Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/03

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

File:9INE Logo.png

It is unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder of this logo, but it seem too simple per COM:TOO United States to eligible for copyright protection. The problem is, however, that COM:Turkey isn't nearly as clear and doesn't say anything about the the country's TOO. Can this be kept if it's relicensed as {{PD-logo}} or should it be further discussed at COM:DR? FWIW, the logo can be seen being used here, but even if that website is claiming copyright over it, it still might be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection or a COM:CC license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The PD-Gutenberg template and text from Project Gutenberg

In the {{PD-Gutenberg}} template, there is text that is indicated as having come from Project Gutenberg. This text starts with "This eBook...". What is not clear is whether this text itself should (or can) be in the template since it is not clear that the text itself was released under a free copyright license by Project Gutenberg. At the Project Gutenberg site, there is the Full Project Gutenberg License in Legalese (normative) which is mentioned in the {{PD-Gutenberg}} template. In that license, section 1.E.1 specifies the requirement to include certain text when a work is distributed and the trademarked Project Gutenberg name is being used. (As a side note, it appears that the text mentioned in the current Full Project Gutenberg License in Legalese (normative) is slightly different than the text in the {{PD-Gutenberg}} template.) On the Project Gutenberg License page, there is a reference to "the non public domain Project Gutenberg trademark and license" (search for the phrase without quotes.) To be sure, Project Gutenberg may be all right with the text about "This eBook..." being reproduced under certain circumstances.

In looking at the {{PD-Gutenberg}} template, there is an additional possible issue: the template has a link to the Full Project Gutenberg License in Legalese (normative), but the link is broken. According to section 1.E.1 of the Full Project Gutenberg License in Legalese (normative), the mentioned text must have "active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License". Perhaps the template could be adjusted to use https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html or https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html#the-full-project-gutenberg-license-in-legalese-normative or https://www.gutenberg.org/license (this last one may be more future proof, but I am not sure if the URL works consistently) for linking to the Full Project Gutenberg License in Legalese (normative).

(As a side note, I hope this posting does not pose copyright issues, given that it quotes text from the {{PD-Gutenberg}} template and the Project Gutenberg site, in addition to mentioning aspects of the {{PD-Gutenberg}} template.) --Gazebo (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Portraits of Prabowo Subianto, Sandiaga Uno and {{PD-IDGov}}

Prabowo Subianto and Sandiaga Uno are incumbent cabinet ministers of Indonesia who were candidates in the 2019 presidential elections. According to Article 45(e) of the 2014 Indonesian copyright law, it said that the following action is not a copyright infringement:

Reproduction, Publication, and/or Distribution of Portraits of the ... heads of ministries ... by taking into account the dignity and appropriateness in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations.

The file(copy) was deleted a few days ago as it "doesn't have a valid license." I first suspected that the action was disruptive as it does appear on a government website, just with a wrong source (it was given as the original file, not the site). However, upon a reverse image search, it turned out that the image contains elements from File:Capres nomor urut 02 2019 - 2024 Prabowo Subianto dan Sandiaga Uno.jpeg (copy; prepared by the campaign team during the elections, deleted in August 2019 for insufficient sourcing.) The same file also includes Prabowo's portrait, which appears in Commons as File:Menteri Pertahanan Prabowo Subianto.jpg (and its derivative works) and is accepted as a governmental work depicting a minister.

I think it is not possible to create double standards and wonder if {{PD-IDGov}} applies to both of them or not. The question is: should I launch an undeletion request for Sandiaga's portrait or a deletion request of Prabowo's if they are not eligible in the first place?--Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 11:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

PD-IDGov is a problematic template (see). Or really, anything about Indonesian copyright law is problematic around here. Suggest to not try any form of undeletion. dwf² ✉ 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

AI animations

Any thoughts about the added creative content on public domain photographs for AI animation, like the MyHeritage portrait animations? Someone is bound to start uploading these. Example at tweet with Caravaggio portrait. --Fæ (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A similar discussion is at What is the Wikimedia Commons position on storing AI enhanced historic images. For pure copyright issues, {{PD-algorithm}} probably applies (so we can), however I think COM:EDUSE should be applied strictly (concerning weather we should). Having a handful of examples to illustrate the process is informative and in line with the aims of Commons. Turning every public domain photograph or painting into a blinking, head-bobbing, uncanny valley apparition is not, and such media should be scrutinized under the same rationale as party pics or my abstract art from childhood: not realistically useful for Commons. --Animalparty (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

IMHO the COM:FOP Estonia section needs review

In some requests listed in Category:Estonian FOP cases/pending, @Ralf Roletschek, VargaA, and Andy Dingley: said keep based on reasons like "total misunderstanding of Estonian copyrigh act", I wonder if this is affecting what the affected section said or not:

“

Not OK, only non-commercial use allowed if the work is the main subject {{FoP-Estonia}}

Under the Copyright Act of 11 November 1992 (consolidated text of February 1, 2017): It is permitted to reproduce works of architecture, works of visual art, works of applied art or photographic works which are permanently located in places open to the public, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of remuneration, by any means except for mechanical contact copying, and to communicate such reproductions of works to the public except if the work is the main subject of the reproduction and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes. If the work specified in this section carries the name of its author, it shall be indicated in communicating the reproduction to the public.^{[1992/2017 §20]}

”

Are their comments mean that this section is totally wrong? Or Estonia recently made somewhat a modification to their copyright act, so that FOP is suddenly ok now? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Can't speak for the others, but that's not what I wrote at all, and I have no particular knowledge of Estonian FOP. My comment was much broader, aimed at the concept of FOP in general, and particularly at the firehose of DRs and (worse) automatic deletion tags being used by this editor. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#A1Cafel as well.

FOP does not grant additional copyright protection to some classes of image. So claiming "this should be deleted under FOP" is wrong.

FOP is a relaxation of protection, such that subjects which might expect to be protected by copyright are no longer protected by that copyright if they are placed "on display", i.e. in public spaces, for public access.

Estonia has fairly restricted FOP compared to some countries (like many, it's based on only permitting FOP to be applied for non-commercial use, which is thus outside Commons' requirement for "free" use). So subjects that were already protected may not be made available as a result of it. However the DR here Commons:Deletion requests/File:EU-EE-TLN-LAS-Laagna-15-storey living house.JPG was on the basis that FOP somehow added copyright protections where there had been none before. FOP, if it's there, grants a freedom to photograph in public open spaces - it's not a state security law, making everything a state secret.

Additionally, it is not true that there is no FOP in Estonia. Nor is it true for Japan. Yet we keep getting these DRs, like this, which state bluntly "No freedom of panorama in Estonia", which is simply untrue. DRs based on a falsehood like this should be closed immediately. Editors don't get to invent reasons for deletion, just to keep their scores high.

For this particular DR, I would accept your own comment as valid, that the design features of the building lift it into being an original work, subject to protection, rather than merely utilitarian and mundane, as Dmitry G and I would claim. Either side could be regarded as right there (that's why we have DRs), but both have a reasonable case to make. However neither is arguing that FOP adds protection, as the nominator claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Es ist völlig egal, ob es dort Panoramafreiheit gibt, weil auf den Fotos nichts geschütztes zu erkennen ist. Nur normale Betonbauwerke. --Ralf Roletschek 12:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether there is freedom of panorama there, because nothing protected can be seen in the photos. Just normal concrete structures. (Google autotranslate)

I would agree. Although the photograph has now been deleted anyway as the building was "not a simple geometric figure". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Every time someone scribbles out a poem, or a toddler puts crayons to paper, there is a new copyrightable work created. I see no reason why works by professional architects should be routinely deprived of copyright because they're just normal concrete structures. In the US, at least, there is a bunch of case law that "merely utilitarian and mundane" houses are still copyrighted works that may not be copied.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: I think the template {{FoP-Estonia}} generates much of the confusion. It creates a misleading impression that Estonia has Commons-acceptable FOP, but there is none (Estonia's noncommercial FOP is simply unacceptable). There was a prior discussion here (at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/12), though there is no conclusion as to whether this be renamed as "{{NoFoP-Estonia}}" or as another user suggests, "{{PartialFoP-Estonia}}" (because they claim that there is "partial" FOP "if the work is not the main subject"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Public domain

Hi there, I received a message about the licensing of this photo. I uploaded it from this location, where the University of North Carolina tagged it as "public domain", so I figured they probably checked the copyright. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Why did you tag it as licensed with CC by-sa 4.0? A tag must be added to specify the reason for which it is in the public domain. "UNC Libraries Commons" is not the author. Since the UNC doesn't bother to mention the relevant information, you must search for it elsewhewre. For example, there are two slightly different versions of the reverse side at [1] [2] and [3]. In this case, the tag is probably PD-US-no notice. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Does Template:PD-IDGov apply to images from Antara (news agency)?

Template:PD-IDGov says that publications made by the Indonesian government are in the public domain. The Antara (news agency) is an Indonesian national statutory corporation controlled by the Indonesian government under Constitutional Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 40 of 2007, page 2 and the Operations is under the Ministry of State Owned Enterprises (Indonesia), responsible to the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (Indonesia) and Indonesian State Intelligence Agency. Does that mean that images and other publications made by Antara are also public domain? The specific images in question are Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "dhoho street fashion", but I imagine we'll find other images made by Antara that we'll want to upload. --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@GRuban: Unsure, but I would be inclined to say that a corporation owned by the government is a separate legal entity from the government and is not covered by the relevant law. However, I think it's really a moot point: there appears to be a copyright notice on the original Antara website, and Commons has in the past decided that this PD tag does not apply when there is a copyright notice (see Template:PD-IDGov#Important note). Mysterymanblue 22:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:Mysterymanblue! who was that azure man? --GRuban (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@GRuban: More addition, on its terms and uses, it is stated on point 4 that (translated from Indonesia) This site contains material whose copyright and broadcast rights are owned by ANTARA Photos. You are not allowed to copy, reproduce, publish, and fully disseminate the material presented on this website, whether in the form of news, information, data, images, photos and logos, in any way and/or through any media, except for your own use and is not of a commercial purpose. Any use other than those that have been permitted must obtain written approval from ANTARA Photos. So, it is clear that all materials from ANTARA, even it is the Government News Agency, its copyrighted and so PD-IDGov does not apply on this. Hope it helps - 02:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimma21 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:EU41 2.jpg

For a month now, this photo has not been removed despite attention to copyright infringement. This photo has not permission, so it should delete in 7 days after nomination. This is scandal that an infringing photo is visible almost one month after the permission. -Mosomortymi (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Taking into account how old this photo is, it is likely to be in public domain now. Ruslik (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You should read deletion request, the given year is not valid, photo was taken after 1959. This photo is from book ‘Wąbrzeska Kolejka Powiatowa’ by Robert Prusakowski. This is not own work. The person who inserted the photo lied, claiming to be the copyright owner. Copyright belongs doubtless to author of the book i.e. Robert Prusakowski. --Mosomortymi (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. --Achim (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Is security camera footage copyrightable?

I've noticed a number of files in Category:Images from security cameras that have a Template:PD-ineligible tag. Is security camera footage really not copyrightable? Mysterymanblue 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The argument has been made in court, but the cases I know of were settled instead of it being resolved in court. The theory is that copyright comes from a creative act, and the positioning of a security camera is not done for creative reasons, nor does it exemplify the personality of the creator. Furthermore, what is captured by a security camera is not by design or control of the photographer. Basically, what little impact the installer had on the outcome was a fundamentally uncreative work. It's arguable, but it makes sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Though it would very much depend on the copyright law for where the content is from, one court case from an undisclosed country (since you've not stated what case and where) doesn't make all security camera footage World wide copyright ineligible. Bidgee (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Командер

Attn: massive copyright infringement when uploading files. Works by L.N. Tokar , A.I. Kuznetsov wihout OTRS, frames from films that have not passed into the public domain, other people's photos from the Internet without attribution, etc. — Niklitov (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Playing cards

I'm seeing a lot of modern playing cards in Category:French card faces. Unless we have proof that this specific design is out of copyright, then these should be deleted. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: In US case law, scènes à faire are not protected, so I would guess that number cards with simple shapes (diamonds, hearts, spades, clubs) and unoriginal arrangements would not be protected except in extraordinary circumstances. Face cards probably have to go, unless - like you said - we have proof of a specific design being out of copyright, or of substantial similarity to a PD design. Mysterymanblue 00:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Lloyd hughes.jpg

I've got a question about this file's licensing. Age wise it seems like it would be PD (assuming the date given in its description is correct), but I'm wondering if this is actually the original photo. It kind of looks like a sepia version or maybe even a colorized version. In either case, any alteration of the original photo might be something which makes this file a COM:DW with a different original publication date. Is this file OK as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I think something is up here. I looked through the Screenland magazine archives around December 1922 and was unable to find this photograph in there. I wasn't super extensive with my search, though, so a more extensive search would be necessary. Notably, all of the Screenland issues seem to have been printed in monochrome, and a photograph would probably have to occupy an entire printed page to be of this quality (which seems unlikely). So the strange coloring on this photograph may be due to a recent recoloring. Also, after a look at the hairline, there seem to be some brush marks that would suggest modern retouching. These additions would likely rise above the threshold of originality required under copyright law and make this work nonfree. Mysterymanblue 00:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with a copyright issue

I'm doing a Good Article review on enwiki, and I'm having trouble reviewing the copyright tag on a certain file, File:Diaphragmatic-rupture dog.jpg. It appears that it was modified from File:Zwerchfellruptur Hund.jpg, but I'm not sure if the original author was credited appropriately. Could someone more experience with copyright and license take a look at this? Bait30 (talk) pls ping me when you reply 19:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Both users are still active, so pinging Kalumet and Uwe Gille and they can decide how they want to indicate their respective credits. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Kalumet is a good friend of mine, he took the xray, I made overlay with numbers. I added this information to the file. --Uwe Gille (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikimapia

AFAIK are OSM images (screenshots or everything) subject to the "Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) v1.0". How is that with e.g. BING maps from wikimapia? May I use maps from there as well for an article? -- sarang♥사랑 08:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe those are proprietary.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Selfie a deceased person

Selfie copyright of a deceased person? Especially for a notable person, who published a lot of selfies on social media, and she is assassinated. --Ruwaym (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see Template:PD-Iraq. The selfies will not be freely-usable for many years after her death. Mysterymanblue 23:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mysterymanblue: Thank you. Then, Legally I need to wait at least 50 years. --Ruwaym (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mysterymanblue: Something else, "قناة التغيير" on youtube usually publishes videons under CC. A private Media company based in Iraq, I uploaded a lot screenshots from it's videos. but this one is Musical, because that i see no "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" after :License, in the description. Can i uploaded screenshots from that video? --Ruwaym (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ruwaym: If that video doesn't have a CC license tag, it doesn't have a CC license, and it can't be hosted here (unless there is another reason why it would be eligible). Mysterymanblue 02:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

US Mint coins public domain status

There is an ongoing discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images over the copyright status of certain coin designs owned by the United States Mint. Input at that page would be welcomed. Mysterymanblue 23:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

If I want to upload an image which is protected by copyright and I own the permission released by the author of the picture, how can I proof that I do possess the license? Which copyright tag do I have to add in the description where I specify the source? Thanks in advance Lorenzo Ferreri (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:OTRS. Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Liberalism in the United States Collage.png

I'm not sure where I would best post this, but File:Liberalism in the United States Collage.png does not appear to have been solely been Odemirense's work, given that it is a collage. At least one of the images in it, File:Paul Krugman-press conference Dec 07th, 2008-8.jpg, is under GFDL/CC-BY-SA, but no attribution is provided. Would someone be able to take a look? Thanks, 207.161.86.162 22:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

What happens if I use Non-free graffiti for graffiti photos in a country where there is no freedom of the panorama?

In countries where freedom of panorama is available, such as Germany or Spain, using a {{Non-free graffiti}} for graffiti photography is OK.

But what if I use {{Non-free graffiti}} in a country where there is no freedom of panorama, such as France or Italy?

Will that photo be deleted for violation of the freedom of panorama? Or is it kept?

Ox1997cow (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I will be deleted unless the graffiti is in public domain or is appropriately licensed. Ruslik (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No it won't. The template is "Non-free graffiti", not "free graffiti". See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Graffiti. Images of non-free graffiti are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Kaldari (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: The {{Non-free graffiti}} template is specifically for countries that don't have freedom of panorama. For countries like Germany or Spain you should use {{FoP-Germany}} or the equivalent instead. Kaldari (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Thanks. Ox1997cow (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

PD-US-architecture for Icelandic buildings?

For some time I can notice images of some Icelandic buildings, like Hallgrimskirkja, categorized under Category:PD US architecture, due to these being tagged with {{PD-US-architecture}}. Is it appropriate to tag these as such despite the presence of {{PD-old-70}} tags on those images? I thought that PD-US-architecture was meant for U.S. buildings only. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess we need both: The church was built in 1945, and, in principle, copyrighted objects created in Iceland in 1945 are non-free in the US until 2041, but since this is a building it is not copyrighted in the US (but it was copyrighted in Iceland until this year).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it, Ymblanter. It seems to remind me of its probable counterpart: a certain template by the name of {{Not-free-US-FOP}} for non-architectural works outside U.S.A. that are still under U.S. copyright and fall under COM:URAA copyright restoration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally am responsible for a lot of those. It's there for US compliance; we really should get to making a PD-old-architecture tag for these cases. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Publication in the US and abroad

The US copyright duration in many cases is 95 years from publication (COM:HIRTLE). Before 1978, publication was defined as making the work available for copying. This includes many public exhibitions. The Berne Convention requires the dissemination of copies and explicitly mentions public exhibition as not constituting publication. Now my question: for purposes of the 95 years copyright duration, do we apply the US rules or the local rules for publication, when such publication happened abroad?

This came up a few times lately, most recently for an 1884 painting exhibited in 1884. In that particular case it was easy to find a "real" publication, but even there, exhibition would have been easier. Even finding the local definition of publication (at the time!) can be hard --rimshot^talk 20:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rimshot: If we're evaluating the U.S. copyright, I assume we would use the U.S. definition of "publication". Clindberg would know for sure. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned in your link, the term "publication" was not defined in U.S. law until 1978. The courts came up with their own definitions. In the case mentioned at the link, a court ruled that since photography was not permitted at an exhibition, i.e. no copies were allowed to be made, the work was not "published" -- so we therefore assume that exhibitions which did allow photography etc. did constitute publication (which a court case decades later also did use; the Chicago Picasso was ruled public domain in part due to that). The courts ended up with a doctrine of "limited publication", which did not start the copyright clock, and "general publication", which did (and required notice, etc.). A common definition of "limited publication", used by some but not all circuits, is distribution to a limited set of people, for a limited purpose, and with no rights of further distribution. If all three were satisfied, it was limited -- but if not, then it was general publication, and you needed a copyright notice and the clock started. For a famous case, a court ruled that giving out Oscar statuettes was limited publication, since the winners had no right to use the copyright on the statue any further (and thus, the statue is still under copyright). For the most part, if we have no information at all, it is hard to say (and given different court definitions, not really possible to be anyways). Most works were made to be published, so if we have no further information, we do tend to assume publication around the time it was made. If there is evidence which indicates otherwise, like a photographic negative coming from a photographer's archive (which may well never have been published), we would treat those differently. Basically, the question of publication that long ago is usually just a theoretical doubt, not rising to the "significant doubt" level of COM:PCP, unless (as mentioned) there is information which makes an unpublished status much more likely. A painting still owned by the artist or their family may well be unpublished; if it went anywhere else it was probably published. But it's a tortured question with no bright lines, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to make currency copyright world map.

After I saw File:Freedom of Panorama world map.png, I want to make currency copyright world map.

But I don't know where the blank map needed to make it is and how to make it.

However, I know what color to use as a legend for the map and in which case to use it.

Dark green is OK and public domain. (such as Japan)
Light green is OK but copyrighted. (such as South Korea)
Yellow is OK until a certain period of time, and not OK after that. (such as China)
Red is not OK. (such as North Korea)
Gray is no information.

In addition to this legend, are there any additional legends this map need?

And there are a lot of elements that have trouble making maps, such as a small country and a dependent territory. Can you help me?

Ox1997cow (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the blank map of the world. The color legend is best to sent to the caption, but, in principle, it can also be shown on the map. somwehere between South America and Africa. I am using inkscape to create colored maps, but there are plenty of other programs doing it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Then, what additional legends do I need? Ox1997cow (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, you do not need any.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Then, how do countries like the European Union (most of the countries in the European Union use Euro)? Ox1997cow (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I would just make all of them of the color corresponding to the color which is appropriate for Euro. The same for CFA franc.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: When will the draft be completed? I don't know how to handle vector graphics tools. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to draw the map. I am sorry if I made this impression by my responses.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

File:FridaPortrait (cropped).jpg

Can this photo be here on Commons and be used normally in articles? Considering the date and everything? Enaldodiscussão 14:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

In Mexico copyright lasts for 100 years after the author's death. In this case it means until 2055 taking into account that Frida Kahlo died in 1954. Ruslik (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

But the photographer died in 1965, which probably means 2066.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no copyright in this photo because it is a slavish copy. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: What does that mean? Enaldodiscussão 04:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@EnaldoSS, Ruslik0, and Ymblanter: This is a crop of a photo of a photo. The original photo was taken in 1939, probably in Mexico. The original photographer Nickolas Muray died in 1965. Per COM:Mexico, the term at his death was 30 years pma, and was extended to 50 years pma in 1982, 75 years pma in 1993, and 100 years pma in 2003, all without ever lapsing, so his copyright will last through 1965+100=2065. Delete crop and source now and restore them in 2066. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 05:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The crop is not protected by copyright since all original elements were removed during cropping. Ruslik (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: what makes you think that? What do you think was the original work, and who do you think authored it and when? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 01:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There is only one original work visible in the image -- the painting by Frida Kahlo. The image just reproduces it exactly. Ruslik (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Even if it is a photo of a self-portrait painting by Frida (I don't buy the "(cropped)" because it is higher resolution and has different lighting and reflections), her copyright on her painting would still last through 1954+100=2054. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 19:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this in my first comment. Ruslik (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of an Image

Hi, I am a disclosed paid editor on Wikipedia. One of my clients recently 'purchased' one of her pictures from Alamy for use on Wikipedia. How can we go about this? Should I upload the image and ask my client to ignore any and all emails from Alamy? Thanks! Hillster (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hillster: If she purchased a license to use the image, that image is likely not eligible to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Images must be freely usable by anyone to be hosted here, so getting one-use, non-sublicensable permission from Alamy is not sufficient. If she purchased the copyright to the image and is now the intellectual property holder, she can upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons under a free license. Mysterymanblue 22:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hi Hillster. Did your client purchase the rights to the image or a physical/digital copy of the image? Was there an en:copyright transfer agreement between your client and en:Alamy? Do you know whether it gave your client full ownership of the image to your client if there was such an agreement? Alamy is a stock-image provider that seems to provide a variety of licenses, but none of them seem to be a complete transfer of copyright ownership from Alamy to its customers. So, if Alamy still owns the rights to the image (even if it's partial ownership), then Commons probably wouldn't be able to keep the file per Commons:Licensing without Alamy's consent. Now, companies like Almay might try and claim copyright ownership over images they don't really own, and they also tend to have lots of resources to try and enforce these claims of ownership. So, whether you can actually upload the image to Commons, might depend on the en:provenance of the specific image and whether its copyright is really owned by Alamy. However, regardless of what you and your client decide to do, you're probably better off seeking legal advice from a copyright lawyer than Commons if you're worried about what Almay might do if they find you or your client is using the image in violation of some agreement you have with Almay. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, As far as I can tell from a very quick look at the website of that company, they offer various types of licenses for limited uses. Such non-free licenses seem incompatible with the free licensing of Wikimedia. Which is to be expected, because if that company offered their material under free licenses, it would go against their business model. You would have to look at the exact terms of the contract your client entered into with that company. If, as the wording of your question suggests, she contracted a limited license "for use on Wikipedia", that is unusable as such and she likely wasted her money. It would be like buying a piece of software without first checking if it's compatible with your system and then realizing it's not compatible. Beyond that, we can't really help with that sort of thing. Please understand that Commons cannot provide legal advice for people about their dealings with companies. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the responses and all the help. Alamy seemed very fishy, so to avoid running into any problems, I met with the client and took a picture of her myself. Is it okay to use this picture and do I need to add any kind of disclosures on Wikimedia Commons? Again, thank you Mysterymanblue, Marchjuly, and Asclepias Hillster (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hillster: The upload here of your picture of her would be fine, but please see en:WP:COI. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Oh, thank you. I have already added the disclosure on my Wikipedia user page and the draft's talk page. I'll include it in the image, as well. Hillster (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hillster: You're welcome. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Math worksheet, copyright

For example, let's say I have a 3 page worksheet that only lists multiplication problems. No images, maybe also a "Name:" "Date:" etc. at the top of the page.

Would that be in the public domain per PD-text and Commons:Threshold of originality, even if it contained a copyright notice? PseudoSkull (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

For context, I actually have a treasure trove of old assignments from middle and high school, that I was planning on uploading the PD ones...somewhere on the Internet, though I don't know if Commons would be appropriate, while mentioning them being in the public domain. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably uncopyrightable if simple worksheets (especially if published in the U.S.). But as you state, Commons may not be the best place per COM:EDUSE. Blank pdf forms might have use, but scans of completed assignments, personal writings, doodles, etc. have negligible value. --Animalparty (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Aren't samples of real assignments educationally useful? I think they are, given they are well enough documented: what school (or school system), what grade, what year or time span. –LPfi (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Does this art qualify for inclusion on Commons?

I normally shy away from "clip art" because there are usually better images available. However, I found some that is superior for a few images in Wikipedia articles. Is the following ok for upload:

Index of images for potential upload

The use it freely policy for the clipart

An example where I would like to use a clip: [4] gives me better infomation about the musical instrument than File:Kabosy.png for the article w:Kabosy. Jacqke (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that it's probably OK. The website says "free clip art you can use for anything you like" and "Since it is free material, please use it freely (processing such as reduction and trimming is also permitted)." You would probably want to use the {{PD-author}} template. Open to second opinions though. Kaldari (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jacqke: I agree that it's probably OK, but we shouldn't mark a work as public domain unless the copyright holder has explicitly used language to that effect. Probably best to use something like Template:Copyrighted free use. Mysterymanblue 03:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. Jacqke (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status of File:Ellen Church.jpg

This image has an unresolved DR since June 2020: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ellen Church.jpg. The photo appears to be taken in the US in 1930. Help is needed to determine whether it is in the public domain. --Wcam (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Recorded words

@Jmabel tells me that audio recordings of words are probably too simple to copyright, if that's true then they could be harvested from other websites like dictionary.com - can I get some more opinions on this? Troll Control (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I would very much disagree with that. And certainly, if you start en masse harvesting audio recordings of words — regardless of whether or not a single recorded word is eligible for copyright — you're talking about something completely different. But I would completely and totally disagree with the contention to begin with. [5] says that merely the sound of a dog barking is eligible for copyright. The only question for such short recordings is whether there was creative discretion in the capturing process or whether it was by purely mechanical means. (E.g. an oscillating siren is not copyrightable because it's purely mechanical.) Recording a spoken word would seem to be at least as creative as recording a bark from a dog. --B (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm undecided about whether audio recordings of words are too simple to copyright. (I'd note that the page doesn't say recording a bark from a dog is copyrightable; it says a "dog barking ... (assuming the recording contains a sufficient amount of production authorship)".) But copying a large collection of recordings of words from any one site could certainly violate a collection or multimedia copyright. Unlike something like a logo, where what we need is what may or may not be copyrighted, we can make our own audio recordings here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Read on in the article and they define what "a sufficient amount of production authorship" is. They say, "Sound recordings captured by purely mechanical means without originality of any kind also lack a sufficient amount of authorship to warrant copyright protection." So if you take the dog into a sound studio, have it bark for you a bunch of times, use skill and creativity to determine the best sounding bark, and record that bark, that may be copyrightable. Similarly, if you are just listing to a guy on the street extemporaneously speak and you record his speech, then publish the recording of one word from his speech, that one word is probably NOT copyrightable. But if you go into a studio, have someone speak the word, use skill and creativity to make sure the inflection is what you are looking for, and publish that word, I'd say that's more likely to be copyrightable. --B (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

One word may have performance rights and be copyrightable. For example, Shatner shouting "Khan!", Lulu singing the unaccompanied word "We-e-e-ell", or an entirely sythesized vocal deepfake of Jay-Z. --Fæ (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

How about North Korean Currency's copyright?

Wikimedia Commons has many North Korean currency image.

Category:Banknotes of North Korea

Category:Coins of North Korea

However, In COM:CUR, there is no information about North Korea. Is it okay to upload North Korean currency to Wikimedia Commons?

I found the deletion request below as a reference.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of North Korea

If you follow the deletion request above, uploading North Korean currency images to Wikimedia Commons is Not OK?

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the deletion request: photos of North Korean currency are not OK. As a party to the Berne convention, DPRK copyright exists from the moment a work is created (not requiring the use of registration), and its copyrights are recognized worldwide. Also, taking a look at North Korean copyright law, while article 12 says "Documents for state management... shall not be the object of copyright unless commercial purpose is pursued.", it does not in general say that government works are outside the protection of copyright. I don't think currency would qualify as a "document for state management", so these files would likely be non-free. Mysterymanblue 18:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mysterymanblue: Thanks. I added COM:CUR North Korea. Ox1997cow (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And accordingly I have opened up a deletion request below.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Money of North Korea

Ox1997cow (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

But I also see in Template:PD-DPRKOld : « Article 24: The property rights to a copyrighted work or a copyrighted visual art work whose author is an institution, enterprise or organization shall be protected for up to 50 years from the moment of its publication. », so coins and banknotes publish before this date are in the public domain @Ox1997cow: , @Mysterymanblue: Koreller (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Koreller. Also, a statement such as "If issued before 1 January 1974 use {{PD-DPRKOld}}." should be added to COM:CUR North Korea. — Baidax ^💬 17:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Koreller. Normal copyright rules do still apply! Mysterymanblue 21:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

mostly simple works with complex elements?

What's the policy on complex elements in otherwise simple works?

For example, File:.College Logo.svg (en) mostly consists of simple text with a small scribble in the lower-left corner. The image was deleted from Commons because it was determined that the scribble could pass the threshold of originality. However, anyone can easily draw some random lines. So would the law consider this scribble to be "random" and thus unoriginal, or does it look at the originality of the specific design?

This brings me to my second question: if a work contains copyrighted elements, then does the whole work become copyrighted? Or can we consider it {{PD-ineligible}} and apply de minimis to the complex elements? Ixfd64 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: A work is only protectible to the extent that it is original. So you could, for example, crop out the word "READY!" in this image and it would not enjoy the same copyright protection of the work as a whole. However, Commons should not be cropping the logos of organizations because 1) this does not accurately represent the organization and 2) it may be a violation of trademark law to modify a logo and use it in reference to an organization.

Another thing we must consider is the font. Raster renderings of a typeface are unprotected in the US. However, an vector representation of a typeface (as we have here) may be considered a derivative work of the font, depending on a wide variety of circumstances. I am unsure of how exactly this works, so maybe someone else could comment on it. (See Help:SVG#Copyright for more guidance.)

As for your concerns about the threshold of originality... the fact that a work does not appear to have artistic merit or could be reproduced by anyone does not mean it is below the threshold of originality. This source suggests that "even doodles, scribbles, and graffiti" can enjoy copyright protection. Perhaps the scribble really is too simple, but Commons should err on the side of caution and assume that works are copyrighted unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Mysterymanblue 22:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mysterymanblue: I see, thanks for the insight. But could de minimis apply to the complex portions? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Unlikely, because they are an integral part of the logo. Mysterymanblue 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I appreciate the information! Ixfd64 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this considered license laundering?

After I read COM:DM and COM:FOP, I thought of something like this:

When taking pictures in countries where there are provisions related to De minimis but there is no freedom of panorama(such as South Korea, France), some people may think of this and take pictures.

This is a nice building!(or This is a nice sculpture!) But this country has no freedom of panorama. Oh, I have a good idea! I will shoot this and other things together so that this is recognized as de minimis!

In summary, to upload a picture of a building or a sculpture in a country where there is no freedom of panorama, someone shoots it and other things together so that it is recognized as de minimis.

Is this considered license laundering?

Ox1997cow (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If other things are visible in the image, it can really be de minimis regardless of intent. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No, license laundering is putting a false license on a work you do not own, but then make it look like it's valid. That can be done accidentally, such as reposting someone else's photo on your Flickr account, but forgetting to change the license from the default one you have set for new uploads. Something like the above is just following the law, really. Cropping the photo to a particular building may not be OK (depending on the country you use it in, and how), but if the photo as a whole qualifies for de minimis, you should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The Third Man poster (2)

I recently discussed last June 2020, this artist isn't mentioned for this original UK release poster, The Third Man. To do so, this poster is not protected by copyright in the UK and the US, respectively.

But not of these feature film and/or trailer, are also protected by copyright (but subsequently restored by the URAA). Only these posters should be tagged both {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-1996}}. --Frontman830 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Transcoded MIDI Files Copyright Status

There are many MIDI files on Commons; these MIDI files are typically automatically transcoded into OGGs and MP3s. Audio file transcoding typically does not create a new copyrighted work because it is a purely mechanical process, but—if I understand correctly—the process of using a soundfont to "render" a MIDI file does create a derivative work of the soundfont. My question is: does anyone know which soundfont is used to perform these transcodings? If so, what is the copyright status of that soundfont? Some MIDI files are in the public domain, but I am concerned that more restrictive Soundfont licensing could result in the transcodings not being available under the same terms as the original MIDI file. Mysterymanblue 21:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

New derivatives of GFDL-only works not allowed

Please let me know if this is wrong:

Commons:Licensing#GNU Free Documentation License states that GFDL is not permitted as the only acceptable license for content licensed on or after 15 October 2018.
The GFDL license is 1-way compatible with Creative Commons (and similar) licenses: CC works can be incorporated into GFDL works, but GFDL works can't be incorporated into CC works.[6]
The GFDL relicensing clause expired on August 1, 2009.

Thus if I create a new derivative work from a work that is GFDL-only, I can only license it as GFDL. And because I am licensing it after 15 October 2018, it is not eligible to be hosted on Commons. Is that correct? Kaldari (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a perverse, unintended result. I think you can put any license you want on any new expression you added, i.e. dual-license the new expression, but manipulations of GFDL-only works which don't add any copyright should be allowed one way or another. I guess you could read it that any *new* content, i.e. new expression, should have a license beyond GFDL. Simple manipulations of existing works do not add any licensable content, so I guess those should just keep the same license. For a derivative work where content is added, I would try to add an additional license for the new content, even though you can really only use the entire work under the GFDL terms. If someone is able to cut out the GFDL portions, and just use some of the new expression, that expression could then be used under either license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about cropping an existing photo or something more complicated than that? Surely the rule wasn't intended to block someone from cropping a previously-uploaded GFDL photo. --B (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @B and Clindberg: I'm talking about something like File:Caucasus, 884-962.gif. The original file (which is hosted at armenica.org) was licensed as GFDL in 2007 via OTRS, but was not uploaded to Commons until 2010. Thus it missed the relicensing window which expired in 2009. In 2020, the derivative File:Caucasus,_884-962.gif was created and uploaded with only a GFDL license. The map was altered slightly to change the coloration of one territory, so it's more significant than a crop, but not transformative. I was going to close the deletion request for the file as invalid (as it's merely complaining that the map isn't accurate), but then I noticed the licensing issue, so I'm not sure how it should be resolved. If I follow the letter of our licensing policy, it seems like the file should not be allowed. Alternatively, I could propose amending the licensing policy. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  - Changing a color does not alter the copyright -- there is no creativity being added. It's less significant than a crop, even. Resulting file should have the same license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  - This is not what the rule was designed to prohibit. The rule was designed to prohibit uploading your photos with the restrictive GFDL license as a sort of "I don't really want to give a free content license so I'll make it unusable for most people who would want to use it". It wasn't designed to prohibit changing a color of a map. --B (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Help deciphering specificy/certainty of sources

I uploaded File:Kodak-CFX NRC image.JPG, which I found in a newspaper that identified it as "a photo found among Nuclear Regulatory Commission findings." and gave credit to NRC for it. Based on that, I tagged it as {{PD-USGov-NRC}}. The image has some scaling artifacts, so I went looking for alternate versions/sources, and found what is surely a copy of the same original image at [7], a document filed with NRC. However, that document is created by a consulting company on behalf of another company, who then submitted it to NRC for policy compliance rather than a work-for-hire by NRC itself. I can't find any deeper or alternate source for the image. Is it proper to keep it as PD-NRC, or is it non-free because the most "original" source I found is corporate-consulting? DMacks (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@DMacks: All of the PD-USGov tags are based on 17 U.S. Code § 105, which states that, in general, "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government". A work of the United States government is defined in statute as a work "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." (17 U.S. Code § 101). It sounds like this work was prepared by employees of a corporation, so it does not satisfy this definition, and we should not assume it is PD; therefore, it should be deleted. Mysterymanblue 00:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick confirmation. I deleted it here, and uploaded it to enwiki as fair-use. DMacks (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Normally I would try contacting the company for permission. But it might be difficult in this case because company in question (NEXTEP Consulting Group, Inc.) no longer appears to exist. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Logos under copyright and trademark tag in Spanish

Hi everyone,

I have an issue with a logo I would like to put in a Spanish Wikipedia page. The logo is protected by copyright and I have all the information about it (date and registration number, etc..). It is a company logo which is already present on the original Wikipedia page of the company. Could you please help me with the procedure? Can I put a TM tag on the logo? How do I avoid the uploading on Commons, which only accepts free content?

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreanabo23 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia no longer allows new fair use files. So there is unfortunately no way to put such images on articles. All you can do is hyperlink to images on external sites. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

French copyright from 1953

This seemingly professional theatrical image File:1953-01_La_Liberté_est_un_dimanche_-_Edwige_Feuillère_et_René_Arrieu.jpg has a PD release from the uploader. Unfortunately, according to the French entry for the actor pictured, the uploader’s name matches one of the actor’s children, born 1950. So it seems fairly certain he was not the photographer in 1953. Any chance the image could be PD for other reasons?
Looking into this further, it seems many of the uploader’s photographs would have the same issue, if there is one. They have not edited since 2009, though they do have email enabled if there’s information they could supply that would help. Thank you for any advice on how to proceed (this began because I was hoping to use a cropped version of the above image.) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The photographer may have been a family member and the uploader may be a heir of them. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Professional-style photos by various photographers and studios. Even more obvious on those that bear the signature of the studios. Almost all uploads of the user have the problem. Typical case of someone who happens to own a print copy of a work they found somewhere in a collection and mistakenly belives that it somehow makes them the creator of the work. Most of those uploads cannot be said to be PD, at least not without more information, with perhaps a few exceptions. One exception is the studio Harcourt photo, which is PD. Also, this seems related to the similar case of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Zanatany, about more recent uploads, in 2018, by another account, which may be the same person or another member of the family. One particular thing in the discussion there was about four of the photos, of which the uploader User:Zanatany said they owned the negatives. If true, this can be an indication that they do own the rights on those four photos, possibly if they bought all the rights from the professional or if the photos were taken by a member of the family. In any case, the photos were deleted for insufficient evidence. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to that discussion. Sigh, it’s frustrating because if this person(s) do have the rights, then it’s a great source. But their account does not quite hold water. While I do have a friend “in the biz” whose kids will inherit similarly professional onset fotos, it’s because their mother is a professional photographer and it would be easy for them to explain that. By contrast the 2018 uploader claims the actor himself took the pictures, but it is vanishingly unlikely he was taking professional-quality fotos of himself in rehearsal. I fear they have to go. Maybe the uploader will respond though it does seem unlikely after all this time... Anyway thanks, I take it there’s nothing particular about the French case that would make this different. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have opened a deletion discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by J.B. ARRIEU ALBERTINI. Really appreciate the input. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

File:LogoENQA Name Color RGB FullColor.jpg

I can't find any information (for the country this originated from) on Commons or in a quick google search about the copyrightability (is that a word) of renditions of fonts and/or simple shapes/etc. The license on this image is incorrect as I can find no mention anywhere of it having been released under a CC license, and it would be quite odd for it to be as a logo, but at the same time, I don't know if it may simply be uncopyrightable, thus don't want to just nominate it for deletion. If anyone has specific information regarding Belgium, which is the country the organization is HQed in, that would suggest one way or another, advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Berchanhimez (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a little tricky because Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Belgium doesn't mention anything about the threshold of originality. But because Belgium is a civil law country, we can assume that the ToO is more on the higher end. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Similar users to Marco Verch

I'm a web editor that runs a site with a fairly large number of daily updates and I've been hit several times by the now fairly common routine of a photographer posting a Creative Commons image (with an old 2.0 licence) and then aggressively pursuing us for damages via Pixsy whenever we've used this image and made some minor error/typo in the attribution (which is unfortunately pretty inevitable when you're running thousands of articles over a long period of time and are a human being who might make a mistake now and then).

It's cost us a huge amount of money and as a non-profit site with no income, it's incredibly hard to deal with. Wikimedia has already recognized this problem by banning Marco Verch images from appearing on the site, but I wondered if there is any scope to look into the countless other accounts that are doing this now. I know personally of several that are more or less doing exactly the same thing as Verch did and they have extensive libraries of images here on Wikimedia, all with old CC 2.0 licences (knowing full well that a CC 4.0 licence doesn't let you pursue damages in this way). Verch is unfortunately just the tip of the iceberg and I wondered if anyone could give an indication whether there's some process to look into these other users as it really is a growing problem that needs a big response in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 113.39.75.201 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Marco Verch was discussed at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_68#Out_of_process_deletion_of_files_by_User:Hystrix. I suppose any further cases could be raised either at the Village Pump or the Administrators' noticeboard. --ghouston (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Are these fbi videos public domain?

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/washingtondc/news/press-releases/fbi-washington-field-office-releases-videos-of-assaults-on-officers-at-us-capitol-seeks-publics-help-to-identify-suspects Victorgrigas (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

They should be. Verify the video to make sure that none of the clips came from non Federal sources, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Billie Eilish photos

Could someone please check the copyright status of these images:

The images seem to be extracted from a video uploaded to Vimeo by Bruno Luglio, who is Creative Director at Spotify. But I do not see a CC-BY-3.0 or any other free license logo there in the video description. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Moscow Connection,

Done - On the live link - Click "more" under the title - A popup box appears and it shows the licence icon :), Unfortunately this doesn't work with the archive links tho, –Davey2010^Talk 20:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome MC, Happy editing :). –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Providing information for image reuse

Many individuals and organizations often reuse images and other media hosted on Wikimedia Commons without complying with licensing requirements. Attributions often simply read, "Image(s) courtesy of Wikipedia", notwithstanding the fact that neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia Commons are the licensees.

To make things easier for those wishing to reuse images and other media files, and to avoid accidental copyright infringement, I think there ought to be a clear link from all file pages, such as a single sentence that reads, "Note: If you wish to reuse this file please read Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia." nagualdesign 18:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I posted this as a proposal for you at COM:VPP#Providing information for image reuse. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Much appreciated. nagualdesign 20:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Mirror-flipped image: Overwrite or upload corrected file separately?

Just stumbled across File:SS Scillonian.jpg. This is obviously a mirror-flipped image, as the name "Scillonian" at the bow appears mirrored. Would you correct the original upload by overwriting it with a re-flipped image (btw, I think Wikipedia's distinction between "flipping" and "flopping" is bogus, at least not really established) or upload a corrected version separately? An argument for the first approach would be that it is an obvious error, but on the other hand, it's in use in Danish and English Wikipedia and one could argue that they should be able to use it in this form (though I doubt it was an intentional decision). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Gestumblindi: According to Category:Flopped images "original orientation is preferred" and that has also been my view, so the image should be orientated correctly and you can then get the old one excised. Ww2censor (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ww2censor and Gestumblindi: That is for display; in many cases, we need the original to preserve the chain of evidence. Standard practice per COM:OW has been to create a flopped version with "(flopped)" as a suffix, link the two, and change any usages in mainspace on projects and in filespace here, unless the original uploader wants to overwrite. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, in this case, the original upload is the "flopped" one (I maintain that the distinction between "flipped" and "flopped" seems to be made up). I think we could overwrite it, but not delete the first (flopped) version, that will preserve the chain of evidence, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: May I do that, and add the resulting photos to Category:Photos flopped by User:Jeff G.‎ ? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good to keep the original to retain the chain of evidence. Ww2censor (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

is this ebay scan public domain?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Poland-Cholm-Chelm-Jewish-Street-Shtetl-1916-Real-Photo-Postcard/114224215589?hash=item1a984b3625:g:OK4AAOSwzateWJgH Victorgrigas (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas: I would think so. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright on articles of association

Are 'articles of association' copyrighted? I see articles of association being copied from organisation to organisation without any restrictions/issues, and several of these look very similar. In cause they are indeed copyrighted, how old must articles of association originating from Denmark be before they can be uploaded to Commons? --Froztbyte (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This is tricky and may vary from country to country. As a work of creative authorship, boilerplate articles of association are protected by copyright, as are various rubrics and explanatory notes attached to them. There is an established business in licensing these to people wishing to form a company. However filing these articles then enters them into a public record and that may be (as is common for such) either public domain or at least under a broadly free government licence - it's awkward to the process of government to do it any other way.

So many articles are taken from other articles, because it's easy and it's cheaper than paying a solicitor to draft them (and they'll do it from boilerplate anyway). It's simply technically difficult (for those in the trade of selling boilerplates) to protect them otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If a building or sculpture was demolished or the exterior changed, what would be freedom of panorama?

Buildings are sometimes demolished to build new ones, and sometimes the exterior changes due to remodeling.

Sculptures are also demolished or their exteriors are changed for various reasons, such as political and artistic.

If a building or sculpture was demolished or the exterior changed, what would be freedom of panorama?

Ox1997cow (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume the normal FoP rules for the relevant country would continue to apply. --ghouston (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A photo taken by a friend, who is willing to give me the rights to publish

Situation: A friend (the author) took a photograph that I intend to upload to the Wikimedia Commons. The author has never published this photograph, nor does he intend to publish it in the future. The author would like to release the image to me for publication at Wikimedia.

Questions: 1. What should I ask the author to do in order to gain the rights to publish? 2. What type of license should I use? 3. Where can I get a sample of wiki code for this type of license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktadenev (talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ktadenev: Hi, and welcome. Please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept such a photo as-is, and have the photographer post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work on their official 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. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The photographs regarding "Yoko Geri " or shotokan karate easiest way to get Black Belt is my own work. Please do not delete them.

Do not delete my uploaded photos as they all are mine and I have it's copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prdp777 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Prdp777: You may appeal deletion of your uploaded photos at COM:UDR. Please review COM:L, COM:DP, and COM:SIGN. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status of a German book about Hitler's speeches

A book published in the 1930s that has copies of Hitler's speeches is on the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/Die-Reden-Hitlers-am-Reichsparteitag-1933/

Is Hitler himself supposed to be the "author" or is it the "publisher"? Is this considered still copyrighted under German copyright law? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: The main content of this book (or rather pamphlet, as it's only 44 pages) is the text of three speeches by Hitler. These are in the public domain in Germany now, as Hitler died in 1945, which is more than 70 years ago. The introduction titled "Nürnberg 1933" by a "Dr. Walther Schmitt" (see page 9 in the original pagination / page 6 of the scan) is most probably authored by de:Walther Schmitt (Journalist), as the description of his biography in that Wikipedia article is fitting (a prominent Nazi journalist). According to that article, he died "after 1961" (the precise year was not determined), so that part of the publication is still copyrighted in Germany, I assume. If the question is whether the publication can be uploaded as a whole to Commons, I would say no, because of the still-copyrighted introduction, but the pages containing only text by Hitler could (what's your plan, using it for Wikisource?) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: I was wondering if one could cut the pages about Hitler's speeches out of the PDF and just upload those pages only, with the description explanation that the rest of the book cannot be uploaded. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Well, that seems fine to me - note, starting from page 10 (in the original pagination) it's the text of the speeches (not "about" the speeches). Gestumblindi (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Painting with uncertain authorship

File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol DSC09170 (50826699171).jpg depicts a woman holding an edited version of a painting of Jesus. I'm not entirely sure who made this painting; I've found some sites selling it under the title Head of Christ by Vittorio Bianchini. There was a Vittorio Bianchini, who died in 1880, but the style looks nothing like his.

I found a high resolution version of the painting, which has in the bottom right "copyright 1962" visible, but I'm not sure that conclusively proves it's not P.D. (it could've been added on a reproduction or something.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrsftdog (talk • contribs) 04:12, 21 March 2021‎ (UTC)

Peter V. Bianchi "I Am the Truth, the Light and the Way I", 22 x 16 in. Per the Museum of Wisconsin Art he died in 2001. Howhontanozaz (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Copyright registered in 1959 however I cannot find a renewal. Howhontanozaz (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Howhontanozaz: the DW (poster/placard) is the subject of a deletion request which is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tyler Merbler-JesusMagaHatPosterAtCapitol.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging original commenter @Mcrsftdog: . Howhontanozaz (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Screenshots from 1970s European movies

Would movies like Flesh for Frankenstein and Count Dracula fall under PD-Italy? Mariomassone (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think so? Ruslik (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anything as of yet, I'm just asking, seeing as they were either shot in Italy or were Italian collaborations. Mariomassone (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, Flesh for Frankenstein was produced by "Compagnia Cinematografica Champion", an Italian company.Mariomassone (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mariomassone: Yes, per COM:Italy still frames from Italian movies, as represented in screenshots, are simple photographs with a term of 20 years from creation. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

They can be considered derivative works of the movie. Ruslik (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how Commons should handle them, but it seems pretty clear in Italy single frames of movies are free of the copyright of the movie, at least after 20 years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

إثبات ملكية صور تم حذفها ,, ورفع تظلم للإدارة

تم حذف صور بحجة إنتهاك حقوق الملكية وهي ملكاً لي
الصور التي حذفت
File:Girra west village - North Sudan 1.jpg
File:Girra west village - North Sudan 2.jpg
File:Girra west village - North Sudan 3.jpg
File:Girra west village - North Sudan 4.jpg

تقدمت بطلب إسترجاع لأول صوره فتم إغلاقه دون مناقشتي , فتركت بقية الصور ولم أتقدم بطلب إسترجاع

إثبات ملكيتها الشخصية
إلبوم صور محفوظ في صور قوقل بعد ايقاف صور بانوراميو (تم حفظه من موقع قوقل دون تدخل مني) https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%88
بتواريخ 2007 و 2008 و 2009 و 2011
يمكن تزويدكم بلقطات شاشه للتواريخ إذا إحتجتم لذلك
الصور المحذوفه رفعت بإسمي في بانوراميو بتاريخ 10 يناير 2008
انظر الرابط الإلبوم في صور قوقل
https://photos.google.com/?tab=rq&pageId=none&pli=1

الصور مرفوعة بإسمي وبإسم جرا في هذا الموقع بنترست
بنترست Pinterest شبكة اجتماعية أمريكية لنشر الصور، أُطلقت عام 2010.
https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%AA

https://www.facebook.com/sudan.photo/photos/basw.Abrilr6HVnhv-duuxqoQPyqyNpOFCcpjBqPFuzsnslsYpCpN8uHuFifJJe-lI27c6XDbXx6gGlt0pUb4IzGI25K1UDgJVELJz907B1Fu2pXLaPF8sIw7s0h7r0J5AcU4VISeecloScnNfE97L_XjQZ4JXcBm-Jc4kLu5Jd9QkV_Ve5r9OMGWttPgV0uZ24zAgF2r6E6teACxDi4j3LSPmuHX/924868150922845/?opaqueCursor=Abo2KG6yv-Z1RXdQIplx-2ZAUndX08P4l8_oDnwl3xsWSnav9uTEyCcA4KgcVNfNomQIbeVflTOjzhMx5spiy4uigSM5nj0dn_RFqWGmcnS4rFj7OtGT97mLiCQ2C0Q24sGTjWQgRqmsrxKsHDXMbzR88QS_Szs2Etk9A9kC3Qe_Sb_6ZrT9rTPJd3n3g7HASwDCaTPYRcnrIgAqKBUP0iDDsSVcT8xX0skNjEX93iORVvZqlPvwSZPvpmiBAM9G-lsRaEsr0xC00JTYIduAaFYN5SHqataAhUPdl1jd_CIIL-CaGBIEnz5GMHRaAiIHhAzIES-k8Dk3HFFK9RE5lpYWUPAAG4U1RvluaO6Rqcsf50FPMGjkf82PZXwVVI_Fm5br5vu2hNqlRNCHhWKv2KwuqnjZbQ_23grBd4ELZkDzZCbxXxD16CNgehNYJ3UAItEuMQDTieU6NGHeXuJeNbMZRM-Btuk92y3nwZUyH4JaST7nsHz1WsHQByc6WPO6pPm7z688gZ1A7Bh88SqQ_jFN4s1iD6aY_h0nStutm14S124vG-o_yJwozHud_oKQZkQ_r1iRj9CuR6Kxq10eRl7Yfck1imfCNjjKaoMe93ZpQGiyseiG-9cfy0lCnyCm1ilTLce3iEgw-xWTJlCeY1-PUbTNzW3pRjTP2fO_F0AEVNLR9wEAvXDApfPkaAH9Lo5RbwsxDsTnSUU7fPtthJWr1xK7GeYNhMu37i389_pblbEFzEzIWAeUNuXb6SAw2H9ApqrqeEqZTixmrpEy3CoNObjstPCU1xROHW2vMelx1p4Ht92nshU8piajx7Wa5l8v-UoSAXCgtxOIn9VEEDyt

6
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=198792240159235&set=basw.AbqHKDzTeFSfV4WmQOVXeU8jfPDiF_DXMet1L9QsP_X5dGR5r_PCdlCSGe3McgXoatmzYAegSuAhsLZj1MiQ4byXUm-Bdr0G2AMHntb-gu-MIUUp1znekgf1A4Zb8tAnkRKoLieGiVspyzBPZTW-8IAdO27k9zLh2lvIGCbVlAy06RGsnEhH_E3_Zrovt9_W6skFTJL8WamHmgGyb3TNPSpL&opaqueCursor=AbqyngYjcBbFSoeY3kPTge2r-aIRB_MUJXUGGidxkD3zcC4sTzG0jbpqED1wW7-4K0LO8J7oEYbYRr4i0HSeHxfsexQIGO1o4GAPYOFV2YssEffrFSjJ6IFFjbsJTfwTenaJNh4u7qDSiB4XO5iqv2NfRCTrRSt1zL2tiZxcdZSsk6faJhIEpTjdSuLVEZ0qzL8BUaZUFKQBS_HzqXArMhpfycin0zH4YBP-oaxb0WtPgaDZ4Pl5GHF4B29-41Arv-DUMBx4KqCEE7HA6-zCiD7VZrvANroGzQbYUyCLcPYT5I5jztI5unGw5ACsf5LpSvz0j2DhyRy_Fldh7T_HGaWO2YqkmQLasXNx8HVx6lRZd-C1v9r6cOqD1pnME19Pn-fT6wpDV2xI-31H7SPl4QBoFH4bstXDIVtY6-UfzaFvwYvCsrmDaibAu20ohdkBMCOX2zfrH-cPMwtuitCodfuLWJabQ7xuqrxKDS6JoyXKvKkwatxiPRA7bR_qnM_V_yc4eLvxP9SY0x0906cc9boHh9o5bsy4mpNWEgFCR27UUUxl1WgowiNn56lL7T7HLmNNJa4Ap24ljz319rjS0OCDOz2JgCR1ADKP6gxDh1D3PGDGRNzQcg9BlURRltoTmDgW8sMWoXFu7gg81cH6wDaQJIlo-5JUCHt86LehqVfKgbApM7CpcZ9aliLX9md6Tv7R7S0dkHq2JVkwFkqEFTB8gcdGIyOeq3XAHbZM0vNatuxDA1_pXCFTZPXUyZnrs_2dr7vjwQYrEskR0EFoFoEa_JZLZ9Dj6QfSldKZ0GXLGNFQ_RXj-qKfDeZd8G60014
7
https://www.facebook.com/%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A8-347704901911217/photos/398566060158434
8

https://www.facebook.com/%D9%85%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%89-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A8-384264428326147/photos/384444501641473

9
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=828679297151943&set=g.162153733837383
10
https://twitter.com/sudaninphotos/status/562704230151368704?lang=ar
11
https://br.pinterest.com/pin/482800022528820454/?amp_client_id=CLIENT_ID(_)&mweb_unauth_id=%7B%7Bdefault.session%7D%7D&simplified=true
أنظر على خريطة قوقل الموقع الذي تم إلتقاط الصور منه في شاطي جرا غرب
https://www.google.com/maps/@18.0323741,31.050646,1101m/data=!3m1!1e3
--معاويه عبد الكريم (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

PLOS ONE

Your bot is wrong. Check.
Fecha= 11 de marzo de 2020
Fuente= Reconstructing Bronze Age diets and farming strategies at the early Bronze Age sites of La Bastida and Gatas (southeast Iberia) using stable isotope analysis.
PLoS ONE 15(3): e0229398.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229398
Copyright: © 2020 Knipper et al.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Sanador2.0 (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sanador2.0: User:P4K1T0 does not seem to be a bot. In contrast to the rest of the article, this particular image has a special copyright notice of being under the copyright of the ASOME rechearch group of the UAB. As such, it is not obvious if it is covered by the CC license issued by the authors of the article. You can click the button "Challenge speedy deletion start a a regular request/discussion instead". -- Asclepias (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, I had been reviewing the copyrighted files attached by another user in the "La Almoloya" article and other related to it, and I assumed that most of them were not properly licensed. -- P4K1T0 (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

License plates

I have tried to solve this question in a few places, trying again here: This deletion request led to the deletion of several images of license plates and I am not quite sure how to interpret it. Wouldn't this mean that everything in Category:License plates of Connecticut and all other license plates should be deleted? I have been told somewhere that a license plate without an original design on it is not a copyright infringement, but would it be necessary to upload it with {{PD-textlogo|type=license plates}}? Can we add this template to existing uploads, even when the user is clearly dormant/gone? Can we save this user's four deleted uploads? Hoping to avoid more purges. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 15:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Another derivative work question

This item File:Elsa peretti per tiffany & co., terrina con coperchio e vassoio, argento sterling, 1984.jpg was, I think, produced by Tiffany & Co for mass market sales. Does that change its copyright status as far as this derivative work? Ie does it need a release? The designer just died and ~~may be shortly~~ is featured on en-wiki Main Page so I especially wanted to be sure the image was ok. Thanks for assistance! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I am asking about COM:UA but am confounded by the separability principle; appreciate any clarification. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That gets into a few different areas -- much of that is functional, and the question would be if there was any "separable" work that would count as sculpture or something like that. And, given it was produced before 1989, it would have needed a copyright notice as well, or the other questions are moot. If that object was something completely copyrightable like a sculpture, then yes the photo would be a derivative work. If much of it is utilitarian, then the rest might well (even if separable) be "incidental" and not derivative, much like a copyrightable label on a bottle (per the Ets-Hokins decision), unless the photo was focusing on those copyrightable elements. The mass market sales aspect in itself doesn't matter, though it may be less likely to have a copyright notice, if copyright was not their primary concern (though many manufactured things did, like for example toys). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much Clindberg—so it sounds a bit like an ambiguous case but I think to the extent it has non-utilitarian elements, they are “incidental” because mainly this is for serving food and the photo doesn’t particularly emphasize anything else (a cropped version intended to serve as a “detail” of the designer’s style might be different, but not a straight picture of a soup terrine). Good to hear. Really appreciate your teasing out these different factors for me! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Government of Argentina

The CC licnese of https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ was removed in October 2020. CC license was last noted on 21 October 2020, thus image published on/after 22 October 2020 fails COM:L and should be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The CC license is on the terms and conditions page. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Work published 1906, death date unknown

I have an illustration published in Belgium in 1906. I know only the last names of the 2 illustrators, and am unable to find any information on them or when they might have died. Is there any point at which such a work can be uploaded? Thanks Somatochlora (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC) @Somatochlora: Struck out to avoid confusion with the previous section. Martinvl (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this below threshold of originality?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:White_8_in_white_circle_with_Da_above.svg - can I assume that it is below TOO?

Sorry for this not-strictly-commons question, but OSM Wiki has massive backlog of images without known copyright status [8][9] and I am trying to go through it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Depends on the country; I'd say yes in the US, but no in the UK (though I'm not nearly as familiar with UK law.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: what about Germany? It is from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Geo-Naturpark_Bergstra%C3%9Fe-Odenwald ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geo-Naturpark_Bergstra%C3%9Fe-Odenwald/Wegzeichen ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you recommend other place where I may check that? Would it be OK for me to upload this image(s) to Wikimedia Commons? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: I have a hard time believing that a simple arrangement of a letter and number in a circle would qualify as a protected work of art. We already have a great many SVG road signs from Germany, many of which are pretty clearly more creative than the ones you reference. At any rate, per Template:PD-GermanGov, it looks like we're going with road signs being public domain as a work of a German government authority. GMG ^talk 11:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Germany's threshold for logos used to be extremely high, as they did not like trademark and copyright to overlap too much. A more recent ruling may be bringing it down, but it's hard to imagine this qualifying. The UK's threshold is unusually low, so I'd probably say this is fine. It should be OK in the U.S. and Germany is probably still higher than that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

DoD commissioned report Public Domain?

Hello!

I am trying to determine if this document is in the Public Domain. The report was done by a non-government agency on a government contract and distribution is "unlimited."

Thanks for any help rendered! --Neopeius (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Probably no. Unless we have some explicit declaration of public domain. The US Gov public domain standard does not apply to US government contractors unless otherwise specified. GMG ^talk 14:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks --Neopeius (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius: It's probably not PD-USGov, but it would appear to be {{PD-US-1978-89}}, unless you can find a copyright notice somewhere in there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! How would I find out if copyright was registered within 5 years? --Neopeius (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Please see Commons:Checking if copyright was renewed. Mysterymanblue 19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP in the Philippines and other

Hallo, i was astonished, that many images in the categories above assessed as legal. Much images show a precise outline of the "forbidden" object, which is IMHO also copyrighted and so it is impossible to host here. A precise outlined black figure is not de minimis or below the threshold of originality. Thank you for your opinions. --Ras67 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ras67: Just my input only: I created these derivative works (for the Philippine case) based on existing images (several have been deleted already) in precedence with already existing content in categories like Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP in Denmark and Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP in France. Note that some are actually used in various Wikipedia articles like File:Petite sirène de Copenhague (conforme à la loi danoise).JPG and File:Two Statues Gugulethu Seven Memorial Redux.png (both used at the English and Tagalog language editions if Wikipedia article w:Freedom of panorama). Another one is File:Atomium 010-censored.png, which is being used at Commons:Wiki Loves Public Space 2017 in Belgium (but Belgium has FoP since 2016). However, if these are all problematic, you may submit them to a batch deletion request. I won't oppose deletions of those images I blacked out, as long as those other problematic files are nominated as well. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ras67: besides, there's now a pending bill to amend copyright law of our country in the Congress, so FoP will arrive here soon (but I expect that it won't be instant as COVID-19 recovery bills are of utmost importance right now). Regular rules apply however, meaning no FOP still and deletions are still justified while the bill is pending.
- Separating this to a new paragraph. It appears the censored images (specifically those from European countries) were part of a campaign in 2015 to oppose the proposal of former French MEP Cavada to abolish FOP in the entire EU and make permission requirements mandatory for commercial uses of such images. As per this Deutsche Welle article: "In protest, Wikipedia authors blacked out photos of the Louvre in Paris and Hamburg’s Elbe Philharmonic.." And I assume that is also the case for South African ones, where the So. African Wikipedians have been campaigning for FOP inclusion in their proposed copyright amendment bill. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
If you are convinced that some are violating Commons rules you may consider nominating them for deletion 10:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Photo Rights

How do you know when you can use a picture? For example would a picture from the 1800's have any copyright and if so how can you tell? I want to know bout photo rights mainly for these two pictures of Alexander Hunter. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/alexander-hunter.htm and https://archive.org/details/confederateveter22conf/page/468/mode/2up. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Any picture from 1800s is almost certain to be in public domain now. Ruslik (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

There are terms of copyright, which can differ by each country. Usually it is based on the lifetime of the original human author, but can be based on date of publication as well, so the more information the better. We do have a general cutoff if no information is known, which is works created over 120 years ago, {{PD-old-assumed}}. For the U.S., anything published more than 95 years ago is fine ({{PD-US-expired}}). Both of those should qualify for that. Well publication on the first one is not definitively known, but that seems to be from the 1860s or 1870s, so it should be nothing to worry about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Work published 1906, death date unknown

I have an illustration published in Belgium in 1906. I know only the last names of the 2 illustrators, and am unable to find any information on them or when they might have died. Is there any point at which such a work can be uploaded? Thanks Somatochlora (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Try looking up their names in the Dutch Wikipedia or the French Wikipedia. If they appear, their dates of death should be pretty obvious from the first line of the entry. If you want to make doubly sure and you cannot read Dutch or French (as the case may be), translate the text using https://translate.google.co.uk/. Martinvl (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I've done a lot digging, I'm pretty sure the information really isn't find-able online. I'm more wondering if there's any point at which we can assume that the author died >70 years ago even though we have no particular information.Somatochlora (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

We have {{PD-old-assumed}}, but that can't be used until 2027. Since they were published more than 95 years ago, the illustration could be uploaded to en-wiki, since it's PD in the U.S. But since you have a name, unless it's a pseudonym it can't qualify for the shorter anonymous term for Belgium, so you'd have to find a date of death. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hello, I just ran four photos uploaded by User:永愛所有小貓咪 through Tineye and they were all copyright violations. I'm guessing all this editor's uploads are the same. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I warned the user for you. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I reported all the copyright violations, and they have been deleted. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Thanks, and you're welcome. Reporting of a copyright violation here is generally accompanied a post of a notification to the user talk page of the uploader using {{Copyvionote}}. Alternatively to posting that manually, you can click the "Report copyright violation" link in the left sidebar, under the "tools" section, which does all of the work for you. Please do one of these. If you don't see the "Report copyright violation" link in the left sidebar, you can use the JavaScript method of enabling AjaxQuickDelete on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets once and then refresh once. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Queen Sirikit congratulating Somtow Sucharitkul.jpg

Since when is {{PD-self}} not a source? It should be clear that the file was created by the uploader. TheImaCow (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ideally as much information should be provided about the en:provenance of the file as possible, and this can be done by using a temnplate such as Template:Information or by simply directly adding the info to the file's "Summary" section. So, if information about who took the photo, when it was taken and perhaps where it was taken is added to the file's page, then that might resolve the current problem. The file is probably old enough per COM:GRANDFATHER that the {{PD-self}} tag added by the uploader would likely be considered a sufficient statement of COM:OTRS/CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

So is the no-source delete tag appropriate here? TheImaCow (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No. PD-self is also a source. I have to admit it looks more like an official photograph, but it's been here since 2005, so it should probably have a regular deletion request if more evidence was found. If we can find a source for the image which predated upload here, or the uploader had a pattern of uploading images off the internet and used the PD-self tag, those would be grounds for deletion. Mere suspicion, not sure, but that is a regular DR at best and definitely not speedy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things Clindberg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Is this photo a copyright infringement?
It is a fabric cosmetic bag with sewn-on applications purchased on the Internet.
-- F. Riedelio • Diskussion • ✉ 10:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's probably not legally infringement, given fair use and non-commercial use and all that, but it would be a derivative work unfortunately. So, it would almost certainly fail Commons policy, since the design on the fabric is not licensed, only the photograph is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the information

-- F. Riedelio • Diskussion • ✉ 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that you have other photos apparently in a similar situation. It might be a good idea to request their removal. (Aren't those things checked before promoting files to quality pictures?). -- Asclepias (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Need a picture for a new article

Hi everyone! My recently created article Isaac Saul has had a request for an image to be added, and I wasn't sure where I could find a free one. Does anyone have any tips? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Flikr. Take one yourself. If you can, reach out to Isaac Saul for a selfie or a photo he can properly freely license. (The last is often a problem, since often celebrities offer photos they don't have the right to freely license.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

PD-Art?

Would some other mind taking a look at File:MMoCA. 73MA Hubert robert, The Farandole Amidst Egyptian Monuments - copie.jpg, File:MMoCA158MA HOOCH Forum.jpg as well as some other similar files recently uploaded by Special:Contributions/Macmougins. Copyright ownership and "own work" is being claimed over most of these files by mouginsmusee.com/en, but this doesn't seem to be the case at all per COM:2D copying and COM:PD-Art. Going by the username of the uploader and the name of the museum, I'm assuming there might be a connection between the two.

Most of the files appear to have been uploaded over the past few weeks and the images seem to be of a high quality; so, I'm not suggesting that any be deleted. The images of 3D works are probably OK as licensed (though they might need a PD-Art license for the artwork), but I'm not too sure about the 2D ones because they're nothing but slavish reproductions for which a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license seems inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A license is appropriate for the photos. It is a useful precision because it allows people to use the images not only in the United States but also in countries where photographic reproductions have or might possibly have a copyright. But it is incomplete. It must be supplemented with additional tags to identify the PD status of the artworks. For the 2-D works, those status tags and the license may be wrapped into a container tag such as Licensed-PD-Art-two (or Licensed-PD-Art with a mixed status tag). The museum should send an email to OTRS confirming that the person who owns the Commons account is allowed to upload the museum's photos. For the rest of the description page, the account is probbaly not familiar with the more specialized description templates such as Artwork, Art Photo, etc. The current descriptions are obviously about the photos and should be completed with the information about the artworks. The filenames have some information about the authors. The information can be completed with some research. Of course, it would be much more practical if the uploader learns to do it himself and to format all the useful information, distinguising clearly the information about the artworks and the information about the photos. Pinging Macmougins. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Should CollegeDegrees360 really be on the bad Flickr authors list?

I noticed that File:Confused young woman.jpg and File:Girl with laptop open in front of her.jpg are from the blacklisted Flickr account CollegeDegrees360]. The rationale at COM:QFI says “ Uploading stock images under free licenses”, but I’m not convinced this is actually the case. All the images seem to come from the same cameras, feature the same models and were posted to Flickr almost immediately after they were taken. I’ve done reverse image searches but they all seem to credit the Flickr account. Seems to me that this account should be whitelisted. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to know after 9 years, but from looking at a couple of them, I don't see any evidence of a copyright violation. They are all used plenty of places, but that's because they are high-quality free photos that have been published for 9 years. And on the "About" page for that account, it says, "We welcome anyone to use our images but we request that you credit out site if you do: CollegeDegrees360.com". So that certainly is a claim of authorship. So yeah, the license looks legitimate to me. --B (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Elisfkc: Any memory of what caused this ? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I would assume that it's related to the images shown in this edit history. (Not being an admin, I can't see if these images are the ones currently at CollegeDegrees360's flickr feed or if they are other images subsequently deleted from CollegeDegrees360's feed.) --B (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not remember, as it was 3-4 years ago. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Family Picture of en:James Jamieson (dancer)

Queried this as en:WP:CQ and was advised to raise to raise it here as well. I have in my possession a family photograph of the subject of the above article. Low res thumbnail uploaded to familysearch It was passed down to me from my Grandfather and I am his eldest living heir. He in turn had inherited it from his older brother when he died. The brother did have a son but I have no contact for him and don't know whether he's still alive or not.

My Grandfather was the Second Cousin of the article's subject.

The photograph was taken in 1938, Likely somewhere in the Continental U.S. (presumed Illinois), and the photographer is anonymous (though presumed to be some family member)

The subject of the article died without Issue, as did his only brother, so as a work the image has become generally orphaned as we don't know of any heirs closer to him on our tree.

If it was taken in the UK then PD-Anonymous would already apply, but as it's in the US that won't apply until 2058. Would the image be something I could upload under PD-Heir, or license under CC-A-SA sooner than that or would I need to rule out any potential intermediary Heirs that could object? (not that I see any doing so, even if they knew the existence of this image) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Your relationship with the subject is irrelevant. What really matters is your relationship with the author of the photo i.e. photographer, who is unknown. So, you cannot apply PD-Heir here. Ruslik (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous, but implied to be a close family member of the subject (father most likely, but plausibly mother or brother instead) with a similar relationship to me.

I'm obviously trying to do things by the book, but there are half a dozen ways I could have declared this image free already and already uploaded it if I didn't care about that.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You you so sure that the author was your father then just state this and apply pd-heir indeed. Ruslik (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Not my father, that would make me at least twice my current age. I've been uploading photographs of my father and grandfather to the project for years as the eldest living heir, if this was one of theirs I wouldn't be querying this here. In this case I'm led to believe it's member of the subject's close family that took photo (likely his father). His father would be my great-grandfather's cousin. Literally there's no-one alive who can confirm or prove otherwise. What I also can't rule out is any further intermediary heirs who while not knowing the existence of this photograph may have a say in its rights. If they exist does it hamper my ability to speak on their behalf? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking us to do? You are either a heir or you are not. In the former case the image can be kept but in the latter case it must be deleted. Ruslik (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

First image uploaded - have I got the licencing right?

Although I have been editing pages for a while, I have yet to add an image to any.

I have uploaded this image to Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bulletin_de_L%27Effort_Moderne.jpg

For use on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9once_Rosenberg

The creator of the original artwork is Georges Valmier, who died in 1937.

I sourced the image here: https://www.photo.rmn.fr/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2CO5PCE7BJGO&SMLS=1&RW=1238&RH=643

Have I done it right? Have I chosen the correct licence option?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShermanSLH (talk • contribs) 14:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@ShermanSLH: It's good. It was missing a U.S. status tag. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Asclepias — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShermanSLH (talk • contribs) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of PD film under copyright?

File in queestion

Little Red Riding Hood (1922 film) was lost for a long time until it was rediscovered and restored in 1998. Would it be copyrighted, or considered PD as a "faithful reproduction"? MSG17 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but you could try to ask the opinion of Scott MacQueen, who restored the film for Disney and is now at UCLA, if he thinks that the restoration created a copyright for someone. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

He said to ask the studio's legal department. I'll do that later. MSG17 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@MSG17: If you have a claim that the film is a reproduction then that is sufficient evidence that there is no new copyright. Media copying and preservation does not generate a new copyright. In general, legal departments claim copyright over public domain works so while you may ask and document their claim, the Wikimedia Commons community takes the activist position that it can host works that it evaluates as unambiguously being public domain. Your story makes me think this 1922 film is public domain. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Yeah, this looks like a reproduction and not an enhanced version or anything like that. I guess then it is PD. MSG17 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)