Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/10

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Copyright

Inquiring copyright holders about their photos

Through email, how do I ask a copyright holder about the idea of freely licensing a photo? I don't want to not be thorough enough or be forceful in asking. JamesTheLaptop (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@JamesTheLaptop: Please see COM:CONSENT and en:WP:ERP#Commons 1.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, @Jeff G.: JamesTheLaptop (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@JamesTheLaptop: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@JamesTheLaptop: You may find Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to be helpful too. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Question about a scanned book

Hello dear Wikimedians,

I have a question about uploading a scanned version of a book, in order to use it and transcribe it in the Greek Wikisource. The book has no official date of publication but according to the texts of the book reviews in the first pages of it, it must have been printed in 1937 or 1938. Its author Grigorios Stefanos died in 1949, so his works are in public domain in Greece. According to the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons, can this book be uploaded? If yes, what's the proper license for it? Thanks in advance, Texniths (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

If it was published first published in Greece, not USA, then its USA copyright was restored by URAA. Ruslik (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
To elaborate on this, Commons requires media hosted here to be freely-licensed or public domain in both the source country and the United States (Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law). If a work first published outside the United States wasn't simultaneously published in the US and didn't comply with US copyright formalities, such as requiring a copyright notice and renewal after 28 years, then it fell into the public domain in the US, even if it was copyrighted in its home country. URAA restored the copyright of such works if they were still copyrighted in the source country on the URAA date, which for most countries was January 1, 1996. Stefanos' works were copyrighted in Greece until 2020, seventy years after his death (COM:GREECE), so his works had their copyright restored in the US as a result of URAA. Per COM:HIRTLE, this book won't become public domain in the US until 95 years after publication, so around 2033 or 2034. clpo13(talk) 22:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Otterbein University Theatre & Dance

See: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/03#Discrepancy between license and photo description on Flickr?

I posted about this issue a little over two and a half years ago, but it never got resolved. So there's a Flickr account called Otterbein University Theatre & Dance that has shared over 5,000 images under a Creative Commons license. It looks like many of them were transferred to Commons. However, some of the pictures have "Photos are for personal use - may not be published without permission of the photographer." in the description. File:Spitfire Grill (15610351164).jpg is one such example. It's not clear if the Creative Commons license could be taken as permission. I posted a comment asking if this is the case, but the Flickr account has been inactive since 2018 and never responded to me.

I decided to revisit the issue and noticed that the photos in question are credited to Karl Kuntz Photography in the metadata. There is no indication whether the photos were taken for Otterbein University as work for hire. It also looks like studio has gone out of business, so there's no way to contact them to confirm. At least I couldn't find any official website.

The most prudent solution would be to delete all the offending photos. However, there are probably several thousand that need to be checked. I'm pretty busy in real life and don't really have the time to do this. Just putting this out there if anyone else wants to investigate. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Splatoon icon ability

Hi, Some of these icons have been speedy nominated for deletion. I don't know this video game, so I don't how similar they are from the original ones. Also some are pretty simple, so they should acceptable with {{PD-shape}}, while others probably shouldn't. These should have been regular DRs anyway. Could you have look? Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@0 Noctis 0 and Di (they-them): who created the files, and who nominated them. Yann (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Japanese Crest mitu Uroko.svg

The uploader of File:Japanese_Crest_mitu_Uroko.svg licensed it under GNU FDL and CC BY-SA, which doesn't seem applicable at all since the depicted image is merely simple geometric shapes. Seems like it should be categorized under PD-shape instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonywu23 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think for all but the simplest designs, a free license is better than relying on {{PD-ineligible}}. While this is probably ineligible even in the UK, a user there who wants to stay extra safe legally has the option to credit Mukai with the creation of the SVG. Maybe we can create a template similar to {{Licensed-PD-Art}}, called {{Licensed-PD-ineligible}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it safe to upload these pictures?

Would these pictures be considered copyright violation if i uploaded them to Commons? --Trade (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Photos of product art are not allowed; see COM:PACKAGING. Photos of electronic devices with screens off are definitely allowed, since electronics are non-copyrightable utilitarian objects. Photos of electronic devices with screens on are allowed if the content on the screen is below the threshold of originality, or any copyrightable elements are de minimis. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
As an example, [1] and [2] would be OK, as there is nothing really complex or original enough to have a copyright. Other images most probably not OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Revocability of licenses after copyright transfer

I have been speaking to Synth85 offline about the case of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Accra Skyline - Ghana.jpg, and according to him, under Ghanian law if the copyright holder transfers the copyright in an image to another party, that party may revoke the Creative Commons license on that image. This would be a severe problem for our reusers if it is true. Can anyone verify whether there is any support in statutory or case law for this interpretation?

Basically, anything of this sort would have to involve some kind of law in certain countries that says you can't sign away certain rights under certain conditions. For example, in Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/08#should Common be restricted to people over X years of age, we saw that in many countries (including the US), individuals are allowed to disavow any contract they entered into as a minor when they turn 18. We decided the least bad option was to allow for revocability of licenses in this case, since the alternative would be a complete ban on contributions from minors, either implemented as 1) don't ask, don't tell; or 2) requiring every single contributor to provide identification before being allowed to contribute. The question is: Does Ghanian law state that you can't sign away your right to transfer the exclusive rights to an image at a later date? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I found an essay that contains the following quote: "law grants you the protection throughout the time the work is created, throughout your life. That is if you don’t sell it because Copyright is transferable, if you don’t assign it or license it. If it’s licensed then it will be subject to the terms of the license and then you can enjoy it from the time the work is created and after your death by our Ghana law,..." [3] So I take it that licensed works in Ghana still have to be treated according to the provisions of the licence which in case of CC rules out any revoking of the licence. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, this applies to users who entered into a license contract before copyright transfer. What about new reusers? They cannot anter into license contract with the original author as the author is no longer the copyright holder. And new owner may discontinue CC-licensing just not granting it. Ankry (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Question on Photo Copyright

Please I want to ask, is it safe to upload a photo you took from TV? Let me explain. I mean a photo you took from a showing television but you're taking the photo with your camera. A photo you took from a program showing on TV. I really hope someone understands my question. --Idoghor Melody (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Idoghor Melody: No, you are not allowed to upload pictures from TV programs. These programs have a copyright, and your image would be a derivative work. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Unless, of course, the image on screen at the time is PD or copyright expired. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Bulgarian Parliament ToU

I received Ticket:2021100310004931 which simply pointed to a publicly available terms of use page as evidence of a free license. Can a Bulgarian speaker please check it out and see if it is sufficiently free for Commons? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I know I'm not answering your question (I do not speak Bulgarian), but please allow me a few observations. Beyond the file you are currently working on (presumably the photo of Yanaki Stoilov), a search on Commons returns eleven other files sourced from the same website, uploaded by various users at various times and apparently most of them are erroneously licensed with various tags such as CC0, CC-by-sa 4.0, PD-BulgarianGov. If Bulgarian speakers judge that the terms of the website are sufficiently free, perhaps for Template:Attribution, the licensing of the files could be adjusted in consequence. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The three main things to consider when evaluating any free license candidate are: 1) irrevocability; 2) commercial use; and 3) derivative works. Based on a Google Translate, the page makes no mention of irrevocability, but IMO government-issued licenses are exempt from this requirement for practical reasons, since a government can always change laws to revoke a license even if previously PD. The page also makes no mention of commercial restrictions, so by default it ought to be OK. It does not explicitly mention derivative works, so the main point of contention here is whether the Bulgarian word for "use" implies the right to modify the work under Bulgarian law. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Ken Miles newspaper photo

Could this Ken Miles photo from the August 18, 1966 print of LA Times (https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=40037451&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjM4MjI3MTg2MywiaWF0IjoxNjMzMzA0MTQyLCJleHAiOjE2MzMzOTA1NDJ9.428Mv2AuxwXhKrGPoa_y1z6MWI2y4ju3J9prHvF89_s) be uploaded? It looks like it's public domain due to being published without a copyright notice. JamesTheLaptop (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It would have been protected by the general copyright notice on the whole issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@JamesTheLaptop and Prosfilaes: When did the LA Times start registering and renewing copyrights?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Per the Online Books Page database, non-Sunday renewals started in 1962, so non-renewal probably won't save us. Vahurzpu (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Automatic renewals started for works published in 1964, and registration of a published work doesn't affect the underlying copyright; they just have to do it before they can sue, and are limited in what they can gain from a lawsuit if they delayed it. So all a 1966 work needed was notice to still be copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Licensing question

Hi, I uploaded a pic tonight File:RWF logo.svg, I'm not sure if I did the licensing correctly, so I thought maybe I should ask some experts to take a look at it before I start using it in English wikipedia in something like 30 pages. this is a made up logo they just created to use for Russian team at the World Wrestling Championships. (Russia is banned from using its own flag) very similar to ROC logo but with a difference. I licensed it the same way as similar pictures File:FSR Team flag (2021 WCh).svg, File:Nbfr logo.png and File:Russian Olympic Committee flag.svg. just wanted to make I did things correctly. thanks. Mohsen1248 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt validity of all those "licenses". The Russian Olympic Committee is not a state agency nor an arm of the government. Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mohsen1248 and Ruslik0: Follow the money.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple licenses

Hello, It seems to me that File:Jacques Perry-Salkow.jpg is not properly licensed, because there are many ones, including GNU, CC4.0, and CC1.0. I would be grateful if someone here confirms, and indicate me how to proceed. Thanks in advance -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  OK Resolved. Understood the template now. No problem -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

V&A Museum

I was about to add this 1865 photograph from the V&A collection to Commons, when I noticed the download button has a sort of "contract of adhesion" that make you promise to use the image in a certain way. For example, they say that "You can use the image for: Non-commercial research and private study, Teaching and instruction, Non-commercial publishing (up to A5-size, and in print runs of up to 4000 copies), and Non-commercial online use, up to 768 pixels..." and so on. Click the "download image" button to see what I mean. Is this not a PD image? It was made 156 years ago, and the photographer died 153 years ago! Possibly (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Just ignore it, copyfraud runs rampant on museum websites. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Free screenshot from non-free video uploaded by official account

Hi, while this question arises from the specific file File:JordanShanks-friendlyjordies.jpg I'm wondering about the general issue.

Someone raised concerns on en.Wikipedia that the file is simply a screenshot from a documentary. I had planned to nominate it but when investigating I realised it's more complicated. The video is an activist documentary and I don't find any evidence the documentary released under a free licence e.g. [4] just mentions it is being made available for free community screenings and [5] has no licence listed.

However it seems from [6] that the screenshot was uploaded by an official account. Copyright holders are free to licence parts of their work, so they could freely licence the screenshot, just like some do for posters or trailers. My only concern is do we always assume an official account knows what it's doing? If this was some large commercial operation e.g. WB, Sony, CBS I think we do.

But in a case like this where it seems to be some smallish activist group, and where even the connection between the filmmakers or whoever the copyright holders are, and group seems somewhat unclear, do we also just take their licencing as correct? As I do wonder whether we can be sure whoever made that specific upload on Flickr is really able to licence the work in that way or went through the necessary steps to do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The website associated with the movement states explicitly that they don't own the content produced by the individuals or groups, which should be contacted directly. The license on the flickr page with the screenshot is therefore dubious. The film itself states that for permission to use its content a url should be contacted, but that url does not seem to exist now. The film also credits Nell Schofield as the producer. So, IMO, that would be the person to contact for permission. That person has a personal website [7] and there is a contact form on it. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

File:2020 Bols Blue.jpg

The labeling shown in this file seems quite simple and I think it's probably {{PD-logo}} in the US per COM:TOO United States. I'm not sure though what the country of origin might be, though the brand might be en:Bols (brand) per this. The parent company seems to be Dutch which means COM:TOO Netherlands might also need to be considered. The TOO in the Netherlands seems to be close to that of the US, but there might be some subtle differences which mean that Commons can't keep this file per COM:PACKAGING. In addition to the label, the bottle itself appears to be a bit more than a simple utilitarian design because of the signature, etc. that's part of the design, but not sure if that's incidental in this case since it's not really the focus of the photo. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It sure is a Dutch Company, and the blue liquor, en:Curaçao (liqueur) originated on Dutch island Curaçao in the Caribian. I would say the design of the bottle is copyrighted, and a photo of it would be a derivative work. Elly (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that Elly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this okay to use?

I saw this picture on BAAA-ACRO at this link [8]. I noticed that there was no copyright name tag on the image so I looked up on the web to see if I could find any information related to this image. Unfortunately I couldn't find any info about the image so I decided to use it Wikimedia Commons here: [9]. But then I found the original link to the image here: [10] (Note that there is some sort of issue while loading the original link to the image. Please copy and paste the link through the source editor.) which has the tag of the person who took the image (Bill Weber). However the website has no clear identity stating that the picture or any of the pictures listed on the website is copywritten as seen here: [11]. So i'm myself confused if this is okay to use or not. Definetely the license used in the wiki-image is incorrect but no idea whether copywritten or not. If this media is deleted, please let me know 24 hours prior to deletion. KlientNo.1 (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@KlientNo.1: Hi, and welcome. That plane was manufactured, photographed, and terminally crashed in 1960. The photo was probably taken at New York International Airport AKA Idlewild (IDL), before the tragic death of President Kennedy and the airport's renaming to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). You may use the contact info on https://psa188.tripod.com/ to contact the webmaster and inquire about copyright info on the photo and lifetime info on the photographer Bill Weber.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Okay will do. However, I'm certain that the image was taken at New York since the website itself is all about JFK airport. KlientNo.1 (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

How creative is this?

I found these posts on the Facebook, in it the Khải Định Emperor is illustrated with a list of things he's wearing and a list of his medals, orders, and decorations. In both cases no creative shapes were added as only public domain photographs (both of which are already hosted on the Wikimedia Commons) with simple texts and colourful rectangles. Now I am not sure how creative the choices for these things are seen.

So my question is, can these derivative works of public domain photographs consisting of only added colourful texts, removed backgrounds, and added simple geometrical shapes be considered sufficiently creative for copyright ©? Please ping. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Drawing of a photograph

Hi I'm jumping in as I have the same sort of question. I have drawn AzMarie Livingston from a photo and would like to know if it is legit.

Please have a look at Category:AzMarie Livingston. I have asked the first drawing to be deleted as I uploaded the wrong file by mistake. See the original https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d9/8b/8f/d98b8f49981b96dce4befa91afc5677f.jpg Nattes à chat (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat: Bonjour, Ce n'est pas la même chose que la question de l'intervenant précédent. Sa question porte sur la réutilisation de contenus du domaine public, sans droits d'auteur, et demande si la réutilisation avec modifications génère des droits d'auteurs. Alors que ta question, qui est peut-être en rapport avec le fichier File:AzMarie Livingston drawtober 2021.png, porte sur la réutilisation d'un contenu non libre, protégé par droits d'auteur, et demande si la réutilisation avec modifications constitue une contravention. La réponse à ta question est que, puisque le dessin est dérivé de la photo, c'est en effet une contravention aux droits d'auteur du photographe (Alan Weissman en l'occurence). Pire, c'est aussi un plagiat, puisque la page de description du fichier affirme que tu es la seule personne ayant contribué et ne mentionne pas le nom du photographe ni le fait que le l'image est dérivée de sa photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with user "Asclepias" that this is a different question, as in my case the underlying works are in the public domain. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Asclepias and Nattes à chat: Actually, this situation is a bit more complicated. The drawing is not a derivative work of the picture. A similar issue was discussed recent on UDR, as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs2.svg. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Seeing Nattes' comment here, this file is OK for Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Miel_-_copyright_by_Golf-club_Schloss_Miel_GmbH.jpg

The title makes mention of "copyright by a golf club" vs. licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0 --Gerbil (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

A free license doesn't mean a photo isn't copyrighted ([12]), so there's no contradiction there. However, the claimed copyright holder in the title is different than the uploader, so this should probably go through COM:VRT to clear things up. clpo13(talk) 18:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Philip021's uploads

Are these Philip021 (talk · contribs)'s self-photographed images? These appear to be professional photos of a notable actor here. I'm not sure if Philip021 is really the photographer (if he is the actor's photographer or not). Nothing found on reverse Google Images and on TinEye. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The images come with the full EXIF metadata and thus have likely been uploaded by the photographer of by a person close to them. Ruslik (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

WP888's uploads

WP888 has uploaded a fair number of images that have been deleted as copyright violations Special:Log/WP888. I'm not as sure on these images though as they could be old enough to be public domain. I read through Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/India but the sparse information on the images from WP888 and my total comprehension failure on reading that page, I'm hoping that someone here may be able to help clarify things. I'm leaving a message for WP888 on their talk page here and on EN pointing to this discussion. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I submitted deletion request and two speedy deletions. License right now is definitely wrong Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: - mods deleted all of them after report. CC was clearly invalid and sourced to pages claiming full copyright, not even attempt at explaining why they would be freely licensed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Given the users track record, I was guessing that's what would happen. With the purported age, I was hoping there was a chance of keeping them. Thanks for the help! Ravensfire (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


seems

  Resolved

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The eligibility of {{PD-South VietnamGov}} copyright tag

@Donald Trung: recently created this {{PD-South VietnamGov}} copyright tag designed for works created by the South Vietnamese governments from 1945 to 1975. It creates confusions and discussions at Vietnamese Wikisource, the project that most likely uses this copyright tag (see here). The exclusion of the "opponent" governments are not explicitly mentioned in any current legal documents and I believe the tag was created under the user's interpretation of common standing of the SRV government against the past governments.

  • In the Article 7 of the current Law on Intellectual Property (English version) "In the circumstances where the achievement of [...] other interests of the State and society specified in this Law should be guaranteed, the State may prohibit or restrict the exercise of intellectual property rights [...]". It covers the contents rather than the creators, so it is very vague and subjective.
  • The standing that "any rival governments were illegal ("reactionary" or "counter-revolutionary") organisations" are well-known in Vietnam but sometimes were not used when convenient (e.g., successive seat in the UN).

So I hope that more experienced Common users in these copyright tags will have a say about this tag. Is there any precedence before? Is it okay to use it? Or, is it even legal at all in US and Vietnamese jurisdiction? Tân (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vinhtantran: , I saw the local version and put some question marks here, especially after I had a conversation with @Lệ Xuân: and she told me that she highly doubts that the template is eligible. I will be honest that I feel a bit demotivated to participate in such discussions after some threatening comments by bullies that assume bad faith for simply questioning their interpretation of policies claiming that I am not at the Wikimedia Commons to educate people, but I believe that context is important and will try to explain the choices I made with template and more importantly why I never used it (as I can't confidently confirm it). The original thread is at "Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07#What constitutes copyright? (Vietnamese law of 1994)" which was created In response to an undeletion request. @Ankry: and @King of Hearts: participated in the previous discussion so both of y'all are invited here as well. With this template it is important to look ất the history of copyright laws in the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam and see if they are still applicable.
The first copyright © law of the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam explicitly denies copyright © for works which are "against the state" and "diffuse reactionary ideologies and cultures", both the governments of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of South Vietnam denied the legitimacy of any rival governments in what comprises the SR of Việt Nam today.
Some facts need to be acknowledged here, "but sometimes were not used when convenient (e.g., successive seat in the UN)" neither the Democratic Republic of Vietnam nor the Republic of South Vietnam were members of the United Nations (source 1 and source 2, LOL, this bloke's name is" Satanovsky"), both countries opted to join but they were merged into the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam before either of them were accepted. Despite this, the Republic of South Vietnam (and consequently the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) did take some of South Vietnam's positions in organisations like in international football leagues. I haven't investigated how many South Vietnamese memberships the Republic of South Vietnam took over, like perhaps the Olympics, but from what I can find the State of Vietnam was the first to compete and the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam took this over.
So the line in how much the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam sees itself as a successor to the French protectorate of Tonkin, the French protectorate of Annam, the colony of Cochinchina, the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina, the Republic of Southern Vietnam, the Provisional Central Government of Vietnam, the State of Vietnam, the First Republic of Vietnam, or the Second Republic of Vietnam seems ambiguous. The template is loosely based on "{{PD-Russian Empire}}" where no country sees itself as Russia's successor state with Bolshevik Russia seeing itself as a new state. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the Olympics, I actually can't find any statement that notes that the SRVN is seen as a successor to the RVN. In 1976 the Republic of South Việt Nam already conquered South Vietnam and they didn't compete so it is likely that the Việt Cộng government didn't see participating in the Olympics as important but I am unable to find anything relating to the Việt Cộng government and the Olympic Games, the issue of the Republic of South Vietnam recognising South Vietnam is difficult. The Republic of South Vietnam and South Vietnam did negotiate with each other a few times such as during the Paris Peace Accords and the 4-Powers Agreement. The reason East German copyright © is German copyright © is because East and West Germany recognised each other because unification, though pensions for former Ossie military members are given like "serving in a foreign military ⚔".
I completely forgot to mention some important aspects of modern copyright © laws, namely that copyrights are assumed until relinquished. If Osama Bin Laden made a detailed plan to execute 9/11 and those plans were leaked I am sure that he could successfully sue re-users for breach of copyrights as criminal activities aren't exempt from copyright © laws. At least I assume such. We don't have a "{{PD-Criminal}}" or "{{PD-Illegal}}" for a reason. But the question further comes down to how much the SRVN recognised the RVN, well, I have seen modern Vietnamese claims to the South China Sea / East Sea based on activities by the "Saigon regime". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Another important question is, if the state is unwilling to enforce a copyright even if it legally exists, is there a copyright ©? This is an important philosophical question, but copyrights are wholly the responsibility of the government. Only the government can enforce copyrights through the courts and if the government of the SRVN says that only the DRV and Việt Cộng were legitimate and all other works were illegal and won't enforce their copyrights, are there even copyrights to be enforced? Again, I never used this template because I don't know the answers to any of these questions. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Breaking dead law is still illegal and copyright exists even if it is CURRENTLY not enforced. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, they were in the public domain according to the 1995 law, at the Vietnamese-language Wikisource user "Tranminh360" claims that this law expired, however "Law No. 50/2005/QH11 of November 29, 2005 was not retroactive, so works that had gone into the public domain remained in the public domain even if they now qualified for copyright protection under the 2005 law. The prior laws were Ordinance No: 38-L/CTN of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly, dated 2 December 1994, carried forward into the Civil Code, Section 766, adopted on 28 October 1995. " the 2005 law wasn't retroactive so the provisions of the 1995 law are still relevant. (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam#Prior law). So the newer laws are supplemental rather than overwriting the earlier laws in this respect. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Retroactive applies whenever it benefits the defendants. In this case, copyright protection is a right, not a penalty. So, your reasoning doesn't hold. Tân (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Retroactive applies whenever it benefits the defendants? Where does this come from? It's certainly not a general, world-wide principle. The defendant in a copyright lawsuit will generally be the person who is using the work without a license from the purported copyright holder, so your argument doesn't follow.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:OpenStreetMap licensing problem

I would appreciate review of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:OpenStreetMap.

It seems that there is large amount of badly licensed files, or files with a correct license only due to accident.

Some assumptions made by author(s) of this template were never correct and are completely incorrect nowadays (they assumed that OSM data is always produced using specific map style by specific server using CC BY SA 2.0 license).

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Singapore New Copyright Act Gazetted

I'm writing to inform that the new Singaporean Copyright Act 2021 (web version) has been gazetted, and will replace the provisions of the old Copyright Act.

While the new Act has not yet come into operation, its quite a common practice for the Singaporean Government to make sudden commencement notification that comes into operation in a few days. To prevent delays, perhaps we should open a sandbox version of COM:Singapore for updating the page's information in accordance to the new Copyright Act 2021? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jacklee and Sgconlaw: Pinging Singaporean users who are experienced in law.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The updated law seems fine, FOP-wise. Seems unchanged, now found at Division 13, Section 265(1 and 2). But what appears to be cutoff dates, e.g. b(i and ii), need to be clarified to a slight extent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, as the government said the re-enactment is mostly about clearing archaic words and adopting modern law-drafting style, so this update will mostly about changing the reference from the old "Copyright Act (Cap. 63, 2006 Ed.)" to "Copyright Act 2021". The cutoff date for FOP seems clear: 10 April 1987 (i.e. the commencement date of the old Copyright Act) is the date. For the copyright law implemented in Singapore before that date, one should refer to the UK Copyright Act 1911 and its supplementary (older) Copyright Act (Cap. 187).廣九直通車 (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible copyright issue relating to File:Missparaskeva.jpg

Hi Commons team, I work on the #wikipedia-en-help channel which is mainly a helpdesk for new editors who are upset because their drafts have not been accepted. The uploader of File:Missparaskeva.jpg is working on this wikipedia draft Draft:Pasha Pozdniakova. In an IRC conversation he revealed that he is a student who works at a medical supplies company, and has no contact with the subject of this draft, however when uploading this picture of a the subject of the draft he claims that it is his own work. I'm concerned that this is in fact a professionally made publicity photo and that it has been donated without the required permissions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Salimfadhley: Tagged with {{Npd}} per your comment.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there a handy reference guide for all the wikimedia commons utility tags? The kind of things that a Wikipedia AFC/NPP patroller ought to know? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Salimfadhley: COM:L lays things out fairly well, and the image at the top of that page is rather helpful. You can also find some subject-specific information at COM:CB and a list of copyright-related "problem" templates can be found in Category:Problem tags with some explanation for some of them given in Commons:Deletion policy. Copyright law. however, can vary quite a bit by country or territory and Commons requires that the files it hosts be acceptable per the copyright laws of the United States and their respective en:country of origin; so, sometimes things can be a bit tricky to sort out and there's nothing wrong with asking for help here when you're not reasonably sure. Lots of people do seem to misunderstand what uploading something as their Commons:Own work is intended to mean and just make good faith mistakes in uploading content as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Illustrator P. Gamba - Italian illustrator

File:Salgari - La Costa d'Avorio (page 8 crop).jpg

Concerns Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salgari - La Costa d'Avorio (page 8 crop).jpg. I suposse the nominator of this request (not present on Commons any more) intended that the illustrations of this book are not yet in PD. The illustrator is named P. Gamba. Does anybody know or can somebody find the details of the illustrator? I can find my way in Dutch art history, but not in Italian. Thanks, Elly (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The name is Pipein Gamba [13]--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Died in 1954.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it is this guy--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for figuring out Ymblanter. Elly (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Calends of Cairo.pdf

I'm not sure whether this file is PD in the US. Published 1931, author died in 1935, so it's PD in the UK but wouldn't have been in 1996. I couldn't find a copyright renewal, but that might be because it wasn't published in the US. It doesn't have a copyright notice, but I'm not sure whether that matters for works not published in the US (if indeed it wasn't). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk | contribs) 18:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae: it doesn't look like it. According to COM:HIRTLE, unless it was simultaneously published in the US (you could check for original registration in 1931 or possibly 1932), it'll become public domain in the US 95 years after publication, so 2027. However, since the source website is licensing the scans under CC BY 4.0, it should still be acceptable on Commons by being public domain in the UK ({{PD-scan}}/{{PD-old-70}}) and freely licensed in the US ({{Cc-by-4.0}}). The template {{Licensed-plus-PD}} could be used for denoting that. clpo13(talk) 18:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Clpo13: Thank you! I'm not really clear on the relevant laws here—why is the source website allowed to license the work in the US? Also, where can I look to check for original registration in the US? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk | contribs) 19:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@CalendulaAsteraceae: This page has links to US copyright records by year. As for the rest of your question, I think I might have overlooked something. The NLS is entitled to license the scans according to UK law, which allows for new copyright to be generated in faithful reproductions of public domain originals (a concept which is rejected by US case law and by extension Commons; see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag for further info). They don't need permission from the copyright holder's heirs to apply the license, since copyright has expired. Because of URAA, that's not the case in the US. Legally speaking, the author's heirs could still claim rights over the book in the US, and any free licenses would need their permission. That said, URAA enforcement on Commons is pretty patchwork since the likelihood of heirs claiming rights over something expired in the source country is fairly low (if such heirs even exist) and also because determining whether or not something was simultaneously published in the US can be difficult. clpo13(talk) 19:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Clpo13: Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk | contribs) 20:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Can I get declined as a result of contacting VRT?

Let's assume the following situation.

I've found a cool image I'd like to upload on Commons. However, if the image is all rights reserved or not free license, I cannot upload it on Commons. In this case, I contact VRT and the file can be allowed to upload on Commons.

However, as a result of contacting VRT, depending on the original author, some may allow to upload, while others may decline to upload.

Are any cases contacted VRT and declined to upload as results?

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: it is the copyright holder who will use the COM:VRT process in releasing his/her work (e.g. image or even a sculpture) under the allowed free license as indicated at COM:Licensing, not you (unless you will upload your image that was previously published in an unfree website or online platform, like Facebook or Twitter). See these two useful guidelines of VRT policy page: COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? and COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary.
It is now up to the copyright holder (e.g. the photographer of the unfree image or the artist of the unfree sculpture) if he/she will accept the free license to be used over their work or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
To add, you may need to follow up to the copyright holder during this VRT process. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Oh, I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Question concering a license ...

... of File:Jugend forscht TU Berlin Gruppenbild.jpg

OK?

--BonnMath (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Done by this edit. --BonnMath (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Meanwhile "CC-BY-SA 4.0 (According to Google search)" was added as license but the source does not include such a hint.--BonnMath (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Reverted, though you could simply revert it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
It is now deleted. @BonnMath: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Threshold of originality in France

I tried to figure out what the threshold of originality is in France in determining the copyright status of the Trackmania 2020 logo, but I could not because I had no clear examples of what counts as original over there. Furthermore, the French Wikipedia article about the game contains the logo, whose local file description suggests that it may not be suitable for inclusion on Commons. Since I do not understand the French law on TOO, I need input from someone who does and can tell me about the logo's copyright. FreeMediaKid$ 21:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

A little help with PedroRibeiroMG's uploads

I could post it on the "user problems" noticeboard, but I'm not sure if this user is problematic or not. Could someone give a good look on their uploads, please? Most of his uploads are marked as "own work", but 99% of them don't have Metadata or any other data that you normally find in "own works". Could someone help with this?--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-free usage note on free content

I have a British dictionary from 1925. I was planning to scan it and upload it to Commons, but I found that there was already a DjVu copy on archive.org. So I uploaded that.

After the upload had finished, I discovered a watermark on page 8 saying "may not be indexed in a commercial service":

 
Page 8

What should I do now? I don't see how they have the right to add a restriction which makes the file non-free. Should I make a deletion request for this file, scan my physical copy, and re-upload? Marnanel (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Marnanel: That's copyfraud. Scanning a book doesn't create a copyright. See also Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you have any advice as to whether I should delete the version I uploaded and scan the book I have? Marnanel (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so. This watermark has no legal value. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
It is interesting that the text of the note in the version you uploaded is not the same as on the page in the version displayed at the source in the viewer of internet archive [14]. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The individual work by G. W. O. Howe (1875-1960) at pages xxviii-xxxiv may be still in copyright in the United Kingdom. You may need to delete those seven pages to keep the file on Commons. The years for the other authors seem ok (but I didn't find the years for Smith). -- Asclepias (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Singapore National Anthem Transcription

I have made a transcription of the Singapore National Anthem as shown in the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules, the exact copy I have not been able to find anywhere else online. Is my transcription is legible to be posted here and what is the status of its copyright? Dafatskin (talk)

@Dafatskin: Unfortunately, the lyrics are copyrighted in Singapore. The author (Zubir Said) died on 1987. According to {{PD-SG-lifetimepub}}, the lyrics will enter local public domain 70 years later, i.e. 2057. Besides, even if the lyrics are in public domain, Wikimedia Commons are not the right place to post the lyrics: please consider sites like English Wikisource, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Actions will also be taken with regard to File:Majulah Singapura.ogg.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I will upload it directly to wikisource then. I presume it falls under US government edict? Dafatskin (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Kenya

These photographs can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, as Kenya's freedom of panorama law says that "copyright in artistic works "does not include the right to control the reproduction and distribution of copies, or the inclusion in a film or broadcast, of an artistic work situated in a place where it can be seen by the public" [Cap 130 Rev 2014 Section 26(1b)] Note that the definition of artistic works under Kenyan law includes paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs and architecture. Moreover, unlike exemptions from freedom of panorama in some other countries, in Kenya it is not limited only to works permanently located in a public place, and may include works in private places if they can be seen by the public. "So, could I post these images to Wikimedia Commons (1)(2)(3)(4)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSeb05 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@JSeb05: unsure if it includes public indoors. Our map claims Kenyan FOP is only applicable for outdoor works. But, ping @Clindberg and Aymatth2: for some inputs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
COM:FOP Kenya seems similar to COM:FOP UK, but says "artistic work" rather than "works of artistic craftsmanship", so appears to allow 2D reproduction of 2D works. It may be restricted to places with free admission, which is usually the case. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: So I can't upload these images? I don't quite understand this copyright rule.-JSeb05 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
If people have to pay to enter, which seems to be the case here, I am not sure. Exhibiting or publishing pictures of the works somewhere else may commercial harm. Also, the Flickr "  Some rights reserved" would not normally be acceptable. Maybe someone else can chime in. The law does not say what "can be seen by the public" means. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this under the threshold of originality?

https://www.google.com/search?q=protocol.com&client=ms-android-xiaomi-rvo3&prmd=vnix&sxsrf=AOaemvLNXeR52KvgXZtP9nAvdXmOTew2HQ:1633960662000&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu_tbmwcLzAhUyDWMBHX51ClYQ_AUoA3oECAIQAw&biw=393&bih=720&dpr=2.75#imgrc=Kbju7JcFQNURhM

Thank you!! Fewasser ;-)Tell me!!

Yes, the logo is under the threshold of originality in the United States. FreeMediaKid$ 14:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

De minimum or need to be blurred out?

This image on Flickr [15] is licensed CC-BY-SA 2.0 but has clearly identifiably copyrighted artwork on the various screens. The image's purpose is to compare the sizes of the top two devices (two different models of the Switch) but even given that purpose, I fear one can't argue de minimus here for the artwork shown. Can I still use that image if I blurred the screens and made note of that in the image description? --Masem (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: in my opinion you can blur or blacken the copyrighted parts. Please also remove the watermark, its not appreciated on Commons. Elly (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Kantei.go.jp

Do all photos and videos on the official web site of the Prime Minister of Japan qualify as {{GJSTU-2.0}}? (Which is equivalent to Creative Commons 4.0, apparently.) Specifically this image featuring w:Hitomi Soga. Muzilon (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Muzilon: Yes. Their website stated that information on the website are licensed under {{GJSTU-2.0}}. While the English version licensed their works under {{GJSTU1}} (dated 2014), I think the 2016 version superseded the 2014 one, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: Thanks. How about the video on this page? I was thinking of extracting a screenshot, but it seems to have a © copyright symbol watermark. Muzilon (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Muzilon: Licensing a work under a CC license or other free license don't affect the right to declare copyright on the page, so it's fine for the Japanese government to add the copyright symbol in their video.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: What I'm really trying to figure out is: may I extract a screenshot of Hitomi Soga from that video and upload the screenshot to Commons? The video is watermarked ©内閣広幸室 (my Japanese is minimal so I can't understand those kanji), and I'm trying to avoid the risk of finding out that the embedded video is actually copyrighted by a third party and is not covered by the {{GJSTU-2.0}} license. Section 2(a) of their copyright notice seems to suggest that might be a possibility. Muzilon (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
PS. There is another copy of that video on the Japanese Government Internet TV website, if that helps any Japanese-speaking Wikipedians to clarify the copyright. Muzilon (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Muzilon: I'm not Japanese-speaking, but I do understand some Japanese hanji character (due to my Chinese background). The watermark attributes to something like "Cabinet Public Relations Office", which I'll think it should be some subordinate departments of the Japanese Cabinet Office.
Unfortunately after some closer examination, the original source of the Public Relations Office assumes all rights reserved by that office instead of licensing their work under GJSTU-2.0. I'll consider this discrepancy as a violation of COM:PCP, and will advice against uploading the screenshot.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
So the still photos on Kantei.go.jp are {{GJSTU-2.0}}, but the videos are copyrighted? Too bad. This issue has come up because of a COPYVIO discussion about the press-agency photo currently being used to illustrate w:Hitomi Soga, and I was looking around for a freely-licensed alternative. There are other stills featuring Soga on Kantei.go.jp, but extracting a "headshot" produces poor results due to the low resolution of the images. Tagging User:Joi here, as Joi apparently photographed Soga's husband and may be able to suggest something. Muzilon (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I photographed Charles Robert Jenkins at a private meeting and don't really have much context that would be helpful here. --Joi (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, if you manage to photograph his widow one day, that would be great. :) Muzilon (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ancient inscription – public domain or not?

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amman Citadel Inscription.jpg. What is the originality threshold for modern images of ancient inscriptions? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The question may be what is the threshold of originality for a photograph of a three-dimensional object. In general, Commons assumes that photographs of three-dimensional objects are above the threshold. The fact that there is or not an ancient inscription on the object does not make a difference for that aspect. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually the question is more what is a three-dimensional object. A piece of paper or parchment is technically three dimensional, but we don’t treat it as such. The ancients didn’t use paper, so should a modern image of the flat face of a slab get treated differently to a modern image of a manuscript? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
That would probably seem the approach consistent with the usual practice of Commons. A close example are coins, which are considered three-dimensional objects by well-established policy and practice on Commons (see for example the policy section Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet and the large number of deletions in relation to this aspect, also the classic discussions about photographs of cave wall paintings). Not suggesting that it is a universal truth, but it's the policy. Still, I suppose one might try to make the case that some inscribed piece of rock may look flatter than a coin, but I suspect such attempt may get bogged down in literally byzantine discussions. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The appearance of inscriptions or coins in a photo is highly dependent on the lighting and the viewing angle, unlike an image formed in pigment on shaped or textured surfaces, which always maintains its contrast to the substrate. So while not perhaps passing a high TOO, especially in jurisdictions that make a distinction between “artistic” and “ordinary” photographs, choices requiring at least “skill and judgement” are involved. One photo of a mural, or a page in a bound book, can in principle be colour- and perspective-adjusted to approximately match any other, but photos of relief-only subjects are not similarly fungible, showing edges, highlights & shadows that move or appear & disappear with every change in setup.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479, Asclepias, Onceinawhile, and Clindberg: What is our position on uploading photos or scans of own work rubbings from nearly flat objects like inscriptions, bas relief friezes, engravings, medallions, coins, grave markers, etc. rubbed in jurisdictions or pay-to-enter museums where 3D FOP does not apply? The rubbings are generally done with charcoal on white paper.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I don’t know about “our position”, but my take is that the photos or scans would have no independent copyright. The rubbings themselves would be at best DW of the reliefs, but with very low originality—if any. I would apply a similar test here: if a given rubbing is largely the same as one anyone else would make with the same materials, then it’s not copyrightable. (In the rare event someone was in effect painting with the charcoal, making a creative selection of rubbed and blank areas, it would be a shared-copyright DW.) That said, I might be underestimating the scope of creative expression in this medium. AFAIK most FoP laws mention things like painting & photography but not other methods of copying, so I’m dubious they’d be applicable in any case. No idea what a court would say … Bottom line, IMO the first consideration for moulds, rubbings, contact-prints &c. should still be the copyright status of the relief itself. Museum ToU or laws against handling antiquities may affect the rubbing-maker, but are none of our concern copyright-wise.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: I have been reflecting on your comment and the one from two days ago. We both agree that a head-on photograph of an inscribed slab has a very low originality; I do not believe it clears our hurdle of copyrightability. Being head on to the 2D face it is certainly "largely the same as one anyone else would make with the same materials". I have taken many similar photographs of inscriptions (see a good example here) and can tell you that I have absolutely no photographic skill at all. I just hold the phone over the middle of the artifact and press the button. Incidentally, I once tried to take a photograph of the Mona Lisa – I found that much, much more difficult.
I would like to test wide consensus on this topic, given that it was almost 15 years ago since it was last formally opined on with the similar example of the old coin referenced above. Our confidence around the legal interpretation of this should have grown, given the various other copyright interpretation successes that the foundation has had over the intervening years. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Italian museum right

Yesterday, I made this revert, and the user today asked for a reference to the consensus. I am pretty sure we have discussed Italian museum right, and the consensus was to ignore it (otherwise all art from Italian museums can be speedy deleted), but I do not remember where it was. Could someone help me with the link?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

There is the template worded more clearly at Template:Soprintendenza. A user modified it earlier this year to suggest using Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer instead but did not provide a rationale for that suggestion. It might have something to do with Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Despite what that page says, it looks to me that {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} effectively makes the images CC-NC-SA, and thus amenable for speedy deletion. This change at least should have been discussed. Note that we are talking about an image of a piece of art produced in the 14th century.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Liuxinyu970226. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The restrictions are Commons:non-copyright restrictions, thus they do not affect the licensing status here. However they may be pertinent for re-users in Italy, which is all the template is there to document. Nothing needs to be deleted with the template on the page, or when it's not there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I second Carl said. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I admittedly am no expert on copyright law. It would seem that if an agreement was made between Wikipedia and the Ministry of Culture, then that should be honored. As I understand it, the MiBAC template is simply a warning that there may be other restrictions for commercial use. If people choose to ignore it and the relevant Italian museum wishes to contest the commercial usage of the image, at least the warning was placed and Wikipedia is covered. In my experience, most museums are primarily interested in making sure that there is proper attribution. On a personal note, it is of relevance to users in Italy. I would like to keep a good working relationship with the various institutions here in Venice, which generally means following their rules ... if possible.Venicescapes
There is no agreement between "Wikipedia" and the MiBAC. And there is no agreement between Commons and the MiBAC. And there is no agreement between Wikimedia and the MiBAC. There is an agreement between Wikimedia Italia and the MiBAC. If Wikimedia Italia imagine that they rule Commons, they are mistaken. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Sorry to have to ping you again, but it seems you missed why I pinged you the first time. As mentioned above, I was hoping you could explain exactly why you recently took the initiative to decorate the template Soprintendenza with a tag "deprecated". That template conveys very well the situation so that the readers can understand it. In other words, it conveys what "Carl said". That is something the template Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer does not and it is likely to confuse most readers. A template such as Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer, the actual meaning of which can be understood only by a handful of hyperexperienced Commons users, but is likely to systematically be misunderstood and mislead everybody else, is not a good template. If both templates remain in their present form, then IMHO for clarity the use of Soprintendenza should be preferred to Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer. If the MiBAC insists on the very precise wording of Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer, and assuming that the objective of Commons is to make the bosses of the MiBAC happy, then one solution is to include the text of Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer as quoted text into a more understandable explanatory text which explains the context and limitations of that statement, similarly to what the template Soprintendenza does. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Per Carl, Liuxinyu, and previous discussion, is there any issue with Venicescapes adding back the disclaimer to the image in question, since it is only an informational banner about a non-copyright restriction? Whether {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} is merged into {{Soprintendenza}} would seem to need separate resolution, based on its larger scope. czar 18:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    I am sorry but I am still having difficulties seeing how the text "A further authorization by the Italian Ministry of Heritage and Culture is required for reproduction for any other purpose, and particularly for commercial use" is a non-copyright restriction.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    ISTM the essential distinction between copyright restrictions and non-~ is that the former derive specifically from the IP rights of authors (and their beneficiaries &c.) WRT their creative output. Although the law might be premised on the notion that the Italian state is heir to the ancient artists and architects who created the works—while simultaneously making their copyrights perpetual—that does not sit well with conventional or ‘common-sense’ concepts of authors’ rights. I think of this type of restriction on cultural-heritage material as somewhat like trademark protection, but for a nation’s ‘brand’ rather than a commercial one.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    Again, I'm no expert. But it would seem that the "further authorization ... for any other purpose" is already a part of the 2012 agreement. It's tacit. All that remains is the question of commercial exploitation, for which it may be necessary to ask additional authorization. As I understand it, you're free to use a photo of Michelangelo's "David" for educational purposes. But if you want to print it and sell it or use it to advertise membership in your gym, then you should ask.Venicescapes (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
    This is possible, but doesn't this mean that the license is effectively CC-NC?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The word "license" pre-supposes that there exists a copyright. Then the copyright holder can issue licenses. However there is no copyright here. All those works are in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
No -- the given license is a copyright license. The other restrictions are rights given by other laws, so if those also need permission, then so be it. Those laws apply only inside Italy; they are not subject to any kind of international agreement like copyright is. The definition of "commercial use" can also be very different in a context outside of copyright. For example, we have the {{Personality rights}} template as well. If you take a photo of someone, you own the copyright, but any commercial use of the photo (in that sense, more in using the image of the person to promote a product or something like that) requires further permission from the pictured person. Copyright is not an automatic right to do anything you want, but it's the only right that the concept of "free" is based on, so that is the right which must be given. Trademark (which is subject to international treaties) likewise does not change the "free" status despite many uses being restricted by that (and likewise, the term "commercial use" in that context means something entirely different than "commercial use" in regards to copyright). The template seems to indicate that trademark-like commercial use is more of the issue for this type of work (use in advertising, and logos). Personality publicity rights, trademark rights, and cultural protection laws like these can still apply in full, despite the work being "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be clarified that {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} only applies to re-users within the legal jurisdiction of Italy. Nosferattus (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks everybody for the explanations. I see that this is not a copyright limitation, however, it is still not clear to me (and apparently not only to me) that the wording of {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} that the restriction mainly (or exclusively) applies to reusers in Italy and most likely does not affect anybody else. Can we somehow merge it with Template:Soprintendenza, which currently explains this aspect?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    It seems that the template was created back in 2012 and may be connected to all of the legal back and forth that led to the agreement. It may be that certain jargon has to be in there. Not sure. Christian Cantoro it.wiki user page, talk page, who created the template, may know something.Venicescapes (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Doubtful Australian PD

The PD status of this image seems to be based on the unlikely claim that it is of Australian origin. The photo cannot have been taken in Australia as AFAIK the ship never went there. However, a colour postcard published in England after July 1952 appears to be the origin of this B&W version, somewhat lacking the detail seen in the colour original - it was published by "J Salmon Ltd, Sevenoaks, Eng", card no.5552 with a copyright mark - see here and here. I have not found any evidence for this photo being published in the USA, so it seems likely that it has a UK copyright. As an anonymous photo, would that be 70 years from creation/publication? Davidships (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:StateLibQld 1 169487 United States (ship).jpg. @Davidships: Would "J Salmon" of Sevenoaks, England be presumed to be the photographer? Also, please use internal links.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Technically, the country of origin of a photo is where it is first published -- so if an Australian traveler took a photo, then published it back home, the country of origin would be Australia. But the Australian library's declaration really only applies so far as Australian law, so if the country of origin is elsewhere, then we can't use that tag.
J Salmon Ltd was a postcard publisher founded in 1880; the original proprietor died in 1923. Seems a bit doubtful their postcard was the original version; seems more likely it was a publicity photo which fell out of US copyright, and was used. Although, the back of the postcard does have a copyright notice to the company -- that may be a default setting for their postcards, or maybe they are claiming copyright on the colorization, or maybe they did take it. Alamy has it as a public domain image; they would be more likely to follow U.S. law. It shows up in many places on the web. While the evidence isn't perfect, I'd guess it is {{PD-US}} one way or another. Most likely, it was first published in the U.S., and it would have needed a renewal if they even bothered with copyright notices. Would be nice to have an explicit example, but the Alamy page and wide, uncredited use of the photo is pretty strong circumstantial evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Have to admit, a little less sure. The widespreadness could simply be due to Wikipedia (and possibly the Alamy page as well). The UK copyright would be 70 years from publication, correct (we'd need to wait for {{PD-UK-unknown}} to apply). If it was was simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the U.S., then it would not be subject to the URAA, and would be {{PD-US}} in almost all certainty. Feels fairly likely that a postcard on a ship would have also been sold while in U.S. ports, but not a guarantee. If that is the case, the country of origin being the UK would mean we would need to wait until 2023 to undelete it (as there would be no further U.S. copyright). If U.S. copyright was restored, it would last until 2048. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about the procedure (at first attempt the photo itself popped up on this page so I ran scared). Salmon were indeed a well known postcard publisher that had a wide coverage of shipping, both photographs and artwork. United States had particular interest in UK as her regular route was to Southampton and she gained the Blue Ribband. Most ocean liners to be seen there were photographed in the Solent and postcards like this were produced. Tourist shops on the Isle of Wight had racks of them in my childhood, including the rather superior ones of local publisher J Arthur Dixon, photographed by Beken of Cowes. Publisher Valentine had a similar one also. Note the low-lying background, typical of the Solent (not proof of anything of course, but suggestive).
Alamy don't say where they got their image from, but as it has exactly the same faults (dust specks and a scratch on the left) there is little doubt that it is from the same print or negative, held in Brisbane - I suspect that Alamy are just taking the Library's statement at face value. Davidships (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Look, if a Australian took a photo in the US and published it back home and vice versa, the cpoyright of the home country of the photographer takes precident. Angelgreat (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
If a photo was simultaneously published in the US and abroad, then it is considered a US work under US law, regardless of the country of the author. Now Commons may choose to follow the law of any country in addition to the US, but it is not required to. So that is something for the community to decide, rather than a hard legal requirement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but has anyone any evidence at all of this image (whether in B&W or colour) being published in the US or Australia, or indeed anywhere other than the UK. I have asked the Library whether they can throw any light on this or on who might have been the photographer.Davidships (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Certainly not for Australia. Unsure if the postcards would be marketed on the ship itself, in which case they probably were published in the U.S. as well. But, that is pretty certain evidence for UK being the country of origin. As such, probably should be deleted until 2023. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Willie Shoemaker 1965 photo

Is this photo of Willie Shoemaker (https://picclick.com/1965-Press-Photo-Kentucky-Derby-winning-jockey-Willie-304135754416.html) OK to upload? On the front, it cites AP WirePhoto, but it does not contain a copyright notice on the front or back, and was published in 1965. To my knowledge, this should be public domain, but I'm not 100% sure. JamesTheLaptop (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the print was intended to be distributed as-is, unattached to any other publication, then yes it is PD-no notice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, King of Hearts. JamesTheLaptop (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm always a bit leery about wire photos -- they were often printed internally by a news organization, and not actually distributed until much much later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

FLELMO Copyright violations

Hi all

It appears the user FLELMO, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FLELMO is uploading images they do not own the copyright for as Creative Commons 4.0.

I think it would be a good idea to delete these images.

DiamondIIIXX (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@DiamondIIIXX: Two files were uploaded by FLEMO: File:Moorabool Wind Farm logo.png and File:WCHF logo (002).png. The Moorabool Wind Farm one seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the United States per c:COM:TOO United States because it's simply a text logo on a blue background. However, the copyright status of the en:country of origin still needs to be assessed for Commons' purposes. If this is the same wind farm as shown here, then COM:TOO Australia would also seem applicable. That's the tricky part since Austrialia's copyright laws since to be more restrictive than the US's when it comes to the COM:TOO. This might a borderline case in which the only thing that is needed is for this file to be relicensed as {{PD-logo}} and some more information about its en:provenence provided. Even if this logo is not acceptable for Commons, it could be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia under a license of en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. Since this is a close case, I'm going to see what some others think before taking any furhter steps. The WCHF logo most likely belongs to en:Cattle Hill Wind Farm. It's quite complex and almost certainly is under copyright protection in the United States and Australia. This logo cannot really be kept on Commons without the copyright holder's COM:CONSENT. While it might seem unlikely that FLELMO isn't the copyright holder (or the copyright holder's representative), I guess there's always a chance that they are either one of the two. So, I'm going to tag this one with template {{Npd}} to give them a chance to try and clarify things; if they do nothing, the file will be deleted by a Commons administrator in about a week. These uploads could simply be a case of misunderstanding COM:NETCOPYVIO and COM:Own work as opposed to an intentional attempt to upload copyright violating content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I have uploaded a few logos myself to Wikipedia, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cattle_Hill_Wind_Farm_Logo.png and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stockyard_Hill_Wind_Farm_Logo.png under the fair use license. I think the problem comes as FLELMO has uploaded images under "Own Work", which, unless they have a conflict of interest undisclosed, cannot be true. I think this situation could be rectified by simply deleting the images claimed to be own work from Commons and uploaded as a fair-use logo on Wikipedia. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Editors often upload files as their “own work” even in cases when it’s not. In some cases, all that is needed is for the file’s description and file’s licensing to be changed to something more appropriate without actually deleting the file in question. That might be all that’s needed for the Moorabool Farms logo. It could be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia if it ends up deleted from Commons. In that case though, the file would be too simple for copyright protection in the US which means it can be uploaded as “PD-ineligible-USonly” instead of as non-free content. Before doing that though, better wait to see if it’s deleted from Commons first. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  Done One is {{PD-textlogo}}, the other is deleted. Yann (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Colorised Ambedkar.png

A concern was expressed at en:Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#Request for comment on infobox image change about the copyright status of File:Colorised Ambedkar.png. This image claims copyright based on Indian law, but don't we require it to be based on Wikimedia's HQ country (U.S.) law? Also, note that it is a derivative work (colorised), which might affect things. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The image must be in public domain both in the USA and the country of its origin. Ruslik (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Falkland Islands and FOP

Involved page: COM:CRT/Falkland Islands#Freedom of panorama. May also involve COM:CRT/South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands#Freedom of panorama.

Currently, the page states the Falkland Islands has no freedom of panorama. Their copyright law is Copyright Act 1956 c. 74 (this is the link provided by the Falkland Islands Government website under the link "as currently in force").

Accessing through the law, it appears it has FOP provision found at Section 9, "General exceptions from protection of artistic works". The FOP provision reads:

(3) The copyright in a work to which this subsection applies which is permanently situated in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work, or the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast.

This subsection applies to sculptures, and to such works of artistic craftsmanship as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section three of this Act.

(4) The copyright in a work of architecture is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work, or the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast.

(5) Without prejudice to the two last preceding subsections, the copyright in an artistic work is not infringed by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast, if its inclusion therein is only by way of background or is otherwise only incidental to the principal matters represented in the film or broadcast.

(6) The copyright in an artistic work is not infringed by the publication of a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematograph film, if by virtue of any of the three last preceding subsections the making of that painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or film did not constitute an infringement of the copyright.

Ping for comments and inputs: @Jameslwoodward, Yann, Clindberg, and Aymatth2: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  • That certainly looks like it allows FoP for architecture, sculpture and artistic craftsmanship, but not for paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs. "Premises open to the public" probably means free admission. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Very similar to the UK, which you would expect, given that the Falklands are a British Overseas Territory. Note that "permanently situated in a public place, or in premises open to the public" is exactly the words used in the UK Copyright Act. I would therefore interpret it to include places where admission is charged as in the UK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That is pretty much exactly the same as the UK, because that is the 1956 UK law (the UK has had pretty much the same FoP provisions since their 1911 law). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done editing the relevant page. @Clindberg, Aymatth2, and Jameslwoodward: As this is apparently uncontroversial, I edited the page right away. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Info I've also edited those at:

Both implement the 1956 law, and with very same rules: OK for architecture, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship, and NOT OK for other artistic works. It seems that, of all British overseas territories, only Anguilla doesn't have freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 14:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Ramanarayanadatta Astri

Hi, I couldn't find the dates for this artist (IA), but the artworks do not seem old. Any idea? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Best if a Hindi reader could look at the front matter of the IA volumes for dates, art credits &c. However, Gita Press say they’ve operated since 1923, for an initial t.p.q., as I guess they would have commissioned the illustrations.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. For an initial t.a.q. of publication, there’s a 1965 library stamp (which I guess to be the accession date, and from the bookplate I conjecture to be not long after publication).—23:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I looked at the IA volumes, and there is no date. The accession date could be shortly or a long time after the publication, so it doesn't help much. BTW the translator from Sanskrit to Hindi is Ramnarayan Dutt Shastri Pandey, whose dates are also unknown. Yann (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

File:The New England Journal of Medicine logo.svg

Does this really not meet the threshold of originality? I would've thought that the orange part of the logo is original enough. Bait30 (talk) pls ping me when you reply 20:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, probably over the UK ToO, which is very low. But how old is this logo? The dates are in the 19th century. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
It cannot be older than 1928 (year at six o'clock position), but I would say the seal is de-minimis given the overall proportions of the logotype. And Yann, we are talking about "New England" as in the north-eastern coast of the United States, and not a "new journal from England". De728631 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
OK for New England ;o). But if the 1928 version is just a copy from an ealier version, then no problem. Yann (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
According to this editorial, that part of the logo was first published in July 1949.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I think this is above US TOO. So it depends on whether it appeared without a copyright notice on a "considerable number of copies". Many logos from that period have fallen out of copyright (with their owners content to protect them with trademark alone), but for a journal it's unclear where the logo would be published or displayed publicly other than the journal itself (which probably bore a copyright notice). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
If it first made its appearance in the journal in 1949, it would appear that it is PD-US-not_renewed, as per this page the first renewed issues of the New England Journal of Medicine was January 1957. You might argue the vectorization itself could be copyrightable, but the original graphic would be expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Is Template:PD-US-1978-89 inconsistent with Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US?

Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US seems to suggest that a work published in the US after 1984 will still be copyrighted even if the work fails to comply with both the 5-year registration and notice requirements. The rationale is that the 5-year period for registration would not hit 5 years until after 1989 when the rules changed. This seems inconsistent with the tag {{PD-US-1978-89}}, which implies that something published in 1989 could theoretically be in the public domain if neither registration nor notice was adhered to within 5 years. Which is it? 1984? 1989? Am I missing something? I'd appreciate any insights. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why that page states 1984. Notices were no longer required as of March 1989, but the renewal etc. requirements did not stop for works published prior to that. In 1992 the renewal requirements were dropped (thus the 1964 line on renewals) but don't think that law did anything to remove the 5-year registration requirement for works published before 1989 (to avoid loss of copyright without notice). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Source unknown PD-old

Can I get a check on my assumption that the three images numbered in sequence starting with File:Birmingham Crematorium, Perry Barr - 1903 (assumed) - 01.jpg are OK as PD-UK-anon? They were posted to a non-public Facebook group by someone who found them on another unknown (I did ask) Facebook group. They appear to be from the time of the building's 1903 opening, and from an unidentified printed source. The usual image search tools (including Google, Bing and TinEye) do not find them elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems so. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madonna, Rotterdam, 26-8-1987.jpg

Hi, This image is used more than 100 times, but the copyright issue seems real. This needs more eyes. Comments? Yann (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

UK corporate works?

Probably a dumb question, but how does one determine how long a corporate work originating from the United Kingdom is copyrighted for?

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom doesn't say anything about corporate works. There is a detailed flow chart on the page, but it only applies to crown copyrights. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If a human author is named, it lasts for their lifetime plus 70 more years (even though the company actually owns the copyright). If a work is published without naming an author, it is anonymous, and (unless the author becomes known in that period) it will last for 70 years after publication (this is the {{PD-UK-unknown}} tag). More information is at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. There is also a flowchart produced by the UK National Archives. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I see. So if a work by a company does not credit any specific authors, then it's considered anonymous? Ixfd64 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Protective edge in Shuja'iyya.webm

Its said that the file[16] is available under CC 3.0 but I didn't found anything on relevant YouTube page also the reviewer is globally banned user. Could someone clarify --Shrike (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

An archived copy of the page from around the time it was uploaded has a Creative Commons license attached. The notice is hidden behind the "show more" link, which doesn't play nice with Internet Archive, but you can right-click on the page, select view page source, and search for "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" to see that it was once present. clpo13(talk) 19:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
But the current version of the page doesn't mention it. Can we still use it? --Shrike (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as long as the previous version is documented by a licence review, because CC licences are permanent. (While INC was banned for good reasons, I don’t recall any doubt being cast on his work in this area. Of course the IA backup makes it unnecessary to take it on faith in this case.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. I’ve tagged the file with {{Change-of-license}}.—06:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emosson Construction.jpg

The photo is POTY 2020 finalist so the request should be reviewed and closed quickly. --jdx Re: 12:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Emblem of the Greek Junta

I found this locally uploaded file at the English-language Wikipedia which has the description "This image is a scan taken from an old leaflet published during the period of the Greek military dictatorship. The logo was to be found everywhere, and was not copyrighted.", the page "Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Greece" further states "Under Law No. 2121/1993 as amended up to Law No. 4531/2018, there is no copyright protection for official texts expressive of the authority of the State, notably legislative, administrative or judicial texts, nor for expressions of folklore, news information or simple facts and data." So is this image free or not? Please ping me when replying. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The exemption is only for texts. Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Low-res cover art of an album got deleted

Hi, I am new here and I have a question. I uploaded a low-res cover art of an album "New Rules" by Weki Meki and it got deleted because it didn't have the copyright licence. I don't know who the copyright owner is (most likely their record label), but I noticed that most low-res cover arts are marked as fair use, because their solely purpose is to illustrate the audio recording in question. What can I do to prevent it from being deleted next time? Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wekimekifan (talk • contribs) 23:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wekimekifan: the non-free covers you’ve seen were almost certainly hosted locally on the WP site where they’re used. Commons—this site—does not accept media on a “fair use” basis; see COM:FU. Assuming the article to be illustrated is on the English Wikipedia, if you upload your image there and take for example the File page for a cover shown in any similar article, justifying the usage according to en:WP:FUR, you should be fine.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

1966 UK business cards: ToO?

Would we say that these business cards fall below the threshold of originality? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I think probably copyrightable, especially in the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous, undated US image

How could we tag the image captioned:

“Virginia and José Gonsalves Correia,” Unknown (photographer). Department of Ornithology Archives, AMNH, accessed September 3, 2020.

on [17]? It is anonymous, clearly made before 1950 (the male subject died in 1954, aged 73; the woman was born in 1900). It was likely taken in the United States. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In theory, without knowing a publication history, any US work created at any time could still be under copyright. Tell me when this was first published and where, and I can say. Otherwise, we have to assume it was first published 1989-2002 and is under copyright until something like 2070 (1950+120 years for unknown authors).--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now been provided with an uncropped version of the image which includes the photographer credit: Manuel E. Sylvia, of 251 Dartmouth Street, New Bedford, USA (see also [18]). He died in 1967. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it okay to use this image?

So I had earlier started a discussion on whether to use the image I had posted of N8804E, see more about it here:[19]. I contacted the owner of the website Bill Hough. He said that he was on vacation, therefore the slow response. Bill also mentioned that he had lost contact with Bill Weber, the author of the photograph. He allows him to scan negs for his website but he is unsure about the usage of the photograph. I have sent him a mail regarding that if he has any personal info or any contact details on Bill Weber to lend it to me. KlientNo.1 (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Who should be credited?

"Zebra crossing by C Ford" "Author The original uploader was Secretlondon at English Wikipedia."

Who should be credited? Would it be OK to edit author field to "C Ford, the original uploader was Secretlondon at English Wikipedia" ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Hi, and welcome. Please credit "C. Ford" for File:Zebra crossing.jpg and use internal links.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Documentary Series: JPL and the Space Age

JPL has released a documentary series, which would be very good for Commons but I would like to discuss if it would be permissible here, as:

  • There is a copyright notice, which was weird to be honest, but it could be a commissioned project, which unfortunately would exclude all videos here.
  • A two-part documentary about en:Cassini–Huygens was also published, but I don't think it can be included in any matter as it's a NASA-ESA collaboration, which ESA does hold copyrights to.

That's it, but if it's okay to include, I can upload them if it's in the public domain. - 49.147.69.72 03:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems this whole series is copyrighted and non-free since NASA/JPL is not the only producer, but the California Institute of Technology is also credited as producer. The latter is a private research facility and may in fact claim copyright. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Could we use a reverse image search bot to fight copyright violations?

Throwing out an idea here; please let me know if it's been considered before or would need changes to work.

An extremely common occurrence here is for new users to upload images they found elsewhere on the internet and claim them as own work. We catch many of these, but some seem to fall through the cracks. Would it be possible to create a bot that goes through all uploads by new users and compiles a list of the ones that return results from a reverse image search and the URLs from those results? Patrollers could then go through that and challenge licenses as needed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
As someone very concerned by copyright violations, I support this idea. The fact that it would just be a tool for manual reviewers should also prevent this from getting out of hand.  Mysterymanblue  20:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I know it has been mentioned, but not sure discussions got anywhere, and can't find them. We would have to see if the terms of service of the reverse-image sites would allow us to do that in an automated fashion; I have my doubts there -- those services usually require substantial payment for usage on that scale. The information would certainly help us of course, though there would probably be lots of implementation details to work through (might only apply to "own work" claims, for example, because people can upload old works if copyright has expired and those are likely in many places in the Internet already). But I imagine the cost issue would likely stop most things until that is solved. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that's too bad. Reaching out to those websites to see if they'd be willing to provide their services to us for free would be something perhaps best suited for the WMF to do. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
images.google does image search. Google is the single highest donator to wikimedia. Ex-google-managers are WMF-managers. The SDC-suggestion-tool uses google-image-recognition-software for suggestions. Seems it is only a question of WMF asking Google to get free access to mass reverse image search? --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  Support, at least a pilot project should be started. It's ridiculous that as of today even the first step of the search for potential copyvios has to be done manually by volunteers. --Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This idea seems well within the possible scope of the Wikimedia Enterprise API Project, as it is just the reciprocal idea: high-volume commercial reusers of Wikimedia (or Google reverse image search) content. Maybe LBecker (WMF) would like to comment? Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Can URAA protection also apply to works in Ethiopia and Marshall Islands?

It seems that some users are claiming that Marrakesh VIP Treaty can also let United States have copyright relations with the signatory countries, to which Ethiopia and Marshall Islands (both aren't signatories of Berne convention, nor WTO members) are also two of em. Any ideas? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  • To recap my view, the Marrakesh Treaty says signatories agree to waive copyright on Braille works. For URAA protection, a country must agree to respect US copyright, and the US will in turn respect their copyright. This may be via a bilateral treaty or via adherence to the Berne convention or UCC. The Marrakesh treaty is not about agreeing to respect copyright, so does not result in URAA protection. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
https://copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.pdf says "At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible source country. An eligible source country is a country, other than the United States, that is a member of the WTO, a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, or subject to a presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of that country on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries."
It doesn't matter what the Marrakesh Treaty covers. If it's not the WTO, or the Berne Convention, or subject to a presidential proclamation, it doesn't trigger the URAA. (Presidential proclamations are all listed in Circular 38A).--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Prosfilaes. The URAA was specific to the requirements in the Berne Convention (and WTO membership requires joining Berne), so it would have to be those specific relations. The URAA is part of U.S. law, and that law states when it applies, and it's not simply any copyright relations with the U.S. but rather those specific treaties. For example, joining the Universal Copyright Convention would get you copyright relations with the U.S., in the sense that their works would be protected in the U.S. from that point, but would not get works restored via the URAA. The UCC existed since the 1950s, but it was only the Berne Convention which forced the U.S. restoration of foreign works which had expired due to no notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • From the above there is agreement that the Marrakesh VIP Treaty is irrelevant to URAA. I suggest we restore Ethiopia and Marshall Islands to {{Copyright notes}} and tweak the wording of that template to read:
    "Per U.S. Circ. 38a., the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no a presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries.".
Aymatth2 (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: I would patch "there is no a presidential proclamation" to remove "a" and read "there is no presidential proclamation", to wit:
"Per U.S. Circ. 38a., the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries.".
  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  Support to polish suggestion by Jeff G., announcing translators should happen, though. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I have made the change to {{Copyright notes/en}}. Not sure how to announce it to translators? Aymatth2 (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Done for zh-hans and zh-hant. others need user talk pages or ping? And can't you just update the French one? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

PD-US-no notice usage

I'm wondering if some others would mind taking a look at some of the recent uploads made by Lord Such&Such. It seems most of them have been uploaded under a license of {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I'm not sure if that's really the case. The files I looked at all have sources provided, but many of them seem to be to online websites which aren't likely the original sources of the photos. Some of these sites might even be COM:PRS types of sources.

The most recent file uploaded, as an example, was File:Bachelor in Paradise (1961 film). Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer studios. At center in straw hat, actor Bob Hope. At right in black jacket and white pants, director Jack Arnold.jpg and that file is sourced to listal. Listal appears to be a user-generated website for hosting photos, not one that generates much of its own original content. It's copyright statement can be seen here, but that seems to be a standard boilerplate statement. The file's description attributes the photo to MGM studios as a publicity photo, and that's probably the case. There's nothing concrete, however, to show it was published without a notice.

When using the license "PD-ineligible-no notice" is it sufficient to simply show that an image has been used somewhere online without a copyright notice or does some more substantial "proof" need to be provided (e.g. images showing the front and back of a photo or something showing publication by the original copyright holder without notice). Many photos used on websites are often probably used under some kind of fair use claim; so, there are probably no issues for the website per se. Fair use doesn't apply to Commons though per COM:FAIR and it seems that more care should be taken to make sure a license is as correct as it possibly can be. Some websites may fully attribute where a photo it is using actually came from, but just as many provide no such information at all. It seems a bit odd to try and support a "no notice" claim by sourcing to a third-party website that most likely started hosting a photo years after it was originally created. Just for reference, I came across these files from a question asked by Lord Such&Such at en:WP:MCQ#Wizard of Oz image on Wiki Commons about a different image uploaded locally to English Wikipedia and licensed as non-free that they converted a "PD-US-no notice" license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Would usually prefer to have more evidence -- i.e. a photo of the entire front, not a crop, and preferably seeing the back too. For example, File:Girls of the Night (1953 film). Universal Pictures publicity photo. Joyce Holden as Georgia Codray.jpg is marked that way, but an uncropped version here clearly shows a 1952 copyright notice to Universal Pictures. So crops are no good, since they typically crop out the proof of no-notice. Now, any of those files from before 1964 also needed to be renewed -- so if there was no renewal for that photo during 1980, then it became PD in 1981 and is fine. I did not do a search, but relatively few were not renewed, so if there is at least no doubt about publication before 1964, the risk of these is a lot lower. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Carl. There is insufficient evidence that these photos were published without a copyright notice. Unfortunately, it looks like Lord Such&Such has made several dozen such uploads. Nosferattus (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Right, on the other hand, most look like they are pre-1964, which means a renewal was needed. I don't see any photos with the film name (just the film itself) or actress name when searching for renewals. The only items for Universal Pictures with a 1952 date are renewals of films. So that one really just needs a switch of license. The others might be the same, but the searches have to be done. Agreed though that the uploads do not seem careful enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg and Nosferattus: Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that the uploader is too concerned about their uploads or even willing to try and at least clarify why they think the photos are PD. What might be the best approach here? Try and divide the uploads into pre-1964 and 1964 or later and then work from there? The uploader seems to have tried to use “PD-US-no notice” even on Find a Grave photos like File:Memorial plaque for Jack Arnold and Betty (née Riphahn) Arnold, Westwood Memorial Park, Los Angeles, California. Rose Garden.jpg and File:Victor Milner (1893-1972), cinematographer M-G-M, Paramount and Universal studios.jpg , IMDb photos like File:Samuel Sax, producer. Warner Brothers Vitaphone studios.jpg, Rotten Tomatoes photos like File:Lewis Milestone, Russian-American film director (1895-1980).jpg as well as photo sourced to various blogs which seem to be just hosting the photos. They also seem to be adding what appears to be some type of non-free use rationale to the descriptions of each of their uploads, which isn’t needed if the files are PD. Some of the older photos like File:The Big Parade, 1925 film. Director King Vidor. L to R Tom O'Brien, John Gilbert, Karl Dane.jpg and File:Mary Miles Minter. Portrait by Cinematographer James Wong Howe, 1923.jpg may be fine as is, but some like File:Motion Picture Magazine, April 1919. Anita Stewart. Publicity portrait.jpg and File:Actor Anita Stewart on a 10-inch Ceramic Souvenir Plate. Vitagraph Studios publicity item.jpg seem a bit odd licensed as “no notice”. It kind of seems that the uploader tried to use the “no notice” license as much as possible whenever they found a photo somewhere online without a visible copyright notice. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I think they should all be nominated for deletion as a group, and if people want to research specific photos and strike them from the deletion nomination (if they weren't renewed for example), they are free to do that. I think the burden should be on those wanting to keep specific photos, though, as we know at this point that no due diligence was made for these uploads. Nosferattus (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Anything before 1926 would be easy to change to PD-US-expired. Anything 1964 or later should be deleted, unless there actually is enough evidence present for no-notice. Anything in between would be at the discretion of someone who wanted to do copyright searches, or find better online evidence for no-notice, as it sounds like evidence for the claimed tag does not exist, which is the uploader's responsibility. For works 1951 and later, you can search online at www.copyright.gov (since they have 1978 records and later) for renewals. Gets a bit harder for others. Obviously, it helps to find an actual copyright notice since you then know the owners to search for, as the one I did above. If nobody is willing to do the searches, then we probably have to delete.
I so see one Wizard of Oz publicity photo here (a different one) with a 1939 copyright notice for Loew's Inc. When looking for renewals, the only one I see for 1966, which was filed under Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer's name (and cross referenced under Loew's) is a "Wizard of Oz children's writing paper" which is an artwork, not photograph. I don't see anything under those names for 1967 in the photos/artwork renewals. So if we know one was published in 1939, that might be enough. But there were reissues of the movie in 1949, and maybe they found older unpublished publicity photos, and things like that, so it sometimes can be hard to track down. Could nominate them all for deletion in two batches, one 1964+, and one 1926-1963, and see if anyone is able to do the research to remove particular ones from the lists. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Venezuelan government material

Hi, I haven’t dealt with material from the Venezuelan government before, and I’m wondering if the pictures from this minci.gob.ve post would be eligible for Template:PD-VenezuelaGov. It appears to be the source for File:Guillermo Osorno Nicaragua.jpg, uploaded by a new user who has gone through about a half dozen copyvio images of this politician today, but, I wondered if this one might be ok. Thanks so much for your advice. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Photo was probably made by the US government, not the CTBTO

 
"Ivy Mike" atmospheric nuclear test - November 1952 - Flickr - The Official CTBTO Photostream

At present, the author for this photograph is described as the CTBTO, which is simply wrong given the CTBTO did not exist in 1952.

Then, the licence states that per correspondence with the CTBTO, the photo is licenced under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. This is also likely incorrect. The only people present at Operation Ivy were US government personnel and military and therefore the photo was probably taken during someone's official duties meaning the photo should be copyright free.

This https://www.army.mil/article/47341/the_island_is_missing article attributes the photo to the US Army.

I want to switch it to the normal US government work licence, but given there is also supposedly correspondence regarding it, I'm hesitant to do so.Kylesenior (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kylesenior. You can try asking about this at COM:ON. VRT volunteers most likely won't be able to discuss any specifics of the email they received for this file, but they might be able to say in general terms whether it addresses the things you've pointed out above or they might be able to change the license to something more appropriate based on the new information you have. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it pretty safe to say, since "This image is in the public domain" seems to have been on the Flickr upload and the discussion with VRT seems to have been about the more general Flickr license versus what their website said, the CTBTO never mean to claim copyright on this work and were just lazy about messing with the Flickr license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Pictish Stone distribution.jpg FAO David Lloyd Author

My friend Mary Melville is writing a book on the Book of Deer and it's Place in History. She wants to include several illustrations from commons.wikimedia of which the above is one. Is this the right forum for requests for copyright? If so may we use a copy of this file please and what would you like us to reference it as? If not I'd be obliged if someone (administrator?) would help me find the right way to do this. I got a very nice reply from the owner of File:Coffret aux saintes huiles, étain - Église de Thorigné-en-Charnie.jpg after I had sent a request but unfortunately I have no real idea how I did it. Mary's book is to raise funds for the Book of Deer Project S.C.I.O. Scottish charity number SCO30656 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowhedgerow (talk • contribs) 11:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sparrowhedgerow: Hi, and welcome. Please see COM:REUSE, Commons:Help desk/Archive/2021/10#Categories (++): Musée de Mayenne (−) (±) (↓) (↑)Chrismatories (−) (±) (↓) (↑)Église Saint-Étienne de Thorigné-en-Charnie (−) (±) (↓) (↑)(+) Hidden categories: CC-BY-SA-3.0Self-published work, and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jeff G. I'm sorry I don't understand what you are telling me. I see the reference to Musee de Mayenne - but this request is for Pictish stone distribution? I am very lost on this website and need an idiot's guide to it. The image for the pictish stones belongs to David Lloyd so can I use the image and attribute it to CC-by-dl - David Lloyd - Wikimedia Commons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowhedgerow (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC) sorry this is Sparrowhedgerow and I'm sorry I forgot to sign it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowhedgerow (talk • contribs) 14:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sparrowhedgerow: You don't need to ask permission to use any of the images on Wikimedia Commons; blanket permission has already been given, subject to some small conditions. Just follow the guidelines on the image page. For example, on File:Pictish Stone distribution.jpg, look for the heading "Licensing". There are two boxes below that, one for each licence (some of our images have just one; some two, a few, more), and below those it says "You may select the license of your choice." So read them both (one starts "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license."; the other "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License...") and follow whichever suits you best. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff and Andy. Two more questions - how can I see this query in the future i.e. once it is off the main page on village pump and how can I talk to either of you without using this query? Sparrowhedgerow 22 Oct 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowhedgerow (talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sparrowhedgerow: You can talk to me using the link in my "signature" (at the end of this comment). In case I am not around, Commons:Help desk is a good place for questions such as yours. You might also like to try the tutorial at Commons:First steps. This discussion will eventually be archived, probably on Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/10, but if we talk for long enough on Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/11. Finally, please type ~~~~ (or use the toolbar icon that looks like this to do so) at the end of your comments, to insert a "signature", like mine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I tried clicking 'talk' then 'edit' and I clicked on your name Andy Mabbett - on all occasions I clicked on 'edit' to leave a message - the last yime on your personal page I got an error message - Commons-emblem-legal.svg The Abuse filter has recognized a possible problem with your edit and was asked to leave. Sorry about this but - help again please. Would you prefer that I put {{Helpme}} on my own page (presumably by clicking 'talk' then 'edit' on my page).Sparrowhedgerow (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sparrowhedgerow: User talk:Pigsonthewing, linked by "Talk to Andy" above, is free for posting by anyone who can post. You tried posting "Hi Andy - I am trying to reach you from my post on village pump copyright - have I got the right place now? Sparrowhedgerow 24 Oct 2021" and a signature on User:Pigsonthewing, an example of posting on others' user pages which is disallowed here for new users like you by Admins via Special:AbuseFilter/245. So no, you had not gotten the right place.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@Sparrowhedgerow: In other words please use User talk:Pigsonthewing; not User:Pigsonthewing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

1904 Portrait

Hello, I was wondering about the status of this portrait, https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/PORTRAIT-OF-MICHAEL-EMMET-URELL-USWV/1AD8D7312EA2FBE5. Both the painter and the subject died before 1925 so it should be safe. Thanks for the help. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Newport Jazz Festival 1955 - Public Domain

(Moved this over from help desk.) I stumbled upon this program from the Newport Jazz Festival in 1955. It contains some amazing graphics and photography from Richard Avedon that would be great to have in the public domain. It has a copyright tag but from my (primitive) searches it does not look like copyright was renewed. It also doesn't look like Avedon renewed the copyright to his photographs from this publication either. Would this be in the public domain per 'PD-US-not renewed'? Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sex Pistols poster ad with Elizabeth II images

I have concerns about File:WB 77-NMTB promo.jpg. I'm thinking that, despite copyright status, it's a derivative of one of possibly copyrighted photos of Queen Elizabeth II. Furthermore, I can't tell whether either Warner Bros. or Virgin Records made this poster as claimed by either the file page or this source. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So I recently added {{NoTOO-UK}} tag, but it also affected in some NHS logos. --49.150.96.127 12:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

File:YorukAliKucukGrup.jpg

This picture was originally uploaded by Atcooo at English Wikipedia with the claim that they are the copyright holder. I highly doubt this is the case, especially considering that all of their other uploads were deleted on Wikipedia due to missing licensing information. However, there's a good chance that this photo might be old enough to be in public domain. Could someone please double-check this?

Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The image is old enough to be currently in public domain regardless of what the uploader claimed. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I figured. I'll update the licensing information. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

2 questions about Vietnamese copyright

A user asked me two (2) questions but unfortunately I don't currently have the time to properly investigate, I am copying it here to get more expert eyes on it:

"I have 2 questions for you:

Question 1: Ordinance No: 38-L/CTN of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly, dated 2 December 1994:

"Article 6.- This Ordinance shall not apply to:

1. The official texts of State agencies, political, economic and social institutions as well as their official translations;

2. Current news."

But 1995 Civil Code, Article 748:

"Article 748.- Objects under copyright protection in accordance with specific provisions of law

The following works, papers and documents are protected by the State in accordance with specific provisions:

1. Fork literary and art works;

2. Written documents of State agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, social organizations, socio-political organizations, social organizations, social-professional organizations, economic organizations and the translations of such documents;

3. Topical events of a purely news character."

If Law No. 50/2005/QH11 of November 29, 2005 was not retroactive, written documents of State agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, social organizations, socio-political organizations, social organizations, social-professional organizations, economic organizations and the translations of such documents from July 1, 1996 to January 1, 2006 (1995 Civil Code was applied) are still under copyright protection?

Question 2: Ordinance No: 38-L/CTN of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly, dated 2 December 1994:

"Article 17.-

4. Copyright as stipulated in Items 1, 4, 5 and 6 of Article 10 of this Ordinance shall belong to the State when their term expires."

If new laws were not retroactive, works, of which terms of protection had expired from December 2, 1994 to July 1, 1996 (Ordinance No: 38-L/CTN was applied) shall belong to the State, not to the public?

Tranminh360 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tranminh360: I will try to find some jurisprudence before I will give you an answer, this might take some time but when I will have it available to me I will reply. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC) ".

Please ping user "Tranminh360" when writing a reply here as these are their questions, although I am also curious to their answers. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Are "simple" paintings copyrighted?

There is an unresolved debate at the English Wikipedia as to whether en:File:RothkoBlackGray.jpg is copyrighted. I personally don't believe it meets the threshold of originality. However, some users apparently don't agree, and one user stated that the brush techniques used could be original enough for copyright protection. Can anyone confirm or refute this? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Since Category:Black_Square_(Malevich,_1915) was copyrighted, this image is probably also above the threshold of originality. Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia shows that Black Square was copyrighted due to its art style rather than as a geometric shape. But it's not clear whether the U.S. Copyright office makes any similar distinctions. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I found the following registrations for reproductions of several Rothko paintings that are similar to the one in question.
It should be noted that these are registrations for reproductions, not the original paintings. However, it's difficult to imagine a situation where a painting would be too simple to be copyrighted while a reproduction of that painting could add enough original authorship to be separately copyrightable. Generally, we should be conservative about applying the threshold of originality for works of art because often artists have creatively organized the smallest details, which to the unassuming viewer appear to be de minimis but actually have legitimate value.  Mysterymanblue  22:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Interesting finds. It looks like paintings are copyrightable due to their styles rather than their shapes. I guess it's worth adding them to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States as we don't have any ToO examples with regards to paintings. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

FCDO sub-Flickr Account and the Open Government License.

Hi there!

I'm looking at contributing a higher quality image of the British Embassy in Ireland. This particular image is owned by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office's Ireland Flickr sub-account.

According to the template Template:FCDO - images from Flickr belonging to the FCDO are free to use under the Template:OGL.

Does this also apply to FCDO's sub-accounts? We can see that this account is owned by the FCDO via their website.

For reference - I'd like to replace File:British Embassy, Dublin.jpg with this image.

--Davekern (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this file fine?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_shop_in_Warsaw.jpg - it is photo of a shop, taken from outside. But after thinking a bit Commons:FoP is not really relevant as almost nothing here is permanently installed.

In the worst interpretation it is photo of many copyrighted and recent work - and definitely not old enough to expire.

But most of that is utilitarian, nothing can be used to really recreate it.

Not sure is it valid upload or not Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Store displays with a great variety of items are generally considered COM:DM. You could question the top two maps which are relatively the largest copyrightable works in the picture, but even there I'd say that they make up a relatively small percentage of the picture and are fairly incidental. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

talk page message

I received this talk page message earlier today from an IP user who did not specify what they meant. Is there anyone here who can help track down who they might be and what image they are talking about? Perhaps through range searches since they are on an IP. I doubt that it's a prank. The user is in Oregon, so it's probably not the fish image (which is of an eastern species) or, for that matter, any of the other fish pictures I've uploaded. But I have nothing else to go on. Thank you, Soap (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, the person who messaged me may be Jonny Armstrong, the photographer of the salmon image in the upper right corner of my talkpage, which I uploaded here because it appears on a USGS.gov page where it is listed as public domain. I have no skin in this game, so to speak, so if we must delete the image, then I will not stand in your way, but I wanted to point out for my own sake that I linked the originating URL the day I uploaded it, and that that page states that the photo is in the public domain. Soap (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It may also be worth me pointing out this related discussion from last year: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/07#can_i_upload_this?. Soap (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

proper licensing for SVG replacements of raster images

I was hoping someone could direct me on the licensing aspect of generating SVG adaptations/conversions of existing rasterized images. I was hoping to do some more reproductions, but am confused by what options are appropriate when uploading to the commons using the upload wizard.

I had previously posted the following on Wikipedia Teahouse and the response suggested to post here for a more specific discussion of the licensing.

Digging into the weeds of the first case I had done, it sounds like there may be some ambiguity on the license of the original figure. One page[20] suggests the image includes the NC clause, whereas when looking at the whole article[21] it appears to be a plain CC BY 3.0. Not sure if this would be grounds for the original image's removal.

---

I am dipping my toe in the water of editing Wikipedia and was looking to update some rasterized images, consistent with the template: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Convert_to_SVG .

I was hoping someone could provide clarity on best practices for this as far as licensing/uploading. I had tried one, but on reflection think that I had made some inaccurate selections. Chief among them, while the reproduction is my work, on reflection, I don't think that is the most accurate choice from the perspective of the upload wizard. Ex., 

   original: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cascade_refrigeration_(two-cycle)_process_schematic_diagram.png
   conversion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cascade_refrigeration_(two-cycle)_process_schematic_diagram.svg

It seems like now it would be better to select/provide the following to the upload wizard: 

   this file is not my own work radio button
   source (link to original Wikimedia file)
   author (original file's author)
   license (original file's license)

Additional recommendations welcome!

For reference, here is an example image that appears to be a high quality reproduction, but may be making similar licensing errors by accident. 

   original: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OO_Modeling_languages_history.jpg
   conversion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OO_Modeling_languages_history.svg

       @LBuwBsCY15V$: You will get a more comprehensive answer from the Commons:Village pump/Copyright help desk but my take is as follows. The original .png file is not licensed correctly. According to the supplied URL, although the article was open-access, the license they used was CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0. The problem is the NC ("no commercial use") and such files are NOT allowed on Commons: only files licensed for commercial use are held there, despite Wikipedia not itself being commercial. If the licensing had been CC-BY-SA 3.0 you would have been perfectly within your rights to modify the diagram to an .svg version and upload that to Commons. However, even in this case it would have been appropriate to quote the original source/authorship in the file description. You could still do so just by editing the Summary part on your file's Commons page. If my reading of the situation is correct, you should now copy both your question and my response to the Commons page I linked, where those with more expertise than I have will be able to advise what needs to be done next. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LBuwBsCY15V$ (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Documents published by individual state governments within the United States and territories

Is there a guide or process to determine the "public domain" status of documents published by individual state governments within the United States, including territories. Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ooligan: in general they are not. Please see COM:Copyright rules by territory/United States#US States and Territories for some exceptions.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
It's the same as any other work in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Picture

Hello, I am wondering about the copyright status of the image in this webpage, https://ochm.medium.com/seaman-lewis-a-horton-usn-74de7bcfdfaa. It says it was created in 1898 so it should be ok. A little help would be appreciated, thank you. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, these images should be OK. The author(s) is not mentioned, but there is little doubt that they were published before 1926, and therefore in the public domain. You can use the template {{PD-US-expired}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Crown copyright and works by cities

Are works by British cities subject to crown copyright? This question was brought up at w:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 27#File:Agnes Husband's Burgess Ticket.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

As I understand cities are en:municipal corporations, which are considered independent organizations from the crown. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
So does this mean that works by cities get the full 70 years from death protection instead of the shorter 50 years from publication protection? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, sadly. In the specific case at hand, there appears to be no named creator, so {{PD-UK-unknown}} may apply. I note that the claim that "this image is subject to copyright" is unsubstantiated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that {{PD-UKGov}} and COM:UK should be updated to mention that works by cities are not crown works. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The tepalte content opens with "This work created by the United Kingdom Government...". That seems sufficenltly clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
When a template makes reference to the government of some country, it is not always clear if it refers to all levels of government or only to certain levels. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think Taiwanese FoP is not OK.

Article 58 of Taiwanese Copyright Law is as follows.

Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means except under the following circumstances:
1. Reproduction of a building by construction of another building.
2. Reproduction of a work of sculpture by production of another sculpture.
3. Reproduction for the purpose of long-term public display in locales specified in this article.
4. Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies.

And Article 3 of Taiwanese Copyright Law states that reproduction includes photographing.

5."Reproduce" means to reproduce directly, indirectly, permanently, or temporarily a work by means of printing, reprography, sound recording, video recording, photography, handwritten notes, or otherwise.

A similar provision exists in Article 35 of South Korean Copyright Act(4. Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies), and Article 2 of South Korean Copyright Act states that reproduction includes photographing.

Therefore, in Taiwan, like South Korea, freedom of panorama is restricted for non-commercial purposes.

(Related document: Taiwanese Copyright Law, South Korean Copyright Law)

I ping some people.

@JWilz12345, Aymatth2, Clindberg, Jeff G., A1Cafel, Chubit, and Liuxinyu970226: What do you think about that?

Ox1997cow (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The restriction on selling copies applies only to artistic works. We already account for that in COM:FOP Taiwan. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Ping @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Reke, 廣九直通車, and SCP-2000: (those who participated at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-10#File:Alishan Taiwan Xiang-Lin-Elementary-School-03.jpg for some inputs regarding Taiwanese FOP). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Also ping @Liuxinyu970226, Wcam, and Wpcpey: for inputs regarding Taiwanese FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Probably inputs from WMTW members @Ffaarr, GDHFang, Alexsh, Li-Yun Lin, Supaplex, Koala0090, Imacat, JM99, and MonicaMu: and zh-speaking administrators @BrightRaven, Jianhui67, Jusjih, Minorax, Mys 721tx, Shizhao, and VIGNERON: are also needed. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
First, need to state that last clause is restricted to only "artistic works" -- it does not apply to architectural works, so there is definitely FoP for buildings at the very least. It really comes down to how you interpret the word "copies" in that last clause -- if it is referring to copies of the original work, then that clause is more in line with the ones above it (does not allow reproductions which amount to copies). That appears to be how we have interpreted it, which may well be right. The other option is that the "copies" refers to the reproduction itself, i.e. any kind of derivative work, if the main idea is to sell copies of that derivative work. But even there, the wording could be a bit "interesting" -- uploads here are not solely for the purpose of selling copies. That is one possible use, but not the intended use or primary purpose. So, would that still allow copies to be sold, since that was not the initial purpose? Secondly, per Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#Freedom_of_panorama_for_2D_Works, there was an article published by the government office that said that postcards of outdoor paintings were covered under that clause -- so I would tend to leave our existing interpretation, as given that citation, it would appear to be more likely correct (since a postcard would be for the purpose of selling copies, but it would appear that is OK). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow however, a clarification was made by the Intellectual Property Office of Taiwan's Ministry of Economic Affairs with regards to the non-commercial limitation. In their 192nd issue of the Intellectual Property Right Journal, regarding the use of images of outdoor murals for commercial postcards (in translated version, aided by Google Translate with some modifications)

Question: Does taking photos of graffiti on the exterior walls of painted villages and using these on postcards infringe copyrights?

Answer: Taiwan’s painted villages have become popular in recent years, not only showing the vitality of Taiwan's rural areas, but also representing the creativity of the residents in local life. However, will taking photos of the graffiti on the exterior walls of painted village houses, making them into postcards and selling these to the outsiders infringe the intellectual property rights of the graffiti artist?
According to Article 58 of the Copyright Law, artworks or architectural works that are displayed on streets, parks, outer walls of buildings, or other outdoor places open to the public on a long-term basis, except for the cases specified in paragraph 4 of this article (reproduction of buildings by construction, reproduction of sculptures in the form of sculptures, reproductions for the purpose of long-term display in the places specified in this article, and reproductions for the purpose of selling reproduced works of artworks), may be used in any way. Therefore, taking photos of graffiti on the exterior walls of the painted village houses and using them in commercial postcards complies with the provisions of Article 58 of the Copyright Law for fair use, without the authorization of the graffiti artist.
Note that fair use in this context is very similar to the terminology used in mainland China (see COM:CRT/China#FoP: court rules use of photo of an outdoor sculpture on postcards as infringement and its talk page), in which freedom of panorama is treated as a form of fair use. I suspect the infringement in China is due to the postcard publisher's failure to attribute. COM:FOP Taiwan also indicates attribution is necessary, not just optional. But unlike the mainland Chinese FOP, which obliges attribution (and seems silent over recent works of unknown authorship), Taiwanese FOP only mandates attribution if the author is known. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: However, it is necessary to check whether the expression “artistic works” includes buildings. And if photographing are specified as reproductions and reproduction for sale is not allowed, what is difference in FoP between South Korea and Taiwan? Ox1997cow (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Accroding to Taiwan Goverment, the "reproduction" in FOP means "rebuild a building" or "re-carving a sculpture". Photo a building and sell it is ok.--Reke (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: FOP rules vary from one country to another, and are supported by laws and existing legal interpretations or jurisprudences. While the wording of Taiwanese FOP may be similar to Japanese FOP, legal interpretations exist that clarifies Taiwanese FOP and the non-commercial restriction. Taiwanese FOP may be more lenient to users unlike Japanese FOP, and more so the SoKor FOP, which regrettably applies the restriction to all works, hence "Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." (Not "Where the reproduction of artistic works is made for the purpose of selling its copies.")
For Taiwan, "reproduction" is the copying of a work in the exact way. A likely example is photographing a mural in a way that excludes a small portion of the wall. Suppose an outdoor mural. It is free to use outdoor murals in Taiwan for commercial purposes, as long as these show "a panorama". But photos that faithfully show murals without surrounding elements like part of a wall may not be OK. I can compare it to the Brazilian FOP. (This is my interpretation though)
Bear in mind the word itself "freedom of panorama". It is the "right to panorama", the right for peoples to use works permanently situated in public places, to th extent that does not disrupt the normal exploitations of the authors/architects of their public artworks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Oh, I see. So Taiwanese FoP is OK. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • As I see it, the Japanese, South Korean and Taiwanese FOP rules are essentially copies of each other (except that the word "artwork" is missing from the South Korean non-commercial restriction). I think that the non-commercial restriction either needs to be interpreted as "not OK" in all three countries or as "OK" in all three countries, but that there can't be an interpretation where it is "OK" in one country and "not OK" in two countries. South Korea and Taiwan used to be Japanese colonies, so maybe the FOP provision simply was copied from an older Japanese law. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Minecraft skin template utilitarian or artistic

After looking inside Category:Minecraft, I see that there are zero files about the graphical templates used to create Minecraft skins. I would think that those files would fit within the scope of Wikimedia Commons since they inform people how the player character skins are created for the video game. For those who are not familiar with the player skins of the game, here is just one template. Keep in mind that I am referring to the templates, not the (obviously) copyrighted skins themselves, so here is the question: Are the templates used to create player skins for the game, and perhaps clones thereof, necessarily copyrighted? If I had to give my own opinion, it would be no because the templates serve merely as a means of drawing the skins and are not in and of themselves artistic expressions of the author, cf. the 2×4 Lego brick. It is not as if the player skin templates were artfully cut sheets of paper waiting to be folded into origami. Of course, I may be wrong, so I need help. Thank you, FreeMediaKid$ 02:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  • A skin is essentially a texture separate from the game's source code, and something like that feels like {{Pd-ineligible}}. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    • That is what I thought. It seemed to me that the function of the templates is to aid skin designers in drawing the skins correctly. They (at least the Minecraft ones) alone do not appear to contain anything copyrightable—it is just squares and rectangles—and I would still think that it is within the site's scope to illustrate an aspect of a notable video game like this, but since I have not seen any similar free skin templates for games on Commons, I hate to upload one only to then see it get taken down for being out of the scope, and so I am hesitant. Is there a precedent for uploading (obviously) free skin templates? FreeMediaKid$ 23:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • If it could theoretically be used to depict how a skin is made on a Wikipedia article for example (perhaps as an SVG and normal-sized version), it would pass COM:SCOPE. ViperSnake151 (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I just learned of the existence of this category, and as it turns out, there does appear to be a precedent for uploading texture files. Anyway, I came to the conclusion that uploading one about the player skins would be suitable for this site, so I did it. The file is very small, but arguably justifiably so since it is drawn at the resolution of 64×64 pixels as required by the game. If you like, I could draw an SVG version of the file that is scaled up to a more comfortable resolution and maybe provides better detail and documentation about its aspects. FreeMediaKid$ 12:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/10&oldid=700017257"