Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

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.

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


On Italian FOP - cases and statusEdit

It seems to me that there are discrepancies regarding Italian FOP. Despite the accepted consensus that there is no freedom of panorama of any sort in Italy, the case I started, Commons:Deletion requests/File:2013-06-15 Roma Stazione FS Tiburtina.jpg, was closed as kept because the closing admin claimed the station lacked creativity and that there is a purported list of protected buildings in Italy by MiBAC. This is a stark contrast to an older case page, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Roma Tiburtina train station. It seems analogous to the case of Rome's Jubilee Church, in which the relevant case pages were variously closed as either deleted or kept. An older DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chiesa dio padre misericordioso roma.JPG, was closed as deleted, while the newer Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chiesa di Dio Padre Misericordioso was closed as kept. This issue even extended to the undeletion requests (where my attempt to restore the deleted Jubilee Church photo failed). Hence I see a lot of discrepancies surrounding the Italian FOP cases, and more so, the Italian FOP situation. I am tempted to restart the deletion request for Tiburtina Station (as I doubt the building as a "protected work by virtue of MiBAC"; the protected work status is supposedly for public domain works anyway according to COM:FOP Italy), but I will leave that nomination to other users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Please don't restart recently closed DRs! It could be seen as an edit war. In Italy the ToO is very high, meaning that a work, in order to be copyrightable, has to clearly show some creative aspects (this is aplied to photography, for instance, where "simple photographs" have a limited protection). Italian copyright law on architectural works protects the blueprints, of course, but it is not clear how it applies on the representation of the exterior of a building by a mean different from architecture (e.g. painting of photography). The Ministry explicitly protects only the architecture, in the sense that a building in the protected list (which is published and maintained regularly) cannot be modified without a permission, because it is considered important artistic character. All the other buildings can be altered without permission, simply because their aspect is not protected.
In Italy FOP is strict about artworks (e.g. statues), but there are no court cases about architecture. Adopting the list of protected modern buildings from the Ministry is the only official way to consider a building as architecturally creative, all other forms of judging are purely subjective (e.g. an admin's advice). I can understand that this point of view is very close to the ouput we have from the institutions on the matter, but, again, is the only rational way to judge an architectural work in Italy. (for a more detailed review on the matter - a work in progress - you can read this essay) --Ruthven (msg) 10:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ruthven: are there any legal or official documents and/or sources or any other material that state there is de facto FOP in Italy for buildings? (This seems analogous to the Argentine FOP in which even their copyright law has no FOP provisions but a scholarly work of an attorney and legal resources there confirmed the de facto existence of Argentine FOP for buildings only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Whether someting is creative or not creative is the main point: if a buliding is architecturally creative, it is in the important buildings list of the Ministry of Culture and it is protected; if it's not in the list, it is not protected because it is not considered creative. For the same principle, if a photograph is not creative, and it is only a documentation of reality, it is protected by law only for 20 years, and afterwards it is PD. --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: As far as I know, the only official pronunciation by the Italian government about panorama freedom is this (we have it on Wikisource!). It was a 2008 parliamentary question. The most important sentence says: "In Italy, since there is no specific discipline, it must be considered lawful and therefore possible to freely photograph all the visible works, from the new building of the Ara Pacis to the Colosseum, for any purpose, including commercial, unless, by modifying or altering the subject, you do not come to offend its decorum and the values it expresses." The following text of the same document suggests (IMHO) that you can upload an image with a free license into Commons and use it on Wikimedia projects, but the eventual reuser of the same images in a differents commercial context (such as, a commercial book printed in a high number of copies) will be required to pay. This does not invalidate the free license of the photo, because it doesn't refer to copyright, but other different laws about the heritage (laws usually applied to the preservation of ancient, non-copyrighted national heritage). --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Marco Chemello (WMIT): it seems to be a positive finding. Are there any more documents or any similar writings? This may mean that Italy has de facto FOP for buildings, if the restrictions indicated are COM:Non-copyright restrictions (because as you say even p.d. works like Colosseum, and I assume the Leaning Tower and the Renaissance-era cathedrals of Florence and Venice have restrictions on commercial use on cultural heritage grounds, similar to MiBAC case). I can see the sister of Argentine FOP in Europe, the Italian FOP (if ever), because even Argentina has no FOP provisions, but an official and legal interpretation has made FOP for architecture in Argentina possible. Pinging @Jeff G., Liuxinyu970226, Clindberg: for this important finding by Marco Chemello :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Marco Chemello (WMIT), JWilz12345: This makes photos of protected ALL Italian architecture unfree for use in derogatory commercial derivative works, meaning that we can't host them.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: No, of course. ;) It means that SOME kinds of commercial use of SOME images outside Wikimedia projects may require IN SOME CASES a further authorization (or in other cases a simple and free communication), not that ALL commercial uses are forbidden. It may sound strange, but this does not impact on the Creative Commons License, as the legal code of the license includes explicitly this possibility. In other terms, Wikimedia users are safe. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Marco Chemello (WMIT): For argument's sake, let's say I were in the business of digging steel & concrete foundation posts that went all the way down to bedrock, starting in the sands of Italy. I saw a 60 Minutes piece that mentioned such a company in California. Would I be legally allowed to advertise it with a photo of the leaning tower of Pisa and an overlay of text reading the Italian equivalent of "Don't let this happen to your building, use Jeff's Bedrock Foundation Posts"? What if my company expanded outside Italy?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The question is more on the "moral" side (like in the French copyright law for instance, or in the Korda's case, or for the moral rights in the Creative Commons licenses). You can use the leaning tower of Pisa to advertise your company in that way (to be leaning is not an insult), but you probably cannot do it if you use the image of Pisa to promote/illustrate robbery (which is amoral).
@JWilz12345: This kind of no-copyright protection is already present and used here on Commons for Italian artworks, e.g. {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}, where commercial publications in Italy of Italian heritage need a permission from the Ministry. For the rest, I agree that Italy has de facto FOP for those utilitarian buildings that are not recognized as deserving special protection from the Ministry (but no for artworks in the public space, as they are creative work almost by definition). Ruthven (msg) 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ruthven: in your sense, the restrictions are related to moral rights (non-copyright matter). Inferring from you and Marco Chemello (WMIT)'s inputs, there may be de facto FOP in Italy for buildings, but for those with special architecture a tag {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} is to be used. Then, for all other architecture (those with no creative properties), full de facto FOP? Note that various Italian architecture include Colosseum and Leaning Tower of Pisa (those that are supposed to be public domain), and Jubilee Church of Rome, Tiburtina Station, and Torre Garibaldi (a notable Milan skyscraper). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Quite right. The fact is that artworks (architectural works included) cannot be used in Italy in such a way that their use might result as defamatory or however as a detriment to the honour and reputation of the work and/or the author. This is a general rule, it also regards any correctly licensed work. Yes, the reason for this is the protection granted to the moral rights, which are independent from the economical ones, live a completely autonomous life and - expressly - cannot be extinguished (oddly enough, not even in the case the author in person would withdraw himself from them).
The best known case was about Michelangelo's David (this one) which was used to advertise weapons, and for some poorly tasted popular shots (Katy Perry); we unsuccessfully discussed this subject with the Minister's staff and the Director of the Accademia that hosts the statue, in Rome, at Villa Giulia, in a 2017 WLM event. As said, this has nothing to do with the "ordinary" management of economical rights, and literally any work, even if its author releases it in CC0, is subject to the same limitation.
Apart from this, Ruthven is right and correct in describing how it goes, I would only add that we directly confronted about FOP with Italian MPs in 2015, in a public debate at the Parliament (there we were): the outcome was that most political parties soon after ordered their respective Italian Euro-MPs to actually vote in favour of our indications in the first moves of what would have become the European copyright battle. Within that Roman discussion, no one could provide us reasonable counter-arguments about FOP per se. So FOP in Italy essentially is limited only by a debatable provision that requires the Ministry's authorization only for those architectural works which are specially protected (and expressely listed as such).
I do believe that we should soon start considering a new discussion with the Italian institutions about what is in the list, and the same reasons for a list; in the meanwhile, apart from the list, no rights seem to be hit and rules infringed for all those uses that don't constitute an insult to the author or the work. It's not our job to prevent final users from insulting; rather, our mission is to sell pillows, which is a fully legitimate commerce even if there is a high probability that someone sooner or later will be suffocated with one of our pillows. We sell good stuff, indeed, . Let's respect the list, now, but let's also re-organize our public proposals. --g (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gianfranco: if I may interpret you (correct me if I'm wrong), per Ruthven and Marco Chemello's inputs, there is de facto FOP for Italian architecture (analogous to Argentine FOP for buildings which was made possible by legal or official interpretation despite having no FOP in their copyright law whatsoever), and those buildings on the list should be tagged with {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} (it is irrelevant if it is the millennia-old Colosseum that is supposed to be public domain, or the decade-old Jubilee Church), while all other buildings regular license tags apply (apart from, {{FoP-Italy}}[?]). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Almost right. All the buildings protected by the MiBAC ministry should have the template (which supersedes {{Soprintendenza}}). On one side you have historical architectural heritage buildings for which the template was created (e.g. Tower of Pisa, Colosseum), on the other side you have the recent buildings for which the architect's rights could still hold, but which protection is recognized only if they have "important artistic character" (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, art. 11 co. 1.e). This recognition is made through the Directorate-General for Contemporary Art and Architecture and Urban Peripheries (DGAAP), a commission that evaluates the requests for protection and publishes the updated list of protected contemporary architecture. For these buildings on the list, we applied so far the FOP on Commons by deleting the photos. All the other Italian contemporary buildings are not recognized for special protection by the MiBAC. --Ruthven (msg) 06:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ruthven: for some reason the link you provided doesn't work (is it dead link or was it just my phone's browser?) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Try open it from laptop or PC, it works for me. Unfortunately, the motivations on the list are in Italian, but the list is what matters here, and it's easily readable. FWIW, I can totally confirm Ruthven's and Gianfranco's positions - full disclosure: I was on WMIT's board from 2014 to 2017, and from 2018 on I'm taking care of Wiki Loves Monuments Italy, so I was there when we were bargaining with the Ministry about FOP. Sannita (WMIT) (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Sannita (WMIT): I have no laptop or PC. Sorry. And too bad I cannot read Italian :-( BTW, two unrelated questions: is FOP one of the priorities of Wikimedia Italy? And are there any plans in the Italian government to introduce explicit FOP provision in your country's copyright law (at least for buildings only)? While Marco Chemello (WMIT)'s finding (a statement during the parliamentary discourse) may be a welcoming development (and may change Italy's standing here in Commons from "red countries" to "yellow countries", analogous to Argentine FOP), I find better if there's an explicit provision in your copyright law. Personally, I pity the no FOP status of Italy (under Wikimedia Commons' interpretation) whenever I look this FOP world map, and causes me to ponder when will FOP be officially introduced in this famous and culturally-rich country (at least for buildings only, if outdoor 3D works like sculptures is not yet OK for the country's government officials and relevant agencies). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Blackcat, JWilz12345, Ruthven: Note that there's also {{WLM-Italy-disclaimer}} available, which isn't mentioned in the COM:FOP Italy section, and even undocumented. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Never seen it! :) But I can understand what it is/means. Made by Sannita (WMIT), it should be used for those works that have a permission for WML, so to avoid counterproductive DRs (as it often happens). The main issue here is that such permissions are hosted and made available by WMI (the Italian chapter), and not by OTRS/Znuny. New users are often confused in not seeing the usual "Permission" template. Ruthven (msg) 09:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that reformulating the FOP Italy section on the model of the Argentinian one is a really good solution. --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I'm leaning towards considering Italy as having de facto FOP for buildings only (analogous to Argentine FOP). However, more insights may be needed from several users: @A1Cafel, Ankry, Yann, Nat, Ox1997cow, David Wadie Fisher-Freberg, Aymatth2:. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Mention also @MGA73, Taivo: for some opinion about the outcome of the discussion, that Italy has de facto FOP for buildings only, as much as Argentina has de facto FOP for buildings (but for Italy, through a 2008 statement from the parliament, which I mentioned again below after being mentioned by Wikimedia Italy's User:Marco Chemello above). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I am fine with JWilz12345's proposition. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Had you read Italian copyright rules? Read it carefully and judge whether or not FoP. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: for some reason your mentioning didn't work (again? ☹) . Anyway, Italy's copyright law has no mention of FOP whatsoever, but a recent finding by Marco Chemello (WMIT) of Wikimedia Italy has generated a major breakthrough. This one, a 2008 official pronouncement from the Italian parliament, includes a statement that reads (translated by Italian Wikipedians) "In Italy, since there is no specific discipline, it must be considered lawful and therefore possible to freely photograph all the visible works, from the new building of the Ara Pacis to the Colosseum, for any purpose, including commercial, unless, by modifying or altering the subject, you do not come to offend its decorum and the values it expresses." The specific "restriction" here, according to Italian Wikipedians who commented here, is a form of restriction of moral rights which even exists in various public domain works in Europe and in the Americas (like the Korda's case from Cuba), which is not related to copyright whatsoever. Accordingly, as long as moral rights are respected when making modifications of such images, it is free to photograph Italian buildings from ancient to modern ones, for any purposes, including commercial purposes. The same moral rights restrictions exist for all public domain architecture of Italy, which also includes all Vatican buildings (St. Peter's Basilica, Sistine Chapel, etc..) I see this de facto Italian FOP similar to the Argentine FOP. Argentina too has no FOP provision in their copyright law, but a published legal study from the 1990s state that it is free to photograph buildings there for any intents, without the need to seek permission. I find both Argentine and Italian FOP situation for architecture very similar to each other. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: If Italian FoP is applied for buildings only, we will make {{FoP-Italy}}. And {{NoFoP-Italy}} will be changed like {{NoFoP-Japan}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: Hi, maybe you should read again the whole discussion, because it is the other way around, and nothing to do with {{NoFoP-Japan}}. We should make a template on the model of {{FoP-Argentina}} wrt recent buildings, specifying that there is a local protection for cultural heritage artistic works (and no FoP for artworks). The latter is is already taken care by {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}. Ruthven (msg) 08:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I think Ox1997cow meant that if the {{FoP-Italy}} is made (on model to Argentine FoP), the {{NoFoP-Italy}} will might be transformed into a category only template just like Japan's no FoP template. Or, will it be retained as a file namespace template for non-architecture artworks, similar to Russia's no FoP template? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Yes. I told about that. There is currently a discussion on {{NoFoP-Russia}}. It would be good to refer to it together. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Through some examples, I think Italy has very high bar on threshold of originality, in which even complex buildings are not copyrighted. However, I'm not sure if it's related to FOP. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Section breakEdit

I separated this into another subsection as this has become too long. With inputs above about the high bar of TOO in Italy, perhaps it can be accepted that Italy has a high bar of TOO for architecture. COM:FOP Italy may need to be modified. But it does not in any way change Italy's FOP status (my answer to Ox1997cow's input.

  • For the FOP, however, after translating the whole Parliamentary reply just recently, it appears it doesn't suit Commons' conditions, because of one strange and disappointing thing (see the quote and the Google translated version in the collapsible box).
Parliamentary reply, original Italian

OGGETTO: Interrogazione parlamentare n. 4-05031

In merito all’opportunità di introdurre nel nostro ordinamento giuridico l’istituto del "panorama freedom" per consentire ai gestori di siti internet privati la pubblicazione di immagini di opere d’arte contemporanee e non, al fine di favorire ed accrescere in Italia ed all’estero la conoscenza del nostro patrimonio culturale, occorre procedere ad alcune precisazioni preliminari.

Pur non essendo espressamente disciplinata nel nostro ordinamento, la libertà di panorama ossia il diritto spettante a chiunque di fotografare soggetti visibili, in particolare monumenti ed opere dell’architettura contemporanea, è riconosciuta in Italia per il noto principio secondo il quale il comportamento che non è vietato da una norma deve considerarsi lecito.

In altre legislazioni, invece, tale diritto è disciplinato diversamente a seconda dell’interesse che si ritiene di tutelare prevalentemente (si pensi, ad esempio, alla legislazione belga ed a quella olandese che consentono di fotografare liberamente solo gli edifici mentre è necessaria la richiesta di un permesso per le sculture ove costituiscano il soggetto principale della fotografia; oppure a quella tedesca secondo cui è possibile invece fotografare anche le sculture pubblicamente visibili per usi commerciali; infine a quella statunitense che, similmente a quella italiana consente di poter utilizzare le fotografie scattate in luoghi pubblici o aperti al pubblico per qualunque scopo, salvo che si tratti di opere d’arte non stabilmente installate in un luogo pubblico poiché in tal caso è necessaria l’autorizzazione del titolare).

In Italia, non essendo prevista una disciplina specifica, deve ritenersi lecito e quindi possibile fotografare liberamente tutte le opere visibili, dal nuovo edificio dell’Ara Pacis al Colosseo, per qualunque scopo anche commerciale salvo che, modificando o alterando il soggetto, non si arrivi ad offenderne il decoro ed i valori che esso esprime.

Per quanto attiene alla tematica del pagamento dei diritti agli autori delle opere contemporanee, si evidenzia che l’art. 2 della legge 9 gennaio 2008, n. 2 (in G.U. serie generale n. 21 del 25 gennaio 2008) ha modificato l’articolo 70 della legge sul diritto d’autore ampliando il regime delle esenzioni. In particolare, è consentita la libera pubblicazione attraverso la rete internet, a titolo gratuito, di immagini e musiche a bassa risoluzione o degradate, per uso didattico o scientifico e solo nel caso in cui tale utilizzo non sia a scopo di lucro.

Pertanto, ove il soggetto fotografato fosse un’ opera di autore vivente, l’utilizzo non potrà avvenire che nei limiti anzidetti. Il problema chiaramente non riguarda le opere considerate beni culturali, ossia aventi più di cinquant’anni e di interesse culturale che si trovano in consegna nei musei o negli altri luoghi della cultura, le quali possono essere riprodotte ai sensi e con i limiti previsti dagli art. 107 e 108 del Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio (autorizzazione da parte dell’amministrazione consegnataria e pagamento di un canone, salvo che la riproduzione non sia chiesta per scopi personali o didattici e non commerciali).

IL SOTTOSEGRETARIO DI STATO

On. Danielle Mazzonis.

Translated (rough translation via Google Translate)

SUBJECT: Parliamentary Question no. 4-05031

Regarding the opportunity to introduce the "panorama freedom" institution in our legal system to allow the managers of private websites to publish images of contemporary and non-contemporary works of art, in order to encourage and increase in Italy and foreign knowledge of our cultural heritage, it is necessary to proceed with some preliminary clarifications.

Although not expressly regulated in our legal system, the freedom of panorama, that is the right of anyone to photograph visible subjects, in particular monuments and works of contemporary architecture, is recognized in Italy for the well-known principle according to which behavior that is not prohibited by a rule must be considered lawful.

In other legislations, however, this right is regulated differently depending on the interest that it is believed to protect mainly (think, for example, of the Belgian and Dutch legislation that allow you to photograph freely only the buildings while the request for a permit for sculptures where they are the main subject of the photograph; or to the German one according to which it is possible to photograph sculptures publicly visible for commercial use; finally to the US one which, similar to the Italian one, allows you to use the photographs taken in public places or places open to the public for any purpose, except in the case of works of art not permanently installed in a public place since in this case the authorization of the owner is required).

In Italy, since there is no specific discipline, it must be considered lawful and therefore possible to freely photograph all the visible works, from the new building of the Ara Pacis to the Colosseum, for any purpose, including commercial, unless, by modifying or altering the subject, you do not arrive to offend its decorum and the values ​​it expresses.

As regards the issue of the payment of rights to the authors of contemporary works, it should be noted that art. 2 of the law 9 January 2008, n. 2 (in the Official Gazette General Series No. 21 of 25 January 2008) amended Article 70 of the copyright law by expanding the exemption regime. In particular, the free publication through the internet, free of charge, of low resolution or degraded images and music, for educational or scientific use and only if such use is not for profit.

Therefore, if the photographed subject is a work of a living author, it can only be used within the aforementioned limits. The problem clearly does not concern the works considered cultural heritage, that is, having more than fifty years and of cultural interest that are delivered in museums or other places of culture, which can be reproduced pursuant to and within the limits provided for by art. . 107 and 108 of the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code (authorization by the consignee administration and payment of a fee, unless reproduction is requested for personal or educational and non-commercial purposes).

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE

Hon. Danielle Mazzonis.

While I may agree that Italy may have de facto commercial FOP for buildings, I need additional responses from Wikimedians from Italy on what I call "resolution restrictons" ("of low resolution or degraded images..."). This seems to contradict the previous paragraph which states all Italian architecture can be photographed freely for any purposes, including commercial exploitations. Pinging @Marco Chemello (WMIT), Ruthven:, what are the "of low resolution or degraded images" condition for? Is it for other works of art only, or extends to architecture too? Also pinging @Ox1997cow, Jeff G., Nat: to analyze this Parliamentary response. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I think kept photos are due to high threshold of originality in Italy. It's not related freedom of panorama. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: The "low resolution or degraded" condition allows to freely distribute copies of original copyrighted works (such as a music or a painting) for non-commercial purposes and was originally approved to facilitate the spreading on the web by anyone with no permission from the original authors. I think this doesn't apply to buildings, as a photo of a building is not a "copy" of the building. So I think it only applies to bi-dimensional artworks or music. Consider also that any jpeg image is "degraded" because the jpeg compression is lossy, and that there is still no further explanation from the Italian Parliament or government of what exactly means "low resolution" or even "degraded". The original proposer of the law - that I met in person many years ago, before the law - said that it simply means "with a lower quality than the original" [1]. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
To go into more detail on this part, I opened a related discussion in Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Italy. It would be better if you participate together. Ox1997cow (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I think it is best to focus the discussion here. There are fewer attention/watchers for CRT talk pages.
One last question @Marco Chemello (WMIT), Sannita (WMIT), Ruthven: does that parliamentary pronouncement on de facto FOP for Italian buildings applies to all Italian buildings (including protected architecture), or only applies to unprotected buildings? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: If it only applies to unprotected buildings, it is related to TOO, not FOP. If it also applies to protected buildings, it will affect the FOP status in Italy. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345, Ox1997cow: Actually the two aspects are intermingled. I am coming to this later. In the Parliamentary reply there are two points that are of interest for us:
  1. There is always the possibility to use copyrighted works for educational uses (thus no commercial uses). But the definition of "low resolution" is not clear. Years ago, on it.wiki, we used 600x400 pixels for photographs, but now, with tech advancement, this limitation can rise up to 1 megapixels. It is a sort of "fair use" for educational purposes.
  2. Works of all the visible works of living authors have the aforementioned limitations. Please note: of living authors. I never thought about extending this to statues and other artworks, but yes, they talk about a de facto FOP for deceased artists (architects included, because architecture is the main point of this Parliamentary pronouncement).
  3. For living artists, there are limitations because there are the monetary aspects of the copyright to be considered. So, if you wanna publish a photo for no commercial use, it must be a lower resolution. This point does not concerns Commons, because here we want works that can also have commercial uses.
From the Parliamentary pronouncement above, we can then say that we're very close to the Argentinian model for NoFOP. I resume below:
  • For historical heritage, to comply with the Ministry directives (and agreement with Wikimedia), we've to add {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}
  • For artwork in the public space of deceased artists (and architects), we have a de facto FOP, confirmed by a Parliamentary pronouncement.
  • For artworks of living artists (and architects), we have a de facto FOP for non-commercial purpose, confirmed by a Parliamentary pronouncement.
Relatively to the ToO (which is pretty permissive in Italy), even works of living artists (and architects) can be considered below the ToO, and can be published here under certain conditions. When? For sure, when their work is registered and accepted by the MiBAC as a work of important artistic character. The list of these notable buildings is published by the MiBAC Ministry (list of protected architecture). This list is an objective reference, and should be kept in mind by any administrator closing a DR.
I am adding a new element to the discussion, relative the this very last point (sorry if it is becoming long, but the matter we're trying to clarify here is complex). Deborah De Angelis, Italian Creative Commons Chapter Lead & representative for the Creative Commons Global Network Council answered on this topic on it.wiki, at Progetto:Coordinamento/Sportello Creative Commons. I resume the main points:
  • Only the original architect can ask for its work to be recognised as "importante valore artistico" to the Ministry. (my comment: this might in part explain the reference to living artists only in the above Parliamentary pronouncement). It is up to the Ministry to evaluate the criteria for judging a work of "important artistic value". The request can be denied.
  • Only "original and creative works" are protected by copyright in Italy. This includes architecture as well. (my comment: this is where ToO come into play)
  • The MiBAC officials evaluating an architectural work of "important artistic value" must consider the following criteria: originality, creativity, notability, quality, innovation, experimental use of materials and construction techniques. At least 3 out of 7 criteria must hold.
  • The list of the MiBAC of protected architectures is indeed valid to decide whether a building of a living artist is protected by copyright or not. This list shouldn't be considered exhaustive. However there is no case law at all wrt copyright of photographs of recent buildings in Italy, nor official documents. Thus there are no guidelines on the matter besides the list of the MiBAC and the criteria above (which however should be evaluated by the Ministry officials).
To come back to the propositions you made above, we should indeed modify the guidelines about Italy and {{NoFoP-Italy}}, and possible make a {{FoP-Italy}}. Ruthven (msg) 20:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ruthven: from your inputs now, I think the no FOP status will still prevail. Because FOP should also encompass works by still-living architects or sculptors etc. (just like the recognized Commons-applicable FOP statuses around the world). Though as you say once they are dead, the de facto FOP applies. I think a new template must be made. But I now advice avoid creating {{FoP-Italy}} because, it will create confusion that there is de facto FOP for "all" works. For ToO for Italian architecture, I also suggest a new template (either the template that will also accommodate the de facto FOP for works of deceased architects and artists, or a new template).

I think the de facto Italian FOP is almost close to (but haven't reached the status of) COM:FOP Argentina.

For relevant areas at Commons
COM:CRT/Italy#Freedom of panorama: Modifications may be made, but as there is still a noncommercial limitation for works by living architects and artists, the country will still be treated as having no FOP unfortunately. But the rules may now become more lenient as works by recently deceased architects and artists, plus buildings by living architects that doesn't pass ToO, may now be hosted here (and several undeletions may also be requested, though it's better that Italian Wikimedians will request those as they are more familiar with Italian buildings and works).
However, the overall status of not OK will still prevail as people may thought works by living architects and artists "are OK", if we change the overall status to OK. Not OK for overall status, but there will now be two exceptions for works by deceased architects and artists, and buildings by living architects that do not pass the Italian ToO for buildings.
I also suggest a list of protected works that may not be allowed at Commons (until the time when the author dies), indicated at FOP section of CRT/Italy too and cited by the pdf link you gave (until now I cannot access this pdf).
Maps: Because of that noncommercial limitation for living works, unfortunately, Italy will still be regarded as a no FOP country in maps like File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg.
Commons:Freedom of panorama/table listing: Same as above: still no FOP. The de facto FOP only for works of deceased architects and artists is not sufficient.
@Jeff G., Yann, A1Cafel, Ankry, Clindberg, Aymatth2: what do you think? Also ping @Blackcat, Marco Chemello (WMIT), Sannita (WMIT): JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345, Ruthven: I read them carefully. Therefore, I suggest the comments below.
{{NoFoP-Italy}} is edited and kept. And we create a template that can be used for photos of buildings not protected by Italian copyright.
Ox1997cow (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you: it's better to be conservative and not update the map. However, Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama must be updated with the new information and templates. Ruthven (msg) 09:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I also suggest to read the matter under another light: 1. A building (no matter what its threshold of originality is) is different from a record or a book. When you buy a record or a book you buy a copy of an author's work, and the right to listen or read it as much and as long as you want. But you haven't the property of the author's work, you only have a copy of it. 2. A building is usually property of its committent, and usually in our country the rights of the owner come first. The ratio is clear: if I owned a building designed by a famous architect I wouldn't be able to use for commercial purposes photographs of my own property. The Italian law doesn't limit property rights because of these small issues. As I said, all these considerations come even before any discussion about the threshold of originality of a building. -- Blackcat Ar Icon Contact.svg 09:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • A photograph or drawing of a 3D work like a sculpture or building is not a copy of the work, but the law may still impose restrictions on use of the photograph. FoP means there are no restrictions: the photograph can be freely used for purposes that would be considered highly offensive by the author and owner of the work. In this case I suggest clarifying {{NoFoP-Italy}} to note that works by dead authors are o.k., and creating {{FoP-Italy}} for works by dead authors. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    Shall we move to the discussion page of the templates, so to refine the text modifications there? Ruthven (msg) 09:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree this. Where should I move it? Ox1997cow (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
We can start in Template talk:NoFoP-Italy, and draft the texts for the two templates. Ruthven (msg) 14:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ruthven: OK. Which template are you drafting? Ox1997cow (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Please open a discussion in Template talk:NoFoP-Italy. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I have no mood of starting a fork of the discussion at another area. I will give a suggested wording here (inside collapsible box). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

SuggestionsEdit

JWilz12345's suggestion (note: raw form without links or highlighting
For NoFoP template

This image features an architectural or artistic work by a living author, photographed from a public space in Italy. There is no freedom of panorama exception in the Italian copyright law, which means that they cannot be photographed freely for anything other than personal purposes. However, de minimis non curat praetor concept may be applicable. Two de facto exceptions also exist for two cases, one for works by deceased authors and another for buildings which are not creative enough to attain copyright protection: see Commons:CRT/Italy#Freedom of panorama for more information.

For COM:CRT/Italy#Freedom of panorama

OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg Not OK..., but with two de facto exceptions.

Please tag...

Pictures from public places don't enjoy any exception in Italian copyright law;....

Object still under copyright....Additionally, photos of any cultural heritage asset....

The following are considered cultural heritage assets:....

(Photo with caption, placed at right) Simplifications were envisioned....

For Wiki Loves Monuments participants,....

De facto exceptions
  • OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK for works by deceased authors. (Description/info)
  • OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK for buildings by living architects that are not creative or artistic enough to be copyright-protected. (Description/info)

(Will this be removed because, de facto Italian FOP will start on the January 1st of the 1st Year of the author's death?)Note: Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author....

(How about this) For works published by the Italian state (i.e. under the name of the state, and on their account),...

I have edited several elements of the draft. Also, it seems that COM:TOO Italy needs to be edited as well. --Ox1997cow (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Could you please provide a draft correction to COM:TOO Italy? --Ox1997cow (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Which country's copyright laws apply to the United States military bases in South Korea?Edit

South Korea is an ally of the United States, and for this reason, there are the United States military bases in South Korea.

And as far as I know, US military bases in South Korea are treated as US territories.

Which country's copyright laws apply to the United States military bases in South Korea?

Do the laws of South Korea apply? Or does the law of the United States apply?

In other words, is there freedom of panorama for buildings only at US military bases in South Korea?

See also: COM:FOP SK, Template:NoFoP-South Korea, COM:FOP US, Template:FoP-US

Ox1997cow (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: US, N, Y, Y.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: You're welcome. They should be just like embassies.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G., Ox1997cow: I don't think embassies enjoy that same treatment: see Nat's input at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-03#File:US Embassy Athens.jpg. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanese embassy in Iceland.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Embassy in Paris.jpg, both of which formed my bases for starting Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Embassy of Vietnam (Malate, Manila). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G., Ox1997cow: Barring a specific agreement that grants extraterritoriality, the laws of the host country generally apply on the military bases of a foreign state in that country. While it does provide some exemptions of the applicability of certain ROK laws on members of the U.S. military forces and accompanying civilian components in Korea, the US-ROK status of forces agreement does not provide such extraterritoriality -- it is safe to assume that ROK copyright laws apply on U.S. military installations in South Korea. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Nat: Thanks.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I second to Nat's inputs, PD-USGov can't apply. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Liuxinyu970226: This has nothing to do with the applicability of {{PD-USGov}}. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nat: We don't really care if the US's laws apply on ROK soil, though. Legally, we are bound to respect only US law, which allows FoP worldwide. English Wikipedia has chosen to follow only US law, while Commons has chosen to follow the law of the country of origin as well for moral reasons. Therefore, I'd argue we have discretion on deciding what the country of origin is, since we are merely trying to enforce an internal policy. -- King of ♥ 17:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @King of Hearts: The crux of the question(s) is whether U.S. laws should apply or ROK laws should apply to photos taken on U.S. military installations with regards to Commons. If Commons has chosen to respect the laws of the source country, then it does matter. In this matter, with respects to FOP, ROK laws would apply. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    We can define "source country" however we'd like, because it is not a legal requirement, merely a policy one. When there are multiple competing claims for being the source country, there is precedent for using the more permissive one. For example, if a novel is published by a British author simultaneously in the UK and US in 1925 and the author dies in 1975, we accept US as the source country, even if the author has no ties to the US and has never even set foot in the US. -- King of ♥ 01:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Cropping, copyright, and the author fieldEdit

Last August I opened a discussion about the appropriateness of someone who crops someone else's photo adding their name to the author field as "cropped by". This came up initially because I saw a photo I took "in the wild" attributed both to me and the person who cropped it.

It was archived without a clear resolution, and I continue to see this so I'm hoping to ping participants there.

Here is my position following that thread: The author field is typically for attribution, and that attribution is determined by the copyright holder. Assuming a standard crop which does not render a new creative work, if the copyright holder would like to specify that it was cropped by someone else, they can, but otherwise the author is the only one who should appear in that field. It is appropriate, however, for information about who cropped it to appear in the description.

Is this an accurate summary of the discussion (or of consensus regarding this issue)? — Rhododendrites talk |  23:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The cropped version may be considered a derivative work. You are right that the author field is typically for attribution, and that attribution is determined by the copyright holder. But this would only apply to the uncropped, and original version of the work. Technically, the DW version has its own separate copyright which is dependent on the original work, of course. For the derivative version, the author field could be used for attributing author of the original and the cropped version. T CellsTalk 18:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The general conclusion is that a crop of a work, in normal circumstances, does not generate a new copyright. I personally don't think a rectangular crop still containing a large part of the original image would ever get a new copyright, and I have a hard time imagining any crop copyrightable under US law that would be in scope for Commons; cropping the Mona Lisa in the shape of your fantasy character might be copyrightable, but also out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

London Irish Amateur copyrighted logo with wrong tagEdit

Hi all, File:London Irish Amateur Rugby Football Club Logo.jpg was uploaded but I believe it has the incorrect tag on it. This is the logo of the London Irish Amateur rugby team, which is copyrighted but @Tommythenodd: uploaded it under CC-0. I believe this is an incorrect tag as I doubt this user represents London Irish nor has the authority to declare their logo copyright free. I recommend it for deletion The C of E (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E: Tagged and warned.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Manifesto of the Communist Party, translated by Bo Gu.pdfEdit

I recently nominated File:Manifesto of the Communist Party, translated by Bo Gu.pdf for deletion, as it was uploaded to Commons (2016-10-17) much later after the validity of URAA is confirmed. The uploader later questioned that according to COM:URAA, the file should not be deleted so merely because URAA applies to a file.
I know most of the URAA-affected-files uploaded before the period of uncertainty are pending for further review, however, does such amnesty applies to files uploaded so late?廣九直通車 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Verifying implications of copyright renewalEdit

I'm trying to determine the copyright status of a magazine, Sunshine & Health, which was published between 1933-1963. I followed the guide at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/decisions.html, and found that it wasn't listed in their complete list of first renewals for periodicals published up to 1950. But I did find a copyright renewal covering the magazine with a 1982 date of execution. So my understanding is that issues from (1982-28=) 1954 onward are under copyright, but any issues before 1954 are in the public domain. But I'd appreciate a sanity check on this, as this is sort of new to me. (One thing that's a little confusing is that the "Entire Copyright Document" field is given as "V1956P072-074". I'm not sure what, if anything, the 1956 there signifies.) Colin M (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: That could be for just three Pages (72-74) of Volume 1956.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Hm, I don't think that's possible. The magazine was published monthly, so for there to be a Volume 1956, it would have had to be in publication for 163 years. Also, from what I know of the magazine, I doubt a single issue would have had as many as 74 pages. Colin M (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes, the year of publication is used as the nominal 'Volume' number. 88.97.96.89 06:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
That links to V1956P072? That's not a renewal notice; that's, I think, a notice of transfer of copyrights. Renewal notices start with RE; for example, see RE0000380546 for an example of a periodical renewal, which explicitly says it's a renewal and says exactly what it's a renewal for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. In that case I'm going to surmise that all issues through 1963 are PD, since there are no other entries in the copyright catalogue when searching for the magazine (under either of the titles it was published under). Colin M (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ruling out a registration or renewal for a work..Edit

On Internet Archive there are some scans of a Pattern Drafting system:- https://archive.org/details/PatternDraftingAndGradingByMichaelRohr1961/mode/2up

The scans contain a page with a copyright date of 1961 - https://archive.org/details/PatternDraftingAndGradingByMichaelRohr1961/page/n151/mode/2up

However, that page notes it a 1961 revised edition, and so the actual copyright date of the edition which was revised might be earlier.

My next thought was to check the Catalog of Copyright Entries, but can't find the 1961 edition in the CCE for that Year, under the nominal title or under the listed Author, Publisher. (I am considering checking a 10 year windows either side, given the existence of a later 1968 edition.)

I also checked the Virtual Card Catalog on the copyright Office website, and for the given title/author I can only find a 1968 edition of a related work.

I also did a search on the copyright.gov's search engine to see it had been renewed (based on the 1961 publication date) work, which did not produce any results.

(A 1968 edition would have been renewed automatically. A 1961 Edition might not have been.)

As the scans may be of interest as a resource for garment construction, can someone here with access to more detailed records please help confirm if the claimed public domain status at IA is accurate. Lifetime details for Micheal Rohr, the claimed author would also be useful. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

AttributionEdit

If I want to modify an SVG image A that is hosted on Commons and which happens to be a modified derivative of a PDF image B that is in the public domain, who do I attribute my new SVG that I intend to upload under a new name to: A (the svg file that I used to make my changes) or B (the original author of the PDF)? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It is good to keep track of all the co-authors. Legally, you are only required to mention A (if the modifications are sufficiently creative to attract copyright); not mentioning B would be plagiarism (but not a copyright violation). -- King of ♥ 02:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Thank you for the quick and helpful reply. Choice A obviously makes the most sense as it allows anyone to trace the modifications and the original unaltered source, but from what you said, this option appears to be enforceable only under a certain condition (the modifications have to be sufficiently creative) and does not seem to cater for plagiarism, such as using an altered image and claiming to have performed the modifications. How is plagiarism dealt with on Commons? Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
What I mean is: Why not mention both? -- King of ♥ 00:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Actually, I'm not talking about myself and I'd rather not use this venue to speculate about why the editor I have in mind is being less than truthful. What I'm trying to find out at this stage is whether there is a Commons policy or a guideline that is meant to prevent, or at least discourage, such plagiarism. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Commons is a wiki. You can edit other people's file descriptions to correct the attribution. If you think someone is acting maliciously, you can report them to COM:AN/U. -- King of ♥ 23:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I use {{Licensed-FoP}} in any of a following way?Edit

Among the templates related to FoP is {{Licensed-FoP}}.

This is used in conjunction with the FoP templates.

For example: UK
Object
SemiPD-icon.svg

United Kingdom

The photographic reproduction of this work is covered under United Kingdom law (Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988), which states that it is not an infringement to take photographs of buildings, or of sculptures, models for buildings, or works of artistic craftsmanship permanently located in a public place or in premises open to the public. This does not apply to two-dimensional graphic works such as posters or murals. See COM:CRT/United Kingdom#Freedom of panorama for more information.

English | 한국어‎ | español‎ | +/−

Photograph
w:en:Creative Commons

attribution share alike

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

By the way, there are NoFoP templates for warning purposes for use in countries where there is no freedom of panorama.

Personally, I would like to use {{Licensed-FoP}} with NoFoP templates for warning purposes.

Can I use it with these NoFoP templates?

For example: Italy
Object
Red copyright.svg

ItalyWarning sign

Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright.

This image features an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in Italy. There are no freedom of panorama exemptions in Italy, which means that they cannot be photographed freely for anything other than personal purposes. However, de minimis non curat praetor concept may be applicable.

If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation.

Before reusing this content, ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer and {{Soprintendenza}} for more information.

Photograph
w:en:Creative Commons

attribution share alike

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

And can I use it with {{FoP-Sweden}}? ({{FoP-Sweden}} differs from FoP templates with different structures.)

For example: Sweden
Object

Sweden

It is not clear whether freedom of panorama applies to this image.

This is a depiction of a building or work of art in Sweden. The depicted work is believed to be protected by copyright. According to Article 24 of the Swedish copyright act, "Works of art may be depicted if they are permanently placed on or at a public place outdoors" and "Buildings may be freely depicted." It has been widely accepted that this provision made distribution of depictions such as this one legal.

On 4 April 2016, however, the Supreme Court of Sweden issued a statement that the first paragraph in Article 24 does not extend to publication of works of art in online repositories, and on 6 July 2017, a lower court ruled that linking to depictions of copyrighted works of art hosted by Wikimedia (including on Commons) in a database constitutes copyright infringement. See COM:CRT/Sweden#Freedom of panorama for more information.

The second paragraph in the article, about buildings, was not evaluated in the statement or ruling.

The implications of these decisions on Commons' ability to continue to distribute this and other depictions like it are currently under analysis.


Reusing or linking to this file can have legal consequences, unless if the artist has died before 1 Jan 1951, to which either {{PD-Sweden-photo}} or {{PD-old-70}} may applied. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe the copyright belonging to someone else. See our general disclaimer for more information.

Deutsch | English | français | македонски | svenska | 한국어 | 简体中文 | +/−

Photograph
w:en:Creative Commons

attribution share alike

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

Ox1997cow (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: for me personally, it is best for the licensed-FOP templates to be accompanied by FOP templates (inc. Sweden's). But, for no-FOP ones I tend to put these on top of description box because in my perspective these are not true license tags, but more of warning and/or problem tags. Problem tags because these help veteran users and all admins to check if the files tagged as such are in compliance with de minimis or not. IMO no-FOP templates are not supposed to be placed inside the licensing sections. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: My opinion is different. I think it doesn't matter where I put the template for warning purposes. Ox1997cow (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
If it is a NoFoP template, why would the image be allowed here in the first place? That is saying it is a derivative work and the underlying work is not licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: regarding your input, the genuine utility of the no FOP templates was questioned earlier this year by Krd, who then launched Commons:Deletion requests/NoFoP templates. Eventually after different opinions from other users, the result was keep. Majority of the users who opined tended to keep (stating these are more specific than the generic {{De minimis}}), though some like me propose converting all to category-handler templates (similar to {{NoFoP-Japan}}). Such proposals didn't receive significant attention. Note that there are thousands of images tagged with no FOP templates, most especially files showing French and Dubai icons (with de minimis claims, though some of the images may be borderline). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Borderline ones include File:Paris July 2011-27a.jpg. French de minimis uses "accessory concept", which is discussed more thoroughly in this 2012 research article by Sabine Lipovetsky and Emmanue`le de Dampierre titled "The protection of the image of a building under French law: where judges create law". On top of that, no FOP templates have been used for files that clearly show public domain objects, like File:Eiffel Tower, Paris 9 November 2012 03.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: As someone who participated in the discussion as to keep comment, I think these templates useful for those who are not familiar with freedom of panorama (especially new users). In fact, I found a user who uploaded a close-up photo of Lotte World Tower without knowing that freedom of panorama is only allowed for non-commercial use in South Korea, and I informed this user about freedom of panorama in South Korea and de minimis provisions of South Korea.
(See also: User talk:Hyeonyoung Lee 21) --Ox1997cow (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: one main problem for NoFoP-templates is that these are being treated as "licenses" despite that these are not so. While I agree that these may serve as warning tags, these seem to have originated as warning or signal tags that alert other users about potentially-problematic image files. For me I prefer these to be situated on top of the description boxes. See File:Eastwood (Libis-Bagumbayan, Quezon City)(2012-10-23) 2.jpg for example. The location on top of the description box definitely serves the warning or informatory purposes of the no-FOP templates.
And take note the "object" parameter of {{Licensed-FOP}} is for the underlying license of the copyrighted building or artwork (usually one of the "yes" FoP tags). So I discourage the placement of no-FOP problem/warning tags inside {{Licensed-FOP}}, if the country does not provide Commons-acceptable FOP in the first place. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright questionEdit

Hello!

The files in Category:Coat of arms of the German-speaking Community of Belgium and Category:Flag of the German-speaking Community of Belgium have all got licenses such as {{PD-self}} and {{Self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. These licenses are obviously incorrect. I don't know if the copyright has expired or if it's still valid. If the latter, then can someone find out what the correct license should be? If the prior, then I guess {{PD-old-70}} would work per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Belgium#General rules.Jonteemil (talk)

Does this image depict a 2D or 3D art work?Edit

Is the subject depicted in this image considered 2D or 3D art? If it can be considered 2D art, it needs to be re-tagged as {{PD-Art}}. If it must be considered 3D art, it needs to be speedily deleted as a copyvio. The provided source link is broken, but here is an archived version. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@ShyAlpaca482: I would think a 5th century work of any kind would be out of copyright, if indeed it ever qualified for it. But the point is the copyright of the photograph, which seems recent enough to qualify. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Apologies if my question was unclear. I intended the question to be about the copyright on the photograph, not the original work. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk)

Copyright DoubtEdit

Hello, I would like to upload this engraving from 1799 http://www.renzocampanini.it/file/opere/Pouncy%20-%20colle%20val%20delsa.jpg. Given the age of the work, it should be in the public domain. My doubt is related to the fact that the image comes from this page (http://www.renzocampanini.it/index.php?cat=9&operaid=3048&title=colle_val_d_elsa) where the work is offered for sale. Can I upload it to Wikimedia Commons? If so, under what license? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmotrip (talk • contribs) 12:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe an appropriate license tag would be something like {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}}, since the artist, w:Benjamin Thomas Pouncy, died in 1799. Because it's in the PD, it's fine to grab it from a commercial website. This is a common practice, in my experience. Colin M (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Radio Amateur Association of Greece (logo)Edit

Perhaps this image could be tagged as {{PD-logo}}, it is not really original but a slight modification of the ARRL logo (ca 1920) File:ARRL logo.jpg and other similar amateur radio logos, like File:International amateur radio symbol.svg . Any opinions? SV1XV (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sv1xv: It seems as it might be a bit to complex for surpassing COM:TOO Greece and therefore {{PD-textlogo}} would seem to be incorrect.Jonteemil (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The full RAAG logo obviously would be too complicated for {{PD-logo}}, if it was designed from scratch back in 1958. There is no doubt for that. But my question is: are the minor changes applied to a similar public domain logo (File:ARRL logo.jpg) creative enough to result to a new copyright? SV1XV (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Petr Tomašovský není !!! autorem fotografie pěchotního srubu MO-S 19 Alej ( SZM-AOD). Bohužel rovněž i další fotografie " Aleje" jsou jím ukradené... S pozdravem Dan Krzywon, autor zmíněných fotografií " Aleje".Edit

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are%C3%A1l_%C4%8Ds._opevn%C4%9Bn%C3%AD_Hlu%C4%8D%C3%ADn-Darkovi%C4%8Dky#/media/Soubor:MO_S-19.jpg

Jsem autorem všech fotografií pěchotního srubu MO-S 19 " Alej " v Areálu opevnění v Hlučíně - Darkovičkách ( zařízení Slezského zemského muzea Opava) , kterými se Petr Tomašovský na Wikipedii prezentuje. Žádám o smazání ukradených fotografií. Své autorství mohu prokázat originálními soubory. S díky


Dan Krzywon , Ostrava krzywondan@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.81.92.108 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There is already a deletion discussion here, where you can comment.
Již existuje diskuse o smazání zde, kde můžete komentovat Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible issues with book cover images in Category:Lesbian pulp fictionEdit

There are a lot of book covers in Category:Lesbian pulp fiction (mostly uploaded by User:Leszliszbeth) with {{PD-US-not renewed}} license tags. I did a spot check of a few of them, and, unfortunately, it seems many have copyright renewals listed at https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals. For starters:

Is it safe to say that these renewals would include the cover art? If so, I think this user's uploads need to be reviewed. Colin M (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It's reasonable to assume these renewals would include the cover art. File:Jaws-paperback.jpg is an example of why it might not, and I tend to think that interpretation would deprive the cover art of many books of copyright. But that depends on the copyright notices inside, and there's no way to tell from just the cover.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer - that's really interesting. What especially sticks out in the brief about the Jaws cover linked from the file is the cite of Fawcett Publications v Elliot, which found "We are not convinced that the copyright of a book or periodical includes the cover[...] since the cover ordinarily has no literary copyrightable matter and, when an individual design is embodied in it, its relation to the copyrighted literary content is remote and its authorship and ownership do not prima facie appear as in the case of the book's contents." A naive reading of that would suggest that any book cover through 1977 would be in the PD unless the title page explicitly included a copyright notice for the cover, separate from the copyright of the book?
The reason I was looking at this category was that I was hoping to upload some similar images of book covers from the same era, and wanted to get a handle on how to check copyright status. My current inclination is to suppose that the absence of a copyright renewal covering the book (published pre-1964) is sufficient to infer the cover is in the PD (even if it's not a necessary condition). And my understanding is that if the cover art were the subject of a standalone copyright renewal, that renewal would also show up in the registered works database at https://cocatalog.loc.gov/. But this seems unlikely to be the case for an average pulp novel, since http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/decisions.html says there were only a few hundred image copyright renewals per year from 1952-1977. Colin M (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The absence of a copyright renewal covering the book is not technically sufficient; if it had been used on a previous book, it could still be copyrighted from that. I would generally say it was enough to pass PCP, though.
My reading is that a book cover from 1977 would be fine if the copyright notice was "Copyright 1977 Penguin Books" or the like. A key point with Jaws is that the author was credited as the copyright holder, and the author had no connection to the artist.
I haven't exploited this, except for uploading Jaws, because it seems like a bit of a gotcha, a rule that nobody knew existed until 2014. My reticence wouldn't apply to things that weren't renewed, or didn't have a proper copyright notice in the first place. There's also a lot of books out there that slapped various new covers over the years and left the copyright notice as Copyright 1924 Edgar Rice Burroughs, or whatever. That's fair game, and I'm not arguing that these should be rules for Commons, just my personal feelings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:-11 JANMEYER AFFICHE 3.jpgEdit

Would some others mind taking a look at this file's licensing? It can be seen online at janmeyerpaintings.com/infos (scroll down to the bottom of the page), but there's nothing indicating that it has been released under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. The image is, however, basically nothing but text on a blue background which would seem to make it {{PD-textlogo}} per COM:TOO United States. The country of origin would seem to be the Netherlands based upon en:Draft:Jan Meyer, and it also seems to be PD in the Netherlands per COM:TOO Netherlands. Is all that is needed here is to change the licensing to "PD-textlogo" or is the current license OK? There's another wrinkle in that the author of the image is listed as "Igor Meijer", who might be a relative of the artist "Jan Meijer"; moreover, the uploader of the image is User:JulianMeijer1986 who is also probably User:Julian Meijer and who also might be a relative of the artist. The two Julian Meijer accounts uploaded quite a number of images also from janmeyerpaintings.com, but there's no indication anywhere on the website that the files have been released as licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The real-life Julian and Igor are the sons of Jan and they published the book about their father's works [2], which is mentioned as one of the sources of the files uploaded by User:Julian Meijer in January and User:JulianMeijer1986 in April. We would need a confirmation of the identity of the uploader, through OTRS or other accepted manner. (In cases like this, where it seems almost certain that the uploader is actually who he says he is, it may be good to begin with leaving a friendly message asking the uploader to clarify the whole thing, before starting the "no permission" procedure.) The uploads by the two "Julian" accounts seem to fall into three sort of situations:
  • The blue poster File:-11 JANMEYER AFFICHE 3.jpg was for announcing an exposition in a galerie in Paris, France. Normally it would be published by the galerie in the country where it is located. So, the country of origin is probably France, if it makes any difference. Anyway, it looks like the sort of image that Commons would consider PD-ineligible (it's not a logo, it's a poster). Not sure what Igor has to do with that poster. Perhaps he designed it or perhaps he just made a reproduction for inclusion in the book and on the website. This could probably be clarified by the uplaoder. The licensing could also be clarified. Is it meant as a claim of copyright by Igor on the design, or as a claim of copyright by Igor on the digital reproduction, or is it there just because the uploader had to put a template in the licensing section? If, as it is probable, Commons considers the poster to be PD in the United States, it's probably possible to get Igor either to accept a PD tag (with its possible non-application in some countries) or to issue a CC0 declaration (in theory applicable in all countries with adaptations to laws).
  • The reproduction of the painting File:-21 JANMEYER NUV 1971 118X89.jpg. It's reasonable to assume that the sons of the deceased painter are the owners of the copyright and therefore that they can issue licenses. That can be easily settled with the confirmation of identity. The uploader sourced this Commons file as reproduced from the book. For some reason, you judged that it is instead reproduced from the website copy. The Commons version is rotated on one side but it looks larger than the website copy. The uploader could clarify that. It's possible that the uploader was mistaken about the meaning of the source field on Commons, but it may be better to just leave the statement of the uploader in the meantime. We need a confirmation anyway, so it's not really essential right now to guess a different source than what he wrote. Also, it's reasonable to assume that the sons retained the full copyright on the paintings, although it wouldn't hurt if they said that they did not cede an exclusive publishing right to the publisher of the book.
  • The other four files (Special:Log/Julian_Meijer) are photographs of the artist at work. The authorship is claimed by User:Julian Meijer. That can very well be correct. Although it would be nice if Julian confirmed that it is indeed what he meant (instead of being the common mistake made by some owners of photographs, which they did not take, to put their name in the author field and to mistakenly claim the copyright). The uploader sourced the Commons copies of the photographs both from the website and from the book. It should be only one or the other. The uploader should also fix the dates of the photographs. They are probably not from 2020 because the artist died in 1995 and he looks alive on the photos.
-- Asclepias (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for looking taking a close look at these files Asclepias. I will leave a message on the uploader's user talk page, providing a link to this discussion and briefly summarizing what's mentioned above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Ethiopian Copyright GrayzoneEdit

Hello i want to add pictures to wikipedia pages of notable Ethiopian artist, just a random picture using google search. According to Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights & Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ethiopia, published works and citizens from Ethiopia don't fall under international & US copyright laws. Does it mean i can add a picture for example a picture of Betty G and add it to her page? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Commons requires that pictures must be in the public domain in both the US and the country of origin. Those pages demonstrate that you don't need to worry about the US side of the copyright, but Ethiopia does have a copyright law that you'd need to abide by, so you need to see whether the criteria in {{PD-Ethiopia}} apply. Based on your description, this probably won't apply to the average photo you find off Google Images. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Vahurzpu so basically it comes down to you can't use it. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Better Polish translation neededEdit

The source for File:Cezary Julski.jpg says Prawa należą do archiwum / Wolno zwielokrotniać, zmieniać i rozpowszechniać oraz wykonywać utwór, nawet w celach komercyjnych, bez konieczności pytania o zgodę. It also has the "no copyright" symbol. The Google translation of the Polish text sounds more like {{Copyrighted free use}}, so that's what I've tagged it as, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't actually a mistranslation of PD. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Solved --- Is this administrative work (Gewerbeschein) of the city council of Munich/Germany from 1953 in PD? Edit

It is a certificate that the company to which it is issued has opened a business in Munich, with start date, adress and defined economic activities. See File:Gewerbeanmeldung der Uher Werke München GmbH 1953.jpg. Pittigrilli (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)