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.

Copyright 1974 Italian film?Edit

Because there were already several stills from other older Italian films on Commons, I uploaded some from the film Arabian Nights, some of which I used for Wikipedia articles. Now there seems to be a problem with these uploads. Can anyone tell me if there is indeed a problem? According to my interpretation of Italian copyright rules there is not. A I wronɠ? @Judithcomm Judithcomm (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The stills may be out of copyright in Italy... but are they out of copyright in the USA (where Commons is hosted)? Muzilon (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the swift reply, but could someone please answer this question for me? Stills from Italian films of 1974 are uploaded all the time and not just by me. --Judithcomm (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discrepancy of US and other countries copyright is one of the most difficult and unsolved issues on Commons. The Anne Frank diary was deleted per this ruling of the Wikimedia Foundation, in PD in Europe since 2016. You can also read the URAA statement. Sorry, this is not of any help in this particular case. If somebody bites in your uploads and writes a rationale to delete the images from the US servers perhaps they will be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellywa (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Italian law gives film stills a copyright of 20 years from creation, even if the film itself is copyrighted for far longer. The U.S. question is, would it use the URAA to determine that the film still was public domain in Italy in 1996 and thus not restored, or would it use the copyright for the film which would be far far longer (2070). If there was a copyright notice on the film, then the URAA would be moot as the U.S. copyright would have never gone away. I don't think there has been a test case for this particular and odd situation, but I'm sure we have some files uploaded under that theory. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The film is available online (somewhere) and does have a 1974 copyright notice in the opening credits. Muzilon (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, the license tags which claim the movie was published without a copyright notice are incorrect. The stills would be under U.S. copyright until 2070. In the rest of the EU, if they follow the film copyright, the end date is not known yet (one of the writers is still alive, so her life plus 70 years). If a still is just based on the cinematographer's life, then 2078. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I guess the stills will have to be removed from Commons. Too bad. --Judithcomm (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Judithcomm Actually still frames of 1974 Italian films can be uploaded per {{PD-1996}}{{PD-Italy}}. The URAA limit date is then 1976 (1996-20). I don't see any issue. Ruthven (msg) 15:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: PD-1996 does not apply if the work had a copyright notice and was published 1964 or later, since copyright was never lost and the URAA did not need to restore it. Which is the case here. These are copyrighted in the U.S. for many decades yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg But the US are not the country of first publication. Thus the copyright was lost in 1994 for these still frames. In other words, what happens if I publish in the US a public domain still frame in 2020? I agree that URAA law makes no sense outside US (how it is possible that a foreign country influences another copyright law?) and is difficult to deal with. Ruthven (msg) 16:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if the US are not the country of first publication, foreign citizens could sometimes acquire US copyright by affixing a valid copyright notice to their work. This is explained in more detail in en:Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights#Subsisting copyrights. Felix QW (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The film has copyright entries in the LoC's U.S. Copyright Catalog (not technically possible to share a direct link here, but do a search for Reg. No. PA0000062847). Apparently registered for U.S. copyright 4-Sep-1979, renewed 22-Mar-2002, with a note that the original Italian copyright is 1974. Muzilon (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which means any copyright violations are subject to automatic damages per infringement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: The copyright expired in Italy in 1994, but likely no other countries, since most others treat film stills as the same term as the film itself (unless maybe they use the rule of the shorter term for this case). Usage in those countries would then be copyright infringement. Commons policy is to require PD in the country of origin, which is Italy, and also the US (since we are a US hosted service). This fails the US side of that policy, since they have never lost their US copyright, which will last until 2070 (and even longer in the rest of the EU). PD-1996 is there under the assumption that a copyright notice was not used, and so the work had lost copyright, but was only restored by the URAA. That is often true, but films and books more commonly did have them, so you do need to be more careful about it. The PD-1996 tag, in its bullet points, requires that a copyright notice was not present to use that tag. The US does not use the rule of the shorter term; they use their own term always. It's possible for a work to expire in one country, but the rights still exist in others. In this case, they are fine to use in Italy, but not the rest of the EU (unless one of them has a similar exception for film stills which I don't remember any others having), and definitely not the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that another still from this movie is currently the subject of a deletion nomination here. Muzilon (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Children's homeworkEdit

It appears that the files in Category:Homework in Mexico are children's homework. Assuming that the uploader is the photographer, we have his permission for the photos. However, are the children who wrote these essays copyright holders from whom we need to get permission in order for these files to be hosted on Commons? Marbletan (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion, the photographs are clearly derivative of the pupils' homework, which is copyrighted by the pupils. So in my opinion we would need permission from the pupils (or their guardians) to host this material. Felix QW (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the children are probably not yet of age (usually 18), they cannot give permission,l so permission MUST come from their parents or guardians. Martinvl (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, there might be serious privacy issues. I don't know about privacy laws in Mexico, but in Europe a lecturer wouldn't be allowed to publish the names of their adult students without permission. Here we are dealing with essays on quite sensitive topics undersigned with their full name by their authors, who happen to be minors.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I say speedy delete as copyright violation on the basis that the authors (students who created the work) are not credited and did not clearly give license, and I have to wonder if a teacher publishing their students' work, even if anonymized (which it's not), is legal in Mexico. It's exploitation IMO. Dcs002 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on the discussion above, I have nominated these files for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Homework in Mexico. Thanks, all, for your input. Marbletan (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for spotting this and taking care of it. I might be overreacting, but this feels pretty egregious to me, involving identifiable minors and claiming authorship for their work. Maybe the professor never claimed authorship. Maybe someone here simply attributed it. I dunno, but thank you! Dcs002 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it passes the threshold of originality, the child would own the copyright. There is no age limit for copyright (though only their parents can license it). As mentioned in the Compendium II] (section 503.01), Registration does not depend on artistic merit or aesthetic value. For example, a child's drawing may exhibit a very low level of artistic merit and yet be entitled to registration as a pictorial work. The professor would have needed to get permission from the parents to publicize these under a free license, I think. Schools would have some fair use rights over them, but not that far. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know the laws specific to Mexico, but in the US it's a violation of federal law (FERPA) to make public a student's work (child or adult student, primary school or university) with very few exceptions, such as to show it to the class as an example of good work, or to celebrate an excellent accomplishment, and that's only within the academic setting, not in the public. The school where I work has signed consent from all parents to use images of their children in school projects and for promotion of the school, but that's it. The rules are very tight. In the US this would be a violation on academic privacy grounds. I don't know whether that is germane to this case though. I know Wikimedia is bound by US copyright law, but I don't think laws such as FERPA apply. The violator of that law wouldn't be Wikimedia. It would be the instructor, if the violation occurred in the US. Dcs002 (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about Flickr user Alabama ExtenstionEdit

Hello. I recently encountered some photographs uploaded to Commons that are from the Alabama Extension Flickr account. On first glance, they would seem ok to upload (they're marked with CC0). Upon looking in a bit more, however, it appears to be the compilation of the work of several different photographers: this file on Commons is attributed to Janet Guynn on Flickr; this image on Commons is attributed to Bruce Dupree on Flickr; this image on Commons is attributed to Margaret Barse on Flickr; et cetera. Looking in more, Alabama Extension appears to be this cooperative, but their website claims copyright on the content that's posted on it and says "All Rights Reserved." I'm a bit confused as to how to handle files uploaded from this account; does anyone have advice? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would appear all three people you named are staff members of the Alabama Cooperative Extension System[1][2][3], so their photos would seem to be works for hire, meaning they should have the right to license them. It's understandable if the main website is not licensed, if they only want particular photos licensed. But if the photos come from further sources, it could be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. Thank you for your help on this! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


その写真はとても記念になるので、譲ってほしい。 Junkosu (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright for photos on public domain art - 2D vs 3DEdit


In Denmark a proposed law based on an European Union directive is currently in hearing process:

One of the things they want to make clear is that photos of art in PD is not protected by copyright (article 14 in the DSM directive).

Thats all good and that matches {{PD-art}}.

However as an example of what is no protected they mention a photo of an ancient sculpture (3D):

Dansk: "Et eksempel herpå kunne eksempelvis være den situation, hvor en kulturarvsinstitution har delt et generisk fotografi af en oldtidsskulptur, som en bruger ønsker at dele på sin egen hjemmeside."
English: "An example of this could be the situation where a cultural heritage institution has shared a generic photograph of an ancient sculpture that a user wants to share on their own website."

Does anyone know more about that? --MGA73 (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soviet-era copyrightEdit

From the article International copyright relations of Russia:

With the accession of the Soviet Union to the UCC, Soviet works published on or after May 27, 1973 became eligible to copyright in all other signatory countries of the UCC.

Does this imply that Soviet works published before that date are not eligible to copyright in all other signatory countries of the UCC?

I see no mention of this in Commons:Copyright tags/Country-specific tags. Synotia (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russia has since retroactively restored works, and the URAA retroactively restored some of those works in the US even if they were published before 1973, since the U.S. had also now joined the Berne Convention (as has Russia and all successor nations), which does not allow the formalities (copyright notice etc.) that the UCC did. So... that is probably moot in most countries now, and definitely the U.S., although not sure there have been explicit test cases for it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also earlier discussion at Commons:Village pump#Soviet-era copyright. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second LifeEdit

Can I get a second opinion on whether constitutes a valid license? I tagged a bunch of Second Life files in Category:Ballet Pixelle Chimera that were tagged as own-work but IMO were clearly not as missing permission, and the uploader reverted me after a brief discussion at User talk:Pppery#SL Photo-License, pointing to that as permission. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like a license to capture and to use, but I don't see re-use covered. Last I heard (and this was maybe 8 or so years ago) Linden Labs was trying to claim copyright on all works within their grid, regardless of who created them, and that was not at all established as valid, nor, at the time, did it seem likely to be. They simply declared they owned the copyright to everything within Second Life, no matter who created it, which obviously upset the content creators. This looks like a bone they threw to them, licensing limited use of content that might not belong to them in the first place. They don't have a great record with respect to other people's intellectual property, and claiming to license something that isn't theirs seems about par. In any case, this policy statement doesn't seem to do anything for us because, as I understand, a license has to be valid for re-use, not just use, as well as licensing property that they actually own. Dcs002 (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TOS SL 2.5 .... " you hereby grant other users a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to photograph .... and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display," ...etc. - BTW It is spelled Linden Lab, not Linden Labs. Peli (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template, created in 2012, claims that This image depicts a unit of currency issued by Germany. It is believed to be in the public domain (under § 5 Abs.1 UrhG) as an official work issued by a German federal or state authority, or by a predecessor state.

That was what was assumed for a while, but after discussions, that changed, and COM:CUR Germany now says "Currency: Not OK except for Deutsche Mark bank notes." plus some more details.

So this template is horribly outdated yet constantly being applied to new uploads of all kinds showing German currency where it does not apply, and something should be done. Either

In either case a cleanup would be necessary: change to another suitable license tag for those files which are in the PD (for example because the designer died over 70 years ago and there is also no URAA problem), nominate the rest for deletion.

Are there thoughts / opinions on how to proceed? --Rosenzweig τ 12:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you outlined the situation well, and which option to go for depends on how much we trust the rationale behind the remaining use case. Do you understand the reasoning applied to Deutsche Mark banknotes? COM:CUR Germany mentions a "permission" which may or may not be sufficient, and the linked reference provides what I would consider an acceptable attribution clause, but only for the images on the Geldscheinsammlung (which don't actually included any post-1949 notes as far as I can see). Felix QW (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Felix QW: Supposedly there was a statement to that effect by Deutsche Bundesbank 11 years ago that was also archived as an OTRS ticket. Currently the site of their coin and banknote collection (Münz- und Geldscheinsammlung) is here, and there they offer a kind of attribution license: „Die Nutzung der Abbildungen ist kostenfrei.“ (The use of the images is free of charge.) and „Werden diese Abbildungen publiziert, muss als Quelle "Deutsche Bundesbank, Frankfurt am Main" angegeben werden.“ (When publishing these images, "Deutsche Bundesbank, Frankfurt am Main" must be credited as the source.) They also say that because Deutsche Mark banknotes are not legal tender anymore, all protections in criminal law they formerly enjoyed do not apply anymore, and therefore showing / printing / reproducing them is ok as far as criminal law is concerned. They don't say anything about copyright. Since the bank produced these banknotes and certainly had exclusive usage rights for that purpose, one could argue though that them offering images of the notes free of charge (and apparently to be used by anyone) means that they allow their use for all purposes. They would „begrüßen“ (welcome) it if one refrained from certain types of reproductions (especially those on paper that come very close to the actual banknotes), but the way that is worded it's more a request. So they apparently have nothing against reproductions of DM banknotes and even offer high quality images for free, but it's not a dedicated public domain license or something like that. --Rosenzweig τ 15:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyrighted art / free MTA licensingEdit

Hi all --

Bringing this query here as it's come up several times now, and there seems to be some confusion. The MTA in New York has a large public art collection and regularly commissions artists to create new murals, sculptures, video work, and other art for the subway system. The MTA also has a Flickr account where they publish images of the art in the system, along with pictures of the artists designing, constructing, and posing with the art. They release their images under CC-BY-2.0, so theoretically they are usable on Commons. But the artists themselves do not seem to have released the copyright for the underlying artworks, meaning the MTA doesn't really have the right to publish with that free license. I've been able to find no documentation of any artists releasing their rights to these works. Images from this Flickr account have been uploaded to Commons several times, and several have also been deleted for the issue I'm raising. But there doesn't seem to be a consensus on these photographs, as many editors get very defensive of these images when they're nominated for deletion. Could someone help clarify if this type of image - derivative works ostensibly freely licensed by a public institution but have no evidence of the underlying copyright having been released - should in fact be deleted? Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me it seems plausible that the Flickr license applies to the photograph rather than the underlying work. In absence of a transfer of copyright agreement, the only way I can see the MTA having the authority to license the image including the derivative aspect is if the mural were created as a work for hire, but that seems unlikely for a commission from an established artist. Felix QW (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Airline's new logo questionEdit

Hello, recently an airliner in Japan changed its logo [4]. It is also shown in their home page here and I am thinking of uploading this found on the bottom of the 2nd link. Will this violate the copyright for the airline? Layah50♪ ( 話して~! ) 04:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has the old logo been uploaded to Commons? Ruslik (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruslik0 Yes, it is uploaded. Layah50♪ ( 話して~! ) 12:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually expected a wikilink. Ruslik (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[5] sorry, here's the link. Layah50♪ ( 話して~! ) 22:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new logo is slightly more complicated. So, it is going to be a close call. Ruslik (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi! I'm trying to transfer the logo of Green Party faction in the German parliament ( onto Commons, but I'm unsure what license to choose and what is appropriate / allowed.

Background that might help: There are already other similar logos on Commons: The logos of the other factions are also there:

Any idea what's the right way to do this? Thanks in advance! OpenHypervideo (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, the Green party logo is more complex than that of the other party factions already on Commons. In particular, the flower on the right hand side of the logo may well reach the threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe) to be eligible for copyright. In that case, we couldn't host it on Commons unless the copyright holder releases it with a suitable free license. Felix QW (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do have other versions of the logo on Commons though, so it would make sense for there to be some consensus on whether that flower icon reaches the German threshold of originality or not. Felix QW (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply and thoughts. The point that there are also other versions of the logo on Commons which include the flower made me assume that it might be ok. Would it help if the Bundestag faction as the copyright holder uploaded the logo themselves? OpenHypervideo (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the copyright holder emails their COM:CONSENT to COM:VRT, then that would make the logo OK for Commons. Anyone could upload it if the copyright holders do that. If the copyright holder would rather upload the file themselves, they can and then use COM:RELGEN for verification purposes. The copyright holder can even publish a version of the logo on one of their official websites under a free license that Commons accepts as explained here, and then anyone could upload the logo. If, however, the copyright holder doesn't want to do any of those things, then the file will most likely be unacceptable for Commons regardless of who uploads it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TASS / Bundesarchiv imageEdit

I am confused about this image and its copyright status. It seems by the description that copyright is not in fact with the Bundesarchiv, but lay with the Soviet news agency TASS, and that it was first published in Russia. According to the header text at Category:Images from TASS and {{PD-Russia-1996}}, it should be public domain in Russia and the US. So shouldn't we really undelete the higher-quality intermediate revisions, unless they show original creative input from the Bundesarchiv? Felix QW (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I have just seen that the image is credited by the Bundesarchiv to Gutjahr, apparently a staff photographer of the Wehrmacht and not TASS. So it would not be public domain in Russia after all. Felix QW (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scans of ancient booksEdit

User:MY, Japan would like to discuss the copyright of scans of 700 years old books like File:SBL001 詩〔集傳〕.pdf (see DR). After 220+ deletion requests I blocked their file page access temporarily. --Achim55 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claiming a copyright on what appear to be public domain books is simply copyfraud. Yann (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically they are not claiming copyright. They claim a violation of the terms of use of their database. Since Commons is not accessing their database, but merely hosting content that seems to be in the public domain, I don't see how that would be a reason for deletion. TilmannR (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uploads by Px820Edit

they(Px820 (talk · contribs) are import the web site ( ). the web site claim "当HPの画像、内容は転載、リンク自由!営利、非営利問わず無断で使っても問題なし!" (mean; reprint is free. Permitted for profit and non-profit.). that declaration to waive rights ? I think that derived work is not permitted. --eien20 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

United States, state court, copyright of documentsEdit

I am asking for guidance and advice about the copyright of United States, state court documents. I am anticipating that court documents from California and Florida are Wikimedia Commons compatible due to being public domain, but wanted to check in here first in case anyone had guidance.

I have these documents

  • United States
  • court / judicial / legal documents
  • high profile cases in marriage, of interest to LGBT+ history
  • from states (not federal or central government)

I have perhaps 300 of these for various states. I want to get a sample collection of these into the Wikimedia Commons + Wikidata + Wikisource ecosystem, but I do not need to get them all here to do the project.

The situation is that per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States, while federal works are public domain, "This does not include governments of the individual states". Exceptions are many documents from the states of California, Florida, and Massachusetts.

I am comfortable uploading sample documents then coming back here to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright for feedback until I get confirmation that what I am doing is compliant, but before I being, I wanted to ask if anyone knew of a precedent for this or had advice.

Questions -

  1. Does anyone know of a United States, state-court, legal document collection in Commons? I checked Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal) to find uses of state licensing tags. I did not see anything. I checked Category:Government of Florida, Category:Law of Florida, Category:Government of Massachusetts, Category:Law of Massachusetts, Category:Government of California, and Category:Law of California but do not see court documents. I would not be surprised if there were no such documents in Commons, as Commons editors rarely have a need for such documents.
  2. Does anyone know of any model, well-categorized legal document collection for any country in Commons? I see Category:United States Supreme Court cases which has good content but is also kind of a mess. I can work with it, but I want to know if anyone knows of a more organized collection anywhere.
  3. Does anyone know a Commons contributor whom I might ping for collaboration? I do not know anyone enthusiastic about court case documents. I could ping people who have done prior uploads, but wanted to ask here if anyone knew anyone.

Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The works of all state and local governments, to the extent that they are considered edicts, are public domain per {{PD-EdictGov}}. -- King of ♥ 20:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

B&W photo of anonymous work of artEdit

I was contemplating uploading a (cropped and straightened) version of this image of the full-rigged ship Cypromene from State Library of Victoria (SLV), Australia: [6], cat entry at [7] has "No copyright restrictions apply. This work is out of copyright", so I assume that is acceptable from an AUS point of view.

But what about USA? The uploaded photo seems to be a faithful reproduction of the original photo in an album. That original photo (assessed by SLV as from 1885-1946) is of a pre-existing work of art, but I have not found any definite information about that artwork, eg medium or age. I assume that the original photo is acceptable as such, although in monochrome, as it must be pre-1946, so using technology generally available at the time. But what about the original artwork? The ship was built in 1878, and had that appearance and name only until 1904 when converted to an oil barge - generally, such illustrations were made of visiting ships at the time, but I suppose that cannot be guaranteed. Davidships (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is definitely a pre-1946 work. It looks like it came from the late Victorian or early Edwardian periods, and I'd say as far as the United States goes, that was definitely published before 1928. Abzeronow (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finnish stamps and threshold of originalityEdit

From bulletin
Unknown source

Statements and decisions of Finnish authorities are free of copyright. This has been seen as including annual reports etc. Until the end of 1989 the stamps were emitted by a public body and it seems probable that the stamp designs were included in its decisions and thus PD.

The problem is that those decisions can be hard to find, to verify that the designs were indeed included (and to what extent they were). However, the stamps seem to have been included in bulletins to post offices etc., which should count as statements – in greyscale.

In what cases can the colourisation be seen as not exceeding the threshold of copyright? Is the resolution an issue? Here a stamp from such a bulletin and the colour version; this stamp from the 1970s was printed in 5-colour offset, some stamps of that era and most older ones were in black plus one auxiliary colour. It seems the threshold of originality is quite high in Finland (cf the Paavo Nurmi photo and municipal CoAs modified from older designs).

Here the motive is the central element of the probably PD-old seal of the National Audit Office, but I assume it was modified quite a bit, and the background numbers are from elsewhere.

LPfi (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not gonna lie, but this seems like a way to run around the whole bit in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Finland/stamps that says "If an image of a stamp was included in a public body's decision or statement...the document can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and the image can be cropped from this document." Since it assumes without evidence that the final design was included in the body's final decision and creates a crop from something that isn't directly from it like the wording of the article requires. At that point you could just use images from stamp magazines or books, change them to greyscale, and claim it's perfectly fine "because derivative" or whatever. We still need evidence that the image is exactly like the one in the original decision in the meantime though, which we clearly don't have, in this case or any other. Even you say it's "it seems probable that the stamp designs were included in its decisions." Probability that the images are the same isn't the bar here. The image being cropped directly from the decision is. Especially since uploading the image is contingent on the person including a copy of the original decision with it. Otherwise, the image shouldn't be hosted on Commons per the wording of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Finland/stamps. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text also includes the sentence "It is uncertain how the above affects the copyright of stamps depicted in other places." I am trying to get some clarity on that part. I don't understand why that would be "a way to run around" the text. Also, what should count is the legal situation, not what is written in our guidance. –LPfi (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sentence you quoted is exactly why it would be a run around. the lack of clarity is the whole reason the text of the article says the original decision has to be included with the uploaded stamp. So using the lack of clarity as a reason to say it's OK to upload images of stamps from other sources besides the decision is a run around to the requirement. It would be like if I said "if we do X, we have to do it this specific way because of Y" and you responded by saying "Oh, OK. So Y means we can do X however we want then. Got it." That's not how it works. Whatever the nuances or unknowns might be you still have to include the body's decision with the image when you upload it. Otherwise, your just trying to get around that part of the guideline. Which honestly, I'm kind of surprised you'd want to do since you spent a month repeatedly saying decisions that include images of the stamps exist. If that's the case, then I don't really see why they can't just be included when someone uploads the an image of the stamp like the article says to do. At the end of the day if images of the stamps are included in the decisions there's no reason to get them from anywhere else anyway. Or were you wrong about that when you repeatedly said they were? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When this file was uploaded to German wikipedia in 2009, it was not certain that it was old enough to be transferred to Commons. The date is "around 1910" and it must pre-date 1918, when the equestrian statue in the centre of the image was torn down. So it is now over a hundred for certain (happy birthday photo!). Can it be transferred to Commons? Furius (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see Template:PD-old-assumed.
120 years from now makes 1903, so in seven years we will have 1910
--Goesseln (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]