Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/11

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Copyright

FOP in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

I revisited the COM:FOP Democratic Republic of the Congo and thoroughly digested its content. It appears that there is FOP in the country but limited to buildings (architecture) only. Luckily, the cited document of the copyright law of DR Congo is in English.

The reproduction of an architectural work  by means of photography, cinematography, television or any other similar procedure, as well as the publication of the corresponding photographs in newspapers,  journals and school textbooks, shall be lawful and may not give rise to payment of copyright.

— in: Article 28

The photography and publication seem distinct, but I don't want to be sure. Therefore, I want to obtain additional opinion on this. Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

They are somewhat distinct, but the wording taken literally would say that while you can *take* any photographs you want, you can only publish them in newspapers, journals, and school textbooks -- publishing them anywhere else would seem to not be allowed. That may be unintentional, but if it was in fact OK to publish them anywhere, they really wouldn't need to list out the places you were allowed. That is frustratingly close to being OK, but I'm guessing the current "not OK" is because of that -- we need to be able to publish them anywhere in order to be "free", such as postcards. The law predates the internet and things like that, so there may reasonably be more places added these days, but those are the words and even assuming online publication is OK, the law does seem to rule out publication in some places. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Alright @Clindberg: . Thanks for the input. I might proceed to commence DR's at some modern-looking buildings at Category:Buildings in Kinshasa (some of them uploaded through Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest). However, I cannot do it at this time as there is the looming threat of Typhoon Rolly in our region (southern part of Central Luzon) at the moment. If someone else will conduct those DR's, that would be fine, provided that they be categorized at Category:Congolese (DR Congo) FOP cases/pending. (IMO, uncategorized FOP cases result to orphaned case pages that deny those deleted files potential undeletions should FOP becomes available in those countries.) Marking this section now as closed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Update I made a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Congo Trade Center-at Kinshasa, DRC.jpg. For other images of modern buildings at Category:Buildings in Kinshasa, I might leave the matter to other editors as the threat of the typhoon looms upon us. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 06:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot taken from a Youtube video

I just found this image and it claims this video as its "source". However, I don't see any information on the video indicating that it was released under the licence stated on the image. How to know that it's not a copyvio? Regards.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: I tagged it as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: You're welcome. However, the problem runs deeper than one file.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I see Jeff G.. It seems like all their uploads are copyvio and they have been doing it for a long time.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 07:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: Yes, and now they have a third block.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Facebook screenshot

I posted a picture as an example of cyberbullying for the article about the same topic. It is a screenshot from Facebook. It is a case of a hategroup that contains cyberbulling textual and pictorial content. This is the [1] problematic profile picture, that contains abusive words in the strip cloud and physical assault on a Wikipedian. How to categorize this? What type of license is in this case? "Fair use - screenshot"? Do I have to remove something from the picture? Make the dimensions smaller? Kubura (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This is unlikely to be permissable on Commons. The Batman comic it's derived from is most likely still under copyright, which makes this a derivative of another work still protected by copyright. I would recommend you yourself ask to have it speedily deleted. TommyG (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Claim of FOP in Uzbekistan

Apparently there was a claim at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 16#Freedom of Panorama in UZ that there is a FOP in Uzbekistan, and one file was kept for this jistification. Anyone interested or wanting to put their inputs should go to Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Uzbekistan#FOP in Uzbekistan?. Thank you for your understanding. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


Are these fine?

Do some files categorized under the following pose no copyright problems?

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Question

Which file of mine is missing permission? --ILoveCocomelon (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Handled on talk page by Jeff G.. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: – BMacZero (🗩) 23:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Help

I translated this image from another image on Wikipedia but I was not sure which license to choose. Can someone please help? --Visnelma (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Visnelma: The files should have the same license as the source file. TommyG (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@TommyG: ˌ, I have added PD-Gutenberg. Is that enough? --Visnelma (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that should be fine. TommyG (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Murals in the US

This has to do with File:"Equilibrium" mural (2018; Amy Sherald), Parkway Theater (1915), 5 W. North Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21201 (45950088965).jpg and whether Commons can keep it as licensed. There's no FOP in the United States for publically displayed works of art per COM:FOP United States. I'm wondering, however, if the angle this mural was photographed at might somehow affect the application of the FOP. It seems unlikely that the mural itself is PD and I think the file would be considered a copyvio if photographed straight on; however, standing off to the side and photographing at an angle seems to add another element to it. I guess that additional element would make the photo a COM:DW (not COM:2D copying), but wouldn't affect the copyright status of the mural itself. Anyway, I just wanted to see what some others think before bringing this up at COM:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It looks like a copyvio to me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Commons:2D copying only applies to exact, precise replications of the image with zero other elements in them. Almost any photo of a mural at any angle would be a DW of the mural and eligible for its own copyright, unless great care was taken to only faithfully reproduce the mural itself. In all cases the mural itself still retains its own copyright and a license for it would be required, with the exception of COM:DM (which certainly does not apply here). – BMacZero (🗩) 18:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and BMacZero: Thank you both for taking a look at this. I was pretty sure that this file's licensing was likely a problem, but just wanted some input from others to make sure I wasn't missing anything. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:PD-JORF-nor-conso and Template:PD-JORF

Template:PD-JORF-nor-conso and Template:PD-JORF stated that This document is a facsimile from an official text (law, regulation, etc.) published in the Journal officiel de la République française, the official gazette of the French Republic. As such, it is not eligible for copyright. However, COM:France#General stated that Government works: not free except for video, text and graphics published on the gouvernement.fr site between March 2014 and September 2014. Does it means that both Template:PD-JORF-nor-conso and Template:PD-JORF and actually invalid (and can therefore be deleted)? Please advise, and thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there any difference ??

Hi, I know that cartridge sketches are ineligible for copyright because they are just a bunch of lines and text. But if the "sketch" uses CAD ??

For sure, the final quality is much better, but the argument remains the same: it is just a bunch of lines and text the computer put together under someone else (unknown) "orders".

Here is an example: It is not a photo, it is a CAD sketch made by someone unknown. Could it be classified as {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-shape}}, or both ???

--Marcric (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the premise of your question is wrong. A "bunch of lines and text" can definitely be protected by copyright as a creative work. A line or two, or a word or two of text, might not be eligible for copyright. But, the example you gave clearly is. It actually has more creativity in its creation than a photograph, so I can't see why it wouldn't be protected. --Rob (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting volunteering support

Hello and greetings

Following link on opensiuc.lib.siu.edu contains very old images mostly before 21 May 1884, which I am interested in using in English Wikipedia article en:Thomas Hughes (priest).

https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2402&context=ocj

Link does not seem to allow me saving images to my PC . I am requesting volunteer support in examining images in the linked book chapter for copyright issues, upload those which don't have copyright issues then include them in the article.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Using this link you can save the book into a pdf file, from which you can then cut images. However the quality of the scan appears to be rather low. Ruslik0 (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Advertising pillar

This photo shows an advertising pillar on a German street. Is this still covered by FOP and/or de minimis or does the image have to be deleted (or re-uploaded in an edited version)? -- Discostu (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Discostu: According to COM:FOP Germany, Germany has very permissive FOP. In addition, the advertisements are almost certainly de minimis as they are far to the side of the photo and are even partially occluded. Therefore I think there is no problem with this image. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Glory to Hong Kong

I have questions around File:Glory to Hong Kong.flac and File:Glory to Hong Kong English Version.flac uploaded by @JacksonChen: . I am not sure either of these are under CC licence, let alone copyright free and the former is claimed to be given parodies of the song have been pulled as violations of the copyright. The uploader hasn't provided any proof of the composer granting permission for these to be uploaded under those licences. Can someone more experienced in copyright and CC give any insight into this? The C of E (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I’ve tagged the files as needing permission. The source site’s terms page (through Google Translate—perhaps a Chinese speaker can verify) appears to forbid commercial use, among other incompatible terms. Certainly no sign of a CC0 or PD declaration.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

maps

  1. can i upload these two maps http://areeo.ac.ir/en-US/AREEO/32205/page/Isfahan-RC
  2. how can i make one like this for another province https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topographic_Map_of_Ilam_Province.png Baratiiman (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Claims of "own work"

CarlaBourguignon75 uploaded File:Shamurai.jpg, File:Frogmupan.jpg and File:Love Means never having you to say sorry.jpg to en:Wikipedia, each time as "own work", under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Each of these appears in en:Draft:Mu Pan, where they're described as works by Mu Pan. From en:Wikipedia, the files made their way here.

Something is, I think, missing in this. If CarlaBourguignon75 is saying she's Mu Pan, then I believe that (OTRS?) evidence is needed for this claim. If she isn't, then one can assume that they're not her own work, which raises other problems.

(I see this kind of thing very often, and confess to dark suspicions that certain uploaders click on "own work" because doing so is the most obvious or simplest choice, regardless of its meaning.)

I'm in no rush to nominate the three files for deletion, as I'm willing to believe there's been an honest mistake. They don't seem to be any of "Media without a license", "Media without a source", "Media missing permission", exactly; they're more like "Media whose status is dubious". Is there some standard procedure for dealing with this kind of file? -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd just nominate them for deletion, since they are apparently works by Mu Pan. It's better to do it sooner than later, since drafts at Wikipedia tend to get deleted and the information there would be lost. --ghouston (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, ghouston. I've nominated all three. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Birosagok.png

Affected files: File:Birosagok.png, File:Birosagok2.png, File:Birosagok3.png

These images most likely infringe on the copyright of the National Court Office of Hungary. I'm not associated with them, these files just caught my eyes.

Usage on their website (website has been redesigned since then): http://web.archive.org/web/20170824183425/http://birosag.hu/birosagi-szervezetek

Their terms of use: https://birosag.hu/en/term-use (TLDR: their content is under copyright protection, not Creative Commons nor any free license)

— 91.147.218.140 03:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

These diagrams are probably below the threshold of originality. Ruslik0 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
OTOH their quality is well below the ‘threshold of usefulness’. ;p—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Washington state copyright

According to the secretary of state of Washington,[2], the state's sunshine laws apply to copyright as well.

This is a public domain web site. It is governed by the Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.56.040-130) which makes this information, and any information you submit to this site, freely available for public inspection and copying.

This is a public domain web site. Most of the information on this site is not copyrighted. You may use, share or copy such information appearing on this site. Of course, it would be appropriate to give credit to the Office of the Secretary of State as the source of this information...

Should we take this as a statement that the state's sunshine laws apply to copyright as well? That is how courts interpreted the laws in Florida, so it's not completely out of the question. The office of the Secretary of State is going to be a reliable source on the matter.

If not, should we take it as a statement that they apply to any .wa.gov sites, or just the secretary of state's site?

Courtesy ping User:ThereWerentAnyUsernamesLeft who brought up this issue on my talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where it ties the copyright statement (which is much further down the page) with the public record portion. It does say it is a public domain website, but doesn't give a reason why. It does say, Our site may contain text, artwork, photos or other content that is copyrighted by others and is being used with the express permission of the copyright holder. Therefore, it is recommended that you contact our Webmaster or Communications Director for permission to use information contained on this site. Just from that page, I would say that the public domain declaration is only for that website, and of course only for material authored by that department.
That said, the main government website barely mentions copyright -- they have a boilerplate copyright notice at the bottom of each page, but other than explicitly claiming copyright on their logo there isn't much other mention. They repeat the part above about using third-party material, so that it's recommended to ask permission to use any material, though they don't explicitly say that government stuff is public domain. The governor's site does that most material on their website is not copyright protected -- it is essentially the same statements as the Secretary of State's website. So there may be something wider going on. However, it may not be clear to what extent they actually document what material might be third party. And the Department of Ecology (ecology.wa.gov) explicitly claims copyright, among possibly others portions of wa.gov. Harvard's State Copyright Resource Center mentions the copyright claim by Ecology, and also mentions the public domain declaration of the Secretary of State. I would probably limit usage to material from sites which give the explicit public domain declaration on them -- maybe there are more. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Magog the Ogre, based on this it sounds like we ought to remove all Washington State Legislature portrait photos currently used on Wikipedia/Commons. ThereWerentAnyUsernamesLeft (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Is the licence for public Serbian ressources adequate for this image?

I believe the current licence to justify File:Coat of arms of the Serbian Orthodox Church.svg being on Commons does not apply, because the Serbian Orthodox Church is not an official body of the Serbian State. What do you think? Veverve (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

May be it was in the past? Ruslik0 (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cukamo: you uploaded this image, so could you shed some light on the question? Moreover, if you could indicate the exact source of the image, this would be an improvement. Veverve (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo cartoons

Some of the well-known Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad from years ago are available on Commons, and some are deployed in useful ways in Wikipedia. However, some of the most pertinent images are not available, including the ones of direct relevance in the beheading of Samuel Paty last month in Paris, and the subsequent furore and diplomatic spat over free speech, Islamism, blasphemy, etc. It would be useful to use a "fair use" upload of the cartoons labelled Une étoile est née, since it was these that attracted the killer's ire when the victim, a teacher, used them in a lesson on history and free speech. I'm not sure how to go about this though. GPinkerton (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: if they haven't been released with a free license, they can't be hosted on Commons. Some Wikipedias permit fair use. --ghouston (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The Third Man poster (again)

I knew that poster about The Third Man [3] is actually public domain in the UK, since no credited author over 70 years, within exception of the film's copyright, would last by 2061. But perhaps, this poster was dated in 1949, and almost expired over 70 years ago. --122.2.10.69 06:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Voter ID Law map

Came across this image 2020_Voter_ID_law_map.png uploaded by Edlitwin. The file page claims it is "own work" but it is actually taken from this webpage from the NCSL. At the bottom of the webpage it says "Copyright 2020 by National Conference of State Legislatures". I'm new to Wikimedia Commons, and I don't know what normally should be done in this case. If someone who knows more could let me know what I am supposed to do I'd appreciate it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2603:8081:6601:1cf0:ccbe:5f3c:452c:3ce3 (talk) 22:11, November 11, 2020 (UTC)

I think the "own owrk" claim isn't correct, but that might've been just a misunderstanding. The diagram/map itself, however, seems to be composed of simple non copyrightable or otherwise public domain elements; so, perhaps the only claim on copyright has to do with the way the elements are being arranged. I'm not so sure about that because basically it mimics a map of the United States so there doesn't appear to be lots of creatively involved. There's certainly no need to use this in a Wikipedia article if it does turn out to be copyrighted because there's no way this would satisfy en:WP:FREER if this turns out to be COM:FAIR. So, I guess the question then is whether this can be relicensed as {{PD-simple}} or {{PD-map}} per COM:MAPS, COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery or COM:CB#Scientific or technical diagrams. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I don’t recall having seen that honeycomb arrangement of the states before, so it seems rather creative to me—but it might still fall below the US TOO. (The image has several problems aside from the copyright question, and its content could easily be represented on one of our free SVG maps, so IMO it would be no great loss.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

flickr contributors Dean Faulkner and Aero Icarus

Aero Icarus is a prolific flickr person, who, occasionally, uses disclaimers that say something like the image is "from my collection, not my own shot..." Sometimes he puts this disclaimer in the images' actual title, such as File:Air France Airbus A340-211; F-GLZD@CDG, April 1994 (from my collection, not my picture) (5669105207).jpg.

We seem to have over 32,000 images from this contributor, near as i can tell, all plane-spotting images. A very dedicated plane-spotter could take 32,000 images. But I wonder if there is a significant fraction that are merely from his or her collection?

If I am not mistaken he or she had no right to upload them, under a free license, unless the original photographer explicitly signed over all rights.

I uploaded a few of their images, where I didn't notice this disclaimer. I left comments on those images, seeking clarification. I anticipate there is a very good chance they will not give a timely reply.

There is another flickr contributor, Dean Faulkner, who has uploaded retouched versions of a couple of dozen other people's flickr images, including Aero Icarus's. They seem to have tried to properly attribute these images, but they seem to have made a few mistakes. They have uploaded retouched versions of images under a free license when the original was non-commercial, or reasonable equivalent. Or it could be that they were properly licensed, when they retouched them, and the original flickr contributor relicensed them

Annoyingly, their image descriptions use vertical bars, |, that have the unintended side effect of unintentionally obfuscating the attributions they put in the flickr descriptions. The vertical bar, in an image description, makes the rest of the description disappear.

So, should we be concerned about improperly licensed "from my collection" images among the 32,000 from Aero Icarus?

I took care of some of the hickups from my uploading Dean Faulkner's images. Migebert noticed the problem with those uploads, clarified when retouched images were valid not quite copies of earlier images, and nominated several where the originals were not properly licensed, for deletion. So thanks for that.

I will double check all those uploads over the next 24 hours or so.

The reason I bring him up is I would like to ask whether it would make sense for automated tools, like flinfo or flickr2commons to parse the image descriptions, and deal, somehow, with potentially obfuscating pipes? Would replacing a raw pipe with {{|}}, or reasonable equivalent, be sufficient? Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Permission

Hi,

Are ORTS and permissions-commons@wikimedia.org rules for specifying permission ?

When I need a photograph I ask the author if I can use it on Commons under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 and when I get a yes I upload it to Commons and use it on fr:Wiki articles, I either specify in the permission line "Permission given from the author" or "the owner of the document" (when it PD-old), I can always add the original email and specify he allowed me to use it under CC-BY-SA 4.0. I've done this for a couple of years and I've never had any issue, I recently got two photo deleted within a short time not even having the time to discuss the deletion.

So is a "Permission=Granted by the author + to use under CC-BY-SA 4.0" fine ? I can always copy-paste the original email

Arflhn (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, The rule is that there must be verifiable evidence that the copyright owner offers the photo to the public under the license. One possibility to do that is that the copyright owner indicates the license on their own website. OTRS communication from the copyright owner is another possible tool for them to confirm their offer of the license, if they did not already specify it publicly somewhere. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok, then I suppose, giving the link to the original file on the external website (like Flickr) allow a reviewer to contact the author if needed.
Arflhn (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
That's not going to work. It's the job of the uploader to Commons to provide the required evidence. Asclepias described you the same 2 possible ways as I did before. --Túrelio (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for this late reply, where's the full text on this point ?
Arflhn (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Arflhn: COM:L, COM:EVID, and OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.
Arflhn (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Arflhn: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

PD-logo?

Hi all, do you think this image would qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}? Not sure how unique this cross design is - some crosses date back centuries... That is the only element that I'd question here... ɱ (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ɱ: In the United States, that looks to be close to or above the threshold of originality to me, unless you can show that a substantially similar cross design does indeed have such a history. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Which was part of my question. I have never been a Christian, so have no knowledge of this - if anyone knows or knows how to find out, please help out. ɱ (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK it’s not any standard kind of heraldic cross (of which there are many varieties), although it might be described as a hybrid or mash-up of some such (it’s also slightly reminiscent of a mason‘s mark). Although I think it shows a degree of originality, my guess is that it’s still below the US TOO, which is higher than most. Somewhat subjective though, and when in serious doubt we have COM:PCP, assuming no PD-old prototype can be found. If the design comes from a Commonwealth country it’s probably above the TOO (which is there based on notions like “skill & judgement”).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Would appreciate some guidance as to how I can upload images to my Australian Financial Review article

Hi all,

I tried uploading this image https://search.creativecommons.org/photos/05841ade-f58d-4b5a-b482-2072fb6b3955 to the Australian Financial Review page. As can be seen under the "license" section of the photo, it is marked with a CC-BY-NC-SAS 2.0 license that says it acn be used as long as the creator is credited and for noncommercial uses. It seem as though the copyright status for the image that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons was flagged by AntiCompositeBot for "not containing enough information about the license or it containts contradictory information about the license". Can anyone provide some clarification? Many thanks for your help in advance! Lebronverstappen (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lebronverstappen,
In Creative Commons licences, only CC-0 (CC-Zero), CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA can be uploaded per COM:LICENSING. Anything with -NC or -ND cannot be uploaded onto Commons, so the work you’re trying to upload has -NC (non-commercial) and unfortunately cannot be uploaded. Bidgee (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Public domain images and commercial use

Hi! Thanks so much for this website. I am running into online public domain images created in the 1800s and early 1900s which have a statement by the uploader that they may not be used commercially. Do they have the right to restrict public domain images, or is it still legal to use the images commercially because they are in the public domain?

Edit: In case it matters, my hope is to create embroideries from these images for sale, so derivative works.

Also, exactly how old does an image have to be before it is entered into the public domain?

Thank you very much for your help!

Sarah

Edit: I'm asking about images on this site as well on other individual websites.

"Note: it is common for publishers to take public domain works and republish them under their own copyright. This may be legal, but it does not affect the public domain status of the original work. If you tag the work with its origin (where you got it and where it came from originally) and the name of the creator, this can help us if a dispute with such a publisher arises later." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahWTorres07 (talk • contribs) 20:14, November 16, 2020 (UTC)‎

Hi SarahWTorres07. How old something has to be to be considered public domain depends upon a variety a factors. You can find out a little more about this in en:Wikipedia:Public domain and Commons:Hirtle chart.
As to whether someone can take a public domain work and republish it under their own copyright, I guess that depends upon the nature of the republished work. If someone creates a Commons:Derivative work that employs some public domain elements, then that they may claim copyright over their "creation", but I don't think that copyright extends to their original elements. If, on the other hand, someone simply publishing a slavish reproduction of a public domain work, then I don't think they can claim copyright ownership over the work; so, if someone uploads public domain photos as is to their personal website, then I don't think they would be able to claim copyirght over them per Commons:License laundering. I'm sure some people do this unintentionally, but it can be big business for some (see en:Getty Images#Claiming copyright over public domain content); in specific cases, it may be something which needs to be resolved through the courts which might depend upon how deep your pockets are.
Commons doesn't accept any files which place any types of commercial restrictions on reuse; so, if you're reusing files you find on Commons, then you're probably OK as you comply with the terms of the Commons license. Commons doesn't deal with Commons:Non-copyright restrictions that individual copyirght holders might try to impose and any concerns you have about such thing might need to be resolved with the individual claiming copyright ownership. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Threats from the author – what can we do?

Hello! In ticket:2020111610006183, we were informed about that the author of File:Jan Paweł II portret Z. Kotyłło.jpg sends “threats of legal actions” to a Polish site. The photo editor says that they fulfilled CC-BY-SA-3.0 but the author still harasses them, so they are suggesting us to update the file page to avoid similar situations in the future. Do we have a template for this? Can we highlight that you have to be careful with this picture? Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

To make a balanced decision, we need to know what the threat is based on (or claims to be based on): violation of license terms, moral rights of the photographer, etc.? --Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Asked... Bencemac (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The case might even by more complicated as the image is a photography of a painting (hardly covered by FoP of Poland) and the uploader is suggested to be the painter, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jan Paweł II portret Z. Kotyłło.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The sender agreed to share the context, see below. Bencemac (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

We have made a collage/photo merge from two Wikimedia pictures of different authors. We have published it to illustrate an article and gave a caption "name surname, name surname/Wikimedia Commons. Edited by KP" One of the authors contacted us demanding the removal of a picture and so we did (3 hours after it has been published) explaining to him that he has used the wrong licensing but we take it as a mistake therefore we agree. After that, he continues to send our employees messages demanding public apologies, threatening with legal actions on the basis that his name was used in the caption.

@Bencemac: I replied in the ticket. Pinging @Zkoty1953 as painter and uploader.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
File:Jan Paweł II Kotyłło.jpg seems to be another portrait by the same person, uploaded more recently with a more recent OTRS ticket, and by a more active account. Possibly they could be contacted instead? Per the older DR, the two user accounts were likely the same person. The other two uploads by Zkoty1953 are File:Kotyllo tablica Bł. Władysława Gorala.jpg and File:Kotyllo- tablica bł. Władysława Gorala w kryptach katerdy lubelskiej..jpg, which would seem to be derivative photos of works by the artist in question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bencemac: We have only one side of the story and, although we can comment the partial information above, IMO we should not get actually involved into an external dispute, unless other information demonstrates some abuse. I do not doubt the good faith of the editor, shown by the removal of the disputed material. Many reusers who do not correctly comply with licenses do it from ignorance or various degrees of carelessness. The large majority of contributors to Commons are very tolerant of mistakes (or even of blatant license violations) by reusers. Still, an author whose licensing terms were violated is in his right to demand reasonable reparation.
We don't know what the "collage/photo merge" looked like, we don't know exactly what the artist complained about and we don't know what website it is, to get an idea of how it usually presents licensed material. Based only on the incomplete information provided above, there does not seem to be any indication that would allow the reader to know how the collage relates to the original and to identify what should be attributed to who and under what license it can be reused. In the license, one can refer to section 3(b), which requires to "clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work" and section 4(c)(iv) which requires "identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation". (Or, if the image was a juxtaposition of originals instead of a creatively modified adaptation, each should still have been attributed and licensed.) The complaint of the artist may be that the unclear identification of the works resulted either in wrongly attributing to his name material that is not his work or in failing to clearly attribute to him the part of the material that is his work. It can also be noted that the editor says that the attribution was to [name surname] instead of to the pseudonym indicated on the licensed Commons file. (There is also no mention of the title of the work, which I suppose is by default the title of the file, but that is unlikely to be a reason for the complaint.)
There are problems with the Commons file, not related to this question. From this discussion, it seems the OTRS communication about either confirming the identity of the uploader or confirming the license was not entirely clear in 2014. I don't know if that was resolved. More importantly, the paintings by the artist (see his category) look like probable derivative works from photographs by other people. There does not seem to be indications of the sources of the photographs nor evidence that they are free or that the artist obtained the rights to publish derivative works under free licenses. The files may have to be deleted from Commons for that reason. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Japanese Imperial Land Survey Copyright

Hey- do I need to add "PD-Japan" or something similar to File:Txu-pclmaps-oclc-6550512-kosen-2216-iii.jpg? I ask this question because the Army Map Service says on the map that they "copied" the map from something done by the Japanese Imperial Land Survey. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It is difficult to say without knowing the source. Ruslik0 (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I have looked over the Japan copyright page, and now I'm thinking that this map, if it was copied from a 1931 map as it says, might need PD-Japan-organization + PD-1996 since the 1931 map would be a cooperative work published between 1925 and 1945. I don't know how the Japanese Imperial Land Survey's status as part of the government would affect the situation though. Can I add these two licenses? Do I need to add them? Thanks for any help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that you can add both of them. However file description needs to be updated to clarify that the map is a derivative work based on the Japanese Imperial Land Survey. Ruslik0 (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Images of Peruvian government officials claimed as PD

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manuel Merino President of the Republic of Peru inaugural speech in the Congress.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done? --Red-back spider (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Red-back spider: Not until the DR is closed.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok. --Red-back spider (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

What template to use here?

I have just uploaded these two files: click here and here. I did it after checking the copyright rules for the country in question – Turkmenistan, cf. Copyright rules by territory/Turkmenistan. In the general rules section, it says that copyright lasts for 50 years after the death of the author. Now, we know for sure that it's been 50 year since the death of the author of this building (which was built in 1900); however, we don't know who the authors of this building are. Are my two images allowed to stay on Commons? What type of copyright template do I have to add to my files? PD-old-auto-expired? Is there one specific to Turkmenistan? --SuperBowser (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You need something like {{PD-subject}}. Unfortunately that is for places where the basic copyright limit is 70 years after death. Unless someone steps up to create an new template I suggest you adapt the text from that template and add it as plain text to these files, after the copyright template for the photograph. The following text may be suitable.
  • This image is not subject to Freedom Of Panorama restrictions. The subject of this image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 50 years.
You should add the date of the building to the description field. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help! I added the template as plain text – I guess there aren't many countries where the basic copyright limit is 50 years, which is why we don't have a template yet? By the way, I also added the year in which the building was built in the description. Check here and here to see if everything's ok now! Thank you again for your help. --SuperBowser (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just posting an update here. A.Savin told me that the best template to use in this case is {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Should I change the one that's currently showing up below the images with this one? --SuperBowser (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, A.Savin is a Commons administrator and I am not. However, I think there are problems with using {{PD-RusEmpire}} here. This phrase in the template seems inapplicable to buildings:
  • This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1925.
Commons:Publication#United States does not directly discuss buildings, but it includes 'A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication'. The existence of a building in a public place is probably 'display of a work'. It seems very unlikely that this building has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Also, this template, like many copyright templates, does not make a clear distinction between the subject of a photograph and the photograph itself. These photographs are not public domain, and it would be misleading to use a template that implies that thay are. For photographs of artworks this can be resolved using {{Art Photo}}, but this is a poor fit for photographs of buildings. I think we need {{Building Photo}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what template should be used to mark it, but https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf says that buildings built before 1990 aren't copyrightable in the US, and US FOP allows photos of buildings to be used for all purposes. The US is not a concern for photographs of buildings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Based on this, the sentence in {{PD-RusEmpire}} should be extended to:
  • This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1925, or it is a building built before 1990.
Verbcatcher (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The U.S. copyright of a building does not extend to photographs of the building -- they are not derivative works -- so it wouldn't be relevant for buildings built after 1990 either. I think adding that clause would be misleading; photos of buildings are inherently not a problem in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Besides, we already have {{PD-US-architecture}} and {{FoP-US}}. I just decided to use {{Licensed-PD}} with {{PD-anon-70}} and {{PD-US-architecture}}. There's gotta be a better way to handle that, but I don't know what that is right now. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(I hope I'm using the {{Outdent}} template correctly...) Thank you very much for all your help and for spending so much time figuring out what the best copyright template is. I came to look for clear answers; however, it looks like everything is kind of flexible here on Wikimedia Commons. First of all, shouldn't we look at the copyright laws in Turkmenistan? After all, that's the country where the building is located – a place where "copyright lasts for the life of the author and 50 years after his death". I thought that the process would be straightforward: after referring to Turkmen laws, I'd just need to add something like {{PD-subject}}. I didn't know that we actually had to look at European and American laws as well! By the way, @Brainulator9: is your solution the definitive one? Or maybe we'd better create some new copyright templates? --SuperBowser (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@SuperBowser: : There are multiple ways to handle things, no doubt due to various people having various ideas on how to go about something. I took the approach I did for clarity's sake. By the way, you only have to worry about the laws of the source country and those of the United States. I put the anonymous template there because that's the best one I could use. {{PD-anon-80}} seems too specific to Spain, while there's no real {{PD-anon-auto}} template. I guess I could have used {{PD-anon-expired}}, but then I'd have to figure out the applicability of U.S. copyright law to a set of works that would have never been seen as within the scope of federal protection as of 1909. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Verlag Helff & Stein K.-G. Leipzig

I uploaded a postcard with an aerial photo from the Leipzig publisher "Helff & Stein", dated 1941. In retrospect, I'm not sure whether PD-old is valid here. Can someone help me. Wilrooij (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wilrooji: Hello. If you link to the image that will make things easier for people who want to help: File:Park und Haus Bergfried - Saalfeld Thüringen.jpg. The "70 years" in {{PD-old}} does not refer to the time since publication, but the time since the death of the author. Also, as noted by the warning text on {{PD-old}}, the file must be public domain in the United States as well as in Germany, and {{PD-old}} is not sufficent for the United States (see COM:Hirtle Chart). A 1941 image would only be public domain in the United States if published without a copyright notice ({{PD-US-no notice}}). We may need to be able to see the other side of the postcard in order to safely prove that. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Fonts in Inkscape

I uploaded a whole collection of fonts that can be used in Inkscape, unaware at that point that they are potentially copyrighted and improper for upload. I would be very unhappy to learn that by doing so, I caused a painstaking process of case-by-case reviews. If this is turns out to be the case, I would rather like to have them deleted altogether. What do you think? (Please ping me.) Stilfehler (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Stilfehler: Though it doesn't cite any sources, COM:FONT says rasterized fonts are always public domain in the United States and may use the license {{PD-font}}. I can help you batch change the license if that sounds right to you. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful reply, and yes, help with the license change would be very appreciated! Do you happen to know if I can use those files for a German project? Stilfehler (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@Stilfehler: I did that. I see that en:Intellectual property protection of typefaces says some things about German copyright of typefaces, but I can't look more deeply into it at this exact moment unfortunately. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Stilfehler (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Humayun Azad with fellow graduate-mates.jpg

This photo was captured in 8 March 1970 (in East Pakistan). Per Pakistan copyright law, this photo is now on PD. But in 1971 East Pakistan got independence and became Bangladesh. Per Bangladesh copyright law, this photo is not on PD. In this case which copyright should we follow? Should we delete this photo? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the copyright law of Bangladesh should be controlling in this case. 19:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 (talk • contribs)

Copyright (in)eligibility

I'm thinking of illustrating the en:Wikipedia article On Bullshit with a reproduction of the book's cover, which you can see here. "Fair use", I'd first supposed (and thus of course requiring an upload to Wikipedia, not here). Yet the design is black, aside from a red rectangle, within which there is some lettering and one line -- and that's all there is to it. Hmm, would the design perhaps be ineligible for copyright, and thereby Commons-eligible? But I'm pretty sure that skilled, careful decisions went into its design.... Hoary (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The linked page shows this was published by the Princeton University Press, with addresses in the US, the UK and China. If the place of publication was in the US then it is clearly below the threshold of originality and would be public domain. The thresholds in the UK and China are lower and this may be copyrightable if it was published there. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Verbcatcher. Well, here it now is, on Wikipedia. It's in a category of philosophy book covers, among which many are very plain (or perhaps I should say austere). -- Hoary (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Lesió necròtica i úlceres a la pell. Common crarp - Shewanella putrefaciens

I have encountered the above file while categorising and wondered about its copyright satus as it is stated to be from a veterinary magazine. What sort of template is appropriate for this file if it has doubtful copyright status. Thanks. Richard Avery (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(Courtesy link: File:Lesió necròtica i úlceres a la pell. Common crarp - Shewanella putrefaciens.jpg) The declared source is the Journal of Veterinary Research. This is an open access journal, but unfortunately it licensed CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.[4] This license is unacceptable on Commons as it excludes derivatives and commercial uses, see Commons:Licensing. I will nominate this file for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Depiction of El Santo Mask to be used to represent the French professional wrestling portal

Hello All,

I post this message to be sure to be able to use the image a depiction of El Santo's mask to represent the French professional wrestling portal. You can find the file at this link : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mascara_El_Santo.jpg . This demand is relaed to the recent deletion for copyvio of the Blue Demon's mask depction for copyvio, with this name: File:Mascara Blue Demon.svg at this url https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mascara_Blue_Demon.svg&action=edit&redlink=1. Could you please let us know if we will not be in the same situation ?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Best regards, --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, today I was informed that File:The UN envoy for Somalia, James Swan in Hargeisa, Somaliland.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation.This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: All rights reserved at https://somalia.un.org/index.php/en/24420-hargeisa-visit-un-envoy-highlights-importance-building-somalilands-achievements. But in fact, UNSOM/SCPAG onws its copytight, as you can see in the article, so in the process of uploading the file, I pointed out that the file came from unsom's Flickr account. So I don't think there's a copyright violation at all.Please check it again. --Zoeyyy99 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Ytoyoda, Túrelio as nom and Admin involved with the deletion.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
When I checked, the Flickr link was broken. I checked again and the image is marked "all rights reserved". Ytoyoda (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ytoyoda: I concur, and I would !vote to oppose restoration at COM:UDR if this were brought up there.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, the link you are checking is wrong one, please check it here, https://www.flickr.com/photos/unsom/48392647097/in/album-72157709173283208/. --Zoeyyy99 (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoeyyy99: About that URL, Flickr tells me:
“ 403

This is not the page you’re looking for. 2020-11-14T12:16:57Z-bfcc03e6@server

It appears you don’t have permission to view this photo or video.

”
  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff, would mind checking agian? Because the link is still valid from my side. --Zoeyyy99 (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It was failing with the 403 for me before, as well, but it's working now -- and it does have a CC0 license there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This is also working for me, and I can confirm the CC-0 licence. De728631 (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unsom/48392647097/in/album-72157709173283208/ is a different photo (19 people vs. 2). What is the cited source in the deleted wikitext?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The source in the deleted file is https://www.flickr.com/photos/unsom/48392647097 so if the flickr account is legit then the copyright on https://somalia.un.org/index.php/en/24420-hargeisa-visit-un-envoy-highlights-importance-building-somalilands-achievements should not be a problem. --MGA73 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The given source was https://www.flickr.com/photos/unsom/48392647097/in/album-72157709173283208/, the {{Copyvio}} url was https://somalia.un.org/index.php/en/24420-hargeisa-visit-un-envoy-highlights-importance-building-somalilands-achievements. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
As UNSOM/SCPAG states:
"With the goal of a free and independent media environment, SCPAG aids local media development      through training on relevant issues such as journalists’ rights and responsibilities, ethical reporting, and the usage of latest technologies. SCPAG also leads media outreach activities, including    pitching and facilitating media interviews and visits, and writing and placing opinion pieces."

It means that all media from the company is in public domain so this file shouldn't have been deleted. --Red-back spider (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Implied or unclearly stated free licenses are always problematic. But I don't even read that as a free license. That doesn't even say that media can use these files, much less everyone for any purpose.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
That's not a copyright license, so no indication from that link that works are public domain, copyright-wise. The CC-Zero license on the Flickr page is quite another matter though, which means the lack of a license on the page which caused the deletion (it's the *second* image there, not the first) should not matter, unless we find out the Flickr license is wrong.   Support unless there is some evidence the Flick account owner is not the copyright owner. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I have asked the Flickr user about that. --Red-back spider (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Snn.ir watermarks

Should the {{SNN}} template have the same kind of "all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license" caveat as {{Nasim}}? It looks like most or all of the images in Category:Photos from Snn.ir have clear watermarks. (I've arrived here investigating File:Arman Ramezani on Perspolis.jpg, which was uploaded by a user who has wrongly uploaded a lot of unwatermarked Nasim images: the photo of Ramezani appears on the SNN site, but unwatermarked.)

One obvious piece of evidence: looking at File:Hooman Khaiyat.png, the snn.ir article that it's taken from also includes a videogame screenshot in the article, which would not be CC-licenced. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that it is a good idea. Ruslik0 (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Is it definitely the case that SNN watermarks all of its genuinely CC-licenced photos, though, and doesn't watermark anything that it doesn't hold the copyright to? --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Glenn Hetrick.jpg

I would like some opinions on this file's licensing. There's no real source information provided and it's the only file uploaded by the uploader. The EXIF data seems to indicate it's a scanned image, but nothing more than that. The photo can be seen online here sourced to "actorz.ru", but it's not clear whether either of those predate the file being uploaded to Commons. Does this need at least OTRS verification to be kept? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It is likely a copyvio. Ruslik0 (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Dreamtendo.jpg

Ist dieses Sternchen ein Fall für nen Löschantrag? GeorgHH • talk   21:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Souls in the System Cover.jpg copyright issue

According to its description, the image File:Souls in the System Cover.jpg apparently shows the cover of the game manual for the computer game Souls in the System. However, it is not clear by any means that the game manual cover was officially released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 Intl license.

Given that there is an English Wikipedia article about the game Souls in the System, a low-resolution version of the image just might be allowable as non-free content in the Souls in the System article's infobox. This is assuming that there is no copyright on the scan or photo itself and that only the depicted cover is copyrighted. However, the image is apparently of the game manual, as opposed to the game's packaging and it might not be considered to be "cover art", as mentioned in the English Wikipedia non-free content criteria. In addition, as of this writing, the English Wikipedia article about the game does not seem to contain any critical commentary. --Gazebo (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gazebo: I tagged the file as needing permission, and the enwiki page and user talk page as COI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for taking action. --Gazebo (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gazebo: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

UK Traffic Sign Working drawings - OGL or not?

For context :-

User_talk:Fæ#Traffic_Signs Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Working Drawings for Traffic Signs in the United Kingdom Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Symbols_of_road_signs_(Series_S)_of_the_United_Kingdom Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Symbols_of_road_signs_(Series_T)_of_the_United_Kingdom Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Traffic_Signs_Manual_(UK)_(Volumes)#Files_in_Category:Traffic_Signs_Manual_(UK)_(Volumes)

And OTRS Ticket#2020112110000535.

I recently filed the above DR's (which I think sensible to let run), based on a lack of clarity prompted by Fæ's concern, initially voiced in a thread about a potential mass upload of the Traffic Sign Working Drawings en-masse. However, subsequent views have been expressed by some that the DR's may be over cautious and that the relevant source material might in fact be OGL after all.

Thusly, I think it's time there was an extended discussion as to what license status the relevant items actually have, and thus their license compatibility with Commons.

If the working drawings are not under OGL (and thus do not have a Commons compatible licence), given that they appear to only have a standard (C) Copyright message in the drawings themselves, then content derived from them ( such as using the Transport Alaphabet tiles to create lettering.) could not necessarily be uploaded to commons for licensing reasons, good faith assumptions made in the past notwithstanding.

On the other hand, if they are (or can reasonably considered as OGL) then being able to produce appropriate media from official or authoratative sources (or in this instance specfications), is something that should be very strongly supported on Wikimedia Commons, hence the need to resolve the ambiguity. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: , @Fry1989: , @Nathan A RF: as they potentially also have interest in this issue. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: The general rule in law is that all works by (not merely for) the UK central government are automatically OGL unless there's a special exemption granted by OPSI (part of The National Archives since the noughties). The main instances of that exemption are those for the Ordnance Survey, the Meteorological Office, and the Hydrographic Office. I don't recall ever hearing that DfT / DVLA had such an exemption, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It seems extremely likely to me that these signs are indeed OGL, in the same way that images published on a US Federal Government department's Flickr feed are assumed PD but when presented with a countering claim will delete such an image, but if the Commons community decides that it can't rely on that likelihood then sadly yes, they should be deleted, which is sad. James F. (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The National Archives have a system of Delegations of Authority for authorising departments to license works outside of OGL, and the list of Delegations doesn't include any for the Department for Transport. On the other hand it also doesn't include one for the Met Office so it's clearly not a complete list of non-OGL works. However I think there's a simpler answer: the working drawings are on the gov.uk Web site, and their pages all say "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". There is no statement saying that the working drawings aren't under OGL, so by the blanket statement, they are. Also note that even if the working drawings aren't under OGL, the traffic signs legislation is, which will cover the shapes of the signs and characters. --bjh21 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jdforrester: , The ambiguity is why I tried to get a confirmation from the DfT, about this, but the response I got wasn't the sort of clear answer Commons normally likes. I'd also reasonably assume they were OGL, but Fæ raised a concern, so I followed up on it. I'll let the DR's run, but I will stress they were only started because of the ambiguity raised. I will note some of the T series appear to be logos which OGL would NOT cover. If the working drawings are OGL, someone should upload them so that the small number of dedicated graphic contributors here on Commons can make use of authoritative sources for road sign related contributions. I'd also like to see the updated Traffic Signs Manual on Commons, so it can be transcribed and cross-referenced in a way that isn't possible with a PDF.
Asides
  1. In respect of the 2016 TSRGD, many of the diagrams (not yet on Commons) can possibly be extracted from the PDF of the Statutory instrument itself File:The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (UKSI 2016-0362).pdf. It would need someone with access to something like Inkscape or Illustrator though.
  2. I will also note that another wiki has a near complete set of the original TSGRD 1964 diagrams], a set of images that I feel should alsobe on Commons, if someone wanted to do a mass upload. 1964 diagrams would be an expired PS-UK-Gov as I understand it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Also is there anyone interested in writing some traffic signs related content on Wikibooks? I had some tables I wrote tracking numbering changes of some signs between various pre 2016 TSGRD. and wanted to incorporate these into an appropriate page,once any licensing issues are deteminred here at commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Old school crest

I have been notified that the file File:PriorySfBShrewsbury.jpg will be deleted because "doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license". I have tried to add a little more information, but basically the image (which was sent to me by a friend who attended the school) is from a state school that closed long ago and I do not know what I can do to check on copyright. I simply know that the image was used everywhere in the school, including on the school uniform, but has had no official status since the school was closed down in the 1980's. Please can you advise me if there is anything I can do? RoachPeter (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@RoachPeter: if you can find evidence of its publication before 1925, that would demonstrate it’s in the public domain. (Before 1950 is early enough for anonymous works in the UK, but Commons requires them to be free in both the country of origin and the USA.) Is the source document dated, or is all you have the image itself? I guess the device was borrowed from somebody’s arms: any idea whose that might be?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The crest was certainly in use by this English school before 1950. It was sewn on the jacket pocket of the school uniform certainly from the 1940's onwards, and probably earlier. It was also stamped on the cover of school library books that were in use by 1950. It appeared on all school stationery. I have not been able to find out yet where the crest originated (the local Shrewsbury archives are currently closed because of the corona virus). If the school owned the copyright, I assume it must have been relinquished when the school was closed in 1981. A school bearing a similar name, The Priory School, Shrewsbury, has adopted a different crest. RoachPeter (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Afghanistan map

Com:Afghanistan says: "Photography and painting works shall be protected 50 years effective from the first year of publication and broadcast.[2008 Article 16.1.6]" Would that apply to maps? I found [5], a map published in 1960, by a map maker who died in 2000. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

On closer reading, the map was published in Iran, not Afghanistan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

1895 photograph

The Oxfordshire Photographic Archive holds an 1895 photograph (link) of the Asthall barrow taken by Henry Taunt (d. 1922). It has also appeared in print in 2006 (link), and perhaps before. It would seem to be out of copyright in countries where the copyright is life + 70. What else, if anything, is required for it to be uploaded to Commons? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The catalog record from the Archive would be useful. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The main copyright has expired in the UK. The only way they are still protected in the UK is if the first publication did not occur until 1995 or later, where the 25-year publication right may exist -- similar to copyright, but owned by the publisher, for use when works are first published after the 70pma copyright expired. It's also possible that the archive is claiming a copyright on the digitization of the image, which Commons does not recognize -- see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. For the U.S., it would likely only be under copyright if first published between 1989 and 2002. The archive states, Henry Taunt (1842-1922) was a famous Oxford photographer whose collection of negatives, prints and other material was bought by Oxford City Library in 1924-5. More information at the National Archives here. So it's possible that the photo remained unpublished until 1924-5 at least. But if it was considered published at that point, or Taunt had published it himself before, then {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1922}} would be the license. If first published before 1989 without a copyright notice, it would be {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1922}} but the U.S. tag would be different. If first published between March 1 1989 and 2003, it would still be under U.S. copyright due to a grandfather clause, but if published 2003 or later the term would be 70pma in the U.S. (with no publication right) and therefore be PD. If first published 1993 or later, the UK publication right would apply, which would still be in effect if that happened 1995 or later. Seems rather unlikely that the photo remained unpublished 70 years after the archive was bought, and presumably available for the public to inspect or purchase a copy. It also is rather likely that the photos were offered for sale by Taunt himself, since that was his profession, which would count as publication at the time. Your 2006 source link has removed access for a 1919 picture down the page, saying they could not clear the copyright, which implies that the photograph in question was cleared. Short answer -- likely fine, though there are some very slim theoretical possibilities of protection still existing, based on the date of publication. I don't think those amount to COM:PRP if it came up for deletion, but the uploader would be at their own risk if the Oxfordshire archives objected. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Kuwait and FOP

For a long time, the FOP status for Kuwait is deemed   Inconclusive de facto, as there is no mention of FOP at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Kuwait (this 2014-era Village Pump discussion did not even yield fruitful conclusion for Kuwait). Upon searching the keyword "Commons:Deletion requests/ FOP Kuwait," a single FOP case page was found which resulted in the affected inage file's deletion (it is now grouped under the newly-created Category:Kuwaiti FOP cases/deleted, and as a result new groupings for "pending", "kept", and even their mother category were also created).

I accessed this document whose link is attached at the bottom of Kuwait's CRT page. It has a disclaimer about translation though. Under Article 2 is the enuneration of protected works, including:

(g) Painting and literary works depicted by means of lines, colors; and diagrams as well as literary works of architecture, sculpture, arts carving and decorations.

(h) Photographic literary works.

(i) Literary works of applied art, including craft or industrial designs.

(j) Illustrations, geographic maps, design, plans and models relating to geography, topography, architecture and science.

Here it treats architecture and sculptures as "literary works" (though I think it is not literal, and the law seems to mean "artistic" in that original sense), and I notice the identical enumeration of the said clauses to those in our country's copyright law. According to Article 5, "The author's right of utilization includes the following:"

(a) The reproduction of the literary work in whatever form.

(b) The presentation of the literary work to the public through public performance, theatrical performance, radio transmission, TV or cinema show; or by any other means.

(c) The translation of the literary work into any other language or its amendments, summarization, explanation or modification into any other form.

Under Article 6:

The author shall solely be entitled to have his literary work attributed to him, unless the literary work is mentioned incidentally during a radio or TV presentation.

The author or his private or public successor shall have the right to object to or prevent any deletion, change, addition or modification to his literary work without his permission.

The modification of a translation or alternation or development of a literary work into another form shall be excepted from the provisions of the previous paragraph unless such an act prejudices the author's reputation, honor, academic or artistic standing or denigrates the content of the literary work, and in all cases the translation, alteration or development must contain reference to the fact that it is a modification to the original literary work.

I can notice some "exception types" from Article 7 to Article 11. Article 7 seems to relate more on copyrighted written or musical works or similar ("the author may not prevent the presentation or performance thereof if this type of act occurs during a private meeting that does not yield any financial outcome directly or indirectly.") so not applying to FOP-reliant works (e.g. architecture and sculptures).

Article 8 indicates the author of a "literary work" (a.k.a. artistic work, that is based on my interpretation) cannot prevent the reproduction of copies of the said work, or translations or quotes of it for personal use, and has additional indication that such publication cannot be made without permission from its "owner and the author." Article 9 relates to fair use types like "criticism, enlightenment, study or information" (information seems to pass the intents of English Wikipedia, but not Wikimedia Commons), "provided that the reference to the original literary work and the author are clearly mentioned."

Both Articles 10 and 11 are aimed at "newspapers, periodicals, radio, TV and other mass media," and are more applied to works which relate to discussions, lectures, and speeches. The first applies to "articles relating to the political, economic or religious discussions," while the second (and perhaps the last of the explicit exceptions stated) applies to "speeches, lectures and discussions given at public sessions of the legislative and administrative chambers and scienlific, literary, artistic, political, social and religious meetings and long as these speeches, lectures and discussions are addressed to the public." Again, both Articles 10 and 11 do not apply to FOP-reliant works.

In my interpretation, unfortunately, there is no FOP provision. I fear Kuwait will become included in "red" countries on our FOP maps.

An attached explanation at the beginning of the pdf document of the (crude) translation of Kuwaiti copyright law states:

On the other hand, articles (7) to (11) describe situations when the author is deprived of the right to object to the utilization of his own work by third parties even if such utilization is made without his permission. It is may be noted that these situations do not conflict wth the author's rights relating to his work because they do not imply a material utilization or infringement of his literary right. However, they are in harmony with the nature of this right which aims to promulgate culture in general, such as musical play or acting in a private meeting which does not yield a financial benefit or where the reproduction is done for the private use of an individual or by a public library or registered non-commercial house provided that the reproduction is limited to the fulfillment of its needs and does not harm the ordinary utilization of the work, or the presentation, quotation or analysis of the work for the purpose of criticism, study or information, etc., provided that the reference and author's name are clearly mentioned. However, the author shall solely have the right to publish collections ofhis speeches or articles as stipulated in article (12).

I guess I need to page a veteran editor here who is active in discussions related to copyright laws vis-à-vis Wikimedia Commons. Paging @Clindberg: . Also paging some of the editors whom I have contacts or whom I am familiar or acquainted before: @P199, AntiCompositeNumber, Ankry, and Ww2censor: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Also paging @A1Cafel, Liuxinyu970226, and Jeff G.: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

By the text there, which is from 2002, it doesn't seem like there is FoP. But, Kuwait joined the Berne Convention as of December 2014, and passed a new law in 2016, which was itself repealed by a newer law in 2019. We would probably need help from Arabic speakers, or translations of that newest law, to really know. I *think* the exceptions to normal copyright are listed in article 31 of that newest law, but I'm not sure. Google Translate is not really up to the task (not to mention copying and pasting the text out is also difficult). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, a major surprise @Clindberg: . This means the entire Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Kuwait may also need to be revisited, including copyright durations, etc. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Just found an online source which is an English translation of the "Law No. (75) of 2019 Promulgating the Law on Copyright and Related Rights" — http://lawyer-anwar.com/Ar/en/قانون-رقم-75-لسنة-2019-بإصدار-قانون-حقوق-الم/ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The closest thing I see, as part of article 31, is: Ninth: Copying any work that has been broadcasted that can be viewed or heard on the occasion of the presentation of current events by fixed or mobile filming, provided that this is within the target to be achieved, with the need to indicate the source clearly. The translation seems ... not well done, unless the original is also difficult to translate. I'm not quite sure what it's saying, honestly. But doesn't really sound like a FoP provision -- maybe more of works seen during a broadcast, only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I may also try to call tha attention of @Aymatth2: who once replied to me about FOP in the Philippines (before the September–November 2020 discussion that ended in the same conclusion for FOP in the Philippines). IMO the new Kuwaiti copyright law might cause some updates and overhaul of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Kuwait. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Clindberg: other clause that caught my attention is: "First: Copying the original work for the sole personal use of the duplicator in any way, provided that the work has been lawfully published and that the original copy has been lawfully acquired, except for copies of architectural works embodied in the form of buildings or any other installations." This seems to enforce that copying of copyrighted works is only allowed for personal (private use) only, but it excludes "architectural works embodied in the form of buildings or any other installations." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

No, that's a fairly standard exception, and nothing to do with FoP. You are allowed to make a copy of a work for personal use, in general. However that does not apply for buildings, since that is the main way an architectural work is protected -- someone else wanting the same building design. You can't construct a house using someone else's design "for personal use". Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
COM:CRT/Kuwait needs to be reviewed to make sure it is consistent with the 2019 law as translated at [6]. If there were a freedom of panarama exemption it would be in Chapter V Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright and Related Rights (Articles 31 to 33). I do not see anything that would allow pictures of buildings for commercial use. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I have updated COM:CRT/Kuwait to reflect the 2019 law. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  Done adding Kuwait on the list of no FOP countries at Commons:Freedom of panorama/table. One last problem is the outdated File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg and its original png version. I have pending requests for update at File talk:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg#Coloring scheme changes/updates. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Father's picture

I thought it would be a worthy contribution to upload a historical picture taken by my now late father when I was aged about 2. Obviously I did not take the picture. How can I contribute to a historical Wikipedia page with this picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanGartshore (talk • contribs) 03:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You should submit permission to COM:OTRS with credible claims to being an heir or legal representative of the photographer (see the declaration of consent). During the OTRS verification process you may be asked for additional info. Afterwards, you can upload the image using {{PD-heirs}} or an appropriate license of your choice (see Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses). Having an OTRS interaction on file is good to prevent future claims of copyright infringement, and/or prevent any old chucklehead from claiming to be the heir of Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon. --Animalparty (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

World War II British propaganda posters

Found these interesting posters in British Library with a Public Domain Mark 1.0 tag. Are these free? Does the Crown Copyright ({{PD-UKGov}} + {{PD-1996}}) apply here? Hanooz 23:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

1960s postcard

I have promotional post card published in 1963. It is a commissioned picture, author unknown, to advertise the TSMS Lakonia that entered service for the Greek Line in April 1963 and was based in Southampton for cruises. In November 63 she was destroyed by fire in the Med so I am confident of the date. As it is more than 50 years old would it now be free of copyright restrictions? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: Do you know which company first published the picture, and more crucially, in what country? Prints of the TSMS Lakonia might be from the Netherlands, Greece, or elsewhere. Many European countries have copyright of life of author + 70 years, or 70 years after first publication for anonymous authors. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory and Commons:Anonymous works for more info. --Animalparty (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Has the postcard been used? If so you might have some kind of postmark on the back to use as guide to where it came from. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The postcard has been used, from the context it was bought on-board[1] and posted in Cadiz, Spain, to an address in the UK. Unfortunately the date is illegible. Printed on the back is the Greek Line logo, T.S.M.S. LAKONIA, GREEK LINE. As the cruises were aimed at the British market and the ship was based in Southampton, it is quite probable that the card was printed in UK. [1] The message contains: …ship on front is the one I’m on… Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Having taken a magnifying glass to the back of it, very very small print reveals it was Printed in Italy - G Schenone. So it will be a while yet. The only let out would be the unrepeatability, the ship was sunk. Many thanks for the assistance. NB the picture can be seen at [7] 4th image down Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Scan of the back there: [8]. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not an expert on Commons copyright rules, but as far as the laws in much of Europe go, I don't quite see how the photographer of a post card from 1963 can have been dead for 70 years... --87.150.4.134 22:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Youtube screenshot copyrighted?

Hi, this image seems to be a screenshot from this Youtube video. Would that be copyrighted or not? --87.150.4.134 22:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It does not seem to me to be a screenshot from that video. Did you look at that video?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Saudi FOP?

Hello. Paging @Clindberg and Aymatth2: over this matter.

I read the exceptions under Saudi's copyright law, and found one provision that caught my attention.

(10) Taking new photographs of any previously photographed object or work and publishing these pictures, even if the new pictures have been taken from the same vantage point and under the same circumstances of said pictures.

— in: Article 15: Exceptions

It may imply that any work or object (incl. architecture and sculptures) can be freely photographed and published. But nevertheless I may need your analyses here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No, nothing to do with FoP. That is just stating that a photograph is not derivative of a very similar photograph, i.e. a photograph from the same vantage point. They are similar, but independent copyrights. If the photographs are themselves derivative of other works, is a separate question and not discussed there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Kein Grad weiter - Klimademo von Fridays For Future, Berlin.jpg

File:Kein Grad weiter - Klimademo von Fridays For Future, Berlin.jpg was nominated for deletion because of a non free statue in the image (FoPgermany does not apply, as a ladder was used to take the photo). It was kept after the statue was blurred in a newly uploaded version of the file. But the old verion is still online and needs to be version deleted. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional details required

Hi, I've provided all the information that were required in File:Rajput rebels from Bihar, 1857.jpg and File:Amethia Rajput.png . Kindly, let me know if there are some other details that are required or is it fine now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anony20 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Rajput rebels from Bihar, 1857.jpg is certainly in the public domain, but please indicate the source of this file. The Illustrated London News in 1857 did not publish direct reproductions of photographs, but engravings drawn after photographs, such as File:Koor Sing, 'The Rebel of Arrah,' and his attendants.jpg, published 31 October 1857. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Collective catalog of the state archives library network

Can we use files which are PD from Spain state archives ?

It seems like there are no specific rules for using them.

Arflhn (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Selfie?

File:Istanbul Olympiad Last Round 019 (7961177488).jpg and its extract File:Sam Sloan (7961177488).jpg do come from the subject of the photo's Twitter page as can be seen here, but it appears to have been taken by someone other than the subject of the photo, who I think would technically be the copyright holder. There seems to be a good chance though that the camera used was the property of the subject of the photo, who perhaps asked a friend or someone else to take this photo. How does Commons deal with photos such as this? For example, I often see people asking others (sometimes a complete stranger) often at tourist spots, etc. asking someone to take their picture. The camera, the pose, the backdrop, etc. all are determined by the person wanting their picture taken with the "photographer" simply pushing a button. I've made a similar request before myself. So, it seems that all the creative input involved is provided by the subject(s) of the photo. I tried checking for this on Commons and did find COM:SELFIE, but that leads to a section on COM:SCOPE which deals with a slightly different aspect. Are such photos treated as a type of "en:work for hire" where a verbal contract between two parties is made, even though it almost never involves any monetary compensation?

Similarly, some restaurants might have a birthday/special occasion type of thing where an employee takes a photo to commemorate those in having dinner or whatever on that occasion. Such photos are almost always given to customer free of charge, but there might be a bit of a creative element added by the photographer. Same goes for the photos sometimes taken at amusement parks, etc. where customer have their photos taken while they're on some ride and then can purchase the photo if want at a later time. Once I went on a tour of the USS Missouri in Hawaii and at the end of the tour a photo was taken by an "employee". I was given the option to purchase the photo online after the fact for a certain amount of time, but I've seen similar set ups for other attractions as well.

Such photos might be considered to be equivalent to school photos in some ways, but school photos are usually taken by professional photographers who seem to have all of the creative input, while these photos seem to be taken more "mechanically" involving not much creativity on the part of the photographer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

meta:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership#Who Owns the Copyright to the Photo If a Friend or Stranger Takes a Picture of You? is the relevant legal analysis. In practice, the standard I follow is that the subject is the sole copyright holder and is authorized to release the photo if: 1) the subject owns or is in possession of the camera; 2) the subject requested that the photo be taken; and 3) the photographer and the subject do not know each other and have not exchanged any information (including contact information or the file itself). Otherwise, the subject should not be considered the sole copyright holder. My reasoning is that by making no attempt to maintain any connection by which they could commercially exploit the photo, the photographer has forfeited their rights to the photo (which they may not have had in the first place if there was no creative input). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that link King of Hearts. I kind of remember seeing that page before. Your take on this then would seemingly eliminate restaurant, etc. photos taken by employees since those tend to be taken by a camera not owned by the subject, right? For the other photos though, I get your numbers 1, 2 and 3, but I'm not sure how you prove or disprove them. Is it enough to simply take the word of the subject in such cases? For example, I have photos of me and a retired pro athlete taken with my camera at a sporting event by someone I didn't know, but who was with the athlete. Simple pose standing next to each other in the stands with no information being exchanged and no expectation of any continued connection between myself and him. Would that make me the copyright holder of the photo? I don't ever intend to upload the photo anywhere online, but I'm just curious.
Now, in the Sloan photo first mentioned above, the subject uploaded it to his Twitter account and then released under a license Commons can accept. Is this sufficient to assume that there was no attempt to make a connection or that the subject and the photographer hadn't already established such a connection? There are two people pictured in the Sloan photo, but there's no information given on the other person. She could be a friend, a relative or just someone at the same event, and the photo could've been actually taken by her camera or by her friend. Moreover, this photo doesn't appear to have been uploaded to Commons by the subject. Does any of that matter or is it OK to assume good-faith? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the subject's word is sufficient, as is our usual policy for all previously unpublished photos (or photos initially published elsewhere under a free license). For the Sloan photo, I think it would be best to clarify with the subject who took the photo, and if the answer is "a random stranger" then it would be fine. If it's the subject's friend then I think it's best to get a release directly from the friend. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The years of registration vs. publication of the United Nations Treaty Series since Volume 401

Continuing from [9] where I got no reply, I have found that Volumes 1121, 1199, and 1200 of the United Nations Treaty Series were published in 1998 with copyright notices after the treaties were registered in 1979 and 1980. Thus we have to distinguish the copyright status with three tiers?

  1. Published through 1986 would be tagged {{PD-US-no notice-UN}}.
  2. Published from 1987 to 1994 without copyright notice would be tagged {{PD-UN-doc}}.
  3. Published from 1994 to present with copyright notice would be kept out of here.--Jusjih (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Volumes 1237, 1242, 1247, and 1269 also say per Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2:
Copyright © United Nations 19__
All rights reserved
Manufactured in [name of country]
Thus those published in 1994 may or may not have copyright notices.--Jusjih (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I upload my own music created from SpitfireAudio.com sound files?

The company SpitfireAudio.com sells sound files (library) to music authors. But from my understanding, the EULA https://www.spitfireaudio.com/info/eula/ prohibits the publication of any work based on the SpitfireAudio.com sound files.

However, many companies release music based on SpitfireAudio.com sound files without any issue, and everyone is happy.

If I create my own original music using the SpitfireAudio.com sound files : from the legal point of view, can I license my music under CC-BY-SA and upload it to Wikimedia.org? (I am based in France)

Is there a legal text or a section in Wikimedia.org about this topic? --Oliver H (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oliver H: With that understanding of the EULA, you would not be able to legally license such a work under CC-BY-SA or upload it here. If you make a work using the copyrighted work of another person, you need their permission to redistributed it - the relevant documentation is COM:DW. Many people do ignore this condition and "get away with it", so to speak, but we are pretty careful about doing it right on Commons.
That said, I think the EULA might be more generous than you think. It looks to me like it allows publication of the sounds if and only if "you have combined them with other sounds within one or more musical composition(s) and/or recording(s)". This would be a pretty standard condition for an audio sample collection, to my knowledge. Based on that clause, I do believe that the EULA does allow you to create a musical work using the sounds and license it as you see fit.
One finally consideration is that Commons only wants content that is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" (COM:SCOPE). Original music composed by you, unfortunately, may not satisfy that. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@BMacZero: Thank you for the clarification. I have initiated a discussion to improve COM:DW. See Commons talk:Copyright rules by subject matter#Use of copyrighted sound files library to produce free music. --Oliver H (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@BMacZero: There is the category Category:Production music ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

de:Datei:Nordendorf Fibel I. Runeninschrift.jpg

I am trying to determine whether this file is eligible to be transferred to Commons. It is tagged as free use by virtue of copyright expiration in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, but as requiring individual review to ascertain whether it can be copied to Commons. However, the source is given as a book published in 1897 (Friedrich Vogt and Max Koch, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart, OCLC Worldcat page for freely available digitized version; the file page states in Breslau, but the book turns out to have been actually published in Leipzig and Vienna). So far as I am able to determine reading the information on German Wikipedia and here on Commons, that renders it copyright-free in the US also because of publication prior to 1925. I was able to access the book via that OCLC link and find the image on Volume 1, page 8 here. That gives the source as a book published in 1889 in Strasbourg (at the time in the German Empire): Rudolf Henning, Die deutschen Runendenkmäler (OCLC). I am able to see this on Google Books; the relevant image is included in Fig. 7 (plates are at the end of the book on unnumbered pages), but the 1897 image is not only inverted but much clearer and although the German copyright-free rationale refers to photography, looks to me as if it is actually a reproduction of a drawing from the 1889 photo. The 1897 book does have "All rights reserved" in German (and a later edition available on Google Books has an English-language copyright statement), but I cannot see any reason that the pre-1925 provision does not include this image. So, can this image be transferred to Commons? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Anything published in 19th century is high unlikely to be still protected by copyright. Ruslik0 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
It didn't take me that long to find w:nl:Lodewijk van Deyssel and w:Ioan A. Bassarabescu. I'd prefer to say that there's a consensus that {{PD-old-assumed}} permits the posting of works 120 years old where a death year can not be found.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
It sounds as if you both agree with me that it should be ok, but when I prepared a link to this discussion and tried to import the file to Commons, I was stopped by a message saying the image is tagged Vorlage:NoCommons. Is there a template of some sort to request help? I don't find any mention of a more formal review process than asking here. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I am inclined to say that the review process here is formal enough. That is, you need to remove the "commons=Nein" parameter on the file page with an edit summary referencing this discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
and just in case, please turn the picture upsidedown to make it readble. ;) --Goesseln (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Done, thanks; it turned out to require flipping it to "Ja", which is not at all clear from the template documentation, and after attempting to add a specifically US statement, I now have two copyright templates with warnings on the file rather than one. Hopefully I have not violated copyright; in case I have, I'll wait before adding it to the en.wikipedia article. (There are two inscriptions, inverted with respect to each other; the image shows the three-line inscription, which is of greater interest, right side up.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/11&oldid=518452921"