently. SDudley (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Logo Inverter Linear (LG)

Buenas se puede publicar el logo de Inverter Linear como este, LG Corporation fue creado en Corea del Sur (si es simple se puede publicar?) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

La enlace no me da nada. Es el logo n la parte superior izquierda de https://www.lg.com/levant_en, o otro? - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:este (al lado que dice "10 years warranty"). AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No veo nada de "10 years warranty". Claramente, no aparece lo mismo aquí en los EEUU. ¿Quizás https://www.lg.com/lg5-common-gp/images/common/header/logo-b2c.jpg?- Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: este?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Es una página con varios logos de LG, inter alia. Otra vez: ¿https://www.lg.com/lg5-common-gp/images/common/header/logo-b2c.jpg o no? Si no, dame una enlace a una imágen del logo, no una página compleja. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Aqui está https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/I3oAAOSw3ZtcvigE/s-l1200.jpg AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Claramente, bajo del umbral de originalidad en cualquier páis. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:LG fue creado en Corea del Sur. AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Como he dicho, claramente bajo del umbral de originalidad. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Ok,gracias AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Recorte prensa antiguo

Hola,

Si sois tan amables, ¿puedo subir libremente un recorte antiguo de prensa (de los años 30)?

Gracias. Vengron (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vengron: Necesita más información para formar una respuesta. ¿Qué país? ¿Quién es el autor, y cuando murió? ¿Puede proporcionarnos un enlace a una copia en línea? - Jmabel ! talk 21:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Muchas gracias por la respuesta. Es un recorte de prensa (de España, de los años 30) pero no figura ni el nombre del periódico ni el autor. El enlace es el siguiente: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_jkiVPVRUMgWfSRiJ3zNC7u5xVaMV6FG/view?usp=sharing Vengron (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vengron: No puedo acceder a esa página. No es pública. Pero lo probable es que no podemos acceptarlo. En España, para una obra colectiva, los derechos del autor duran 70 años (para una obra individual, 70 años después de su muerte). En 1996, ere un tratado (URAA) en el que los Estados Unidos concedió a las obras españolas entonces protegidas por derechos de autor (y a las de muchos otros países) protección como si hubieran sido publicadas en Estados Unidos y hubieran cumplido con todas las leyes estadounidenses para preservar sus derechos. (Espero que la frase previa es clara; acercanmos a los límites de mi castellano.) En el EEUU, los derechos duran 95 años, calculando de la fecha de publicación. Ahora podemos acceptar obras de 1929, la próxima año será 1930, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

What if CC BY became "public domain" in Sweden or Norway?

In 2020, I showed photos by Stig Eldö in a German forum. At the time, the images were available for download under CC BY SA 3.0 at digitaltmuseum.se. Now they are "public domain" there, but according to Swedish regulations. Example: https://digitaltmuseum.org/021018054865/italienska-statsjarnvagen-fs-691-010 I would like to upload these and also pictures from Germany to the commons. There are some photos by Stig Eldö there, but under different licenses, namely cc-by-sa-4.0, cc-zero and PDMark-owner. Which would be a suitable license? OhneEisen (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• The CC-PD mark is probably used for anything where the copyright is expected to have expired in Sweden, such as {{PD-Sweden-photo}} and {{PD-old-70}}. It should probably not be assumed to be a licence.

If a file is in the public domain in Sweden, they might not bother with adding a licence for the photo as it won't make a difference in Sweden and they don't realise that other countries use different copyright terms. It could also be that they don't have the rights to license the image in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the life dates of Stig Eldö, but given the date of some of his photographs, I assume he died less than 70 years ago. The example is a photograph that is older than 50 years, so I assume that digitalmuseum.se thinks this is a case of {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. Hard to say why they changed from CC-BY-SA though; the example image is a 1953 photo, so it's not a case of a photo that just became old enough. In the latter case, it would be the most logical explanation - and in that case, I would keep the CC-BY-SA license additionally for countries where PD-Sweden-photo doesn't work. Why don't you just ask them directly? Maybe they have the rights, first decided on a CC-BY-SA and then opted for a wider CC-PD mark because they think the photos aren't copyrightable at all. Gestumblindi (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

File:TrumpPortrait.jpg

Ever since this hit Twitter earlier today and has been floating around, people have been requesting it to be added to the page on enwiki. I have concerns that this may not qualify for PD-us-gov because the photographer does not appear to be an employee of the US Government. Finding his Twitter he references himself as "Chief Photographer, President-Elect Donald J. Trump". What I am not sure about is whether it being included in the official invitation makes it public domain or not, and if it is public domain, whether the current tagging and source are sufficient or they need more detail. Thanks in advance. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that this has also been uploaded in various parts as the following files:

• File:Donald Trump 2025 inaugural potrait.png
• File:TrumpPortrait (cropped).jpg
• File:Donald J. Trump, President-elect of the United States.jpg added Berchanhimez (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg added Berchanhimez (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

And possibly more (I will update this list if/as I notice more). Berchanhimez (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have the same confusion. And Donald Trump is to be officially inaugurated on 20 January, so I assume he and his team should not be official employees of the US government until then? (and like Berchanhimez, the photographer does not appear to be an employee of the US government. This made the use of the PD-us-gov tag unclear). I'm not sure, I'm requesting further discussion from the community, thank you. Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 07:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It may help anyone to know that the consensus items about the Trump article on the talk page refer to "temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait" - this is referring to in 2017. I tried to pop a few search terms into the deletion request archive search to see if I could find any DRs regarding those photos... but I came up short. If anyone remembers any specifics those discussions that may help. There is a link to the REFUND request, but all that gives me is that there was a long back and forth about those pictures in OTRS. Berchanhimez (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Deletion request was started by User:Iming at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg - thanks. I've started compiling the other images there rather than here to keep them centralized. Berchanhimez (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Metawin Opas-iamkajorn at HOWE AWARDS 2024.jpg

I'm looking for opinions on the licensing of File:Metawin Opas-iamkajorn at HOWE AWARDS 2024.jpg. It's possible that it's the uploader's "own work", but it looks professionally taken and this actor seems quite popular (lots of photos available online); so, it's just as possible it's not. There's no real EXIF data to speak of and no source provided that aids in license verification. Is it OK to give the uploader the benefit of doubt here or should VRT verification be required? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say, this image is most likely a COM:NETCOPYVIO. If you look into the lights reflections on the eyes of the actor, you see at least 3 different lighting sources, one of these being akin to a softbox. That points towards a studio shot. But a photostudio is IMHO unlikely to use the Android version of Adobe Lightroom, it would either be Windows of Mac, and more likely straight Photoshop. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Licencing clarification

Hi. I would like to upload five videos published by the Fargo Police Department (Fargo, North Dakota), sourced from here: The City of Fargo - News Detail. I inquired by email to ask if these videos are "public domain", to which I got the response: "I'm sorry this was missed, but yes. These videos are public."

Would the appropriate licence be CC0 1.0 Universal? Macxcxz (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The following is intended only as a partial answer.

To be CC-0 means that license has explicitly been granted by the copyright-holder. That is not the case here.

"These videos are public" does not mean they are in the public domain. The contents of a newspaper are "public", but they are still copyrighted, typically with all rights reserved.

Unless we have an argument to make that those videos are inherently in the public domain, we would need an explicit public domain dedication of some sort, either on their website or via VRT. I personally don't know what Commons current understanding on that might be for bodycam footage; it is not a clearcut matter. Someone else here may know more. You might find https://www.vondranlegal.com/copyright-law-and-bodycam-video of interest. I don't know anything specific about North Dakota policies. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

Commons:Freedom of panorama, Proposal for abolish acceptance has been raised on the discussion page. I am looking forward to receiving various opinions on this matter.--Y.haruo (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)