Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/09

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Romain Rolland au balcon, Meurisse, 1914.jpg

Hi, User:Fastily closed this RfD yesterday with one vote for deletion (my own) and two votes for keeping the file (User:Yann, the uploader and User:Steinsplitter). I get how the request was closed on a procedural level (2>1), but don't think that my concerns were properly addressed and would appreciate to get some comments on this. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's an anonymous photograph, the copyright lasts 70 years from publication. The source has declared it public domain; we will generally trust their determination even if we don't know the exact reason. So, we consider it public domain in the country of origin, and make the best guess as to why. Perhaps {{Anonymous-EU}} would be a more likely tag. We also generally assume photos like that were published at the time even if we don't have direct evidence, thus the PD-1923. If you have specific reason to believe that this photo was *not* published at the time, then that might change things. In general though -- we will not question the source's copyright determination without some very good evidence to the contrary, and we will often make assumptions that such photos were made to be published, and so virtually certainly were published in the era it was made. That is backed up somewhat by being PD in France; if it's been more than 70 years from publication it's also probably been more than 90. The main thing is that we do make reasonable assumptions if something is (by far) the most likely scenario, which is what has been done here, at least with the US side of things. We assume good faith on (essentially) anonymous uploaders, even though we have no guarantee whatsoever they are the actual authors, and that is in general more likely to wrong than assumptions like the above. There is hardly ever 100% certainty on any work, actually -- just what appears to be the scenario given the available evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Press agencies are very strict about copyright matters. If this image (as well as thousands more from the same agency available on Gallica) would be under copyright, they would certainly not allow the National Library of France to publish them, and even less to tag them with "public domain". Regards, Yann (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Carl. On the one hand, the pragmatic approach of assuming and guessing constitutes a violation of COM:PCP on the other hand enforcing it for each and every file would probably cause World War III. IMHO trusting an institution's non-public copyright assessment is Bundesarchiv all over again. {{Anonymous-EU}} looks like a better solution than {{PD-old}} - eventually creating a separate template for orphan works might be worth a try. I'm still not convinced by the rationale for keeping this file based on its uncertain publication status. Following through on the premises of Wikimedia Commons is a make-or-break decision. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not really violating COM:PCP -- that is when there is a reasonable or significant doubt, not for theoretical, unlikely doubts. If that photo had a known photographer, it could be different, but again that particular source is in general quite good with copyright status, so unless there was some proof or at least significant evidence to the contrary, we would follow it (I'm sure they have made some mistakes so it's good to double-check). Photos by press agencies were almost always published; it would be rather unusual not to, so that is the usual assumption (that it was published around that time). If it is PD in France, it's a virtual certainty that it is PD in the US, since the anonymous term in France on the URAA date was 50 years (though possibly with an 8 year wartime extension). So it really just needed to be published within 30-40 years or so of when it was taken. Also, there may have been terms of gift that we don't know about. They probably have a better idea than we do (same goes for the U.S. Library of Congress). If that website had a non-France work which was PD in France but not its country of origin and marked PD because of that, that would be a reason to delete, or if some information comes to light that makes it probable that the PD determination was a mistake, things like that. As I said, it's possible to throw some theoretical doubt on virtually every file, so we usually would only consider deletion if there some concrete information to support a significant doubt (documentation that it remained unpublished and was discovered only decades later or something like that). Oh, and an anonymous work is different than an orphan work -- the latter are for works with a known author who can't be tracked down to get permission, or who has an unknown death date, that sort of thing. Those are more problematic; we can't keep a work just because it's orphaned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
French works are eligible for an extra war extension of 30 years if the author "died for France". Are works by anonymous authors who "died for France" eligible for this extension? Even if the name of the author never has been disclosed publicly, you should keep in mind that the author's heirs might know who the author is. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Obviously not. To get the 30 years extension, the author has to be known. The list of authors who got this extension is published by the French government. In this case, the agency didn't keep a record of who took the picture, and the photographer's heirs certainly didn't know that he took it, otherwise, they would claim a copyright. It is also possible, although unlikely, that it was a "work for hire", and that the agency got the copyright from a contract with the photographer. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
A work is anonymous if the author's identity hasn't been revealed publicly. However, the publisher or the heirs of the copyright holder might have non-public information which identifies the author. The author would still be anonymous under copyright law (at least until evidence has been presented in court), but the person who owns this non-public information would still be able to prove that the author died for France. Or you could show that the author is either A or B, and that both A and B died for France. There are plenty of situations where a copyright holder might be able to prove that an author died for France even if the author is "anonymous" under copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Why would dying for France be any different under anonymous rules then just dying? There's a lot of situations where a copyright holder can show the author died recently even if the author is "anonymous" under French copyright law, but the law still only gives the copyright holder a flat 70 years. I don't know French copyright law that well, but it doesn't seem logical that dying for France would matter for a flat 70 year copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
A work is anonymous if the author's identity was not made public before the anonymous term expired. The company may possibly have had non-public information, but if they don't make that information public, then it ceases to matter once the anonymous term expires. They may well have gotten the general wartime extensions, but not the 30-year one (which requires an identified author, as it is that person's death certificate which determines if they get the 30-year extension). Once the copyright expires, it was gone (other than the EU directive restorations). The EU directive even has a clause (which I don't think applies in France) which says for countries where a corporation is the initial copyright owner (i.e. work for hire type stuff), then the author must be identified on the initial publication, otherwise they get the 70 year copyright regardless if they make the identity known later on. But ignoring that, the company had only a certain number of years. If it was published in 1914, they might have gotten both WWI and WWII extensions, but even in that case the author would have needed to become public knowledge before 1977 or so. If not, it became (and remains) PD. The EU restorations might have made a difference if it was public knowledge before 1984 or so, but still don't matter if the author becomes known only today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Why do you make the conclusion that anonymous authors do not get the 30-year extra term? Anonymous means "not known by the general public". An author can be known to the general public, but the author's heirs may still be able to identify the author in a court and present his death certificate. Or the heirs might be able to say that it was either created by this guy or by his brother, and then they show that both of them died for France. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the three users who already replied have understood the question the first time. Hopefully, it will not be really necessary to repeat it a fourth time. I think the answer is still no. Firstly, it would be illogical with the economy of the law. If 30 extra years were to be added to the 70-year term of protection of anonymous works, for a total of 100 years, just in case that any anonymous work might, after the expiration of the 70 years, turn out to be publicly revealed as the work of an author who died for France, then that would amount in practice to providing a term of protection of 100 years to all anonymous works. However, the law states that the term for anonymous works is 70 years. It does not state that the term for anonymous works is 100 years to provide for the possibility that any of those works might turn out to be identified belatedly as having been authored by an author who died for France. If the legislators had wanted to give a term of 100 years to anonymous works, they would have written 100 years, not 70 years. Secondly, it is not supported by another aspect of the text. The law does not add that 30-year extension indistinctly to all copyright terms. Section L123-10 of the law adds the 30-year extension specifically to the rights provided by section L123-9, and indirectly to the rights provided by section L123-8, two section that themselves provide term extensions specifically to the rights that are given to heirs by the law of 1886 on the rights of heirs. That law of 1886 provides rights to heirs of identified authors on the basis of the copyright term based on the year of the death of the author. It does not provide rights for anonymous works. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Francis Poulenc & Wanda Landowska.jpg

Although this file is PD in its country of origin (the National Library of France confirms that fact) it was not taken before 1923 and so I wonder if it is PR in the United States? It is definitely not pre-1923, as reliable sources state that the two people shown in it did not meet until the spring of 1923. Tim riley (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Without knowing the author or when or where it was published, no clue. The US doesn't have an anonymous rule in the copyright law, so if it wasn't published until 1978, it will be clearly out of copyright 120 years from creation. If it was published soon after it was taken and it was out of copyright in France in 1996, then it will be out of copyright in the US, but we don't have nearly enough information to prove that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. As the choice must presumably be either be to keep or delete, could you advise which of the two is correct? Tim riley (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You need to provide information about the publication history of the image. If you do not provide publication information, the file has to be assumed to be copyrighted in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the National Library of France pages -- the link gets a server error now. The source is similar to that of File:Francis Poulenc and Wanda Landowska.jpg, which has a date of 1930, but little other detail. This Google preview book might offer a couple of hints... two pages before that link has a couple of (censored so we can't see them) photos, with a caption of Two photographs of Wanda Landowska and Frances Poulenc taken during work on Concert Champetre. They are supposedly marked 1918 on the back (not really possible since the work described was done in 1927 and 1928), and were from a private collection of a Momo Aldrich and given to a Professor Larry Palmer, which is where the book got them. They speculate the photos were taken by Aldrich. More interestingly though, following the premiere of Concert Champetre (which was in 1929), that link also says In honor of the success, Poulenc's publisher proudly issued a sampling of reviews in a sixteen-page pamphlet that also included pictures of Poulenc and Landowska at work. The pamphlet is identified as Le Concert Champêtre pour clavecin et orchestra par Francis Poulenc, Paris: Rouart, Lerolle & Cie, n.d. (not dated). But if that was published in the wake of the performance, it would be 1929 or 1930, which would match with that other picture. It seems more likely that the National Library of France would more likely have a copy of that pamphlet rather than photos from a private collection, but without seeing either set it's hard to say. But, if that is the likely source, then it would be PD -- published in 1930 or so, with anonymous authors, so beyond the 70 years. It was obviously without a copyright notice (which would require a date), and since the French anonymous term was 50 years plus the WWII extension (a little over 8 years), then it probably expired in 1989, thus was PD on the URAA date of 1996 and would not have been restored (France did not extend to 70 until 1997). Still speculative, but a little more concrete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Photos of other photos and paintings from the Trotsky Museum

I have taken a series of photos at the Trotsky museum in Mexico city, some of which were of photos and paintings on the walls in the museum. Museum policy is to pay a minimal amount in addition to the entrance fee for the permission to take photos, which I did, but I no linger have the admission ticket. While I am sure that an image of the building, rooms and the garden meet the the commons criteria, the others may not. I am asking if I upload them all to the Trotsky category, could someone go through them and speedily delete those which are not acceptable? I would advise the admin prior to upload. — Ineuw talk 03:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC) P.S: There are less that 24 photos altogether. — Ineuw talk 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • We'd be unconcerned with you having the museum's permission to snap photos: that's a non-copyright contractual matter between you and the museum, so don't worry about having the ticket. The issue is the copyright status of the materials you upload. Yes, someone can make a point of going through your uploads, but more to the point, in licensing the images yourself, you should at least add a template that expresses the theory under which you consider the items photographed to be public domain (e.g. what country's laws you believe are relevant -- presumably variously Mexico and Russia -- and why you think these items qualify under that country's laws). - Jmabel ! talk 04:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I will check both country's copyright laws.— Ineuw talk 05:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Files

I ran across this file of a Mural in Dickson, Tennessee. It appears to be taken directly from City-Data. I checked the City-Data agreement on file uploads, but it doesn't mention anything about granting other (non-licenced) users rights for reuse. Therefore I'm questioning if this file has the correct Creative Commons license associated with it and if not, should it be deleted? -Ichabod (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

About the photo, the CC tag placed by the uploader seems to have no basis from the source. Besides, there is no information about the status of the mural. Yes, the file should be nominated for deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Russian FoP retroactive?

With the new law taking effect on October 1, does anyone know if it applies to photos taken before that date? That is, can we begin undeleting Category:Russian FOP cases/deleted next month? -- King of ♠ 06:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

NASA picture on Flickr

Hello. Is it possible to import this picture [1]. It is taken by NASA. But there is a non-commercial tag on it. --Micha (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is in PD. "The photographs may not be used in materials, advertisements, products, or promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement by NASA." [2] is not an additional restriction; so seems OK for Commons to me. Jee 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"Swedish" photos of Nobel laureates?

Through a discussion in German-language Wikipedia, I came across File:Werner Forssmann nobel.jpg and wondered: It's using the {{PD-Sweden-photo}} template - but I don't see a particular reason to assume that the photo is of Swedish origin at all. It's used by the Nobel Foundation on their website at but without any information as to the photo's author or origin. PD-Sweden may very well apply if this is indeed a photo from Sweden and considered a simple "photo", not an (artistic) "work" (apparently a distinction similar to the German Lichtbild vs. Lichtbildwerk). But is it from Sweden? IMHO it's just as likely that this is a photo originally from Germany (where Forssmann was from). I've found a rather inconclusive (kept as "no consensus to delete") deletion request for a similar case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Steinbeck 1962.jpg. Part of the discussion there was also whether it's an artistic photo or not, but I would like to leave this aside for the moment - let's assume, for now, that all the Nobel laureates photos on the Nobel Foundation's website are simple photographs. But even then: Where there's no information, I think we can't just assume that the photos are Swedish. The Steinbeck photo says now in the description "According to the Nobel Foundation, this image was donated and it's photographer is not recorded in any records" - so I would suppose that such a "donated" Steinbeck photo most likely originated in the U.S. What do you think - would a deletion request for Nobel laureates photos from the Nobel Foundation's website be in order? Gestumblindi (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Stefan4: because I remember him as a Swedish admin active in copyright-related discussions :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. Sweden is the source country if the photograph was first published here. If the photograph is unpublished, then it is the country of citizenship or residence of the photographer which counts. Under Swedish law, uploading a photograph to the Internet does not constitute publication (and neither does broadcasting it on television nor displaying it publicly).
To comply with U.S. law, a Swedish photograph must have been published somewhere without copyright copyright notice. Note that U.S. law defines "publication" in a different way. As the definition of "publication" differs, the source country (according to Swedish law) may be different to the source country (according to U.S. law).
I don't know where the Nobel Foundation obtains its photographs. The Nobel Foundation might need some pictures of the laureates for the press conference where the laureates are revealed to the public, and the laureates must not be revealed to the public before that press conference. I would assume that it would look very suspicious if the Nobel Foundation were to send a photographer to take photographs of the laureates before the press conference, so the photographs are probably obtained from elsewhere, unclear where. Photos used on the website decades after the price ceremony may of course have been taken by the Nobel Foundation, but they may also come from other sources. I don't know if it is safe to assume that Sweden is the source country of photographs of laureates from the Nobel Foundation's website. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Stefan4: Funny, somehow I just assumed that you're an admin, as you're that often active in deletion discussions and dealing with copyright-related questions... I think you would be a good admin (probably far more active than e.g. me), though I suppose that some would be opposed due to your often strict approach ;-) - Well, back to the matter in question: I'm not particularly eager to get these photos deleted. It's quite a lot of them, and they're widely used (as there are often no other photos, or not as good ones, of Nobel laureates), apparently without any issues so far... still, applying COM:PRP we could argue that we're uncertain enough to have to delete them. But if there are no clearer statements regarding this question here, I feel inclined to let the matter rest for now. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There is one more thing to consider. It is generally assumed that most photographs are below the threshold of originality in Sweden, and photos above the threshold of originality are only protected if they were created in 1969 or later. Since pre-1969 photos normally aren't protected in Sweden, COM:NETCOPYRIGHT is not a problem on Swedish websites, and Swedish websites can therefore pick more or less any pre-1969 photos that they wish. It is possible that some images might have been taken from random sources and that the website is depending on them being pre-1969 photographs. It may be a good idea to ask the Nobel Foundation about the sources for the images. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No Commercial reuse FoP in South Korea, files of modern buildings.

The FOP in South Korea is limited only to non-commercial uses and is not compatible with COM:L, we have a whole slew of Category:South Korean FOP cases of where we have had to delete files of modern architecture in South Korea. Our reading of the South Korean FoP rules has set the precedent that files of modern South Korean buildings is incompatible with Commons. I therefore propose the following:

i) We should as a community review our understanding of FOP in South Korea to decide if our reading of the rules is correct.

ii) determine a standard for age, de minimis, and threshold of originality originality for which it will be safe to keep files. e.g. Joseon period buildings should be safe, as would be cityscapes at night where it is impossible to determine the architectural details of individual buildings, however what of buildings which though modern are rehashes with no unique architectural originality.

iii) warn against the loading of files of modern buildings in South Korea.

iv) Having determined a standard for which we can keep or would need to delete a file, make local transfers of those files currently in use in local projects that allow fair use

V) begin speedy deletion of such files, with deletion requests for ambiguous cases, adding them to the undelete in xxxx year in the cases which we can determine.

Thoughts please.--KTo288 (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It is unambiguous that there is no commercial FOP in South Korea. This was established in the court ruling mentioned here. The pictured building was used in advertisements for Kungmin Ŭnhaeng (국민은행, a South Korean Bank). The architect Min Kyu-am (민규암) sued the advertising company, and the court ruled that the building's copyright had been infringed and granted compensation to the architect.
  • Looking at the South Korean copyright law, I do not see any de minimis exception, but maybe I have overlooked something. If there is no usable de minimis exception, then my interpretation is that we must delete all pictures of recent South Korean buildings, no matter how unimportant they are to the image, as long as you can see anything which is above the threshold of originality.
  • I am not aware of any cases other than the linked one, and that building looks very artistic. As there are not a lot of court rulings, it is hard to know when the façade of a building is below the threshold of originality.
  • We need help identifying architects and death years. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
De minimis exceptions are not spelled out in statutory law, usually -- those show up in case law, and should basiclaly always exist. I would completely disagree with the suggestion that we delete works which are not primarily of the building in question. If you can show a court case which actually ruled that such incidental inclusion in a photograph was still a copyright violation, then I'd change my mind. For one example, France's copyright law has no limitations like that listed, yet courts use a "theory of the accessory" that if something is just an accessory to the main subject, it's not a violation. A photograph of a street was not a violation of a building at the end of that street which appeared in the photo, per one of their rulings. I would never go beyond that for deletions, unless you find actual court cases where such incidental inclusion was an issue. I think cityscapes are always fine, day or night.
However, for photos primarily of a copyrighted building like that above, I would agree. The law is fairly explicit that it is a non-commercial exception only, and that has further substantial backing with that court case. FoP cases usually are generally not speedily deleted as a rule, but they should be nominated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
That may be the case in some countries, but does not usually seem to be the case. For example, under the w:InfoSoc Directive, a picture is a copy of a work if the picture includes a portion of a work which is above the threshold of originality. A copy of a work can only be used if you have permission from the copyright holder, or if the country where protection is claimed provides an exception for such use. Countries may only choose to implement an exception if the exception is permitted under Article 5 of the same directive, where you can for example find a de minimis exception. The InfoSoc Directive required Sweden to reformulate the de minimis exception, so you can find some discussion about de minimis in the government's proposition 2004/05:110. You can find some discussion about the European definition of a copy in w:Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening if you search for the part about "reproduction in part". At least in Europe, it seems that countries are required to explicitly write out any de minimis exception in the copyright law and that none exists if none is explicitly written out. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Commons usually leans on the side of not OK when the situation is unclear (or there is simply no statute), but tends to be more lax when uncopyrightability is concerned. For example, reproductions of old artwork are OK even if it's a UK painting digitized by a UK photographer. As for threshold of originality and de minimis, when there is no case law we can study from, we generally use a reasonable interpretation as long as it is at least as strict as US law. Otherwise we'd have to delete pretty much all pictures of human settlements in any country where we cannot find de minimis law. -- King of ♠ 04:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that is usually the case. Yes, copying just a portion of a work can be infringement depending on the circumstances, but incidental inclusion hardly ever is (those are very different situations). De minimis provisions do not necessarily need to be present in statutory law; they can be applied by judges in case law to give some balance, and not rule infringement in every possible technical violation. In general, we should limit deletions to types of situations which have actually been ruled that way in courts. If you say de minimis "does not usually seem to be the case", then there should be a raft of decisions where people were found guilty of copyright infringement by incidental inclusion of works of the type you describe above, and so should be easy to find. If we can't, then that probably means de minimis exists basically everywhere. So far, I've only heard of the derivative-work-of-building-or-sculpture cases involve situations where the work was the primary focus of the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can check when architecture was first covered by South Korean copyright law. Buildings constructed prior to that may be fine. --ghouston (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
For (iv), it may not always be necessary to rely on fair use. For example, the English Wikipedia allows photos of architecture from countries without FOP for architecture on the basis that they operate only under US law; the English Wikipedia copyright tag {{FoP-USonly}} is used for such images. --Gazebo (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
But this is Commons, allowing commercial reuse is one of the tenets of how we define free here, and we only host free files.
What's the relevance? Certain people can commercially reuse them and others can't. There have always been files uploaded to Commons where that's true. The only question is where they can be reused, and between FoP and the URAA and PD-Art, Commons has always been a little confused on that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any mass deletions on following grounds; 1) it's a clear cut case of meta:copyright paranoia. We hosted thousands of those pictures for years, and nobody ever complained. If someone complains, we will take down the image. 2) for mass deletions, we need a clear community consensus. This tiny discussion is not it. We should have a proper RfC, and make sure it is advertised not only here, but on en Wikipedia and most importantly, Korean Wikipedia. To take a discussion affecting primarily Korean Wikipedia without input of Korean Wikipedians seems very problematic to me. 3) For mass deletions, we should also contact WMF legal counsel for their view of the applicable law. 4) A Korean speaker should try to constructively engage with Korean organizations, such as Korean Creative Commons, and Korean government, to try to get a clear legal picture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are South Korean buildings any different to, say, Icelandic buildings or French buildings? --Stefan4 (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you show me where the community discussion was held about those images: Category:Buildings and structures in Paris? The Category:21st-century architecture in Paris seems like it shouldn't exist, in light of your argument, for just one example. PS. The Template:20th century architecture in France is informative. Should we use it or similar one like Template:FOP-buildings-category warning for SK categories starting with the Category:Structures in South Korea as a parent? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I have added that template to Category:Structures in South Korea. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Prokonsul Piotrus, I'm all for petitioning the South Korean government to relax their FoP laws, however it would be negligent and against good conscience of us to allow the continued hosting of images we know that there is a problem with. Its not just Commons and the WMF, we have a duty too to would be reusers of our files. The precautionary principle means we cannot sit back and wait for someone to sue us. One of our claims is that our files are free to reuse for any purpose by anyone. I'm sorry if people feel if they have been misled, that files that they thought were okay now are not, but as work in progress we can only do as we believe and understand things to be at any one moment, and our understanding at the moment is that we commercial reuse is not allowed.--KTo288 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @KTo288: Can you link said precautionary principle? In either case, I am uneasy endorsing mass deletion without input from Korean Wikipedians who could confirm our understanding of the FoP/Korean law in this case, as well as from WMF legal counsel. We should reach out to [3] and others to hear from them. I strongly oppose deleting thousands of images because a few people on a tiny forum without consulting community have decided to jump the gun. Once a proper, well advertised discussion is held, with input from experts, and it concludes that Korean FoP laws indeed mean we have to delete such images, then I'll support it. Until then, no. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "modern"

In the light of any building constructed before 1946 would have been under the Japanese colonial government, and entirely different copyright considerations apply, could someone please expand on the dates of when the relevant Korean definition of FoP applies and whether photographs of buildings before a specific year are always considered uncopyrightable? -- (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A FOP provision permits people to use pictures of buildings and/or other works within a given country. If there is no FOP provision, then you can't use pictures of modern buildings in that country. If a photograph of a building was created during the colonial era, one could maybe argue that the source country of that photograph was Japan. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Cases pending

Thanks for input so far, I guess the next stage is to start nominations and seeing if we can thrash out something with regards de minimis and threshold of originality by testing the waters.--KTo288 (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In the worst case scenario that we reach consensus for deletion of those images (which I oppose), we should mass copy them to English Wikipedia and or Korean Wikipedia. At least we should do it for images which are used on en wiki, under fair use. All deleted images should also be categorized properly with regard to year in which they can be undeleted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Official documents of international organizations in Template:PD-RU-exempt

as continuation of discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Interstate Aviation Committee

Article 1259 of Part IV of Civil Code of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006 states, that:

Shall not be objects of copyright:
official documents of state government agencies and local government agencies of municipal formations, including laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions, other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character, official documents of international organizations, as well as their official translations

The direct/simple reading and usage of general meaning for terms "official document" and "international organization" are not enough.

  1. The official document in terms of Russian law is not only document published officially, but it must be material of legislative, administrative and judicial character - the official document (see Practice of Supreme Court of the RF) must vest rights or obligations (rus. - наделять правами или обязанностями), restrict or deprive rights (rus. - ограничивать либо отнимать права), release from obligations (rus. - освобождать от обязанностей). For examples: criminal sentence is PD-RU-exempt, but volumes of criminal case are not; order of Ministry of Education and Science is PD-RU-exempt, report of Ministry (or Minister) of Education and Science is not.
  2. Similarly. (This example is not for IAC, but for many other organizations). If we will be reading directly/simply term "international organization" as general meaning, we will also have made mistake. FIFA/UEFA are "international organization" in general case, but they are not "international organization" in term of Civil Code (international organization must be founded by state authorities). Alex Spade (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I was asked to contribute to this discussion, but unfortunately this is not my area of expertise, and I can not really say anything reasonable. I just wanted to say that when I was active in the Russian Wikipedia I always used to listen to Alex Spade regarding the Russian copyright issues. He understands some details of Russian copyright law which few users here understand, and his opinion should be taken seriously. Unfortunately no opinion on the question itself.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't know anything about Russian law, and there might always be details in the original language which are lost or modified when translated. However, I would like to address another issue: files on Commons must be free in the United States. Is this the case here?
Under Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention, Russian law is null and void outside Russia, and other countries must not pay any attention to it. The rule of the shorter terms allows countries to terminate the protection early if the work is in the public domain in the source country through expiry of a term. However, even if these files are in the public domain in Russia, this would appear to be for a different reason than expiry of a term. See for example this French court ruling where it was decided that works under {{PD-US-not renewed}} are in the public domain in the source country for a different reason.
Russia might be able to put the government's own works in the public domain in the United States. However, I don't see how this would work with works by others. There was this court ruling in Sweden where it was decided that confiscation isn't a valid form of copyright transfer, so even if the rights to a work are confiscated in the source country, the rights are not confiscated in Sweden. I would assume that this also means that you can't forcibly cancel someone's rights to a work in Sweden, even if you forcibly cancel the person's rights in the source country. I don't see why the United States would be any different here. There was for example this court ruling which found that Japanese works were copyrighted in the United States even though the same works are ineligible for copyright in Japan by virtue of being "utilitarian". --Stefan4 (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment For me this sentence could refer to texts only. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

British Admiralty Chart first published in 1860 with revisions up to 1927. Is this now in the Public Domain?

I'm looking for a little help or direction on Public Domain on a British Admiralty Chart. I'd like to post a British Admiralty chart, first published in 1860 with revisions up to 1927, in the WikiCommons to use on a wikipedia article. In your understanding of Wikipedia and Public Domain, is this now free for use?

I am reading this section of the wikipedia Help:

It seems to me this would apply, "Crown copyright for published works generally lasts for 50 years since the first publication (this is true not only for the UK but also e.g. for Canada or Australia)." 1927 + 50 years = 1977 so it seems OK.

The chart in question can be downloaded from this page:

But on that download page Library and Archives Canada claims "Terms of use, Credit Library and Archives Canada. Crown copyright." on the image of the chart.

Your thoughts? -- 22:16, 4 September 2014 Ken Heaton

Ordinarily, a work published in 1927 may be copyrighted in the US (and thus not acceptable on Commons) even if it is out of copyright in the source country; whether it is copyrighted in the US depends on multiple factors. However, for a Canadian work for which the Crown (national government) is the copyright holder and which does not incorporate any non-Crown material, the information on the {{PD-Canada-Crown}} tag seems to indicate that the Canadian government considers Crown works published before 1964 to be out of copyright worldwide, i.e. they do not intend to enforce any copyrights that might exist outside Canada. The {{PD-UKGov}} tag indicates that the UK government similarly considers Crown copyright in the UK for artistic works (the situation might be different for text works) to expire worldwide. As such, a Canadian work or an artistic UK work which was published in 1927 with the copyright holder being the UK or Canadian government and which does not incorporate any non-Crown material would likely be OK to treat as out of copyright in the US and its source country. The Library and Archives Canada page reference to "Crown copyright" may mean that the work would be subject to Crown copyright if it was under copyright as opposed to indicating that the work is still under copyright. --Gazebo (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How exactly does one convey an artist's permission to upload a photo of their work?

I'm a new contributor to WikiMedia. I just uploaded a photo of a registered historic place in the USA that includes a a modern work of art in the photo. I have the artist's informal permission to do this, obtained in email and mentioned in the description of the uploaded photo, but neither she nor I know how to meet Wikimedia's formal licensing requirements for this situation, and I have not been able to locate that info despite quite a bit of searching. Can someone here specify exactly how the artist's permission must be conveyed, in order for the photo to remain available?

The uploaded photo that contains the artwork is located at


You can use OTRS and send permission by email. The file will then be updated to say that licencing confirmation has been archived. --ghouston (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to OTRS and its email templates. Can someone here clarify whether the recommended license is granting permission just to reuse the posted PHOTO that includes the artwork, or if it's also granting permission to reuse the DESIGN of the artwork, including for commercial purposes? In other words, if someone wanted to sell greeting cards or T-shirts that reproduced just the artwork part of the photo, does the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license grant permission to do that without the reproducer compensating the artist? (posted by original questioner on 5 September 2014--not familiar with posting conventions here, yet)
The posting convention is that you add ~~~~ after your text here and it will be replaced by your user name and the date. The CC licence does allow derivative works to be produced, including for commercial purposes. It would allow somebody to crop out the artwork from the photo, or making a drawing of it, and then turn it into a card or shirt or whatever for sale. --ghouston (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
If the artist doesn't want to release their work in that way, you could also crop or blur it out of the photo, so that it shows only the building. --ghouston (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Scottish tartans

Do Scottish tartan patterns fall below the threshold of originality or are they protected by copyright? If so, what is the general rule for when they are public domain? Thank you! :-) Pigby (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Images which are specific concrete visual realizations of tartans could be copyrightable, but I strongly doubt whether abstract tartan patterns are copyrightable -- which means people are free to come up with their own specific concrete visual realization images... AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback! Pigby (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Utilitarian objects, such as Star Wars helmets and Lego bricks, are ineligible for copyright in the United Kingdom. I would assume that this applies to traditional Scottish clothes too. If some clothes in traditional Scottish style are made outside the United Kingdom, the situation may be different. You should also keep in mind that many designs seem to be very old, so {{PD-old-70}} is likely to apply to most designs. Photographs of traditional Scottish clothes do of course need permission from the photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Pigby, it depends on how old and how complex the design is, but I think you'd have to judge each one individually. As Stefan points out, some Tartans are very old e.g. R. R. McIan made some illustrations of clan tartans in 1845-47, which are PD-100 because McIan died in 1856. Green Giant (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

1917 photo

this File:1917 178 NewYork.jpg has been published in Italy in 1917; what copyright tag have I to use? thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 14:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

At least the tag PD-1923, in any case. But the photo could have been published in La Lettura without that being its first publication. It could have been taken from a previous publication in another country. You should do a research and try to find who was the author and if the photo was first published somewhere else. That will tell if the file needs a second tag and which tag. If you can reasonably confirm that the first publication was in Italy, you would add the tag PD-Italy as a second tag. If you find that the first publication was in the United States, the tag PD-1923 will be enough. if you find that is was first published in another country, Commons would apply also the rules of that country. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Buildings in Crimea

How do we handle buildings in Crimea?

Under Commons policy, pictures must be free in the source country. The source country of a building is the country where the building is located.

Some countries, such as Russia, recognise Crimea as being part of Russia. According to this point of view, the buildings are located in Russia, so Russia is the source country. Russia gets FOP for buildings on 1 October, so Russian buildings can soon be uploaded.

Some countries, such as Ukraine, recognise Crimea as being part of Ukraine. According to this point of view, the buildings are located in Ukraine, so Ukraine is the source country. Ukraine doesn't have any FOP for buildings, so pictures of its buildings can't be uploaded.

If different countries disagree on the location of a national border, then the countries also disagree on the source country of works from this area. Thus, according to some countries, these pictures will be free in the source country beginning on 1 October, whereas according to other countries, these pictures will remain unfree in the source country. For a related case, see [4]: Japan doesn't recognise the statehood of North Korea, so North Korea can never be the source country of a work according to Japan, but North Korea can be the source country of a work according to most other countries.

How do we decide if a building is free in the source country or not, if different countries can't agree as to what the source country is? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously this is tricky, I could easily see an argument for (a) use the country of origin as recognized by the uploader's country of citizenship (under the theory that this is the least likely to get the uploader in trouble), or (b) use the country of origin as recognized by the U.S. (under the theory that the servers are in the U.S. and this is the least likely to get the WMF in trouble), or (c) use the country of origin as recognized by the United Nations (under the theory that the Berne Convention is overseen by WIPO and WIPO has been a U.N. organization since 1974). All three have various problems. —RP88 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
a) The uploader's country may be unknown.
b) Bad idea. USA doesn't even follow the Berne Convention in all cases. The source country according to the United States usually doesn't affect the copyright status in the United States either.
c) How would that work if the work is unpublished or first published in a non-Berne country? Then it depends on citizenship, country of residence or country of installation at a certain point. Different countries seem to interpret "a certain point" differently (status for the moment/at creation/at death). --Stefan4 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I am confused by your reply. Commons says the source country of a building is the country where the building is located; Commons does not attempt to apply Berne convention source-country rules when determining FoP for buildings. The ambiguity in the Commons rules arrises from disputes about in which country a building is located. With regards to your remarks about (a), naturally it is problematic as in order to adopt "rule a" Commons might have to ask uploaders to identify their citizenship in DR discussions. For "rule b" the source country of a building is the country where the building is located as recognized by the U.S. For "rule c" the source country of a building is the country where the building is located as recognized by the U.N.; I am not sure why you even bring up whether a photo is unpublished or first published in a non-Berne country (as Commons does not look to such issues when applying FoP). —RP88 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This is one is ugly, but b) doesn't really come into play -- the U.S. does not recognize photographs of buildings as derivative works of the architectural work regardless of which country it is in. So, there is no real legal issue based on the servers being in the U.S. It's purely a matter of policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is definitely all about Commons policy. It is only a Commons rule that looks to where a building is located when determining how to apply to FOP for buildings; neither the Berne convention nor U.S. copyright law have such a requirement. If Commons is going to require us to apply FoP as determined by the copyright law of the country in which a building is located, Commons presumably needs to consider how to handle cases where which country is the sovereign is disputed. —RP88 (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If I wasn't clear, "rule b" would be for Commons to say (for the purposes of determining FoP) that the location of a building is where is the U.S. says it located, "rule c" is the location of a building is where is the U.N. says it located, and "rule a" is the location of a building is where is the uploader's country of citizenship says it is located. —RP88 (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
But then for your "rule a" you'd have to decide what is the uploader's country of citizenship when the uploader is in Crimea. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
We'll tell them to look at their passport :-) But, yes "rule a" would not be as practical as "b" or "c", just less likely to result in Commons being accused of partisanship. —RP88 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that if the purpose of the Commons policy is to let the files be used in the place of origin, and to protect uploaders in that place from copyright action, then whatever law is de facto in force in that place should be considered the most relevant. --ghouston (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should apply U.S. law here. -- 20:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For this question, it's important to ask ourselves: Ultimately, what is the most important reason we require that an image be free in its source country? Is it some sort of moral obligation? Unfortunately that's not going to be definitive here as it is disputed whether Crimea "morally" belongs to Russia or Ukraine. So is it protection from liability for the people in the region? Then it would be Russia, as Crimea is in the control of Russian forces right now. Or does it relate to international treaties? Then Ukraine would be favored, as most countries still recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine. It's important to figure out, from a macro level, what we actually want. -- King of ♠ 06:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The idea is that the Berne Convention and other copyright treaties say that you do not have to provide protection to a foreign work if the work is in the public domain through expiration of a term. Thus, a Japanese work which is {{PD-Japan}} or a Chinese work which is {{PD-China}} will be in the public domain in most parts of the world.
When COM:L is applied to other aspects of copyright law, such as COM:TOO or COM:FOP, this approach creates other issues. A work which is in the public domain in the source country by virtue of being below the threshold of originality is probably not in the public domain through expiration of a term but for a different reason. See for example this ruling which found that works which are {{PD-US-not renewed}} are in the public domain in the source country for a different reason than expiry of a term. The copyright to all such works therefore had to be restored in France (and potentially all other Berne Convention member countries other than the United States), unless they are {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-1923}} or something similar. Likewise, FOP does not have anything to do with the public domain (the buildings are still copyrighted). Instead, FOP cases are subject to Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention, which prohibits courts from considering the laws of other countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
In terms of legal obligations, the minimum requirement is just to meet the FoP laws of the US (in fact confirmed by Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention). But on top of that layer we still need to answer the question: What is the purpose why we require that an image be free in its source country? That reason will directly influence whether Crimea is part of Russia or Ukraine as far as Commons is concerned. We could legally choose to do anything we want. We could even remove the source country requirement. But we don't, because we want to achieve some goal. What that goal is needs to be determined. -- King of ♠ 07:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just as we require legality in both the US and the country of origin, ISTM it would make sense to require compliance with the laws of all countries with a viable claim to jurisdiction. This would have the effect of enforcing the least liberal FOP provisions (or, if you prefer, the most generous to architects, sculptors &c.), but would accord with the precautionary principle.
As for the goal, I believe it‘s to afford content-reusers, wherever they may be, the best possible assurance of permission and freedom from potential encumbrance.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • According to wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, Commons may only host files which are free according to Freedomdefined:Definition; that is, files which can be used by anyone, anywhere in the world. Under the licensing policy, this means that Commons can't host pictures of any buildings in any country unless the architect has been dead for at least 75 years, per COM:FOP#Samoa. However, Commons has never enforced this part of the licensing policy (and probably shouldn't either). --Stefan4 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

fop in the netherlands

I think this should be deleted because there in no FOP in business office in the Netherlands. Can we take this one File:Victor & Rolf.jpg instead?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it was taken outdoors. "Wall of central office" doesn't necessarily mean an interior wall; it can be on the facade of the office building. -- King of ♠ 06:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
In addition, this logo is very simple, so there may not be a copyright anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wayang kulit - Flat enough for PD-art?

I'm browsing the Google Cultural Institute's website and came across this very useful image of wayang puppets. Assuming that they are PD owing to age (I believe they are, but that's not my question), would they be flat enough for us to take under the terms of Template:PD-Art? I note that the argument has been made before (at File:Shadow puppet of Bima, Java, Indonesia (17th-18th century).jpg) but I'm not uploading until I'm a bit more certain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ihmo such kind of puppet it is not a bidimensional artwork, so pictures are derived works--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet says no to coins, as per counsel advice, and these seem more 3-dimensional then coins.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I was leaning that myself, at least so long as the wooden sticks are included. The shadows cast, I would think, would be 2d (these are shadow puppets, after all), but the puppets themselves don't appear to be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Public figure posing with an image of a character that they created or portrayed

I am looking for images of people that have been involved with animated television shows. Often, these photos will include a character that the person created or portrayed. For example, I would love to request use of this photo, [5] which shows Rodger Bumpass (the voice of Squidward) at a convention - however, you can see that under the palm tree shirt, he's wearing a shirt that depicts Squidward. Or in this picture, [6] Danny Antonucci (the creator of Ed, Edd n Eddy) is posing in front of a backdrop that features characters from his series. If I contacted the photographer of either of these images and he/she was willing to release them under an acceptable license, would I be allowed to upload them here? Or would they be unacceptable because the copyrighted characters are visible in the photos? --Jpcase (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The first photo is de minimus. I am not sure about the second. Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay. So if I got the photographer of the Rodger Bumpass image to release it under an acceptable license, I would definitely be allowed to upload it here? --Jpcase (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
For a photo in which copyrighted artwork is visible and is not de minimis, the copyright holder for the artwork must license the artwork under a free content license even if the photo itself is freely licensed or out of copyright. If an artist is willing to grant permission, they should be directed send a message to OTRS for confirmation. One method is to upload the image with a license tag for the photo itself plus a {{subst:OP}} tag and a license tag for the depicted artwork and to have the artist mention the URL for the uploaded image in their confirmation message, after which an OTRS volunteer can tag the uploaded image to indicate that permission for the artwork shown in the image has been confirmed. (For such an image, it is useful to separately indicate the license for the photo versus the license for the artwork shown in the photo.) --Gazebo (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dv64-menu c.jpg and TOO

The File:Dv64-menu c.jpg image is currently tagged as {{PD-user-w}}, but this seems doubtful; indeed, there is the question as to whether the image is above the TOO. (According to the English Wikipedia article in which the image is used, the menu is from a hardware device that was manufactured by a Hong Kong company.) --Gazebo (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think {{PD-text}} would be more suitable. --El Grafo (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Full metal Alchemist images

While looking for alchemical symbols I noticed File:FMA Human Transmutation Circle.svg's description has "Fullmetal Alchemist original 2003 Anime." The page claims it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, but I am dubious that the uploader is the copyright holder or that the book or anime creators gave such a license. All my googles just point to Full Metal Alchemist as the origin. This looks to be too complex to fall below Commons:Threshold of originality. -84user (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  •   Comment: There is a Deletion request. Please address your arguments there. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

1925 diagram of an archeological site

I can't tell whether I am allowed to use the 1925 diagram of the Roman villa at Folkestone or not! It was originally published in the United Kingdom (London) by Samuel Edwards Winbolt in 1925, in his archeological "Roman Folkestone." I cannot find the date of his death, or any other information about him. The book was only published in one edition, and as far as I know, the copyright was not renewed, and it is currently in the public domain in the UK - a PDF of the book is available for download on the website of the most recent archeological dig (url= However, I can't tell if it is yet in the public domain in the US - I'm confused by the public domain dates and renewal system for 1925. Florimell1919 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


The Patuxai in Laos was designed by Tham Sayasthsena in 1957. The paragraph on FoP let me stop to file in a deletion request for almost the whole category. Have you talked about Laos already? Many pictures of the Lao monasteries may be ok because mostly older or no known artists or year of construction and always under (re)construction, but how about the Patuxai in Laos. In Cambodia we deleted the photos of the Independence Monument. I will stop my own uploads of the Patuxai, but I am not 100 per cent sure, whether I should request the deleting due to the lack of FoP in Laos. -- DerFussi 07:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Made in Japan, published in USA?


Can we assume that this was first published in USA, even if the device was made in Japan? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

About the file Vintage Panasonic Panapet 70 Ball'n Chain Radio, Model R-70, 4-3-8 Inches in Diameter, Made in Japan (9791099194).jpg, yes. That file includes four published elements:
1. The 2013 photograph of the box was published on flickr, in the U.S.
2. The 1970s box, which displays a photograph of the radios, was published in the U.S., as evidence by the fact that the box bears the brand Panasonic, which, in those years, was the brand that the company Matsushita used specifically and only in North America, and the accompanying text is in English.
3. The photograph of the radios, which can reasonably be assumed to have been made specifically for publication on the packaging and perhaps in other advertising material for the product. The same photograph may have been used also for the same purposes around the same time elsewhere in the world with the National brand packaging, but there would be no particular reason to believe that the publication in the rest of the world would have significantly preceded the publication in the U.S.
4. The radios. The radios of this version also bear the brand Panasonic, which might imply the distribution of this version specifically in the United States, but anyway the reasoning is the same as for the photograph, as there is no particular reason to believe that the offering and distribution to the public of the radios would have come significantly later in the U.S. than elsewhere in the world.
That said, it does not mean that the file can or should be kept on Commons. Firstly, a "no notice" tag was added, but it should be checked if actually the boxes did not have a copyright notice somewhere, and if the radios did not have a copyright notice somewhere (if someone believes that would make a difference for the reproductions of images of objects of that type). Secondly, the uploader himself (although not the author of any of the four elements) requested the speedy deletion of the file soon after the upload, not for a reason of copyright, but only for the reason "accidental upload". Commons usually deletes files when it is requested soon after the upload by the uploader invoking that he did not really mean to upload it. Which is a sensible practice, as Commons can't reasonably force anyone to upload files against their will. However, that would not stop anyone else from reuploading the file to Commons from the source, if the file is free. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The radios themselves are utilitarian objects, and do not get a copyright. I am talking of the packaging only, of course. I suppose that these were sold in USA, even if made in Japan, and that selling the boxes constitutes publication. Yann (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

First publication in the USA does not tangle the copyright in the country of origin. Fair use at best. --Denniss (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

First publication in the USA means the USA is the country of origin. Interesting question on where publication occurred though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Country of origin is where the original work was created or where the company releasing the product is located. --Denniss (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
That is incorrect. "Country of origin" is defined by the Berne Convention; it is typically the country of first publication. (It gets into other cases when unpublished, published in a non-Berne country, or simultaneously published in multiple countries). See Article 5(4). This is intentional; it is very possible for an author in a non-Berne country to get protection by having first publication be in a Berne country. I think Article 3 is the one that speaks most to where publication happens, but it's not explicit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
If the box art was published in multiple countries within 30 days, the country of origin is the country with the shortest term. According to [7], {{PD-US-no notice}} does not seem to be a term, although the ruling was specifically about {{PD-US-not renewed}}. If it was published concurrently in multiple countries, it may therefore be necessary to show that none of those countries has a term shorter than 95 years from publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep. I don't think the failure of formalities would count as a shorter term under Berne. But then the question is which countries was it published in. The Berne Convention seems to more lean towards where copies were made available to the public. Given that the packaging was in English, it seems likely that these were mainly distributed only in English-speaking countries, and maybe even the US in particular. (And it's not the actual items which have the copyright in this case; it's the packaging, so the question is where was that published). One or two might qualify as incidental -- the photo is of the product, and whatever designs happened to be there are incidental -- but a couple are basically only of the packaging. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
All text seems to be below the threshold of originality, so the question is only about the images. The same images may be used in multiple countries, even if the language of the text differs. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Per definition, first publication in the USA makes the USA the country of origin. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are radios intended for use in Europe almost worthless in Japan? -- 10:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Although the question does not relate to copyright, it is likely the case where radios (as well as other products) may be manufactured in one country (such as Japan) for reasons such as cost or logistics even though the product will be exclusively marketed in a different region (i.e. Europe.) For example, the Lafayette LT-725A radio tuner was marketed in the US but was (at least in some cases) made in Japan. In such a case, the product will be designed for usability in the country or countries where it is marketed. According to the English Wikipedia article on the FM broadcast band, the FM broadcast range in Japan (76.0 to 90 MHz) does not completely overlap the European FM broadcast range (87.5 to 108.0 MHz.) Other radio broadcast bands may have similar limitations. --Gazebo (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Why are FM radios intended for use in Japan illegal in Malaysia? -- 17:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsure of copyright

Would someone have a moment to look at this photo. When the uploader added it in 2006, he added a copyright logo. I'm not sure if the logo should be removed, or the photo deleted. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There are several copyrighted logo on the picture, all seems to me to be de minimis, ie not the main subject of the picture (it's a picture about Beale Street, not about a logo). --Dereckson (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That looks quite alright. You always retain your copyrights by releasing a work under the Creative Commons licenses. And the uploader JeremyA[therton] appears to be the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

how to get licence info

hi friends! I have uploaded two photographs today. S M Pathak.jpg and JoLareDeenKeHet.jpg and I found them on the website of the concerned author. i have provided this info in the source section. but, I am not sure if it is free to use or not. how can i get this info? please help me!--सत्यम् मिश्र (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I have marked your uploads for speedy deletion because they are copyright infringements. As a rule of thumb, all works published anywhere online or in print are copyrighted and non-free unless it has specifically been mentioned that they are free to use. The website you took the images from does not seem to have any free licence so you should not have uploaded the files at all. If any web content has been released under a free licence or the image is out of copyright, it should be noted on that page, or the image is obviously old enough to be in the public domain. And, again, this didn't happen to be the case for your uploads. So, next time please research the image's copyright status before you upload them here. De728631 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply De728631 sir! I will contact you later when get a free copy of the image.--सत्यम् मिश्र (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

text logos

this File:Oxfam italia.JPG and this File:Stemma Provincia MB con scritte.png can stay here on Commons? thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Maison de Balzac, photo of the room with the genealogical chart

I asked this at the Help Desk the other day but now see that the question may be more appropriate on this page, so here it is. I'd like to use a picture (which I took myself) of the genealogical chart of the characters in fr:La Comédie humaine, in one of the rooms of the fr:Maison de Balzac. The house itself is over 150 years old, but this room has been renovated more recently. The information in the chart is deduced from the novels, so presumably public-domain by this point, but the form and presentation of the chart may still be under copyright. If you want to see what I'm talking about, there are pictures at L' My own picture is similar to the one at L'Internaute; I would happily contribute it to Commons if it's OK to do so, but obviously not if it would violate the museum's copyrights. May I upload it? A. Mahoney (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the date of the renovation of the room would be relevant -- only the date that the chart was made, and who the author of the chart was. Facts themselves are not copyrightable, but distinctive presentations based on facts are. AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
After a bit of research I have found that the chart was made in 1987, so if the presentation is copyrightable (and it probably is), then it's still protected. So I won't upload the picture. The chart is a massively cool object, though! A. Mahoney (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

Are morgue/autopsy photos in the United States copywritten? They are the work of state government and I do not believe that they would be copywritten. Are they not eligible for copyright? If not, what license would be appropriate?--Gourami Watcher (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's only works of the United States Federal Government which are PD in the US. The only state governments AFAIK that have any such sort of exemption are California ({{PD-CAGov}}) and Florida ({{PD-FLGov}}) –⁠moogsi (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the verb form is "copyrighted", not "copywritten"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-upload of nazi supertanks

Hi, a user from it:wiki, specifically it:Discussioni utente:Caccola581, uploaded these images: File:LandkreuzerP1000Ratte.jpg, File:P.1500 Monster.jpg. As you can see he cites and as sources, and I would suppose these would not be free-licence images. This is not the first time he uploaded them, he also uploaded and/or used them in 2012 (I don't know if only on it:wiki or also Commons), and they were canceled, see: his contributions and his discussion page, where he was notified about them. In short, I suppose they should be cancelled, but I'm asking you to be sure. When you take a decision I can write him on it:wiki, in case you need it. Thanks, --Amendola90 (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

New Hershey logo a PD-textlogo?

New Hershey logo looks like it may qualify as a non-copyrightable textlogo... but it's borderline IMO. Figured I'd ask for opinions before moving. – JBarta (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering the Best Western logo, I'm going to go with non-copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit unsure on the chocolate graphic. Those may be non-standard enough shapes to get a copyright. The Best Western logo has a stylized "W" that also sort of doubles as a crown, but it's still a W (and the appeals decision mentioned that fact). The chocolate graphic here is not a letter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The chocolate graphic is a very simple illustration of a utilitarian object. Does that make a difference? -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
No. A drawing of a utilitarian object is still copyrightable. The drawing itself would have to be utilitarian (such as forming a letter) for that to make a difference. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Using Personal/Family Photos when photographer is unknown

Hi, Complete newbie here. I've read so many FAQs and guides for wikipedia today my brain has melted so forgive if this answer exists somewhere - I've not found it.

I've written a wiki page for my deceased father. I'm pretty sure it meets the "notable" requirements (he built and designed solar and electric cars and died in 1997).

Anyway…Have family snapshots of cars and him I'd like to upload to Commons so I can include in his wiki page.

Am unclear on copyright in this situation. Haven't the foggiest who took the photos - step-mom, siblings, friends - could be any of the above, and I'm sure they won't remember.

Can I use them?

Thanks for any help, Abacus Beans (talk) Abacus_Beans

You don't mention in which country the photographs were taken. In most cases the person who pressed the shutter button owns the copyright. In some cases, tags such as {{PD-heirs}} can be used... AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Exif says copyright?

Hello, I uploaded these last night File:‘Doh-Ray-Mee’ cottages in Raheny.jpg, File:All Saints' Church is the Church of Ireland Parish Church of the Parish of Raheny.jpg. They came from Flickr on the CC 2.0 (confirmed by bot). But when I read the EXIF data, it had copyright status information attributing copyright to the author. And I am thinking, maybe the uploader is not the author, and if that is the case... Has this been discussed before? I haven't seen such notes in the EXIF before. ~ R.T.G 07:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • It seems you are confused by the word "Copyrighted". Yes; most works other than their copyright expired are copyrighted, and only one who holds the copyright can grant a license like CC BY-SA as did here. His site also states "© William Murphy 2013: Street Photography, Urban Culture and Street Art - More than 95,000 photographs are now available under CC Attribution, Share Alike licence"; so I see no reason to doubt him. Jee 09:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ R.T.G 09:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Karte Machtanspruch von ISIS

Ich würde gerne eine Karte über das Gebiet machen, welches die ISIS gerne besetzten würde. Als Quelle würde das hier nehmen: LInk:,contentContextId=37791260,popup=true.bild.jpg Ist das eine Urheberrechtsverletzung, das ist meine Frage. --Fiver, der Hellseher (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
BILD würde ich nicht als Vorlage nehmen, die haben die Grenzen verändert (vor allem eckiger gemacht) und teilweise auch falsch übernommen (z.B. am Unterlauf der Wolga oder im Kongobecken). Wenn du die Grenzen des Originals auf eine eine andere Kartengrundlage überträgst, ist das kein Problem. Die Beschriftung der Gebiete solltest du von arabischsprechenden Wikipedianern übersetzen lassen. Benutzer:Man77 hat „Orobpa“ bei BILD z.B. als „Urubba“ übersetzt. NNW 13:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Die englische Version kann ich auch übersetzen, das ist kein Problem. Das Mache ich jetzt. --Fiver, der Hellseher (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Eine Übersetzung zu übersetzen ist keine gute Idee. Man sollte sich immer ans Original halten. NNW 16:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


I'm assisting a published author prepare her biography for Wikipedia. I'm preparing to upload her picture taken by a photographer and several book covers. What do we need to know to post these. The author has ownership of these images. Many thanks! -- 00:22, 25 September 2014 User:Webspelunker

Your client may own the physical photograph and/or electronic image files, but in most cases the photographer actually owns the copyright, unless there has been a formal transfer of copyright or "work-for-hire" agreement... AnonMoos (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If the copyright owner is perpared to freely licence the image and book covers, they can verify that permission by following the procedure found at COM:OTRS. You muct also be aware that you may have a conflict of interest and should proceed with caution and disclose your role on the article's talk page. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Detected copyvios and / Wayback machine


I'd like to collect some opinions about the following problem. Let's say that you, as a contributor to Commons, have found some of your works used on a homepage with disregard to their licensing and send a request to the license violator to stop the illicit usage. But the Internet Archive crawled the violating site and archived your work. Dou you think that it's worth to send them a DMCA takedown notice, too? Or is it too much a fuss, especially when it comes to deeplinks to the resources in question?

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons & Facebook

Howdy guys, I want to upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons (yay! finally! :-)), and I was also asked to post some of them on Facebook. Now I want to make sure I got this copyright thing right: I upload pictures to Commons under CC-BY-SA, then on Facebook, the license there stays the same, only Facebook is given the right to do whatever they please with them (fine with me for the selection). Anything wrong or that I forgot? Thank you guys. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's right. According to some earlier discussion (can't find it right now, I think it was here on Commons somewhere), there may be a problem with CC-BY-SA and Facebook, as Facebook apparently requires that they can use images uploaded there for their purposes (without adhering to a copyleft license such as CC-BY-SA). This, however, doesn't affect you if you're the author. You can't give away any rights for CC-BY-SA images by other people, so it seems that one shouldn't upload CC-BY-SA images by others to Facebook, but for your own images, you can grant Facebook any rights you want in addition to the CC-BY-SA license you grant to the public. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's right, User:The Evil IP address here on FB "For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."; even if you are evil :)--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
See also m:Legal and Community Advocacy/CC-BY-SA on Facebook - this might be what Gestumblindi has been referring to above. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, since you grant Facebook a licence to use the material for any purpose anywhere in the world, you should keep in mind that you can't depend on exceptions in copyright laws such as FOP, de minimis or fair use. Such exceptions in copyright laws only apply in certain countries (preventing you from granting a worldwide licence) and contain restrictions on use (for example, you might not be able to use the material for other use than commentary, or you might not be allowed to grant a licence which allows cropping the image, preventing you from granting a licence which allows any use). --Stefan4 (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this 20th century image free?

(Ping: Meister und Margarita)

Is this image free?[8]

Originally uploaded here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It can be free if it was published in the US before 1923 - which seems likely.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Does FoP washes copyright violations?

The question above is my reflection on the (for me) surprising closing of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Aliaa Magda Elmahdy. According to the admin that closed the DR, FoP in Egypt removes the copyright of any work provided that any person, being the copyright owner or not, exhibits the work in a public space. The wording of the template is, however, as follows: the author of a work can not prevent the "reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts", if the work is displayed in a public place or is a work of architecture.

My understanding has been always that FoP is only applicable if it's the owner of the copyright (author) the one that decides to display a work in a public place. The interpretation of @Yann: seems to be (correct my if I'm wrong) that any person (being the author or not) can take others people's work, decide to display it in a public place and, voilà, the work becomes free... It seems, IMO, weird and simply copyright violation. Am I definitely wrong? --Discasto talk | contr. | analysis 19:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This sort of matter is always dependent on the exact wording of the law in each jurisdiction. Does Egyptian law expressly state that only artworks installed in a public place by the copyright owner enjoy freedom of panorama? If not, then I do not see why this is a requirement. For example, it is not a requirement under the laws of various Commonwealth countries such as Singapore and the United Kingdom. The owner of a shopping mall may have purchased a sculpture from an artist and installed it in the lobby of the mall. The copyright in the sculpture remains vested in the artist, but since the mall owner owns the physical sculpture and has decided to install it permanently in a public place, under Singapore and UK law that sculpture would enjoy freedom of panorama. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the whole point of the FoP exception. It allows third parties to take a picture of a copyrighted work displayed in a public place. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I would be interested in the answer to this question, too - see File talk:Klagenfurt - Musilhaus - Robert Musil.jpg. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Ummm, it's been answered. See the comments above. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It does feel a bit weird, but it seems to be the way things are done at Commons: the country of origin is the last country in which the image was fixed. The Australian aboriginal flag is copyrighted in Australia, but most countries would consider too simple to meet COM:TOO. So we have File:Aboriginal Flag 01.jpg (a photo of the flag taken in Israel), which was kept not only because of TOO but also COM:FOP#Israel (either argument would be sufficient). -- King of ♠ 05:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that because copyright is tied to publication – in other words, copyright subsists depending on the place of first publication? — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You should note that the Berne Convention states that displaying a statue or a constructed building does not constitute publication. Instead publication, normally means that copies of the work have been offered at the market and that these copies somehow should meet the demand. For example, miniature copies of the little mermaid statue in Copenhagen are offered for sale right next to the place where the statue is located, so this statue is presumably a published statue. However, most other statues are presumably unpublished.
The source country of a published work of architecture or a published statue is the country of first publication.
The source country of an unpublished work of architecture or an unpublished statue is the country where the work of architecture or statue is permanently located. If copies of an unpublished work is located in multiple countries (cf. the Atomium case below), then I am not sure how the source country is determined. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is still confusing. Do we need to revisit the contradictory decisions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olthof bij het Atomium.jpg (deleted image of model in Netherlands) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minimundus117.jpg (kept image of model in Austria)? -84user (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC) (Ok, I now understand the FOP for Netherlands explains the apparent contradiction: "Not OK for photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models" -84user (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC))

Copyright law IS confusing and sometimes seems to be contradictory. The second photo of an Atomium "model" has been kept based on FoP terms of Austrian copyright law and on the assumption that the owner of the Minimundus park, where the model is permanently installed, has obtained permission for this installation by the Atomium copyright holder. --Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The deletion requests do not affect the source country of the Atomium. Pictures of the Atomium are illegal in Belgium without permission from the copyright holder, regardless of where the photograph was taken. Article 5 (2) explicitly forbids Berne Convention member states to write a FOP exemption which in any way takes the source country or the country of photography into consideration.
  • Copyright laws normally only state that the work must be permanently installed, but normally do not consider the reasons to why the work is permanently installed. This makes sense as photographers often do not know if a construction firm or installation firm had permission to construct and exhibit a copy of an architectual work or some other artwork. On the other hand, COM:DM#Sweden considers whether the incidentally included copy in itself is a copyright violation. If the incidentally included copy is a copyright violation, then it can never be de minimis under Swedish law. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Stefan4, I don't fully understand what is meant by your statement "Article 5 (2) explicitly forbids Berne Convention member states to write a FOP exemption ..." resp. by the cited article of law. Is the any more detailed elaboration (general) available? --Túrelio (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@Túrelio, Stefan4: His point is that FoP laws are technically territorial copyright exceptions relating only to republication in that particular country; under the Berne convention, an FoP image is not free worldwide, only free for use in the country that has the FoP exception. The Berne convention grants copyright rights to the creators of sculptors against reproduction. (Art 2 / Art 9). Copyright law says that creator may claim this protection, and bring legal proceedings, in any country where they feel they have suffered harm due to republication. What Art 5 says is that "the extent of protection... shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed."
A country can decline to protect photographs of works on the grounds of FoP. But that only applies to copyright claims for damage in that country. It doesn't prevent a copyright owner persuing claims in other countries, which do not have an FoP exception, regardless of where the photograph was taken.
This is usually a nuance of copyright law we quietly ignore, on the apparent basis that if photography of work is not protected in a sculptor's own country, he/she may typically not realise or not care that that FoP exemption is not worldwide, and that he/she may still be able to take action in relation to the reproduction of the photograph in other countries. However there is at least one example where the estate of a sculptor (Claes Oldenburg) took action against photographs of works taken in the UK and other countries with FoP, on the basis that there is no FoP exemption in U.S. law. The Foundation complied with the take-down request. [9]. Jheald (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Are images by the Massachusetts Court System considered "public record?"

In Massachusetts, public records qualify for public domain. See Template:PD-MAGov, which contains a link to the full statute. My question is, would an image produced by a District Attorney's office, in this case the one found at this link, be considered a "public record?" I could use the image anyway under fair use, as it became an international media sensation back when Veiovis was arrested, but if it is public domain, I want to use the proper tag.--3family6 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of exceptions to the Massachusetts public records law, several of which may apply to this:
  • (a) covers arrest reports
  • (c) personal privacy
  • (f) Investigatory materials
I'm not sure that any of these actually apply, but I think that the question passes our standard of "significant doubt". Note also that your source site has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't frequent Commons. What does "passes our standard of 'significant doubt'" mean?--3family6 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Replica art and other replicated works...

I tried a quick search for this and didn't find what I was looking for so I do apologize if this has already been asked and answered previously.

What is the standard of copyright for works that are exact replicas of out of copyright artworks such as the art around and in Caesars Palace that replicates ancient Roman, Greek and Renaissance artwork or the Luxor that contains replica ancient Egyptian art? Also...I recently picked up a replica Titanic Teacup and while that seems to fall under the utility use and therefore not copyrightable (as plates and cups do for our purposes) is there any concern about any of these things?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you create a replica, then you do not add anything which is above the threshold of originality. The only consideration is therefore whether the replica attracts w:related rights. For example, a sound recording is a replica of sound and therefore below the threshold of originality, but is subject to related rights in most countries.
You should keep in mind that utilitarian objects only are exempt from copyright in some countries but not in other countries. See for example this court ruling where a company was fined because it had uploaded several photos of two different chair models without permission from the "author" of the chairs. If you are uploading a picture of something which is utilitarian, you therefore need to identify the source country of this object. Also, countries which exempt utilitarian objects from copyright protection disagree on the definition of the word "utilitarian". For example, Japan exempts utilitarian lettering from copyright, whereas the UK does not. Also, Japan exempts utilitarian toys from copyright, whereas the United States does not. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Excellent response and extremely helpful! Thank you very much. I have a lot of decent images from Vegas but I became concerned when I noticed how few pics there are on commons. I did notice the Sphinx from the Luxur is shown but I believe that qualifies as a structure in the US and not a work of art or a replica of a work. I think the reason we have such few images in the Las Vegas category may just be that images need to have the category added. I might make some effort on that later today.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

1980's U.S. music

Can be some 1980's U.S. music, especially independently released stuff, be public domain because of {{PD-US-1978-89}}? For example, this demo contains no notice on the cover and I did not find a registration entry on it. Nonexyst (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Note that they need a p in a circle, not a c in a circle.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yet there remains a doubt: when a musical artist releases a recording independently and without copyright notice, is it an act of publication which can be used in determining work's copyright status, or the work remains unpublished from the legal point of view? Nonexyst (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Did they distribute the phonograms? If it was a demo they were giving to just record labels, that would probably not be publication. If they distributed (or even gave away) phonograms to the general public it would be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
In the case I listed as an example it was the latter one. Nonexyst (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
And, if the symbol (c) is used instead of (p) as in [10], does it make the notice ineligible both on the cover and on the recording? Nonexyst (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The (c) would undoubtedly cover the artwork there, and quite possibly the music and/or lyric copyright. Courts did start granting more latitude on "invalid notices" by that era so they may also have considered the phonogram protected by that notice. From 1978-1989 it was possible for authors to retain their copyright by (among other requirements) registering for copyright within five years, so you should probably do a records search on to make sure there was not a subsequent registration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


This template looks very strange. Shouldn't it be deleted or be redirected to {{Copyvio}}? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  Support deletion. However, a regular DR is recommended. --Túrelio (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  Speedy delete. The template is ridiculous, and this has been dealt with many times before. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Butch Walker, promo photo, Sep 2011.jpg, Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-05#File:Escuela Politécnica Superior de Huesca.jpg, Commons:Help desk/Archive/2014/08#Use of Facebook photos etc. LX (talk, contribs) 15:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  Speedy delete--Pierpao.lo (listening) 03:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  Deleted Yann (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)