Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/01

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Copyright

Question about a picture of a picture

This image seems to be a picture of a picture. But the original picture is supposedly copyrighted, so can I assume that this picture of the original picture is a copyvio? Regards.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@SirEdimon and Abekeza: I tagged it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff G..--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Red-back spider (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

ship models at RMG

I would like to use an image of a ship model that is in the Royal Museums Greenwich. The image can be seen at [1]. The model was made around 1742. If this were a 2 dimensional artwork, we would see the statement "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain"." Does anything similar apply to photographs of an out-of-copyright model?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: No, sorry. No photographer can faithfully reproduce a 3D object in 2D. Photographers make many creative choices when photographing 3D objects.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Red-back spider (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Uploading of old 1942 film poster in Telugu language in India

Can I upload an image of a film poster of a Telugu language film made in 1942 carrying the photograph of a popular writer on whom I am writing a page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bimalpanda (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide a weblink to the image so we can check it? There are a few things like authorship and copyright notices that need to be considered. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


De728631 (talk)

VOA

this photo's watermark footer says public domain which license is that? https://www.radiofarda.com/a/soleimani-activities-in-Iraq/30075665.html Baratiiman (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't read Persian. Does the website tell who created the photo? We have several public domain licences depending on the author of a work, so we need to know the origin of the image. Otherwise a mere statement of "public domain" cannot be verified. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Request Undeletion of

The comment while removing the subject file states that "While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear".

In this context, please note that original photograph is available in a hard copy with Mr Momin. Individual's permission has been taken to post this photograph on Wikipedia. So please un-delete it as there is no 'digital imprint/ track' which I can mention in the licensing template. And I had merely used present available digital technology so same can be used on Wikipedia. Hence, kindly re-instate this photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindhast555 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(Bindhast555 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC))

  Moved to Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests — De728631 (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Canadian/U.S. copyright -- Canadian photo published in 1942

Hi all, I was hoping for some copyright advice about this photo of Frances Gertrude McGill.[2] It was my original understanding that all (or most) Canadian photographs published before 1946 would have been public domain in Canada by 1996, and therefore meet the URAA requirements for being public domain in the U.S. as well. However, during a Featured Article review another editor asked me to confirm this with proof from the relevant online copyright law information,[3] which I wasn't able to do, and now I'm uncertain whether I can use the photo. I've seen different information in different places. Can anyone familiar with Canadian copyright law help me out with this? Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Your understanding is (almost) correct. You can tell the editor to find and read the pre-1999 version of the law. Photos created before 1949 were already in the public domain before the change to the law that entered into force in 1999 and they remained in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Asclepias: that sounds promising -- can you point me in the direction of that pre-1999 version (or a reliable separate source that confirms it)? I've tried searching through the copyright act for past alterations, but it's proving tricky to find the info I need. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
A wp editor wants you to go through the trouble of searching that for them just to prove a notorious point? Anyway. I have paper copies of several previous versions of the Act somewhere on a bookshelf and your nearest university's law library should have that too, but the online copies of the Act at gc.ca, at canlii.org and at wipo.org don't seem to have the versions from before the 2000s. You can see if you can find any online version of the Act from between its adoption in 1921 until 1999. But something easier may be to look for court judgments where the relevant part of the Act is quoted. From a quick search, try for example this one from the Court of Appeals: Desmarais c. Edimag. Scroll down to where some articles of the law are quoted (bilingual in French and in English). The relevant article is article 10. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Asclepias! Those are helpful suggestions. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The original 1921 version of the Canadian copyright act is here. It wasn't changed much for many years, though obviously there were some tweaks, as the photographic term of 50 years from creation was article 7 in that law -- obviously at some point they added the extension to the end of the calendar year (many laws did that in the middle of the 20th century), and some additional articles, likely dealing with joint works and posthumous works. In general, the law was almost the same as the UK's Copyright Act 1911, which also had a term of 50 years from creation. The UK changed to 50 years from publication in the Copyright Act 1956 (effective mid-1957), but that only applied to photos created after its effective date. Canada did not seem to update its law to match at the time, the way many of the other British Commonwealth countries did, so photos remained 50 years from creation. The UK updated their law again in 1988 (effective 1989), and Canada started modernizing theirs then. Canada's photograph term changed in 1999 (to 50pma, though corporate photos were still 50 years from creation until a 2012 change removed the corporate part). However, photos which had become PD by the old rules remained PD. And as you noted, for U.S. URAA purposes the date would be 1996 -- photos created before 1946 should be OK in the U.S. as well, unless they followed the U.S. notice and renewal requirements (rare for photographs). The UK of course enacted the EU directive in 1996 which retroactively overrode all the old rules, so the old terms are now irrelevant there for the most part, but they remain quite relevant for Canada. At any rate, the dates are shown in en:Template:PD-Canada -- hard to imagine there is a reason to question it even for a featured article. The talk page of the template goes over the details. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: thanks! That's excellent clarification of the history (and a handy template to boot). Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Recorded Zoom meeting

Assuming the content is in scope and we have copyright releases from all parties involved, is there any problem with uploading a file that records a Zoom meeting? There are a handful of imaginably copyrightable elements in the zoom UI. I would think they would be de minimis, but I'm really not sure. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: We've had this discussion a lot over the last year, but I don't think we've settled one way or another. The Zoom UI hasn't been a concern, but the copyright on each individual person's video recording has been discussed. Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/08#Zoom_video_meetings seems to be the most-participated discussion, but you can find several others with an archive search for "video conference" or "Zoom". – BMacZero (🗩) 17:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I missed that you specified that you have permission from all parties, and in that case I think there is no problem. For me, the Zoom UI is both functional and probably de minimis. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@BMacZero: For a one-on-one interview (what I'm planning right now) releases will be easy, if the UI is no issue. So do I understand that if I were to do this with anything larger, the best practice would probably that when someone signs up to get the link for the Zoom, they have to agree overtly that their participation implies granting a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for their content? Or don't we really have a practice for this yet. We certainly should: Wikimedians should be able to interview notable people and get the interviews up here, and this seems like the simplest technology for that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Yes, I think something like that would be a good idea. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, thanks, I'm glad they were able to take a look at the issue. I wish they had directly addressed the copyright of individual participants over their video feeds (unless I missed it, they only considered the screenshotter's copyright and the copyright of backgrounds used by the participants), but I guess that implies that they do not consider that an issue... – BMacZero (🗩) 01:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Zoom backgrounds

Let's say we have a recording of a Zoom meeting in which all participants have agreed to release their videos under a compatible CC license. What do we think about the use of non-free "virtual backgrounds" (the images that you display as your entire background)? Or of non-free artworks/posters behind the person?

My take is that a virtual background, because it's intentionally added to enhance the video rather than incidental, is a problem, but that images in the background, as long as they aren't the point of focus, are probably going to be de minimis. What do you all think? — Rhododendrites talk |  20:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the background will be de minimis. Ruslik0 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Which? There are "virtual backgrounds" where you take, say, a non-free image of a waterfall, and replace the scene behind you with that. Or there's the real background of a person's room. I think the items in the real background would be treated differently than an image chosen to be displayed as a virtual background... — Rhododendrites talk |  21:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much to pointing to that. I will need to read it more carefully but in the main, this would have been my guess: “a court will likely find more than de minimis copying in a screenshot where there are only two individuals on a call and both use large paintings as their Zoom backgrounds.” Basically that if a work is clearly visible and shot straight on, in focus, it’s protected and requires a separate license, regardless of whether it’s an added backdrop or actually there. In practice I would think that would not be how most people’s home/office happens to look, except that Room Rater has made everyone in an amateur set decorator and so more art may be positioned to be intentionally visible... Innisfree987 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this an instance of copyvio?

This satellite image of Lisbon and its JPEG version were uploaded by a a bot from the European Space Agency webpage. The file page says that it is under a CC BY-SA IGO 3.0 license but the linked source does not explicitly state that it is. Did the bot make a mistake? StellarHalo (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Don-vip as Operator.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The file is likely OK. All Copernicus pictures processed by ESA only are usually released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO licence. It was clearly written at the time of import, otherwise my bot wouldn't have imported it. I don't know why the statement disappeared, probably a human mistake on ESA side, I just asked them to restore it. vip (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Don-vip: The same situation also applies to this one. Not sure if there is any more. StellarHalo (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@StellarHalo: This one should be deleted. It has been processed by another (commercial) entity than ESA so ESA is unlikely to be able to release it in CC-BY-SA. It means I must implement the change of license in my bot :( vip (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@StellarHalo: The first image (Lisbon) is now correctly licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO, as expected. Thanks for noticing me. vip (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

File:EldridgeLovelace.jpg

I'm looking for input on the licensing of File:EldridgeLovelace.jpg. The file was uploaded back in 2009 and the username of the uploader indicates that he might be the son of en:Eldridge Lovelace. I couldn't find the image anywhere other that Wikipedia mirror sites through a Google image search and a Tineye search, but there's no Exif data and this photo looks like a professionally taken profile photo; so, I'm not sure {{PD-self}} is the right license for something like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The image was probably taken in 1970s. So, if it was first published in 2009, it is not in public domain yet. Ruslik0 (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Ruslik0. I posted a note about this on the uploader's user talk page; they haven't edited in quite a number of years, but perhaps they're still around and will see the post. If there's no response, then perhaps COM:DR will help sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

US Mint Issues

Long time (mis)use of Template:PD-USGov-money has resulted in many images of US coinage being uploaded that are not actually in the public domain. As it turns out, the mint loves using "Artist Infusion Program" artists, who "contract with" and are therefore not employees of the Mint. They also run a lot of coin design contests (as was the case for the 50 state quarters). In both of these cases, the coin designs cannot be described as works of employees of the federal government in the course of their official duties, and thus many coin designs on Commons do not actually lie in the public domain. (I have heard that the Mint may have put public domain waivers in some contest terms; I was not able to substantiate this claim, and even found evidence that they explicitly had rights transfer agreements in several recent contests. If you have more information about this, please let me know.)

In light of this, the Mint's various "design use policies" become more relevant. [4][5][6][7] My question is: Are these design use policies acceptable free licenses for use on Commons in the absence of public domain status for a coin design?  Mysterymanblue  14:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure about the legacy of the DFB-logo to be uploaded, and used since 1930. Here you can find it.

As per the Commons Template, refering to German Public Corporations, it should be legible. Thus I'm not sure about the Threshold of originality which may be also legible as an unsufficient amount of original and creative authorship?? (Other valid examples here).

Here you can see similar cases, which may apply on DFB badge logo, but I prefered to ask first:

Thanks in advance. --Brgesto (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this image public domain?

https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/1346938705932648451 Victorgrigas (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas: Who snapped the photo, and were they employed by the US Government at the time?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (IA cranberriesnatio5355port).pdf

Not a DR, Anyone able to check for a renewal on this which is clearly a pre 1964 US publication? I looked myself and couldn't find one.

Please update the licence either way if you are able to confirm. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Southall FC 1935-36 team.jpg

I have received the following message and would like some help re what I should do next: I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

The image is the property of Southall Football Club and was sent to me by email along with permission to add it to the Southall F.C. Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Roach Southall FC (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Egghead06 as tagger.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Clearer instructions about how to convey permission to use by the copyright holder are detailed in the tag, particularly in the last line and I have pointed the uploader in this direction.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Choosing a public domain license

I received the following legal memo about a five-volume set of books, and would like to upload their scans to commons. The following is the text of the memo:

The works were published in the UK first in the 1930s, so they're subject to the British copyright act of 1911. That law states that the copyright is the lifetime of the FIRST author plus 50 years. This was extended to 70 years in 1996, but only for new works and works protected elsewhere in the EU. It would have already been in the public domain in 1996 based on the earlier law, and would not have been protected elsewhere, so the extension never applied. When the US passed the URAA, it also was not eligible for copyright extension because it was not under copyright in the source country (the UK). Therefore, Public Domain here (USA) as well.

When uploading books scans to Commons under these circumstances, which public domain license would be the correct one to use? Dovi (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dovi: In what year did the last surviving author die?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The last surviving author died in 1947 (the other three in 1933, 1938, 1939). That indeed puts it just over the boundary. However, besides the business of the first author, the copyright notice clearly designates that the rights belong entirely to the author who died in 1939. Dovi (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I've never read that interpretation of the extension; Clindberg has said there was basically no work that wasn't covered by some EU nation for the full 70 years already, so that limitation to works protected elsewhere in the EU was not functionally limiting anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if the rights belong to just one of the authors, if it truly is a joint work, the term lasts for the period specified in law. You can sell or otherwise transfer rights, but the term remains the same. If there are different chapters done by different authors, i.e. the contributions of each author is identifiable, then it's not a joint work and each portion would expire per the respective lifetimes. You'd still have to wait for the last author to upload the entire work.
They were subject to UK protection on Jan 1, 1996, which (as you say) restored all works that were protected anywhere in the EU as of 1995. Since several other EU countries already had 70pma terms (and Spain had 80pma historically), and protected British works accordingly, then all of those works got restored in the UK as well. (That was the goal of the EU directive, to get to a common copyright term and not to have to look up historical laws for every individual country, so it was retroactive.) That is how we have always interpreted it -- I don't think we ever have managed to find a work which was actually unprotected in *all* EU countries at the time. When it comes to applied art and simple photographs (which had far shorter terms in many of the older laws), it might have been possible, but definitely not for books. The UK enacted those restorations on the same day the URAA took effect, meaning the restorations unfortunately applied for the URAA, too. The combined effect meant that loads of works were restored in both countries on the same day -- contributions by the first three authors had expired in the UK but were brought back for a few more years, it looks like. (Or if a joint work, it never left copyright.) Either way, it would have also been restored by the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for the information and analysis. I will continue to investigate. Dovi (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Al Jazeera logos

I've noticed that we've got a couple of Al Jazeera logos on commons under {{PD-textlogo}}. Does the waterdrop logo really come under this license? I know in theory its meant to spell out Al Jazeera (although my knowledge of Arabic is next to non-existant) and therefore is simply a text logo, however, I, and it seems, some English Wikipedia editors in 2013 seem to think it might the originality threshold? Can anyone shed some light on this - (and if the result is that it does meet textlogo, can we import the SVG from enwiki, as all of those logo images already on Commons are looking for SVG replacements) --Lcawte (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding image from document from Mozambique dating from 1976

This link is to a PDF document that reprints a speech given by the President of Mozambique to the 1976 conference of the Organization of Mozambican Women, which includes a picture of the president at the conference on the first page. The document is credited to FRELIMO, which was the ruling party of the country at that time (and still is). Can the publication (and thus the picture) be considered {{PD-Mozambique}} public domain on the basis that this is an "official text of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature, or to official translations thereof"?--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

In USA (and in other countries) political speeches are generally protected by copyright. Ruslik0 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Brazilian currency images

Hi. I noticed that a large number of images of banknotes in Category:Banknotes of Brazilian real are tagged as "own work" with CC licenses, and a few as PD-BrazilGov. I've also noticed that we have a tag, Template:Money-BR, that probably should be applied to all images within that category (and perhaps related categories), but said tag requires certain restrictions be adhered to (all images watermarked with "SEM VALOR", and all images no more than 72 dpi). I've seen a number of images tagged with that template that clearly do not have "SEM VALOR" (File:Brazil-2000-Bill-10-Obverse.jpg has "MODELO" for instance), and I'm not sure what the DPI of a number of these images are. I'm hoping someone more knowledgable than me can look into this since there are 50+ affected files (130+ if coinage is included). 69.174.144.79 21:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

When an article is published under a free license, does that license apply to uncredited images within the article?

Linda Zall is a former CIA official who, following her recent retirement, revealed she had used CIA resources to champion environmental preservation. Someone else promptly started an article about her. I decided I would look to see if there were any freely re-usable images of her.

I found some group photos that included her, including from this article https://www.jstor.org/stable/26897832?read-now=1&seq=12#page_scan_tab_contents

The last page of the article assert it is published under a creative commons license. Well the image in the upper left of page 2 doesn't explicitly credit a source. page 2 Is this image covered by the free license? Geo Swan (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Max Petermann

Hi, I wasn't able to find who is the Max Petermann mentioned here: File:Kleinzschocher Dorfkirche um 1900.jpg (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kleinzschocher Dorfkirche um 1900.jpg. No Wikipedia article, or not much information from a Google search... Any idea? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Jos. Vinzenz

Hi, Again, I can't find much information about this photographer. File:Nofels.ehem. Bad Nofels.Postkarte.um 1900.scan.jpg Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Peeing Bulldog.jpg File:Chunky the English Bulldog in his iconic peeing pose during the Wooferendum.png

two files, one without license and author is the times. the other cc-by and own but looks like a derivative from another foto of the same dog. The first wooferendum took place oct 7, not oct 13. But an article in the times may have been published on 13th? --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we import en:File:Mevlanzade.jpeg?

I still find copyright laws quite confusing. Based on en.wiki the file was created in 1902 in Ottoman Empire. Per commons:Ottoman: The Ottoman Empire was dissolved in 1923, therefore all works published there are currently in the public domain in the United States. So what would be the best tag to use while importing? {{PD-old-100}}, {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-Ottoman}}, or not import at all? --Balyozxane (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, you can import this file with {{PD-Ottoman Empire}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!--Balyozxane (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Walter Frentz

Hi, I created a DR which was closed after one day only. IMHO my question wasn't answered and remains valid: Why the Bundesarchiv would own the copyright of these works? Unless they do, they would not be allowed to license them. If there is a special reason which allow the Bundesarchiv to license works from others it should be explained. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I am also interested in the answer to this question. Some conjecture: while the text of the German Federal Archives Act doesn't seem to offer a super clear transfer of rights, it does appear that the records primarily come from government agencies and other sources under specific circumstances. I would guess that many of these situations involve a transfer of copyright to the archive. Also, the aforementioned act (§ 10) appears to give the Archive broad permission to let people use its contents, so perhaps this is a case of the Archive having the legal right to make these works available for public use even if it is not the copyright holder. I am guessing that the Archive does not want to have to go through and explain the exact licensing/copyright status of each file, and Commons seems to be comfortable relying on its status as an institution of such authority to safely consider these files freely usable without knowing the fine details.  Mysterymanblue  22:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm guessing they were (effectively) works for hire with the copyright owned by the NSDAP government, and thereafter owned by the German government, right? Seems reasonable that the Bundesarchiv would be have the rights to administer those copyrights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that would a plausible reason. Do we have any information about Walter Frentz being employed by the NSDAP government? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Institutions miss licensing files is quite a common occurrence. Example: hundreds of files from the Category:Photographs in the Austrian National Library which were deleted, and then restored today after the photographer's rights expired. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Undelete in 2021

Hi, In the case of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chennevieres, I don't understand why this would become public domain this year. Either there was no copyright notice, or renewal, and therefore these are already in the public domain; or there was a copyright notice and renewal, and they will be in the public domain 95 years after publication (e.g. 2023 for File:Raoul Paoli-Cinéma - The Coward - 1927.jpg, 2026 for File:Raoul Paoli-Cinéma - Safety in numbers - 1930.jpg, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Abzeronow, who added the category. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
File:1925 - Raoul Paoli-Cinéma - Mme Sans Gêne.jpg seemed like a possible candidate. I'll add the Undelete in 2022 for the 1926 files I see now. Abzeronow (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done Yann (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raoul Paoli-Cinéma - The Coward - 1927.jpg was closed as kept... @Natuur12: . Regards, Yann (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Either an error or kept because I believed that it's an reasonable assumption that the copyright of a photograph from a personal archive isn't renewed. In both cases this closure might need revision though. Natuur12 (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Files deleted

Hello,

Sorry for my english but I speak french.

In 2014, I contributed for some pages on Wikipedia but I got reported for some files which were some school exams.

Now, in 2021, I received a message on my email box which said that I was reported for violation of copyright.

My question is : what can I do to be not deleted from Wikipedia ? I can do good references now but I don't know how. I'm not a violator but only a user that made some mistakes.

Sincerly,

Ubistyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubistyle (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

To get File:Logo ISU Dour.jpg undeleted a person from isu-dour.be will need to write to OTRS and give permission to use the logo under a free license. As the web-site does not seem to tell anything about copyright or who is actually the publisher, that might be difficult (impossible). --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Licensing question

This image is from a military passport dated from 1936. So it is most definitely not "own work" as it is currently declared. According to the uploader, the photographer is unknown. What would be the copyright situation on a picture from an unknown photographer from 1936? --2003:C0:8F1F:3800:F97A:DE02:EA2:F13D 12:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the copyright term in Germany is life +70 years if the photo has not published, and 70 years after publication if it has been published. Ruslik0 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

China News Service (中国新闻社) published media

Some files (video or screenshot) which comes from China News Service uploaded video on Youtube requested to be deleted recently. Such as Commons:Deletion_requests/File:航拍浙江温岭槽罐车爆炸事故现场.png. China News Service has uploaded their video with Youtube CC-BY License, but most of the video has the tips in the end :"版权所有，未经许可请勿转载" (English translation: Copyright owned (or reserved), please do not reprint without permission).

Chinese Wikipedia tend to keep most of them, because the most of video copyright belong to them and delete all of them would make much impact on Chinese Wikipedia for widely use of files (disscussion still not closed here: zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他#转载中新社报道影片的问题). But some insist on deleting all for prevention and accuse China News Service of deliberate license laundering..... I have to say that is a severe accusation for a news agency. Now I wonder how should we treat the files? --ClayM300 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I just posted my remarks regarding the copyright status of videos from CNS's YouTube channel on in the original deletion request. Please consider followup in the DR, it's not good for a discussion to be splited in different places. --Techyan（Talk） 19:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

New user has uploaded file for Jacob Elordi that they don't even know who owns the copy of it and is taken from Facebook

As per the own users wording, appears to be copyright photo they took off Facebook but is owned by WireImage. NZFC(talk) 01:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZFC (talk • contribs) 01:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@NZFC: I marked the file with {{Copyvio}}. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: – BMacZero (🗩) 01:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I get a feeling I've been told how to do that before but I couldn't remember so posted here. NZFC(talk) 06:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZFC (talk • contribs) 06:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Question This may be a stupid question, but why isn't Chally2 (the uploading account) blocked? They don;t seem to have heeded the warning messages left on their page. Everything they have uploaded has been a copyright violation. Mo Billings (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Shell logos

English Wikipedia is treating the primary logo of en:Royal Dutch Shell and en:Shell Oil Company as non-free content as shown by en:File:Shell logo.svg. This might not be correct per COM:TOO United States, but I'm not sure about COM:TOO Netherlands. If the logo really is OK as {{PD-logo}}, then the non-free file's licensing can be discussed on English Wikipedia; however, if the logo is not PD logo, then there are a number of files in Category:Shell logos that probably will need to be discussed on Commons. Files like File:Logo Shell 1973.jpg and File:Shell lub.png were probably mistakenly uploaded as "own work" regardless, but the photos of the signs focusing on the logo might be considered COM:DWs in which the logo's copyright also needs to be taken into account. Any input on whether the primary "shell" imagery is "PD-logo"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree TOO is difficult, but regarding the quoted judgement saying “the shape may not be based on that of another work”, I would like to point out that the cockle-shell generally is an old, conventional heraldic symbol (often used to indicate that the bearer had undertaken a pilgrimage). So the question would be whether or not the precise manner in which Shell’s version is drawn makes for a sufficiently original “shape”; I’m inclined to think not.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
For the U.S.... seems a decent chance that it's below the TOO, but it's also probably moot, as the current version was designed in 1971 by Raymond Loewy (died 1986). As such, it was almost certainly PD-US-no_notice, either by newspaper advertisements, products themselves, gas station signs, and that sort of thing -- the notice and renewal rules made it difficult to keep copyright on logos, as trademark was the primary way they were protected. Say for example this can for sale on eBay, where I don't see any copyright notice on the can. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyrights of logos within GitHub respositories

Hello. Does anymone know if a logo being inside a GitHub respository means that this logo is automatically under the licence under which the GitHub respository is, or are precisions needed? Do we assume it is the owner who uploaded it to the reposirory? E.g. for the logos of Stride and Ruffle, both repositories are under MIT license. Veverve (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

TF logo and the repository are licensed under the Apache License. The logos are usually under the same license unless otherwise mentioned. The two links you mentioned are non issues as they too simple and {{PD-textlogo}} applies. -- Eatcha (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eatcha: thank you for your feedback. Can anyone give anymore opinion? Veverve (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
For Stride, README.md says "Stride is covered by the MIT License unless stated otherwise (i.e. for some files that are copied from other projects)." LICENSE.md says it applies to "this software and associated documentation files". It seems that the logo, if you don't think it's PD, would be included. --ghouston (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

How to properly attribute the text of image descriptions copied from the original source documents

Hi, a question on how to properly attribute text copied from the caption to an image.

I have just uploaded this image onto Commons. The source was a scientific paper, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For the image description, I have copied the caption of this image, as it appeared in the original paper. My question is whether I need to make a separate attribution for the text of the descripton, and if so how should I do this? (For background, see this edit on the English wikipedia.)

Many thanks, Hallucegenia (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have now used the {{Quote}} template to indicate the origin of the description and its licence. Generally you need to attribute such copied texts because all unstructured text at Commons, i.e. descriptions, talk page communication, etc. is licensed under CC by SA 3.0 by default and assumed to be the user's work. De728631 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo derivative logo variant

Hello Community!

I just made this file: Croatian Wikipedia 18th anniversary logo.svg for the 18th anniversary of the Croatian Wikipedia. Basically, it is a derivative work based on many other files - all files are from commons. As you can see, it also contains the Wikipedia wordmark.

Could someone please take a look at this and tell me, if I have named everything properly and if the licences are okay?

Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Lizenz Frage: Bild Robert Simon Geistlicher 1937 Hochladen mit Quellenangabe (so wie in der Originalquelle erbeten) korrekterweise möglich?

Kann ich die lizenztechnisch Bilddatei mit Quellenangabe hochladen? erson öffentlichen Interesses, Bild scheint für Presse freigegeben. https://www.erzbistum-muenchen.de/news/bistum/Ehemaliger-Generalvikar-Robert-Simon-ist-verstorben-38612.news https://www.erzbistum-muenchen.de/cms-media/media-53126601.jpg

Driverofthebluetaxi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Driverofthebluetaxi (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Einfache Antwort: nein. "Für Presse freigegeben" ist nicht dasselbe wie eine Creative-Commons-Lizenz. Hier bräuchtest Du letztere. --217.239.15.103 07:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

FBI poster image

I'm not sure File:Suspected-pipe-bombs-in-washington-dc.pdf and the extracted File:Pipe bomb suspect FBI Jan 2021.png taken from this can be kept. While the poster was created by an FBI employee, the image of the individual was probably not. There's no indication as to where the footage came from in the file's description, but it appears to be a still taken from some surveillance video. It's not clear where this video came from, but the FBI might be using it or might've received permission to use it. Any ideas on whether this is OK as licensed? If this footage was taken by cameras installed on some federal building then perhaps it would be OK, but I don't this the en:Republican National Committee or en:Democratic National Committee national offices would be considered federal buildings per se. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Such videos may lack sufficient originality. Ruslik0 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Surveillance footage from a fixed recording device is somewhat of a gray area. Previous discussions include: Is CCTV really public domain? and CCTV and video registrator footage. See also this deletion request and w:en:Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices. --Animalparty (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

DFB badge logo

Reopening question not solved and posterd here as per advice:

Hi, I'm not sure about the legacy of the DFB-logo to be uploaded, and used since 1930. Here you can find it.

As per the Commons Template, refering to German Public Corporations, it should be legible. Thus I'm not sure about the Threshold of originality which may be also legible as an unsufficient amount of original and creative authorship?? (Other valid examples here).

Here you can see similar cases, which may apply on DFB badge logo, but I prefered to ask first:

Thanks in advance. --Brgesto (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Batch process

Is it possible to batch process copyvio uploads? I just tagged this image as an obvious copyvio from here, and only then I saw that all or most of this user's uploads seem to be copyvio. Do we have to go through them one by one, or is there some way to speed this up? Thanks, --217.239.15.103 07:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. Please see COM:D. Logging in will help.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the welcome. I am sorry to say though that I can neither find a reply to my question on the page you pointed me to, nor can I see how logging in could help answer my question. --217.239.15.103 21:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't more specific. At COM:D, you can find info about tagging for Speedy deletion with the {{Copyvio}} tag (manual for 1 file), QuickDelete (semiautomatic tagging for speedy or standard deletion for 1 file), and Mass deletion request (manual tagging for standard deletion of a mass of files), which links to VisualFileChange AKA VFC (semiautomatic tagging and other operations for 1 or more files). All but the manual methods require JavaScript, and the semiautomatic tools work better when the user is logged in and has them enabled as gadgets, including custom settings, higher limits, saving of preferences, and custom tagging.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, now it makes sense! Mass deletion request is what I was looking for. I didn't know what term to look for. Having photo software terminology in mind, I was searching for something with the word "batch" in it. --217.239.10.219 08:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. There are many other reasons to create an account and login. Logging in is required before uploading or creating user pages here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting info between Upload Wizard and Common Information Page

So I have a work published in Canada in 1925 by an author who died in 1969. It is PD in Canada because the author died over 50 years ago. According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States, it is PD in the United States: "Anything published before January 1, 1926 is in the public domain". However, when I use the upload wizard, my relevant choices are:

  • First published in the United States before 1926
  • First published before 1926 and author deceased more than 70 years ago

Neither of these are true for the work in question, implying that it is *not* in fact in the PD in the United States. So what gives? Which page is correct? Somatochlora (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Somatochlora: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States has the correct answer in this case; the file should be acceptable. You can indicate this in the File Upload Wizard by putting {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1969}} under the "Another reason not mentioned above" section (also, make sure you can tell from the file description that the work was published in Canada). The reason the upload wizard defaults to 70 years is because many other countries use that, and trying to incorporate all the intricacies of copyright law into the upload wizard would make it very difficult to use. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, but those options are under the selection "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA", with the description "Wikimedia Commons is located in the USA, so the work must be out of copyright in that country.". If the second option is actually meant to indicate that the work is PD in the USA *and* in the country of origin, it shouldn't be under the heading "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA", as this implies that the 70-year test applies to US copyright status. Somatochlora (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I just woke up and saw I had 5 alerts, what do I do?

--Commons is in a thing (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Commons is in a thing: I would read them, if I were you. They look important.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Historic Chofetz Chaim Video Almost Unnoticed For Over A Decade 2.webm

This file taken in Europe by Hans Von Pebal in 1923 for Fox Film as news report in US. It doesn't mentioned if it actually published. The successor of Fox Film, 20th Century Fox, given it to the University of South Carolina in 1980 together with many thousands of other reels. The footage has been available through the university since 1981. The MIRC’s YouTube-style website was launched in 2012, giving its catalog an even wider exposure to the general public..
As the footage has been available through the university since 1981, can it be consider to be as publication (if it was not published in 1923). Your advice appreciated. -- Geagea (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status of the 1955 yearbook from University of British Columbia (Canada)

The title page of the yearbook (PDF) says that it was "published at the University of British Columbia by the Publications Board of the Alma Mater Society". There is no copyright declaration. Joofjoof (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joofjoof: It would almost certainly still be under copyright, barring unusual circumstances. As far as I can tell, Canada never had a copyright notice requirement, so it's irrelevant whether the yearbook has one. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada, Canadian copyright generally expires 50 years after the death of the author, and it's highly unlikely that all the people involved in making the yearbook (probably college students around 20 years old at the time, so born around 1935) would have died by 1970. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Apollo Theatre Marquee December 1939?

I am a newbie and drafting a wikipedia page on Miller Brothers and Lois and have found a picture of a marquee I believe to be from 1939.

Here is my textual support for the December 1939 approximate date of the photo. "When the Miller Brothers and Lois played the Apollo Theater with Jimmie Lunceford on December 27, 1939, they "one-upped the other acts by performing a high-speed rhythm tap dance on a set of four foot high pedestals, each one shaped to spell their name MILLER. They began with rhythm-style soft-shoe, followed by Danny and Lois performing precision tap and acrobatics, then climaxed with the trio dancing on, and quickly across, the pedestals executing wings, barrel turns and trenches."[1]"

The image I would like to upload shows the Apollo Theatre marquee with Jimmie Lunceford and Miller Brothers and Lois can be found here (among other places): https://www.d-archive.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/maxresdefault-3.jpg http://planetbarberella.blogspot.com/2010/10/tuesday-afternoon-swinginjimmie.html

Here is a Bing producing multiple locations for this foto.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailv2&iss=sbi&form=SBIIDP&sbisrc=UrlPaste&q=imgurl:http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_3o9FUDlJrSw%2FTKtsZfbNuQI%2FAAAAAAAAA4I%2FS2kQu5zRAm4%2Fs640%2F0.jpg&idpbck=1&selectedindex=0&id=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_3o9FUDlJrSw%2FTKtsZfbNuQI%2FAAAAAAAAA4I%2FS2kQu5zRAm4%2Fs640%2F0.jpg&ccid=T%2BrxKS9t&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_3o9FUDlJrSw%2FTKtsZfbNuQI%2FAAAAAAAAA4I%2FS2kQu5zRAm4%2Fs640%2F0.jpg&exph=360&expw=480&vt=2&sim=15

Is it possible for me to upload it without violating copyright?

Thanks very much for your help in this matter.

GlennRayUSA — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennRayUSA (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ Hill, Constance Valis. Tap Dancing America: A Cultural History, p.104, 2009, Oxford University Press, ISBN: 9780199745890. books.google.com. Retrieved on January 15, 2021.
@GlennRayUSA: Unfortunately, probably not, unless you can find some more conclusive information about the source of the photograph. The copyright status would depend on if, and if so, where the image was first legally published (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States has more details on this). 1939 is too late to safely assume that something is in the public domain. It's possible that, if the photo was first published shortly after it was taken in 1939, it could be in the public domain due to a lack of copyright notice or lack of renewal, but I couldn't find enough information about the photo in any of the webpages hosting it to substantiate either of those possibilities. Vahurzpu (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A cover for Dracula

Hi there! I'm working on a re-write of Dracula's article on en-wiki. The cover that currently resides on the page is... well, it’s terrible. It’s got a big black box around it. The cover has been public domain for a long time now, but I am not so sure about this reproduction. It’s literally identical to the original cover, but I was told to come and ask here to make sure before I uploaded it. If not, would any of these be suitable? Obviously the first one is the best of the bunch, but anything to replace the monstrosity as it currently stands. Thanks so much in advance—Commons is a strange new world to me, still. ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: It's fine: 2D scans of 120 year old works are in the public domain and can be uploaded with {{PD-scan}}, with embedded PD-old-expired (i.e. {{PD-scan|PD-old-expired}}. --Animalparty (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Someone has told me that it’s a reproduction and so shouldn't be uploaded -- is that true? Sorry for the beginner questions! Comparing it to the original book, it really is just enhancing and brightening all the colours, right? ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The reproduction is likely below the threshold of originality. There is nothing new or original for which to claim copyright, at least under US law. The text inside the book is public domain no matter what font, size, or formatting a republisher uses, and similarly, unless there are substantial creative additions, the cover is public domain regardless of color/contrast tweaking. Exceptions include if a modern reprint colorizes previously black and-white-photographs (an artist makes creative choices on what and how to colorize), and substantial annotations, editorial commentary, prefaces, etc. that are the work of modern creators, and can be copyrighted. --Animalparty (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
For a US law matter, a colorization of a photograph is is not copyrightable. The US Copyright Office will not register colorized photographs as separate works of copyright, and when the first colorized B&W movies came out, they held hearings about the matter before eventually accepting them as copyrightable, specifically distinguishing them from photographs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Can you post sources for the above regarding colorized photographs? I've found this discussion and this report from the U.S. Copyright Office regarding colorization of film, but can't find authoritative statements regarding colorization (or restoration) of photographs. I'd assume that if frame by frame colorization of a film is eligible for copyright in certain conditions, than so would a single image. Addendum: this article suggests colorized photographs are copyrightable. --Animalparty (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The copyright law (I don't know why this link disappeared) itself lists "mere variations in ... coloring" under "Material not subject to copyright." The Copyright Office Compendium (Chapter 9, Visual Art) in "906.3 Colors, Coloring, and Coloration" goes into more detail. There's more subtlety than I remembered, but I think it notable the counterexample they give is a case where the artist changed it "to make it appear as if the photo was taken in a different season." If you go to 52 Fed. Reg. 23443-23466 (June 22, 1987), the original Copyright Office report on whether colorizing a motion picture would be copyrightable at all, it says "(3) The overall appearance of the motion picture must be modified; registration will not be made for the coloring of a few frames or the enhancement of color in a previously colored film."--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Rhodesian military crests/PATU

Would any of the Rhodesian military crests here be suitable for uploading here on Commons? Specifically I ask about the Support Unit and PATU ones right at the bottom of the page. The PATU one (the one with the pawprint) I think doesn't meet the threshold of originality. The C of E (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi there. I'm unsure of the copyright of this photo. The photo had been posted on Facebook prior to being uploaded to the Commons. I nominated the image for speedy deletion but an editor said the metadata supports that the image is not copyrighted. Just curious about this. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 and TwinTurbo: I started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chris Yonge 2.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Turkish textbook controversies

Greetings,

7'th i.e. last image in this BBC news report depicts an image from Trukish textbook of 3 plain human figures named Mumin, Kafir Munafik, While image caption seem to suggest Turkish education ministry claims copyright, but since drawing is plain line work I suppose and request to have a look at the image and if it is allowed then please do upload the image to Wikimedia commons.

I would like to use the image in w:en:Draft:Turkish textbook controversies

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden - First Class Scout

I’m trying to check on the copyrights of an image that appears in a Joe Biden 2020 Presidential Campaign ad found here with the image at 4 minutes and 19 seconds.

The image, based on Joe Biden’s age and him being a 1st class scout, is circa 1954-1960.

Likely taken in 1957 at the National Scout Jamboree in Valley Forge, PA, not far from his home in Delaware, but I cannot confirm that information.

I had hoped to upload the image and add it to this Wikipedia page.

Hope to hear from you soon, thank you for all that you do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYLover444 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@NYLover444: Public domain status is based on the year of publication, and since it's a personal picture, it might not have been published soon after it was taken. We'd need to know the date and conditions of first publication to determine if the image is public domain. Refer also to Commons:Hirtle chart. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Public domain and uploading questions

Hi folks, I found some nice pictures on the internet that might go well with this article or this one, namely, this membership post card from 1925, and this picture from 1912, plus a few more potentially interesting documents here. Now I am aware of course that I may not simply download images from other websites and use them here, but given the age of these pictures, would these be public domain and usable on Commons?

Second question, is there some place where unregistered users may ask to have files uploaded? I have never done so in the past, and I doubt that I will ever do it again, so I am not sure if it makes sense for me to create an account for just this once. Thanks, --217.239.10.219 17:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Uruguay's TOO

It seems very unlikely that File:Escudo Club Atlético Cerro.png is the uploader's "own work", but it might be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. This would seem to be OK as {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States, but I can't find anything about Uruguay's TOO (which I'm assuming is the country of origin per en:C.A. Cerro and this) in COM:Uruguay. Can this be converted to PD-logo or should it be considered a case of COM:FAIR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

New user has uploaded file for Jacob Elordi that they don't even know who owns the copy of it and is taken from Facebook

As per the own users wording, appears to be copyright photo they took off Facebook but is owned by WireImage. NZFC(talk) 01:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZFC (talk • contribs) 01:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@NZFC: I marked the file with {{Copyvio}}. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I get a feeling I've been told how to do that before but I couldn't remember so posted here. NZFC(talk) 06:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZFC (talk • contribs) 06:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Question This may be a stupid question, but why isn't Chally2 (the uploading account) blocked? They don;t seem to have heeded the warning messages left on their page. Everything they have uploaded has been a copyright violation. Mo Billings (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The user has now been inactive for two days so a block is not really necessary. Anyhow, I've left them a final warning and any new copyvio will lead to a block. De728631 (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

GNU Affero General Public License - compatible with Commons?

This is one of the GNU Project copyright licenses. Wikimedia projects accept text of the GFDL, which is the GNU Free Document License. I am unsure about this Affero license.

The situation is that a map pack for epidemiology information claims to use the GNU Affero license. There might be more to consider here, as I am unsure if the geoshapes and map data are actually part of the map pack, or if this license is referring to other copyrightable elements such as in the software.

Check it out -

I know it is a custom in the free software community to offer free software for a fee, while also still providing it as free content, but I am unclear if this GNU Affero option is compatible with Wikimedia Commons.

Does anyone know anything about this license and its compatibility with Commons? If it were compatible, then I would be more quick to import maps from this map pack. Various people are making maps of COVID-19 data from these shapes. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I found
It seems like there might be two issues here. One issue is whether a common data-based map like "countries of the world" is copyrightable, and it seems there is wiki and external consensus that such maps are not eligible for copyright due to not passing threshold of originality. The other issue is regardless of copyrightability, is the GNU license described above compatible with Wikipedia. I hesitate to engage with content which has a claim of copyright and non-free license, even if we have consensus that the content is fundamentally ineligible for copyright. I still would appreciate any opinions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

1947 photos from Switzerland

Hi! May I transfer this file and this one from Hungarian Wikipedia to Commons under {{PD-Switzerland-photo}}? The photos are from a Swiss periodical titled Der Handschuh published in 1947. Thank you for the answer. --Regasterios (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure whether {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} is applicable to them. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Are Weibo images that someone posted copyrighted?

I looked at Weibo and tried to put an image uploaded from Weibo to Commons. I was very unsure about the copyright. I don't think these social media posts' images were uploaded with CC-BY-SA. Evan0512 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Evan0512: Why would anyone think such images were uploaded with a CC-BY-SA license?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I went into Shanghai Metro's official Weibo page and looked for images. Since the opening of line 15 today, I went to Weibo and was trying to save and upload pictures in Commons. I thought Weibo social media images were free and it was re-usable. Evan0512 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Photos are almost always automatically under copyright. They must be explicitly licensed under CC-BY-SA, or a similar free license, by the copyright owner for them to be acceptable here (i.e. they have to actually mention the license in conjunction with the photo). If that can not be found on the photo source, then it cannot be uploaded. See COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

really basic question

There is so much documentation here and so many words I do not understand, so please don't just send me off to read another walloftext.

Here is my question: I have just posted a CC BY-SA 4.0 image on another wmf-wiki. The instructions tell me:

attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made

Must I go through all the steps every time I post an image I find at commons or is there a standard way of giving credit etc, or at least a template I can use? BTW I did not make any changes. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: No, the click-through capability of this previous edit of yours is fine as-is (you don't need to follow those steps on WikiQuote), by WMF's agreement with Creative Commons. For use outside WMF and InstaCommons wikis, readers should see COM:REUSE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

someone deleted an image of the Keith Clan Crest

Good day,

I cannot understand why someone would delete the image of the Keith Clan Crest from my contribution. The crest is used by everyone, is in the public domain, is not copyrighted and is perfect for a discussion of the Clan Keith. It seems untoward to delete it. How can I reinstate that image on the discussion of the Clan Keith?

Thank you for your suggestions.

UIowagrad (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@UIowagrad: Hi, and welcome. Source https://www.scotsconnection.com/clan_crests/keith.htm for File:Keithclancrest.gif is clearly "© Scots Connection 1999-2021." Furthermore, https://www.scotsconnection.com/t-Copyright.aspx says "All artwork and text copyright © Scots Connection 2020. None of the Clan images and text on this website are in the public domain. Images may not be hotlinked, downloaded (except through normal viewing through browser) nor copied, transmitted, altered, stored, or displayed on any website. Legal action will be taken against those who copy our artwork. Non-web use in educational and charitable projects requires prior written permission. Please note that we do not sell copies of our crest images in any form."   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi UIowagrad. What makes you think this crest is in the public domain? Many people mistake something being publically available for meaning that that it's within the public domain, but this isn't really the case as explained in Commons:Licensing. Did you see this file posted somewhere where it states that the copyright has released it as "public domain"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Borrado de imágenes con licencia de Dominio Público en Flick

Buenas tardes, se me han borrado en repetidas ocasiones unas fotos que subí al perfil de Guillem Caballé porque no las subía con la licencia correcta. La última vez las subí de Flickr y comprobé que tenían la licencia que se me había indicado, Dominio Público pero aún así se me ha borrado una de ellas por lo que, si es posible, ruego me informen los motivos y cómo proceder para dejar el perfil con toda la información. Gracias, un saludo y disculpad las molestias — Preceding unsigned comment added by YolYolVer (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of images with Public Domain license on Flick
Good afternoon, I have repeatedly deleted some photos that I uploaded to Guillem Caballé's profile because he did not upload them with the correct license. The last time I uploaded them from Flickr and I checked that they had the license that had been indicated to me, Public Domain, but one of them has still been deleted so, if possible, please inform me of the reasons and how to proceed to leave the profile with all the information. Thanks, greetings and sorry for the inconvenience
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@YolYolVer: File:Guillem Caballé.jpg se eliminó porque la fuente https://www.flickr.com/photos/189298241@N03/50110204753/ está etiquetada {{PDMark-owner}}, que se supone que solo debe usar el titular de los derechos de autor, y los derechos de autor son en duda porque supuestamente es una foto del fotógrafo de Flickr. Consulte Commons:Licensing/es para saber por qué no podemos aceptarlo y solicite al fotógrafo que publique el permiso Commons:Licensing/es para dicho trabajo en su sitio web o presencia en las redes sociales o envíe la foto y el permiso a través de OTRS/es con una copia al carbón para usted. Si no puede obtener una licencia compatible, la foto aún se puede cargar en Wikipedia en inglés de acuerdo con en:WP:F porque no permitimos el uso legítimo aquí. Firma tus publicaciones.
File:Guillem Caballé.jpg was deleted because source https://www.flickr.com/photos/189298241@N03/50110204753/ is tagged {{PDMark-owner}}, which is only supposed to be used by the copyright holder, and the copyright is in doubt because it is allegedly a photo of the Flickr photographer. Please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it, and have the photographer post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work on their website or social media presence or send the photo and permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the photo may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. Sign your posts.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I tagged the other two uploads. Pinging @JuTa as deleting Admin.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Vogue Taiwan YouTube channel

Should we accept free licenses on YouTube videos posted by the VOGUE Taiwan account?[8] Bettydaisies has nominated two stills from these videos for deletion:

I have opposed these DRs on the basis that the source videos are labelled "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)", and that that the VOGUE Taiwan account appears to be authentic. Bettydaisies' view is that the licenses are unsafe because these videos were previously published without a free license by Vogue US.[9] Can we keep these? Videos from this account would be a valuable source of pictures of models, and of some other famous people. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

US political party logos

There are a couple of logos being used in en:List of political parties in the United States that were uploaded under CC licenses as "own work" (which probably isn't the case) that might be too complex to be {{PD-textlogo}} in the US per COM:TOO United States. Can Commons keep File:RITDHlogo.jpg, File:Logo del Partido Nuevo Progresista.svg and File:Ppdflag.jpg as they're currently licensed? SHould they be converted to "PD-textlogo"?

There is also File:Conservative Party of New York Logo.png which was uploaded as "PD-textlogo", but I'm not sure about the torch imagery. Is this file OK as licensed?

Finally, there's File:Libertarian Disc.svg which is an alternative svg version of File:Libertarian Party Porcupine (USA).svg. My question about this file to do with the different licenses being used for each file. Do they need to be the same since one file is derived from the other? It appears that the "derived version" is more of a case of COM:2D copying than COM:DW? It doesn't seem as if adding a circle and changing the color would be considered creative enough to establish a new copyright for the "derived version". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Questionable uploads

Can someone please check the remaining uploads by this user? Four of them were so obvious that I marked them for speedy delete, and I am quite sure that the remaining ones are too, but I cannot find them online. This one is marked as "self portrait" in the article on the German WP, which - for once - I believe, but the uploader would have to be identical with the artist in order for this to be "own work". This is the other one I cannot find via search engine. Both of them have "© Oxana Jad, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn" in the exif data. --87.150.1.149 19:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! --87.150.1.149 21:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 87.150.1.149 21:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sound recordings PD EU vs PD US

In the European Union, the length of copyright for recordings is 50 (Directive 2006/116/EC) or 70 years (Directive 2011/77/EU), see {{PD-EU-audio}}. Now as far as I can understand, by the Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (see {{PD-US-record}}), most recordings which are public domain in the EU are not public domain in the US, which is a prerequisite for files uploaded to commons. As a concrete example, a 1955 Decca recording of Così fan tutte should be public domain in the EU since 2005, but not in the US until 2065. Is that assessment correct?

See also this DR. Is Commons' current course of action to keep these files except when their removal is requested? Thanks for clarifying. As a European, American copyright laws are kind of baffling. intforce (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

My guess is that is is possible for a recording from the EU to be under copyright in the US. There might be something to be said for editing the {{PD-EU-audio}} template to indicate the situation with US copyright. I have created a revised version of the template on its talk page. (For creating revised versions of templates, being able to preview changes in the sandbox without saving them is convenient. In the edit summary for the PD-EU-audio template talk page, I attempted to link and identify the Commons pages from which the revised template's contents may have been derived. Some of the text was copied from a revised version of the {{PD-traditional}} template that I previously created. I hope that there are not too many copyright issues (if any) with the text and markup of the revised PD-EU-audio template. :-| ) --Gazebo (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Intforce: If you find it hard to understand US copyright, you are not alone. Regarding the current topic: Aside from the {{PD-EU-audio}} template, there is the question of what to do with the audio files that are tagged with the template. My thought would be to delete sound recordings that are copyrighted in the US and not freely licensed. @Mysterymanblue: This situation may be of interest to you. --Gazebo (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
U.S. copyright on sound recordings is a mess, though hopefully the new law will gain some clarity. At the moment, pre-1972 recordings have a "common law" copyright, generally determined by the courts and states, and are not subject to the language of the federal copyright law. As such it's difficult to predict -- it's not necessarily all sound recordings that are protected, though there is plenty of precedent for commercial recordings to be protected, especially if still marketed. And there is not necessarily an expiration date (until this new law comes into effect, which will be gradual). See for example Capitol Records v. Naxos, which involved British recordings from the 1930s. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Title II of the 2018 Music Modernization Act (aka the CLASSICS Act) changed this. If it were before 2018, you would be absolutely right that pre-1972 recordings would be protected by common law in each of the states. But the MMA generally brought all pre-1972 recordings under the guise of federal copyright law, albeit with a significantly longer copyright term than other works. My understanding is that in this case, federal copyright law protection superseded the patchwork of state protections, so it is no longer such a messy situation. See w:en:CLASSICS Act.  Mysterymanblue  14:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. What does this mean for files which were uploaded here before the CLASSICS Act took effect? Are they to be deleted, or can they stay? intforce (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
That's true, I guess I was thinking there was a delayed effective date, but it's more about a period of extended protection. Some small parts did not become effective until 2020, but that has passed too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: I looked at the files in the category PD EU Audio with the thought of identifying recordings that were more likely than others to have been published after 1956 (see {{PD-US-record}} for information about post-1956 recordings.) Some of the recordings had a reference to a year after 1956 in the file name. I saved the URLs for some (or hopefully all) of these recordings in a text file on a computer system locally and then I put together a list of the recordings. To be sure, it is possible for a recording to have been created (or fixed) in a given year (i.e., 1950) before being first published in a later year (i.e., 1957.) At the same time, if a recording was created (or fixed) in a given year (i.e., 1957), then it would seem that any publication of the recording would have to have happened in or after the same year. If anyone is interested in looking for sound recordings that are likely to be copyrighted in the US (and which, in my view, should be deleted from Commons), this information may be of interest. --Gazebo (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Sound recordings in PD EU Audio which reference years after 1956
@Gazebo: I think that it is useful to have a list, and all of these files are probably under copyright protection in the US. I appreciate your work to create this list and agree that they should be nominated for deletion. However, if I understand correctly, the full list of copyrighted audio files is much longer. According to the Cornell copyright chart, pretty much all audio recordings that have ever been fixed or published within or without the United States are still under copyright protection. Did you create this list manually or through some automated process? If it's the latter, I could see great potential for finding other copyrighted sound recordings.
At this point, the following would be my preferred course of action:
  • Use some automated process to identify all potential US copyright violations, including all sound recordings from any time and and country that do not have a freely usable license (CC, etc.) or are otherwise ineligible for copyright (US government work, too simple). Sub-sort by country of origin and date of creation. (Template:PD-US-record is outdated and should not be used for this purpose unless it is changed to reflect the changes to US copyright law.)
  • Once the automated list is ascertained, determine some human-reviewed process to delete the offending files, attempting to balance the time of Commons contributors with the desire to only delete files that should be deleted.
  • Put a disclaimer on the most commonly used US public domain templates to warn people not to apply them to sound recordings.
  • For after January 1, 2022, create a template called something like Template:PD-US-sound-expired so that old audio files can be correctly identified as in the public domain.
  • There are a few uploaders who have uploaded a large quantity of potentially copyrighted audio recordings. They should be notified of these potential copyright issues so they can stop if possible.
 Mysterymanblue  14:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Fully   Support; seems more than reasonable. intforce (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I mostly support the proposal; however, as for the templates used, I would do the following:
  1. Move the template which, as of writing this message (26 January 2021), is hosted at {{PD-US-record}} (permanent link) to {{Not-PD-US-record}} (compare {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}).
  2. Upon performing the above move, replace all relevant transclusions so they point to the new name and not the redirect.
  3. Once all pages are replaced, fire up the DRs and replace the contents of {{PD-US-record}} to something that can be used starting 2022.
Of course, sound recordings created after 14 February 1972 should still be able to use {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-1978-89}} as before. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

How do you search for copyright renewal for MIT's 1928 yearbook?

I want to upload a photo that comes from MIT's 1928 yearbook. On page 6 of the PDF file, there's a notice that says:

Copyright
1928
by
T. S. Wood Jr.,
H. W. Fairchild
and
J. C. Melcher
---
The Andover Press
Andover, Mass.

How would I search for renewals? Thanks. FunnyMath (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@FunnyMath: There's a guide at Commons:Checking if copyright was renewed. I could not find a renewal record following those steps, and given that it's a priori unlikely someone would renew a yearbook, I think you're probably good. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Vahurzpu: Thanks for the guide and checking for renewals for me. I'll do a check myself before uploading it. FunnyMath (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Advertisment

Hello All. Please see these two advertisement. Can I upload these advertisements on Commons, since there are no any artistic work. I want to use it in Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

1942 French comic book panels

I uploaded en:File:Mickey au Camp de Gurs (cover).jpg and en:File:Mickey au Camp de Gurs (panel4).jpg into en-Wikipedia under a fair-use license. They are panels from en:Mickey au Camp de Gurs, a comic booklet created by en:Horst Rosenthal in France in 1942. Rosenthal was executed in Auschwitz in 1942. My question is, do these panels qualify for {{PD-old}}, or a similar PD license, and can they be imported into Commons? —Bruce1eetalk 10:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That could get complicated. When were they first published? Older French law was 50pma, but posthumous works were protected for 50 years from publication. If that happened before 1997 when the law changed, that term could not be shortened. If they were first published after 2012 (i.e. after the 70 pma term), there would be a 25-year publication right owned by the publisher. If he author is listed as mort pour la France on his death certificate, it would also still be under copyright in France. As for the U.S., if they were first published before 2003 they would still be under copyright one way or another. The question of who could legitimately own that copyright could get rather sticky, though that is not typically a concern for Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thank you for your reply. The comic booklet was first published in France in 2014, so I guess, if I'm understanding your explanation above correctly, the work is still under copyright. It sure is complicated! —Bruce1eetalk 15:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bruce1ee and Clindberg: I'm curious about the origin of the photograph in the second image and whether Mickey Mouse is used in a parody sense that would make permissible to say that the en.wp files are PD-US-unpublished-abroad. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
If first published after 2003, the U.S. term is also 70pma (with no further publication right), so they would be PD-US-unpublished as of 2013. At least, any expression created by that author. However... the derivative Mickey stuff is still a problem. If that qualifies as a parody it might be OK, though that would be a question for en-wiki. Technically parody is a fair use defense, it's just that it's pretty much a complete defense which covers just about any use, unlike most fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Incompatibility between licence assertions

For File:The Chronicles of Manimal and Samara - 'Love in the Time of Pestilence' Single Cover Art.jpg and the other similar files from the same uploader, the uploader claims it is their own work, but in the description of the file they use the copyright symbol to assert their rights. Is speedy deletion appropriate here based on a copyright violation, or should I tag for OTRS evidence? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The copyright symbol doesn't necessarily indicate a copyright problem, you still own the copyright if you freely license a work, but they are music covers and the fact that they pipe the text "TCOMAS Music" to their account suggests that they are the copyright holder, and they appear elsewhere on the internet. Therefore I've tagged the rest with no permission. Dylsss (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Open-source book with BY-NC-ND cover

As I announced days ago on my Wikisource page (and last Friday at Hive.blog), I'm getting ready to upload How to Read a Folktale: The Ibonia Epic from Madagascar (by one Lee Haring) here at Wikimedia Commons en route to WS proofreading--if only because coverage of Malagasy culture on the latter is sparse at best. (Surprised this wasn't on Archive.org yet until I took care of the gap a few hours ago.)

While Haring has released the text under CC-BY, the cover image carries a CC-BY-NC-ND notice (as stated in the colophon). Already, NC and/or ND are against Commons' philosophy/policy, so a replacement cover may have to do. And, even so, I'm not quite sure how to get a PDF page replaced myself. Perhaps through that "Big Chunked Upload" tool?

Only giving the community a heads-up on this licensing issue before I go any further myself. Remind me, or I'll thank you, once things get cleared up. Fondest regards,

Slgrandson (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slgrandson, Windows offers the possibility to "print" a file as pdf. So instead of printing, you get the option to save as a pdf. Just right click with mouse on the pdf and click 'Print'. You can then choose which pages you want to "print" c.q. save as pdf, and you then just leave out page 1 (the cover). Now you have the pdf file without the cover. If necessary, or preferred, you can then later with some online tool merge in another cover. Now you have a pdf without NC-ND image, that you can upload to Commons. I hope this helps. Greeting, Eissink (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC).
@Eissink: As you made me realise, even the equivalent native function on my device (a Galaxy Tab A) can do it, too. Which now leaves only a competent replacement cover to deal with.... --Slgrandson (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eissink: As a crucial aside, I've managed to track down an element for said replacement as well. --Slgrandson (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Rhodesian military crests/PATU

Would any of the Rhodesian military crests here be suitable for uploading here on Commons? Specifically I ask about the Support Unit and PATU ones right at the bottom of the page. The PATU one (the one with the pawprint) I think doesn't meet the threshold of originality. The C of E (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but those are all too complex to be used without permission. Also the PATU shield has a specific pattern for the paw, so there's creativity involved which makes it copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@De728631: Then would they not fall under Template:PD-Zimbabwe as the PATU one was created in 1966 so is out of copyright in the source country? The C of E (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I think those are not the original drawings used at the time but recent recreations. Coats of arms and badges of this kind may be redrawn by anyone as long as they are faithful to the blazon, i.e. the heraldic description. De728631 (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III (50885754687).jpg

This official portrait of a US government employee, taken by a US Army employee in the course of their official duties, is ostensibly licensed under CC-BY-2.0, but I don't see how that's possible—it must be in the public domain. As a compromise, it's currently tagged with both {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} and {{Cc-by-2.0}}. What is the best approach here? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings and Cliffmore: {{Cc-by-2.0}} is clearly inappropriate.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be PD-USGov. If the license seems validly given (i.e. by the owner of the copyright if it existed), keep that as well. There are occasional questions over the validity of PD-USGov overseas, and while they are likely fine, the CC license provides a valid alternative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: If we were to contact Secretary Austin (or at least the authorized Flickr account holder) about this, what change should we ask for (within Flickr licensing options)?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
If that's an official Department of Defense Flickr account, I don't see any reason to doubt the license. They probably should be requesting access to the "U.S. Government work" tag on Flickr, but a CC license also works fine. You are allowed to multi-license works (we don't have to pick just one license), and files should have all valid tags -- I think it's fine to keep as well, to document that the license was given as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Footer copyright notice

The current footer in states that 'Files are available under licenses specified on their description page'. Is there scope for the footer to automatically detect the copyright template used in the file description and indicate that license directly? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Renée Lebas par le Studio Harcourt en 1951.jpg and other files

Some of the files recently uploaded by Leon.tf appear to me to be still copyrighted, and from questions elsewhere I get the strong impression that the source doesn't allow using these files on Commons too. I don't sense bad intent from the uploader, by the way. Since I have nearly no time at all these days, and since I'm not too familiar with French copyright law, nor with French language, but didn't want to leave this unnoticed, I want to ask if anyone here could take a better look at the matter. I will not be able to further respond, at least not the next few days, so thanks in advance. Greeting, Eissink (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC).

Hello! Well Studio Harcourt photos have been judged to be collective works, as you can read here: https://www.village-justice.com/articles/Affaire-Pierre-Anthony-HARCOURT,16496.html
Have a nice day [Message by Leon.tf – 21:57‎,24 jan 2021 (UTC) / Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~, which will create your username and the date of the comment.]
Hello, Leon.tf. While you may be right, which I leave to French speaking users, I think I can conclude that the source you refer to does not warrant your use of the CC0 template. CC0 is a license, which can only be used when it is explicitly granted. This means you will have to chance the license to prevent the files from being deleted. Have a nice day too. Eissink (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC).
Hey I'm so sorry, I don't understand what you mean. CC0 means it's in the collective work, isn't it ? Otherwise, which license do i have to choose ? No one ? Leon.tf 25 January 2021 09:11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon.tf (talk • contribs) 08:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Leon.tf: The copyright for 1951 French collective works does not expire until the end of the 70th year, 31 December 2021. Please link your username in your signature.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless the copyright owner released the works to the public domain, which is the issue about those Harcourt photos. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Leon.tf: Bonjour, Ce n'est pas ce que CC0 signifie. CC0 est une déclaration spécifique faite par le propriétaire des droits d'auteur, par laquelle il déclare renoncer à ses droits d'auteur, selon une formulation précise, que vous pouvez lire en entier sur cette page du site de Creative Commons. Un utilisateur de Commons qui n'est pas le propriétaire des droits d'auteur ne peut pas prendre l'initiative de faire une telle déclaration à sa place. Un modèle approprié pourrait être «{{PD-copyright holder|Studio Harcourt}}», car il s'agit d'un modèle général qui exprime le constat que le titulaire des droits d'auteur a renoncé à ses droits d'auteur mais ce modèle ne dit pas que le titulaire a utilisé la formule CC0. Je vois que vous avez déjà trouvé un autre modèle de domaine public pour la page de description. PD-France peut en effet probablement être un modèle acceptable actuellement dans les cas où les droits d'auteur ont expiré par l'effet du temps, puisque Commons n'a pas de modèle spécifique pour les photos collectives, mais ce n'est pas un modèle adéquat pour les cas où le titulaire des droits d'auteur a versé l'oeuvre dans le domaine public. Par contre, le statut des photos Harcourt est encore nébuleux. On avait fait un court court résumé de la situation sur le Bistro. Un utilisateur avait initié avec le studio une correspondance qui semblait prometteuse mais peu détaillée (voir là). On avait suggéré de demander des détails, mais apparemment ils n'ont pas été demandés. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eissink: Hi, Your impression is correct when you say that you "get the strong impression that the source doesn't allow using these files on Commons", however, in this particular case, the question, not fully resolved yet, is if that source has ground to claim that those photos are copyrighted. It would not be the first time that a website claims copyright on public domain works. We did a brief recap last month on Commons:Bistro/archives/2020/12 of what we know of the situation. Here is a translation in English of what I wrote there:

"The situation with Harcourt is not definitely elucidated yet. The negatives (material objects) of the photos from before 1992 were acquired by the ministry of Culture, but the informations are contradictory about what happened of the copyrights (immaterial property). On one hand, the Réunion des musées nationaux-Grand Palais (RMN-GP), which is the organization tasked by the ministry to publicize the collections, says that the State owns a copyright on those photos. On the other hand, the spokesperson for the current owners of the Studio Harcourt says that there is no copyright on those photos. (Sidenote: apparently the owners of Studio Harcourt changed since the negatives were given.) The problem for Commons is that neither RMN-GP nor Studio Harcourt detailed the rationale on which they base their respective conclusions. What, if anything, was stipulated about copyright in the contracts of transmission of the negatives? Did Studio Harcourt release the works to the public domain or did the Studio cede explicitly the copyright to the ministry?"

The statement by Studio Harcourt was copied on Commons:Bistro/archives/2020/11. Speaking of the collection from 1934 to 1991 now kept by the RMN-GP, the spokesperson of Studio Harcourt writes: "Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial donc quiconque possède un portrait de l'époque 1934-1991 peut l'utiliser librement et vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet." (My translation: "This photographic fonds is not under copyright, so anyone who owns a portrait from 1934-1991 may use it freely and you may use a portrait found on internet."). The Commons user who obtained that statement from Studio Harcourt sent a copy to OTRS, archived as ticket #2020112910005534. It seems a statement that usually would probably be fine. But the problem is the conflicting notice by the RMN-GP website. It would be better if we had a more detailed explanation by one or the other or both. In the absence of more explanation, Commons must choose which to believe. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Asclepias, for your elaborate answer. I can see the current license, that Leon.tf added, is incorrect for the three or four photographs from 1951-1956, but I leave it here, the French jurisdiction is to complicated for me at the moment. Thanks again, Eissink (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC).
Right, in such cases what the uploader wanted to indicate would probably be expressed with the template "PD-copyright holder|Studio Harcourt". And the uploader can ask an OTRS agent to add, if appropriate, an OTRS tag referring to the ticket, as another user did for File:Marcel Vaucel.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I have tagged the uploads of 1951, 1954, 1955 and 1956 photographs as copyvio (example). This means action is needed by the uploader or anyone else, otherwise the files will be deleted. Thanks, Asclepias. Eissink (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC).
  Comment This file doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy deletion. Converted to a regular DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  Comment If these photographs are collective works, they may be free of copyright 70 years after the publication. But images less than 70 years old are still under a copyright anyway. For these, we need a explicit release (I didn't read the OTRS ticket). L'archive RMN (photo.rmn.fr) prétend avoir des droits sur tout et n'importe quoi (cf. première image au hasard [10]). La mention sur ce site n'a aucune valeur. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, it seems that RMN-GP tags almost everything on their site as copyrighted. Including the pre-1951 Harcourt photos, which would be public domain by expiration if they weren't public domain by release. So, assuming the RMN-GP notice is unhelpful, then the question is if Commons is satisfied with the statement by Studio Harcourt that their pre-1992 photos are not copyrighted. La communication provenant du Studio Harcourt a été partagée dans cette section du Bistro par l'utilisateur qui l'a reçue. Je suppose que c'est cette communication qui se trouve dans le ticket, puisque c'est le texte qui est noté par l'agent OTRS qui l'a accepté dans cette page. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  Comment The jurisprudence for Harcourt photographs (Arrêt CA Paris du 15 janvier 2014, n° 11/21191) is unambiguous and has been often commented [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. These works are considered as collective works. Hence {{PD-France}} applies after 70 years. As for RMN's tag, "l'existence d’un contrat de cession de droit de propriété intellectuelle [provided it exists] ne saurait renverser la qualification d’œuvres collectives dans la mesure où la qualification juridique d’une œuvre de l’esprit relève exclusivement de la loi, telle qu’il appartient au juge de la déterminer" [16] [17] (François Greffe is a recognized expert on these matters). File:Renée Lebas par le Studio Harcourt en 1951.jpg will fall in PD on Jan 1, 2022. — Racconish 💬 18:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
But what is the reasoning to go from "those photos are collective works and their sole copyright holder was Studio Harcourt" to "those photos on Commons are not free even if Studio Harcourt says that they are free"? -- Asclepias (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  Comment Given all the comments above, it seems clear that the uploaded post-1950 photographs are violating copyrights, so I wonder why Yann choose to change the speedy of one picture, out of five mentioned, to a regular deletion request. Eissink (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC).
Well, there's obviously something to discuss. Three users (the two uploaders GrandBout and Leon.tf and the OTRS member Mussklprozz) accept the declaration issued by the initial copyright holder Studio Harcourt and therefore they hold the opinion that the photos are free. Two users (Eissink and Racconish) refuse the declaration by Studio Harcourt and hold the opposite opinion. I don't know the conclusion of one user (Yann). And one user (me) is unsure, although I am more favourable to the files since it was noted that the coyright notices at RMN-GP are meaningless because RMN-GP place copyright notices even on the obviously public domain works. I wish we had more context but, if there is no reliable conflicting evidence, it seems reasonable to assume that Studio Harcourt can tell the status of its own works. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it seems reasonable to assume that Studio Harcourt can tell the status of its own works.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  Comment The point I raised above is the following : In French law, the qualification of collective works as such is made by a judge. Since a court decision has decided Harcourt's photos are collective works, Harcourt is not in a position to enter any contract contradicting this assessment. In particular, they cannot grant any license nor transfer any copyright for works which have fallen in the public domain (cf. Greffe's analysis quoted above). They can do it only for works for which they still own copyright. As of today, their photos predating 1951 are PD, regardless of any contract with RMN ; their photos postdating 1950 are still in copyright and may be uploaded to Commons under a Commons compatible license granted by the current copyright holder. In practical terms, I voted   Delete for File:Renée Lebas par le Studio Harcourt en 1951.jpg for the sole reason the only argument given in the file description to justify the upload was its alleged nature of collective work, which is not a valid argument since a collective work created in 1951 will not fall in PF before 2022. If Harcourt is willing to provide a Commons compatible license for this file (including commercial use), it is fine for me. — Racconish 💬 07:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
That's how I understood your point, and I agree. That's why I think speedy delete is applicable, since it is "apparently" a copyvio (F1), while I don't see convincing counterarguments. Only the possibility (if there is any) of Harcourt providing a compatible license is not enough to keep the discussion going, one could say that at every speedy delete candidate. Eissink (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC).
I think paragraph F1 is interpreted in light of the introductory part of the policy, which is that "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. And the instruction for use of the copyvio template is "This template should only be used for obvious cases. For non-obvious cases, use «Delete»". Tagging a non-obvious case for speedy deletion only gives to a reviewing admin, or to another user, the burden of transferring the case to a normal request. The criterion for speedy deletion is not that one participant to the discussion "does not see convincing counterarguments" to his own arguments. Of course, each person will naturally, at least initially, tend to think of their own arguments as more convincing and to think of the conflicting arguments of other participants as less convincing. That's the nature of a discussion. That's not a reason to send the matter to speedy. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I must apologize, I had not understand that there is an OTRS-ticket on Harcourt. If that is the case, we can close this case, as far as I'm concerned. Anyhow, since I'm really of no help here, and since I hardly have time, I will leave this discussion and unfollow the page for now. Thanks everyone. Eissink (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC).
@Racconish: But Harcourt can't provide another license if they already released the works into the public domain. The direct statement by Harcourt, archived in OTRS, is rather straightforward when they state their position that their pre-1992 photos are not copyrighted and can be used freely. The only reason for us to refuse that position taken by Harcourt would be if someone other than Harcourt owned the copyright. (I initially thought that the copyright on the museum's website might be considered, but it turns out it's unreliable.) If there's no solid evidence that someone else owns the copyright, Harcourt's statement can be accepted. The position expressed by Harcourt is useful not only for their 1951-1991 photos but also for their pre-1951 photos, as it presumably applies not only to France but also worldwide (actually, it is already used for the file Marcel Vaucel). -- Asclepias (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Concerning those photographs which have not yet fallen in the PD due to their nature of collective works (as of today, post 1950), my understanding is the copyright ownership has been transferred to the French state. Hence, Harcourt is not any more in a position to release them in the PD and it would be a self contradiction to say the copyright has been transferred and there was no copyright. It is up to the current copyright owner, the French State, to state whether or not they release these photographs under a Commons compatible license. My understanding, based on RMN's web site is they claim the copyright is currently owned by the state. — Racconish 💬 16:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think the copyright was tranfered to the French state, if ever that would be possible. I am currently not an OTRS agent, so I rely on the approval of the ticket by others, and I see no reason to oppose it. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

File:St. Peter und Paul Baierbrunn 1.jpg

Auf der Seite: Liste von Sakralbauten im Landkreis München fehlen noch viele Innenaufnahmen von Kirchen. Ich war jetzt mal in Baierbrunn, und habe dazu die Fotos hochgeladen. Da kamen mir aber Zweifel, ob das überhaupt erlaubt ist, weil die Kirche noch keine 70 Jahre alt ist. Ich habe aber gesehen, daß auch sehr versierte Wikipedianer solche Bilder gepostet haben. Wer kann mir da jetzt weiterhelfen? Edelmauswaldgeist (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Mit dem Alter der Architektur hat sowas nur indirekt zu tun. Was zählt, ist die Lebenszeit des Architekten plus 70 Jahre. Das ist die Schutzfrist für das Gebäude an sich. Falls aber im Innenraum ältere Kunstwerke vorhanden sind, bei denen die 70 Jahre plus Lebenszeit des Künstlers schon abgelaufen sind, dann kann man solche Gegenstände durchaus ablichten. Dabei sollte man aber darauf achten, möglichst wenig von dem noch geschützten Innenraum der Kirche mitzunehmen. De728631 (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Jedenfalls sind bei Kirchen, die noch keine 70 Jahre alt sind, die Erbauer nur in den seltensten Fällen schon über 70 Jahre tot. :D --87.150.1.149 17:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright of WW2 era German mine field maps

A few years back, I uploaded some pictures of some minefield maps created by the German occupational forces in Norway during WW2. I photographed these maps myself at the archive holding them here in Norway. I see that I back then I tagged two of them as PD-old and one as Own work, which are both probably incorrect. I started wondering today if these could still be covered by some sort of copyright, and if not, what would be the correct license for these maps? TommyG (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If the German occupation forces are considered "legal entities under public law", then Template:PD-Germany-§134 would apply; however I am not at all sure if they would be classified as such. Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, it was neither made nor published in Germany, so not sure it would fall in under that paragraph. It was in fact never published. It was transferred to the Norwegian military after the war and eventually handed over to the Norwegian national archives. Maybe i would fall in under Template:PD-NorwayGov? The reason I'm asking is really because I have a lot more similar maps and documents which could be useful for articles on Wikipedia, but I would like to clarify what license or PD clause I can upload them under. TommyG (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
If it was made by the Norwegian government then it may fall under that, but I take it that these were created by the German military, in which case they might fall under German jurisdiction. Not sure if this applies to WW2 era works, but COM:GERMANY says "Most maps and plans originating in government" don't have a compatible license. Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Had they been found in a archive in Germany, I could tend to agree with you as there would have been an unbroken chain of custody. However, these were documents confiscated by the allied forces after the surrender of Germany in 1945. It is reasonable to assume that this confiscation also included whatever rights the original creators may have held over these documents. Unfortunately, this doesn't necessarily help clarify what the current status of these documents may be but if all rights were transferred to the Norwegian Government after the war, then Template:PD-NorwayGov is in my opinion still the most reasonable choice. TommyG (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Untitled design.gif

Hi the file and especially its source video is very interesting and usefull. They write in the youtube description that the file could be used for free, but ony with full credit: text and logo. There is no CC-4.0 attribution. Any idea if this is useable? My guess is that we have to delete it, because we can not prevent someone from cropping the logo out. Commons does not allow ND "not permit distribution of adaptations" (cc-by-nd-4.0). (@Valentina Andrade de la Horra: ) Greetings --Jahobr (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The terms are too restrictive as they restrict the ability to create derivative works, attribution is fine, but not when it affects what type of derivative works can be created. I've nominated it for deletion. Dylsss (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

UK TV station logos

The UK's TOO is pretty low per COM:TOO United Kingdom; so, I'm not sure about File:BBC.svg, File:Channel 4 logo 2015.svg, and File:ITV logo 2019.svg as being OK as {{PD-textlogo}} for Commons. The BBC logo was discussed as recently as 2019 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBC.svg and the consensus was to keep it, but that seems to have had more to do with the type of font used by the logo than anything else. That's fine, but I'm not sure the same could be said about these other two files. There is a non-free version of the ITV logo uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:ITV logo 2019.svg that's shadowing the Commons file, and this local file can be deleted if the Commons file is OK; moreover, there is also another non-free version of a slightly different version of the same logo from 2013 uploaded locally as en:File:ITV logo 2013.svg which would need reassessment if Commons can keep the 2019 version. Regarding the Channel 4 logo, Wikipedia has a local file en:File:Channel 5 (UK) 2016.svg uploaded as en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly which probably can be moved to Commons if the Channel 4 logo can be kept since "5" doesn't seem to be as complex as the "4". I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Could someone please have a look at this? I am not quite sure what to do about it. According to the uploader who is identical with the person in the picture, it is "own work". After asking her about it on her German WP user page., she removed the picture from the article on herself, which makes it look like she admits that it's not a selfie.

Then, there is also this strange page which I can make neither head nor tail of. --87.150.1.149 13:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Eh, if I had to bet, yeah I don’t think it’s most likely own work, although I don’t find it incriminating that she took it down; maybe that was (a misunderstanding) about COI concern raised. I did find this photo from apparently the same shoot but, as a filmmaker, it’s not impossible that she set up these shots herself. I’d just leave it I think. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Pictures of public domain objects from blogs

There is this one blog about philately especially first day covers in Malaysia. Many of the first day covers are public domain already. So can we upload these pictures published in the blog into Wikimedia Commons? Example: 1935-1957 Malaya FDCs. --Tofeiku (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue is whether the photographer has a valid claim to copyright. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag, which indicate that a simple photograph or scan of a flat 2D object does not generate a new copyright, but a photograph of a 3D object such as a coin does. I think the photographs on the page you have linked are allowable if the items depicted are public domain (see Commons:Stamps). I am unsure which tag should be used. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: Thank you for enlighting me. The pictures there are photographs instead of scanned images. Also, the example page I provided is indeed public domain items as per UK and Malaysia laws. PD-Art tag would be suitable in my opinion. --Tofeiku (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Decision matrix

Isn't the decision matrix, shown prominently at the top of the page, grossly misleading? It says that if the software is free, then the screenshot is. But the content in the programs on the screen may not be, and the user can have changed elements of the user interface, e.g. by using a non-free skin. I think that kind of oversimplification should be removed. –LPfi (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Which page are you referring to? Verbcatcher (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: I think it's Commons:Screenshots.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Oops. Yes. I thought I wrote at that talk page. –LPfi (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Now posted on Commons talk:Screenshots#Decision matrix. –LPfi (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Greubel Forsey Logo 08.jpg

Maybe it's no big deal because File:Greubel Forsey Logo 08.jpg has been OTRS verified, but it seems like this is really nothing more than {{PD-textlogo}} even per COM:TOO Switzerland. The CC license (even if verified by OTRS) seems to apply that the logo is eligible for copyright protection, doesn't it? It seems like the {{Cc-by-3.0}} is actually more restrictive than this file requires. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It is certainly so, but keeping the CC license template as well will do no harm. Ruslik (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The CC-BY-3.0 license could be useful in jurisdictions that have a low threshold of originality and would grant the logo copyright protection. FunnyMath (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque should be focused by professors in this grey area

In this discussion, several Indonesian users are doubting if COM:FOP Indonesia is indeed not ok or not, they mentioned a lot of educational articles to say "Indonesian copyright law is not clearly defining things about FOP". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Who are the "professors"? dwf² ✉ 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
e.g. @Aymatth2 and Clindberg: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
For the record, the presented articles are not merely "educational articles"; it's published law review from legal academics. dwf² ✉ 02:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The 2014 Law Article 9 says the author or copyright holder has exclusive rights to publish, reproduce, translate, etc. the work. Freedom of panorama would be defined in Chapter VI Copyright Limitations (Articles 43-51). This talks about official works, news, non-commercial use, archiving and authorized broadcasts. I see nothing that would permit commercial use of pictures of buildings or works of art permanently located in public places. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I could imagine an implicit FoP. The absence of cases about infringement suggests that might be the case. If you want formal language for that, it could be a de minimis interpreted broadly. However, somebody who knows the local legal situation should tell us whether such an interpretation makes sense. –LPfi (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a rather interesting clause, 43(d), which I've not really seen in other laws. An act not considered infringement: the production and distribution of the Copyrighted content through information technology and communication media that are not commercial and/or lucrative for the Author or related parties, or the Author expresses no objection to the manufacture and dissemination in question. That is a pretty general clause, and would seem to allow distribution of works over the internet and other media, provided that they aren't copies of works which are of a commercial nature themselves, and that the author of the original work does not object. From a practical perspective, that probably covers most freedom of panorama type stuff -- sounds like for many situations that it's OK, unless the author objects later on -- so it's not infringement until that latter event happens. And I doubt architects or sculptors object very often, if ever. That strikes me as a rather practical clause, making much normal modern behavior not be infringements, and probably contributes to most FoP type usages (among others) being considered just fine in regular life. From a strict theoretical definition of "free" however, it is problematic -- part of that definition is irrevocability, i.e. that a work can be used without worry that the permission can be withdrawn. The Author expresses no objection part contravenes that, as permission can be effectively be withdrawn by the underlying author expressing an objection, of whatever nature. So from a policy perspective, it may not qualify, unless (as normal) we get a free license from the underlying author, even though posting such works here is perfectly legal (until an objection is raised, at which point they would be illegal). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • From a practical view that would mean we probably should not upload images of a nature such that the author gets revenue from selling or licensing similar images, e.g. as postcards or art books. I suppose that there for An-Nur Great Mosque could be such a business, but it could very well be that that business relies on the exception and the architect doesn't have a financial interest in it. It might be that there is no way to control the business, and thus not getting the revenue is not seen as a loss. Something to explore in the case of high profile works. –LPfi (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
an-Nur Mosque was constructed by Riau provincial government, and it now remains under their management. So does most government-constructed buildings in Indonesia that has seen its files getting deleted on Commons because of this. dwf² ✉ 01:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Most works are of a commercial nature. The author (architect) of the mosque presumably was paid for his work. Clause 43(d) seems to refer to works like Wikipedia articles where the author has waived their commercial rights, and/or where the author has given permission for copies to be made. I do not see it allowing copies until the author complains. "Expresses no objection" presumably means "says they do not object" rather than "does not say they object" to each electronic copy.
The law says that the author or copyright owner is the only one who can make copies, apart from certain defined exceptions. These do not include making copies or photographs for commercial use. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: That is, (un)fortunately how Indonesian copyright jurisprudence (or lack thereof) works. There has been no FoP-related case law decided by the Supreme Court, and even if there is one, the court has no real power to interpret provisions of the 2014 Copyright Law (it is up to the Constitutional Court, which has not received nor reviewed any petition regarding copyright up until now), and individual case laws do not serve as a binding legal authority or be treated as a precedent of Indonesian law. One of the recent discussion (https://youtu.be/LEmMc2bsAFE) about intellectual property law of photography, presented by Ari J. Gema of the Ministry of Creative Economy (and, to note, a member of the Indonesian bar and founding legal lead for CC Indonesia) also concluded that the FoP matter under Indonesian law remains an inconclusive subject. I would support Clindberg's point that we could, for the purpose of Commons, interpret there there is an provision allowing FoP under 43(d) of the 2014 Copyright Law; or alternatively, as LPfi pointed out, a broad interpretation of de minimis. dwf² ✉ 02:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I have proposed a complete overhaul of COM:INDONESIA based on statutory interpretations of existing laws, but it was promptly removed. dwf² ✉ 02:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • If there is no case law on Freedom of Panorama we have to go with a pessimistic interpretation of the 2014 law. The basic position is given in Article 9, which says the author or copyright holder has exclusive rights to publish, reproduce, translate, etc. the work. Exceptions are given in Chapter VI Copyright Limitations (Articles 43-51). These do not include any waiver for commercial use of pictures of architecture or artworks permanently located in a public place.
  • Clindberg has pointed out that Article 43(d) is unusual. It says "Acts that are not considered as Copyright infringements include: ... (d) the production and distribution of the Copyrighted content through information technology and communication media that are not commercial and/or lucrative for the Author or related parties, or the Author expresses no objection to the manufacture and dissemination in question." This is somewhat ambiguous.
    • "that are not commercial and/or lucrative for the Author or related parties" must refer to the Copyrighted content rather than the information technology and communication media, or this would allow reproduction through IT of any work as long as the author is not paid for it. The first part of 43(d) therefore relates to works for which the author or related parties receive no payment, which would rarely apply to buildings or statues.
    • "Author expresses no objection" must mean that the author has stated they do not object rather than they have not stated they object. They could have given a general waiver saying anyone may copy the work, or a specific waiver saying website XYZ may copy it. But this cannot mean that they have to explicitly object to the manufacture and dissemination in question, or anyone could copy a work as long as the author does not notice.
  • The idea of a "broad interpretation of de minimis" does not work. The pictures of the mosque show the buildings as the primary subject, not as a trivial and incidental inclusion that could be blanked out without causing much harm to the picture.

It is annoying, but in the absence of an explicit statement in the law that allows freedom of panorama we must assume that there is none. Remember that works on Commons must be freely usable for any purpose, including commercial purposes such as advertising of products that the author or owner of the copyrighted work may find extremely offensive. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: I would therefore second Aymatth2, that neither Article 12, nor 15 (1), and nor 43 (d) are giving the possible of commercial-allowed FOPs, rather, they may apply to architectures and artworks, but still limited on some cut of non-commercial usages. What an unfair 43 (d) term I met. As I've said again and again, these terms look like what I've met in COM:FOP Ukraine, that some fair use-like terms are having confusing wordings, so that they misleaded people to claim that FOP is okay in XXX country. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: are you saying that I am misleading you to say that FoP is okay in Indonesia? dwf² ✉ 01:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: I'm not saying you're misleaded, rather, I'm pointing that many Indonesian users like you, are all misleaded by 43 (d), this panorama is found-able in COM:FOP Ukraine, don't explain anything more without a refreshed new legal advices. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure how Ukrainian copyright provisions has anything to do with Indonesian copyright law, but I have seen stranger things. dwf² ✉ 05:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: Some informations on this topic:

These are the reasons why I would rather believe that 43(d) is a fair use-like term, rather than a FOP term. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: thank you for all of the examples, which I am very well aware of. With all due respect, you are still wrong. dwf² ✉ 10:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: Let Nat tell you that why you said wrong, not me: Special:Diff/537517311. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't take orders from Nat, or anyone, really; thank you very much. dwf² ✉ 11:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Nat for comment.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you for the ping, but I don't believe I need to add anything here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
While I hate to say this, unless Indonesian copyright law is changed, no FOP in Indonesia will be completely valid. Creative Commons Indonesia's statement prevails over the obsolete scholarly articles. While it may be a rough machine translation, the last paragraph of CC Indonesia's statement states "The image of objects in public spaces, with the convenience offered by the latest technology, is becoming more commonplace for the general public. Law, in this case regulation, should be able to keep up with technological developments and people's habits. Because, in essence, regulations are made to provide legal certainty for the legal relationship between legal subjects in a jurisdiction. Therefore, it is better if a provision is made as complete and detailed as possible, to avoid any legal vacuum. As well as providing free space for movement and still within the limits of reasonableness." (Yes this is highlighted in the statement.) The wording "it is better if a provision is made as complete and detailed as possible, to avoid any legal vacuum" (alangkah baiknya suatu ketentuan dibuat selengkap dan serinci mungkin, untuk menghindari adanya kekosongan hukum) implies an urgent need for a major amendment (that is, the introduction of FOP) so that the copyright law will fit in the new media / digital age. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not going to rehash any substantive point, since I think I have exhausted it already. For the record, I disagree with all of the interpretation of the 2014 Copyright Law above, and I am still of opinion that the Law must be expansively interpreted in favor of FoP, as much as possible. We do not reach a consensus here. dwf² ✉ 01:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the extract of that relevant section in CC Indonesia's statement (in original language and highlighting, enclosed in collapsible box). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Extract of CC Indonesia's statement

Meskipun begitu, Indonesia telah mengatur pembatasan hak cipta melalui huruf b dan d ayat Pasal 43 UUHC14:

Perbuatan yang tidak dianggap sebagai pelanggaran Hak Cipta meliputi:

b. Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan segala sesuatu yang dilaksanakan oleh atau atas nama pemerintah, kecuali dinyatakan dilindungi oleh peraturan perundang-undangan, pernyataan pada Ciptaan tersebut, atau ketika terhadap Ciptaan tersebut dilakukan Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan; d. pembuatan dan penyebarluasan konten Hak Cipta melalui media teknologi informasi dan komunikasi yang bersifat tidak komersial dan/atau menguntungkan Pencipta atau pihak terkait, atau Pencipta tersebut menyatakan tidak keberatan atas pembuatan dan penyebarluasan tersebut.

Pada huruf b disebutkan bahwa setiap pengumuman, pendistribusian, komunikasi, dan/atau penggandaan setiap ciptaan yang merupakan produk pemerintah, boleh dilaksanakan tanpa izin langsung dari pencipta atau pemegang hak ciptanya. Artinya, setiap upaya pencitraan kembali gedung atau monumen, sebagai karya seni rupa maupun karya arsitektur, yang pengadaannya dilaksanakan atas nama pemerintah, dapat dilakukan secara langsung tanpa perlu ada izin tertulis dari siapapun. Asalkan pelaksanaan hak tersebut masih dalam batas wajar, yaitu tidak mengurangi nilai kehormatan dari ciptaan dan juga pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta ciptaan terkait.

Dengan begitu, upaya pendokumentasian, pengumuman, dan pelisensian kembali ciptaan berupa gedung atau monumen, sebagai karya seni rupa maupun karya arsitektur, dalam format dua dimensi maupun tiga dimensi, yang tersedia di ruang publik secara permanen maupun sementara, dan diciptakan atas nama pemerintah tidak dianggap sebagai perbuatan melanggar hak cipta meskipun dilaksanakan tanpa izin langsung secara tertulis maupun tidak tertulis oleh pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta. Kecuali, dilarang oleh ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan lain, misalnya untuk menjaga keamanan dan kestabilan negara Republik Indonesia.

Pada huruf d, disebutkan bahwa pembuatan dan penyebarluasan ciptaan secara daring, selain ciptaan yang dimaksud dalam huruf b, dapat dilaksanakan, bahkan dalam kepentingan komersial atau disediakan untuk digunakan kembali dalam kepentingan komersial secara langsung asal pihak pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta tidak keberatan terhadap hal tersebut. Artinya, setiap ciptaan berupa karya seni rupa maupun karya arsitektur lainnya yang hendak dicitrakan serta dibagikan dalam format lain dan untuk kepentingan apapun, harus menyertakan pernyataan bahwa penggunaan tersebut bukan merupakan untuk kepentingan komersial. Atau, jika penggunaan melibatkan kepentingan komersial, izin langsung dari pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta, mutlak dibutuhkan untuk menghindarkan perbuatan dari kategori pelanggaran hak cipta. Bagian ini menjadi dasar status “not OK” Indonesia di laman ini karena belum memenuhi standar atau kriteria “FoP” Wikimedia Commons.

Untuk memenuhi kriteria tersebut, Indonesia dapat menerapkan pengecualian dan pembatasan yang diberlakukan pada ciptaan di huruf b, tanpa membuat daftar spesifik tentang ciptaan apa yang dikecualikan, karena sesungguhnya jenis ciptaan yang ada di ruang publik bisa saja tidak hanya berupa karya seni rupa dan karya arsitektur (pameran karya teks, karya seni terapan di pasaran, ekspresi budaya tradisional, rekaman suara musik di ruang publik dan lain-lain), dengan tambahan ketentuan yang mewajibkan penyebutan sumber atau nama pencipta dan/atau pemegang hak cipta, yang kemudian dapat memperluas kriteria penggunaan ciptaan dan menghindari sifat multitafsir (“tidak merugikan kepentingan wajar”) dari huruf a ayat (1) Pasal 44 UUHC14. Penghindaran adanya ketentuan multitafsir misalnya dengan pembuatan ketentuan yang menyatakan bahwa ciptaan citraan terkait merupakan ciptaan yang terpisah dari obyek yang dicitrakan, yang dilindungi oleh Pasal 40 UUHC14, sesuai dengan format citraannya. Satu tambahan ketentuan seperti itu saja dapat menjembatani hak pencipta ciptaan citraan untuk melaksanakan pelisensian ciptaan (baca ketentuan Pasal 80 UUHC 14 Tentang Lisensi di artikel ini) secara mandiri, tanpa memposisikan pencipta sebagai pihak pelaksana sublisensi pada ciptaan hasil citraan. Karena pelaksana sublisensi wajib memperoleh izin langsung secara tertulis untuk melisensikan kembali suatu ciptaan, materi asli maupun karya turunan, dalam aktivitas pengumuman ciptaan.

Pencitraan obyek yang ada di ruang publik, dengan kemudahan yang ditawarkan oleh teknologi terkini, semakin menjadi sesuatu yang lumrah bagi masyarakat umum. Hukum, dalam hal ini peraturan, seharusnya dapat mengikuti perkembangan teknologi dan kebiasaan masyarakat. Karena, pada hakikatnya, peraturan dibuat untuk memberikan kepastian hukum terhadap hubungan hukum antara subyek-subyek hukum di suatu wilayah hukum. Maka dari itu, alangkah baiknya suatu ketentuan dibuat selengkap dan serinci mungkin, untuk menghindari adanya kekosongan hukum. Serta memberikan ruang gerak yang bebas dan masih ada dalam batas-batas kewajaran.

  Oppose, I mean that oppose to say "Indonesia has FOP", tried to copy-paste those terms to a Kyoto University Senior, they said that these aren't panorama related, but rather you can make photographs of buildings, sculptures and fine arts without permission from author for any non-commercial purposes such as educational. For commercial purposes, either the affected buildings are already public domain or don't matter on your works (COM:DM), or a license book must be given by the owners of buildings, otherwise you're violating their intelligent property rights. Compare with other countries, I see no reason to say "Indonesia is a FOP OK country". --117.136.54.63 10:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@117.136.54.63: who is this "Kyoto University Senior" and what are their relevance to the discussion? dwf² ✉ 07:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  Comment I doubt if this dwf²'s asking can get an answer, if I read Kyoto University's Privacy Policy carefully, their "2. Use of personal information" would be enough to suppress the possible to reveal it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose to the point that Indonesian copyright law allows FOP that is acceptable at Commons. See again the Creative Commons Indonesia position. Also, see the conclusion from the Feb. 10, 2021 IPOPHL-Wikimedia dialogue on FOP, in which the w:Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines said that copyright laws are statutory rights and provisions like FOP must be defined; legal studies or interpretations cannot be made as there is no FOP provision to base. I presume this would also be the situation for Indonesia, one of the closest neighbors of the Philippines (in terms of culture and ASEAN ties). The only option is for Wikimedia Indonesia to do actions being done by some Wikimedians in our country (the Philippines), or Wikimedians in South Africa, Ghana, and Georgia. Consultations, dialogues, and/or lobbying for introduction of FOP in Indonesia. And such actions were implicitly urged in the Creative Commons position that I copy-pasted above. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Since it seems that the commenters is very much in favour of maintaining current interpretation of FoP rule, I don't think anything needs to be discussed anymore. And for that record, I humbly ask for all of my contributions that might run afoul of this interpretation be deleted. Regards, dwf² ✉ 15:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/01&oldid=540742303"