Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/11

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Copyright

File:Call of Cthulhu logo 2017.png

Please note I have a conflict of interest here as I work for Chaosium.

This image is a Chaosium registered trademark and as such is not a {{pd-textlogo}} per https://trademarks.justia.com/740/30/call-of-cthulhu-74030367.html

Please advise how to change {{pd-textlogo}} Sciencefish (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sciencefish: Please note that trademarks and copyrights are two different things. A logo can be in public domain while being protected by trademarks at the same time. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Pleade delete the photo

Pleasebdelete this photo, because it is not my own work: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warmbir_Kristina.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by WardenHU (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Done. --Achim (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Logo for NGO organisation from Serbia, Kosovo, for infobox on Wikipedia

I edited the Wikipedia article "Humanitarian Law Center" non-governmental organization with headquarters in Serbia, Kosovo, and uploaded logo [1] just with copying from Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice, but I diminished two times the original size and set quality to PNG with the help of Microsoft Paint. But I am not sure it's not a copivio. I used as an example Human Rights Watch logo licensing [2], but the HRW logo has an US template, while the logo from organization in Serbia/Kosovo. The address of the "Humanitarian Law Center" website [3]. There is a little bit other logo on their website. If there a need, I can easy draw like that from scratch in Microsoft Paint if needed, just a gray and brown X and the simple standard text Humanitarian Law Center, it's usual "Microsoft JhengHei" script or like that in Microsoft Paint, very simple style. PoetVeches (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@PoetVeches: Please note that the size here doesn't matter. Either it is free or in the public domain, and then we may host a high resolution copy, or it is not, and we may not host it at all. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thank you, Ok, it means everyone can delete that if that is not in public domain, I understand. But Human Rights Watch has the logo uploaded on Wikimedia, maybe I can also upload that? Are there exceptions to avoid copyrights for simple logo? Maybe in Serbia and Kosovo there are similar rules of licensing simple logo the same as in the US? Or Wikimedia stewards would ask Humanitarian Law Centre for permission to use logo for illustration purpose? It would be great for illustration. PoetVeches (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@PoetVeches: Commons doesn't accept fair use, but some Wikipedia projects do (e.g. English Wikipedia). In this case, the file should be reuploaded there. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Image, copyright?

Hi there. A user recently tagged an image for deletion which I had uploaded some time ago.[4] I responded to him/her that Brill (the publisher of the book) lists all maps within the book as "free access".[5] The author of the book, George Bournoutian, also died a few weeks ago.[6] I wouldn't know what I would need to do in order to keep this map on Commons, but the map is of great encyclopedic value and hence it being deleted would be a loss. Perhaps any one here knows what to do? Given the short amount of time left until deletion, I decided to move the matter to this noticeboard. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Hi,
This is a recent book, so we need a formal written permission to upload it on Commons. "Free access" is not the same as a "free license". Simply, you don't have to pay to read the book. With a free license, you could copy, distribute, and even sell the book yourself. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I see, thanks. I just sent an email to Brill publishers. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello, I am wondering about the status of this illustration, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/7793871/preston-pond. The subject died 186 if that helps. Thanks in advance. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, If you mean this picture, it is certainly OK. Please provide all possible details. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Gelmeroda 16.03.1921.jpg

Is this image showing a work by Lyonel Feininger problematic in copyright terms? --Fl.schmitt (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Can you provide more information about the source? When and where was this first published? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Sadly i don't have any information - i didn't upload the pic but stumbled over it while categorizing media. The file was uploaded by Kiessli. --Fl.schmitt (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kiessli: If it was published in USA before 1926, it is OK, but we need more information. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Old Picture

Hello, I am wondering about the copyright status of these Photographs from this site, https://vermontcivilwar.org/get.php?input=6189. The photos in question are the 3 portrait shots that show up as you scroll down past the gravestone photos. Thanks in advance, Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC).

Hi, Yes, these are OK. Please use the license {{PD-US-expired}} and as much information as possible. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete all files from Gallica

Category:Files from Gallica has thousands of pictures, some even from photographers who died only a few years ago (Category:Fernand Michaud). But their conditions of use (https://gallica.bnf.fr/edit/und/conditions-dutilisation-des-contenus-de-gallica) say that only most of the images are public domain and that only non-commercial use is permitted, for commercial use a license is needed. So I think the files have to be deleted from Commons. --92.213.14.216 11:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

When a work is out of copyright, Gallica cannot demand non-commercial use because they do not own any copyright for such works. De728631 (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Fernand Michaud for example died in 2012. Why would his work be out of copyright? --92.213.14.216 16:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Gallica bought works by several photographers and their rights, and then put the pictures in the public domain. Then they changed their mind (change of governement policy?), and changed the license. The images which were imported at that time are OK, i.e. license was reviewed. Copyright claims for old images are copyfraud. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Museum "see[s] no copyright issues at all"

User:Sponhour uploaded four files --

-- as their "own work". (Probably because they did so via Wikipedia, and I infer that either uploading there or the import from Wikipedia encourages the notion that photographing/scanning a 2D artifact is the "work" referred to.)

None of the four shows Sponhour's own work. The first of the four is in the PD, and I have amended it accordingly; it's no longer problematic. As for the second, third and fourth, I don't suppose they're in the PD. They're scans, or photos, of mid-20th-century photos held in the William McKinley Presidential Library and Museum. (Yes, they long postdate McKinley.) To quote the draft they appeared in (I've since commented them out):

Life in the Republic Stamping plant during the mid-1940s is captured in an extensive photo album created by employee Charles Doyne Reese. The 1,400 photos show workers doing their daily tasks plus special events like Christmas parties and the annual summer picnic at Myers Lake. The album is now part of the William McKinley Presidential Library and Museum.

I suggested contacting a librarian there about copyright. Sponhour replies:

I have indeed consulted with the curator of the McKinley Museum and they see no copyright issues at all and on that basis are planning on an exhibit in 2022 using these images. The photographer - like many "outsider artists" - never married and had no direct descendants. I even went to the extent of getting copies of his estate from the Stark County Court. These photos were widely published by the Canton Repository and by two art galleries in NYC that were attempting to sell the album. [...] I am not really clear how one would address these copyright issues to the satisfaction of the editors here.

Me neither. For example, if a librarian were to use the "Interactive Release Generator" (with which I'm completely unfamiliar) at Commons:Volunteer Response Team, would there be an option similar to "It is my professional opinion that no person or institution owns the copyright to these photographs; we are proceeding on this assumption and to the best of our knowledge you are free to do the same"?

Well-informed advice, please. -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

License for Dutch Ministry of Defence

I have noticed that the Dutch Ministry of Defence has changed the copyright terms, added a non-commercial restriction to the content of the website. The last CC0 tag was seen in March 2021. In August 2021, Vincent Privat has asked the Ministry of whether the current license tag {{Mindef}} is valid or not. They response "This is being sorted out. We'll come back to it later.", but there is nothing afterwards. Let's see if the license is still valid or not. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The change does not apply to images released before it, in any case. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Let Us Continue"

Copying this from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, as I was advised to inquire whether PD-US-no-notice is correct or not for the following files:

Back in September 2021, I downloaded and uploaded the audio file, and a frame from President Lyndon B. Johnson's famous "Let Us Continue" address, available on the YouTube channel of TheLBJLibrary. The description of the video then was:

"Credit: LBJ Library video by CBS News No usage fees. Footage shown here was a gift from CBS for the LBJ Library. They are pool coverage of live presidential addresses and are not copyrighted. The Library has made them available (excluding any network commentary) for decades without incident." (emphasis mine; archived link).

But... the current description just says:

"Credit: LBJ Library video by CBS News. For research purposes only. Use/publish only with permission from CBS." (archived link)

Now, will {{PD-US-no notice}} work here? -- Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: {{PD-US-no notice}} does not apply to sound recordings, which are protected differently from other types of copyrighted works.  Mysterymanblue  18:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but it appears that this audio was taken from a video - i.e. it is a motion picture soundtrack. This is not a "sound recording" under U.S. copyright law so {{PD-US-no notice}} may apply - but it should be noted that broadcasting a video does not count as publication under U.S. law, so no notice is required on the broadcast. The notice would we required when the public is able to obtain copies (if it were so offered before 1989), but then it could be on the packaging, or something.  Mysterymanblue  00:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Further comment requested for ongoing deletion discussion

An impasse appears to have been reached in this ongoing deletion discussion. Questions: whether the work in question can be considered a work of the U.S. federal government; whether the maps in question meet the threshold of originality. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I opined there.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Indirect upload

Hi, i'm a newcomer and i have this tricky problem. I want to link a website, but only its Monday version, because every day it changes, uploading a different document ( it's essentially a list of matches, so it makes sense it changes every day, but the creators don't change the url, so they put the updates on and the same link for 8 to 16 straight days). So, i came up with this procedure: download the pdf file, and upload it on wikimedia. I don't know what license the file is, but i was confident in doing so since the same website put up other documents the wikipedian editors of tennis section are using since at least 10 years. To get out of trouble i stated multiple times in the upload the url source, but they went such lenght and put a "deletion: request" on it. Kafkian, right? So here's the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roanne_opM.pdf Do you know how to extract license from it, and maybe i forgot to mention, this website is essentially an empty tool to put up the Order of play i want to upload, and the Draw the editors are using since years. Also it's the official one used by big tennis organizations and journos as well, so it's legit, but no contact, no disclaimer. Then, here's the rub: can you help me with the type of license/copyright of the file. I looked around and find only very deep guides about the different type of licenses but i didn't find a guide about how to extract what kind of copyright license file has, or where to look for it. Or either offer an alternative which won't use the "indirect upload" procedure i came up with,. recently i came up with a possible solution which is to name the file with the url, but I don't know if that would resolve the issue hostile editors have.ThanksMandraketennis (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mandraketennis: Hi, and welcome. Have you read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT yet?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
i didn't, now i did. I am still not knowing what copyright or license the "troubled" link above has. It's recent so 70yrs old free license doesn't apply. A copyright symbol is nowhere to be found in the pdf file. There's no contact or disclaimer to ask or read about, crystal ball is my next option, or assume that it's copyrighted by default (which could be equally probable it's free to use). Any other option to get the info? Waaait a sec. Now i read near the bottom of the file, under date and time: "Order of play RELEASED". May i take it as a free license?Mandraketennis (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mandraketennis: No, you may not. Please ping if you reply to me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mandraketennis: All creative works published since March 1, 1989 are automatically copyrighted, regardless of whether they bear a copyright notice, regardless of whether they were registered, or regardless of any other formality. (For works before that date, there are various and sundry different rules.) --B (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Help with licences

Hi. I recently found out some images uploaded from the Brazilian website "Brasil de Fato". Their content, including images, is published under a Creative Commons license which I believe to be CC-BY-ND (you can see the statement in the bottom of their website, like in here). According to COM:L this kind of license is not allowed here. I just would like someone to confirm that images uploaded from this website are indeed COM:COPYVIO. Regards.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 04:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, their license is incompatible with Commons unless they have changed it to CC-BY-ND recently. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 06:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj photo licensing

Hello, I am an editor at enwiki currently holding an RfC for the lead image for Nicki Minaj. An enwiki adminstrator, Cullen328, suggested that I work with a Commons administrator to update this image's information page so that no one may doubt the licensing. I'm looking for a Commons administrator to help. Thank you! RogueShanghai (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • @RogueShanghai: Can you please specify the exact time index of the video where you took this screenshot? I didn't find this exact angle and it would be easier to know where exactly to look to confirm it. (I'm not doubting you that it came from this video - an admin or "trusted user" just needs to see it with their own eyes.) I did confirm that the video itself says CC-BY-3.0. (Click "more" to pull up the about screen, then click on the license icon to confirm that it is CC-BY-3.0.) --B (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    @B: Surprisingly, I have the raw screenshot of the video because an editor accused me of retouching the photo (which I did not, comparing the raw screenshot and the current image only shows lighting and color temperature changes.) Anyways, here's the uncropped unedited version and you can see that the time index of the screenshot is around 0:08. Thanks! RogueShanghai (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    @RogueShanghai:   Done. Thank you for the screenshot - that made it a lot easier to find in the video. (That angle flashed by so fast I missed it when I looked before.) I have confirmed the license. --B (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Photographs which are copyrighted and appear to be free

Hi there I am not so much into the process of loading up new photographs. Now I have created an article on Martina Clavadetscher and don't have an own image for the article, but on her webpage are published several copyrighted images to use for the press. I have seen others to have downloaded similar images as well, but I want to be sure if also in this particular case this is allowed if I then just link to the webpage where I found the image and it is declared that images can be used freely if the copyright holder is mentioned. The images can bee seen here https://martinaclavadetscher.ch/download Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand it like this, too, just want to have an other opinion as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Photos from the official website of the Japanese Government

I am a little perplexed whether various photos from the official websites of the Japanese government, specifically the websites of embassies, can be used in Wikipedia Commons? For example,GJSTU1 states that such photos are free to use. Here [7] the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also confirms that the usage is allowed. My question is simple: Can I upload images like this [8] under GJSTU1 or GJSTU-2.0?Bes-ARTTalk 18:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

According to the terms of use you can (the terms of use are compatible with CC-BY-4.0 license). Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User contributions for ErkkiJarvisalo

Are these images suitable for Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ErkkiJarvisalo ?

Hint by user:Kotivalo's created CFD: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Erkki Järvisalo--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably not: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ErkkiJarvisalo‎. Yann (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Is ru:File:LZKanals.png trivial enough to be considered {{PD-textlogo}}? DmitTrix (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO, yes. Yann (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Uploaded as Latvijas Ziņu kanāls logo.jpg. DmitTrix (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

When to use {{PD-US-GovEdict}}?

Probably a really dumb question, but are there any examples on when I can use this template?

The documentation doesn't say much. I've seen people use this tag for city and county seals, but I've also seen such images nominated for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The reasoning behind it is that people have a right to know the law -- so the text of laws (or even proposed laws), regulations, court decisions, and similar items with legal effect cannot be copyrighted in order to allow the widest possible dissemination. From the Copyright Office, section 313.6(C)(2): The U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any federal, state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. More information available at that link. If a seal drawing is actually printed in the law, that might be a reason to use the tag. The design of a seal is often described in the law, but each drawing of that design is typically an independent work, and not derivative of the written design -- so it's rarely a valid tag to add to a seal drawing, since it's only the copyright status of that specific drawing we care about (see Commons:coats of arms). If a particular drawing is very old, its copyright might have expired. But a modern drawing done by a state employee, and put up on a state website, is just a copyrighted drawing (with other laws restricting use as well) of the state, and would follow normal copyright rules. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah I see, thanks for the explanation. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 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) 10:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Express permission to upload another persons work

I know people who have taken excellent photographs but who cannot be put to the trouble of uploading the image themselves. I am willing to do the work.

Obviously, I need the creators express permission to do this. Is there a recommended medium (is an email OK) and a form of words to satisfy the express permission requirement?

Thanks. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gaius Cornelius. Try looking at COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? and COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder for more details. Verification by email is one way to confirm copyright holder intent, but it's not the only way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Are you aware of the Wikiportrait, software? It is developped for making it easy for photographers to upload images. In the first step, the image is uploaded outside Commons. Then, the authorship and licencing is checked by volunteers of VRT. If oke, the image is semi-automatically uploaded to Commons with a link to the permission ticket. Since the start we could add 5400 images to Commons, most of which are used on the projects. The interface is in Dutch, but the software is prepared for easy translation. I would be happy to explain more if people are interested. Ellywa (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Uploads by Deteon

This user uploaded lots of old images from the internet under a "self" licence with Creative Commons which I am currently reviewing and correcting. Most of them are actually PD-art of some sort or otherwise free to use, and where there are frames of paintings, they can be cropped away. But there have also been some copyvios. The user has been warned to not continue with this practice of uploading but any help fixing their existing content would be appreciated. A basic knowledge of Swedish may also be needed since this user specialises in Swedish military history and their sources are mostly from Sweden. De728631 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of de minimis on Commons

On Commons, we typically use de minimis copying to justify keeping photographs where a non-free work appears in the background of the photo. However, a recent opinion from the 9th circuit calls that rationale into question:

Having concluded that Wilmott publicly displayed the Indianapolis photo, the panel wrote that it would ordinarily ask whether the infringing work was substantially similar to the copyrighted work. Here, however, the panel concluded that the “degree of copying” was total because the infringing work was an identical copy of the copyrighted Indianapolis photo. Accordingly, there was no place for an inquiry as to whether there was de minimis copying, and thus no infringement. Agreeing with other circuits, the panel wrote that the Ninth Circuit has consistently applied the de minimis principle to determine whether a work is infringing by analyzing the quantity and quality of the copying to determine if the allegedly infringing work is a recognizable copy of the original work, in other words, whether the works are substantially similar. The panel wrote that the Ninth Circuit has never recognized a de minimis defense based on the allegedly minimal use of concededly infringing material. The panel thus rejected Wilmott’s “technical violation” theory of a de minimis defense adopted by the district court.

—  Bell v. Wilmott Storage Services, LLC, No. 19-55882 (9th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added)

De minimis copying, in the eyes of the court, only applies to cases where a new work has been created based on an original work, but the quantity and quality of the original material in the new work is so low that there is no possible infringement. Since most Commons photos with a non-free work in the background maintain the recognizability of that work, the copying is not de minimis and the photos are infringing.

Thoughts? IMO, we should really be reigning in our use of de minimis copying, which for too long has been guided by consensuses that are not based in the law.  Mysterymanblue  10:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the WMF is based in California, which is wholly in the territory judged by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, this is something the WMF's lawyers should advise us on.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: Thanks for bringing this decision up for discussion. My interpretation of the decision, however, is that it has little to no impact on Commons' de minimis practices. According to my reading of the case, it entails the court rejecting a novel legal argument that the de minimis exception covers not only minor use of a copyrighted work within another work, but also minor amounts of exact copying and publication (not within another work). They are correct that the 9th circuit has never recognized such an exception and neither has Commons. I think our practices regarding de minimis are at least roughly in line with legal precedent (e.g. Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits), i.e. not allowing works which mainly focus on a copyrighted work or which themselves are substantially similar. When the court mentions "recognizability", I believe they are referring to the question of whether or not the new work is a recognizable copy of the existing copyrighted work, not whether an existing copyrighted work is itself recognizable within the new work (which is presumably OK). Now all of this should be taken with a big grain of salt, however, due to the courts' very inconsistent rulings regarding de minimis sampling in commercial music. These rulings are all over the place and often contradict each other, so we may need to be more cautious with application of de minimis to audio files. Whether or not this erosion of de minimis creeps into other mediums, only time will tell. IANAL. Nosferattus (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm still trying to find the details on the district court ruling (since the actual ruling was a one-sentence summary judgement), but it appears as though the defendant infringed (copied and displayed) an entire photograph, just not to that many people, and maybe not for that long. I think the court is rejecting the de minimis defense for a "technical infringement", i.e. a use that is clearly infringing, but seemingly not a big deal. It does not directly address the case of a derivative work of something in the background of another photograph -- de minimis is more for deciding if infringement occurred in the first place. Secondly, although also described on de minimis policy page, the concept of "incidental" inclusion for derivative works is something entirely different than an actual de minimis defense, and that is likely more common in the case of inclusion in backgrounds. The case is interesting for sure, but I'm not sure it directly speaks to our existing practice, since it involves the use of an entire photograph as-is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. While this case was about a specific situation (wholly copying an image), much of its reasoning goes far broader than those narrow circumstances. Also, if "incidental inclusion" is not part of the de minimis defense, where does it derive its validity? We should update our policies if they are incorrect.  Mysterymanblue  22:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. is one, and there was a similar Florida case of a photo of a motorcycle with a prominent copyrightable design on it, though in that latter case a binding "incidental" ruling was avoided by a contract-based ruling, though the court's opinion was pretty clear. Also, France has a "theory of the accessory" or something similar -- see [9] and COM:FOP France. Infringement in a derivative work is really an entirely different topic, to me. This ruling is that once infringement has been established, you can't use it as a further defense, i.e. the scale of the infringement. The entire photograph was copied and infringed, so de minimis really couldn't be argued that way. (There are apparently other defenses argued that the lower court did not get to, so I guess it will now.). The ruling's statement is: However, once infringement is established, that is, ownership and violation of one of the exclusive rights in copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 106, de minimis use of the infringing work is not a defense to an infringement action. The "minimal use" referred to in the summary was that the defendant barely used the infringing work, but it was stored on their servers and was discoverable via image search -- the user would have to know the exact image URL. But since the entire image was on their servers, you couldn't argue that only a small portion was reproduced, and therefore you can't use de minimis as a defense. Note that other circuits may have a different opinion on that, such as this case, which was cited in the ruling -- though it sounds like the defendant did not really use the work at all. It bears examination for sure, but this case was not at all in the context of derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's make sure to use precise language here:
  • A derivative work is a copyrightable work based on one or more preexisting copyrightable works
  • A reproduction or copy of a copyrightable work does not have enough originality to warrant copyright protection - so we do not call it a derivative work.
I know that you know the difference, but I got very confused while reading your response. We have de minimis (or as you may suggest, de minimis-adjacent) situations on Wikimedia Commons that involve both derivative works (photos with statues in the background) and reproductions (photos with 2D works in the background). Let's make sure we're having a conversation that specifies these issues.
I think that we are seriously misreading the Skyy Spirits case on Commons. In that case, the court only held that the photograph of a bottle was not a derivative work of the label because the photographer made all of their creative choices based on the bottle as a whole—not the label. The court said nothing about whether the photographs infringed on the copyright of Skyy - they couldn't have because 1) the photographer was authorized by Skyy to take the pictures and 2) everything was below the threshold of originality. If this had been an infringement case, there may have still been a case for infringement -- because although the photographs were not a derivative work of the label, they did contain a reproduction of the label. The court did not speak to whether the reproduction of the label in the photograph was substantial because it was not relevant to the case, so the case ends up being a whole nothing burger for de minimis or "incidental inclusion".  Mysterymanblue  06:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
You make a good point, though, that - because copying and making derivative works are different rights under law - infringement may have different standards when we are talking about a derivative work vs. a work that contains a reproduction of another. The standard test used for infringement based on reproduction is substantial similarity - i.e. whether the reproduced work is substantially similar. And what is the standard used for infringement for an unauthorized derivative work? The answer is not immediately clear to me, but I will note the following remarks from Pamela Samuelson at the Berkeley School of Law:

But the derivative work right has also been troublesome because courts have typically ignored it. All too often, they analyze infringement in derivative work cases under the rubric of the reproduction right, asking whether there is substantial similarity between the works in dispute and whether this resulted from copying.

—  The Quest for a Sound Conception of Copyright’s Derivative Work Right
Samuelson is arguing here that the derivative work should have a different standard from the reproduction right - but she also acknowledges that courts, by and large, have used the same standard to judge derivative works and reproductions for infringement. So if de minimis is seen as an extension of the "substantial similarity" standard, as the Ninth Circuit's opinion suggests, surely it should apply equally to both infringement cases stemming from both derivative works and reproductions?  Mysterymanblue  06:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The Skyy ruling: We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works. So even if the label was copyrightable, the photo would not have been derivative. The photo was based on the bottle as a whole, and any other material was inherently there, but does not qualify as a "preexisting work" in that context -- so I doubt a background element would either. Only photos mainly of the label itself could become derivative of the copyrightable label. If a photo is taking a photo of a wider subject, and copyrightable elements are inherently there, that should be fine. If something is in the background, it would likely be fine. I wouldn't consider that absolute -- if the photo was including the background element intentionally to enhance the photograph, I don't think it would be OK. And there was a case where a fashion photographer had a model wear a pair of copyrighted fancy glasses -- even though the point of the photograph was the clothing, and the glasses were a relatively small part of the photo, the copyrighted element was still intentionally included by the photographer and it was ruled infringement. But the Skyy decision had nothing to do with legal "de minimis"; it's a separate theory, even though we lump them in the same policy page. De minimis could also certainly apply to a derivative work, if the expression being copied is de minimis (say it was blurred), but it's not the only consideration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Again, the right to create derivative works and the right to reproduce a work are two separate rights under copyright law, so violating either could lead to infringement. Proving that a photograph did not create a derivative work of some preexisting work is not enough to avoid infringement - you also have to prove that it does not reproduce the preexisting work.
For example, let's say Bob painted a painting and that I paint an unauthorized painting based heavily on Bob's.
If, in creating my painting, I built on top of Bob's painting and did work that was sufficiently original to merit copyright protection, I have just created a derivative work of Bob's painting. I have just committed copyright infringement.
If, on the other hand, I had copied Bob's painting so exactly that my new painting contains no original authorship, I have simply reproduced Bob's painting. Again, I have committed copyright infringement.
Let's say that Bob sues me, and the court finds that my painting is not a derivative work of Bob's. Am I in the clear? No. The court may still find that I violated Bob's right to reproduce his work—and thus I have still committed copyright infringement.
So, in Skyy, when the court finds that the photograph is not a derivative work of the label - it is saying just that the photographer has not sufficiently creatively transformed the label. In such a situation, infringement of the author's right to create derivative works is impossible. However, the court, in speaking solely on the issue of derivative works, did not say that the degree of reproduction was incidental or insubstantial. And thus, infringement of the author's right to reproduce their work is still possible.  Mysterymanblue  09:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I also get the feeling that you may be mixing UK (and other jurisdictions') law, which recognizes "incidental inclusion" and U.S. law. I can't find a good source that shows the concept of incidental inclusion being applied under U.S. law.  Mysterymanblue  09:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: I don't think derivative works are quite that simple. The judge was saying there is a balance between the rights of photographers and the rights of other artists -- a photo really should not be subject to reproduction analysis on any little thing that happens to appear in a photo. If the photo is really trading off of another work, i.e. the photographer is really using the expression of an underlying work, then yes it would be. The ruling is saying that the reproduction analysis would not be done unless the included work qualified as a "preexisting work" in the context of that rule, and the label would not in that case. So the photo would not be infringement, even with a copyrightable label largely reproduced. If a photographer was intentionally including someone else's expression though, it could qualify. Say a photo of an artist, but intentionally posed in front of one of the artist's paintings, or something like that. Your examples are on the line of whether additional expression exists enough to be a derivative work or just a copy -- there would be no question in that case that the original painting qualified as a "preexisting work". (If two painters painted the exact same thing independently, i.e. there was no access to the other's work, then it would not be infringement even if they were substantially similar.) Frankly if making a painting, it would be much harder to be "incidental" -- any and all expression is intentionally included by the painter. Photos on the other hand, almost always contain their own expression (outside of Bridgeman type situations) -- the question is if infringement occurred of a preexisting work, and that apparently requires that work to be the main focus of the photograph -- or at the very least, intentionally included by the photographer.
As for the term, from Latimer v Roaring Toys: Further weakening defendant-appellees argument is the fact that the ZX-14 motorcycles were the subject matter and primary focus of Latimer's photographs. Latimer's photographs can best be described as being "based upon" the ZX-14 motorcycles, useful articles not subject to copyright protection. The fact that Hathaway's artwork appears in the photographs is merely incidental. However, we need not resolve the derivative work question if the photographs were made with Hathaway's authorization. So, that is largely the same ruling -- the artwork on the motorcycle did not count as the work "based upon", so it did not qualify as the "preexisting work" necessary to be derivative. The artwork existed on the motorcycle, and was unavoidable when photographing the motorcycle, and photographers have a right to photograph non-copyrightable objects. As that last sentence alludes to though, the binding part of the ruling was based on a contract clause instead -- but it's pretty clear how the judge would have ruled if not. The ruling was overriding a lower court's overbroad ruling that any photograph which did not "recast, transform, or adapt" an original was not a derivative work -- meaning hardly any photograph would be derivative. That was based on an SHL Imaging v Artisan House case, which said much the same thing, but this court (and others since) disagreed with that logic.
Both this case and Skyy ignored the reproduction analysis where expression was an unavoidable part of photographing a larger subject, much like the French case. That seems to be a reasonable line to take then, given that I'm not aware of a case anywhere which has ruled such a photograph derivative, i.e. one which was not specifically focusing on a copyrighted subject or at least when inclusion of the expression was not intentional on the photographer's part. At some point, the photographer needs a right to photograph without being subject to any little thing which appears in the photo -- do you think that a tattoo artist gets a derivative right to prevent use of photographs of Mike Tyson? I've never seen a ruling along those lines, so without one (specifically regarding derivative works, and particularly for photographs) then this seems to be about the line that courts have drawn. If you want to use a term other than "incidental", fine -- the French court called them "accessories" to the main subject, which avoided being a derivative work, and Skyy did not use that word. But in general, the only times photographs have been found derivative (that I know of) is where the photo was focusing on a copyrighted work (it was the main subject), or if expression was at least intentionally included in the photo to enhance it (especially where the photographer controls the scene being photographed, such as in a studio). Beyond that, I'm not aware of any cases which have gone further, so I don't see the need for Wikimedia to do so either. We probably are harsher than courts would be actually, since courts would also do a fair use analysis even if reproduction was established. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, i wanna know if this logo is under or above the threshold of originality: [[10]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewasser (talk • contribs) 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Sincerely yours Fewasser ;-)Tell me!! 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

In USA it is probably below the ToO. Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ruslik0 Hi! thanks for answering, it means i can publish it, true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewasser (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You can upload it here. Ruslik (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Drawings of persons, based on unfree photos.

The usage of drawings of prominent persons created by editors themselves is a case that has been hotly debated in German WP, see here.

However, I just want to make sure that from Commons' standpoint, drawings may count as "own work" instead of "photocopy". The example case is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luchita Hurtado.tif, apparently based on a film; a still from the film is provided in that discussion. (Creating an own work loosely based on the work of someone elses, constitutes the creation of new and own intellectual property under German copyright laws, not requiring permission, and that is what I see here. The same law however forbids modifications or re-arrangements of the pre-existing work without permission, but that is clearly not the case in this example.) --Enyavar (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect, please stop spreading fake news. Even if the creator of the derivative work can claim an own Urheberrecht (intellectual property) in Germany, the distribution of the derivative work still requires the permission of the creator of the original work. This is the case applying to the deletion request you linked and this permission is missing. Of course this is merely a derivative work and by far not enough own creative input and difference to the original work that this drawing would be recognizes as "new original work". It is merely a "translation" into another technique (drawing instead of photography/film), nothing more - and so the rules for translations and ohter derivative works apply.--Chianti (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
You may make an original creation that is a drawing of a prominent person and upload it to Commons. You may not take an existing photograph and redraw it. Creating a work "loosely" based on someone else's work is always going to be asking for trouble; for example, the w:en:Tanya Grotter series was enjoined from being printed in the Netherlands as a copyright infringement of the Harry Potter series. I doubt German law is fundamentally any different; in practice, even if you do use reference photos, you should use several reference photos from different sources, and avoid making the final work too close to any of them. Make an original work, not something based on someone else's work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
It's definitely possible (likely even) for a drawing to be a derivative work of an original. The copyrightable expression in a photograph is generally the angle, the framing, and (if under control of the photographer) the posing of the subject, and elements like that. If those elements are copied through to a drawing, it's a derivative work where we need a license from the original author as well. One example was the Barack Obama "Hope" poster; that was directly based on an AP photograph -- the artist tried to claim it was "fair use", but that was denied by the judge, and the parties settled at that point rather than having the judge actually rule it derivative (with the automatic monetary penalties that would have come with it). That is an example of a derivative work. For snapshot photos, the photographer has no control over the subject of the photo itself typically -- so using a photograph as a reference for what the subject looks like can be OK. But if you are copying the angles and other elements from the source photo or video still, then it becomes derivative. Basically, if you can identify a particular photograph or movie frame as the source for a drawing, it would be derivative. If you use several photographs to get a sense of what a person looks like, but use an original angle and pose etc. in a drawing, that should be fine. The term "based on" really means "copied expression from" in a copyright context, not simply that you used photos as a guide. If the photographer had control over posing the subject, don't copy that either -- one example is Rogers v Koons, where an artist made a sculpture of a photo he saw. The photo however was carefully posed, so that exact pose was considered part of the photographer's expression, and the sculpture was derivative of that (and was not fair use either).
In this case, that drawing absolutely looks derivative to me. For derivative works, you need permission of the original author, plus the author of the additional expression in the drawing, in order to host it here. The drawing is not a "photocopy", in that there is additional expression present compared to the original. The additional expression in the drawing is "own work", the copied expression is not and needs a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Jeanette DePalma August 1972 Unsolved Murder A.jpg

There was an email sent to info-en via VRT (see ticket:2021111410005793) about File:Jeannette DePalma.jpg from someone claiming copyright of that photo. I've tagged that photo as a copyvio since it seems to have been copied from some source (from either a news publication linked on the file page, or some other source of the copyright holder) and is likely not CC BY-SA 4.0. There's one other photo of the subject on Commons, File:Jeanette DePalma August 1972 Unsolved Murder A.jpg. I checked the citation on the file page, and I could not actually locate the photo in the source. There is a photo of a person tangentially related, in another, separate issue of the Star-Ledger, but no photos, afaict, of DePalma. (pinging the uploader: @Kieronoldham). —chaetodipus (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chaetodipus: That photo appears to have been by an unnamed en:Jonathan Dayton High School yearbook photographer per this article.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G., thanks for your response. Would it better than to list the source as the yearbook if it's apparently not in the newspaper cited? —chaetodipus (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Chaetodipus: Not yet. What can you tell us about the name and lifetime of the copyright holder?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Chaetodipus. I was never aware of the image file File:Jeannette DePalma.jpg which you mention at the start of the image (it may, for all I know, have been uploaded after the file I uploaded). As for the image I uploaded myself a year or so ago, I found the image browsing newspaper archives dating from October 3, 1972 - specifically the Star-Ledger. Here is a link to a direct image showing the nationwide publication. The same image was also published in the Wednesday, October 4 edition of the Daily News under the headline Priest's Theory: Devil's Disciples Killed Girl. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kieronoldham, @Jeff G.: I found the Daily News article from October 4, 1972 at Newspapers.com (see [11]). There is a copyright notice on the first page asserting copyright for New York News, Inc. I also found this September 27 from the Courier-News. I could not locate any copyright notice from that paper. I can't find the "Girl Sacrificed in Witch Rite" article on Newspapers.com though. Nor have I been able to find anything about the Dayton High School yearbook. —chaetodipus (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Request on the deletion of file: 黃英豪2019.png

Hi, I would like to request deleting the image named 黃英豪2019.png. I understand the image is captured from the published video on YouTube, but I believe the uploader is intended to vilify the character, as he decided to capture this unnatural frame while there are many other frames that are much professional and nice to upload and be used to represent a person. The image should not be qualified to represent a person in a positive manner, and the uploader should not abuse the wiki platform to infringe on others' reputations. As wiki is a significant source of information, the image now even appears in the first search result in Bing search when searching "黃英豪" or "Kennedy Wong". Combing the reasons above, I would like to request deleting this image entirely from wiki, not just on the page. Please comment and advise. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CometMoon (talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@CometMoon: We have a simple process for requesting the deletion of files. Just go to the image page and click "Nominate for deletion" on the side bar. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ixfd64: Thanks for the instruction. However, the page says this file was nominated for deletion on 21 October 2019 but was kept. Should I re-nominate again? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%E9%BB%83%E8%8B%B1%E8%B1%AA2019.png --CometMoon (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@CometMoon: Yes, you can nominate it again with a detailed reasoning. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Yann, Ixfd64, Shizhao, and Alexis Jazz: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:黃英豪2019.png.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@CometMoon: Hi, and welcome. How do you know the subject? See also COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Case study: threshold of originality

I have been confused with the threshold of originality a lot so far. Though we have this page which gives a lot of examples of pictures above and below the threshold, it's still very hard for me to tell whether a picture reaches it. Take File:Beijing_Stock_Exchange.png as an example. It looks like the logo on the left hand side is pretty complicated. But some logo, which looks more complicated for me than it, doesn't meet the threshold. Could anyone explain whether or not File:Beijing_Stock_Exchange.png meet the threshold of originality, and why? Thanks a lot. --Tiger (Talk) 20:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This depends on the country. In USA it is probably below the ToO. On the other hand in China it may be not. It is hard to to tell for anyone, not only you. Ruslik (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I know that it could vary in different countries. But I'm wondering what are the key points to determine if an image meets the threshold. Is it the complexity of image or the difficulty to mimic a similar one? Tiger (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations

While I have tried my best to make sure that they follow copyright law, I have a feeling that some of my last 20 uploads, particularly the audio files, are copyright violations in come way, and that I have made some mistake. Can someone check my last 20 file uploads? Aeschylus (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Aeschylus&ilshowall=1 Biggerj1 (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Kim Jong il Portrait-2.jpg

I'm unclear if the copyright status of File:Kim Jong il Portrait-2.jpg image is valid. This image is of the portrait of Kim Jong il released by the government of North Korea shortly after his death in 2011. There is a copyright release on that page from "Jesse Charlie" who identifies as a photographer in the release, but since the image is a painting, Jesse Charlie's involvement must've been limited to photographing or scanning the painting. Even User:JesseCharlie indicated that the author was unknown when they uploaded it, so per Commons:Copyright rules, they only would've had a copyright on it if the original painting was in the public domain. The question is then, was the painting in the public domain? {{PD-KPGov}} only seems to apply to documents, not paintings, and it has been nominated for deletion because there is an argument that works of the North Korean government are free for non-commercial use only. If that doesn't apply, the standard North Korean copyright would be valid, which is 50 years from the death of the author, or 50 years from publication if created by "an institution, enterprise or organization". Is there some reason that I'm missing why the original 2011 painting would be in the public domain? Is it just assumed because every North Korean is legally required to hang it in their house? Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ahecht: One theory has it that using Western technology to take a selfie, photo, or video with that photo and post it on the Internet is not in the state's interest, and is additionally copyright infringement.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Using pd-art for a 2.5-d photo of a book cover

I'm wondering whether the {{pd-art}} copyright tag would be appropriate for a photo like this (the book itself is from 1890, but the photo has not been released under a free license). Reading Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, it's not totally clear to me whether this would be more like the example of "Photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet" (OK), or "Photograph of an old sculpture found on the Internet" (Not OK). It seems the intent of the photographer is just to make a faithful reproduction of an essentially 2-d plane (the book's spine and front cover), but the surface as they photographed it was not entirely flat (and I suppose there's also the matter of the ribbons).

I tried looking for other examples of photos of books that incorporate the spine or have some aspect of 3-dimensionality. In most cases, the photo itself was explicitly released under a free license, but I did find a few cases where the author of the photo was unclear, or where the photo had obviously been taken from the internet, e.g.:

Thoughts? Colin M (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: These images are not 2D. So PD-Art is not appropriate for them. In these cases, we need the permission of the photographer to import the images into Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. So just to be clear, this would even apply to an image like File:Yellow Fairy Book 1894.jpg where the spine and cover appear to be lying flat and occupy the full frame of the photo? Colin M (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
This is quite borderline, like coins and some paintings with frame. There is a very small 3D effect on the book cover, but it seems to have been taken with a scanner. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

COM:Singapore

With reference to this notice, the Singaporean government has appointed 21 November 2021 as the commencement date of the new Copyright Act 2021 (except some provisions relatively minor provisions on collective management organizations), which replaces the former Copyright Act 1987. Can someone help with updating the legal provisions of COM:Singapore, along with the copyright tags of Category:PD Singapore license tags? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

President.gov.by

Can images from https://president.gov.by stay on Commons? I just saw the statement below

Materials from the Internet Portal can be used in mass media and distributed in the Internet without any restrictions regarding the volume and date of publication. Only a reference to the source is required. No prior consent to use the materials from the Internet Portal on behalf of the Press Service of the President of the Republic of Belarus is needed.

--220.246.230.27 13:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably they can stay on Commons. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: On About the Internet Portal:

Materials of the portal can be reproduced in mass outlets or Internet servers without restrictions on the amount of material and the time of publication. The only condition is that any reproduction of materials should contain a reference to the original source. No prior consent from the Press Service of the President of the Republic of Belarus is required to use the materials of the portal.

Is {{Attribution}} applied here? Seems there is no mention on whether allowing commercial use/production of derivative works. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
As for commercial works, nothing is indicated here either, although in theory they are allowed. In addition, one more big question - do foreign citizens have the right to write letters to the press service of the President of the Republic of Belarus on such issues? Therefore, in this case, the only way to clarify the license status for Creative Commons is to contact the press service, as was the case with the website of the President of the Russian Federation 13 years ago. By the way, I just live in Russia and can write an appeal there in Russian, since it is also the second state language in Belarus.MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Everybody can write a letter. Though they might not answer. Ruslik (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Есть ли в российском законодательстве положения по обращению граждан в органы власти зарубежных стран, к которым относится и Белоруссия, хотя и её законодательство близко российскому? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@220.246.230.27, Ruslik0, and MasterRus21thCentury: Files relating to this was deleted by User:Rubin16--A1Cafel (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Да, я ранее видел о предложении к удалению файлов с Викисклада. Как мне теперь запрашивать разрешение у пресс-службы Президента Республики Беларусь, если я живу не в Белоруссии, а в России? Хотя во многом белорусское законодательство очень похоже на российское. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Photo may be in PD?

It was suggested that I ask here if someone can tell if this photo of Reuben Fine is in the public domain. It was probably taken about 1940 but I don't know if it was published with a copyright notice, nor do I know the status of the photographer. Thanks. Bubba73 (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is the information we need to know. Most U.S. photos published in that era are probably public domain, but not all were (copyright can last 95 years from publication for the U.S.), and we need to give some concrete evidence to back up a license. For publication without notice, we need to show the actual publication from that time, with no notice (and not cropped away, etc.). For lack of renewal, we should at least have an idea of when it was published, and what copyright owners to search for in renewals. In many other countries, knowing the name (and lifetime) of the photographer is important, or if the original publication did not name an author. For photos we know hardly anything about, our usual line is 120 years old ({{PD-old-assumed}}). So... we would need to find more provenance information on the photo to have a chance of hosting it, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I'm the person who suggested asking about this here to Bubba73. The file was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content back in 2008, but it's now been deleted per en:WP:F7 because freely licensed images of Fine were subsequently uploaded to Commons and these are preferred to any non-free ones. Anyway, I tried doing a en:Tineye search for the image and found this. The file can be seen on some other websites and perhaps one of them can help clarify the photos provenance. I also found what looks to be the same image only flipped, but I can't tell which of the two is the original. FWIW, there are number of images of Fine found via a Google image search and some of these might be easier to source and thus their copyright status might be easier to figure out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Most websites probably use photos without paying any attention to copyrights. Bubba73 (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bubba73: Not us. We don't allow Fair Use here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The status of this photo is not that important. It has been deleted and I don't want to put any more effort into it. Bubba73 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this license for the svg fine?

Is it maybe due to the simplicity of the sketch? Biggerj1 (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with the license. Ruslik (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The reason is that it is a simple graphics or enough different? Could you please explain it? I want to know it for the future? :) Biggerj1 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
What is your problem? Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I am a bit worried that it is too close to the copyrighted original image. Another user now posed a deletion request. Could you please take part in the discussion there if you have the opinion it is fine to keep the image? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Biggerj1 (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Image from 50+ year old broadcast in Ireland

Is it acceptable to derive a still image from this 1965 television broadcast in the Republic of Ireland? [12]. If so whaat license. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The copyright term for broadcasts in Ireland is 50 years after the first public transmission, so this term has now expired. However, since it was still copyrighted in 1996, it is also copyrighted in the United States for 95 years after its first publication. So I'm afraid we cannot use it here until 2061. De728631 (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark: You could probably use one of these postcard images, for identification in the infobox of the article, under the strict non-free use policy on the enwiki. Ww2censor (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Michele Rayner photo

Hi! I saw that Wikipedia is using File:Michele Rayner.jpg from the Florida state house site because it is free as an apparent government work. I noticed that her site at http://www.micheleforflorida.com/meet-michele has a higher-resolution uncropped version of the photo -- would it be ok to upload this, as it is the same work, or at least a cropped version of it? DemonDays64 (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Copyright ok for commons?

Johan Person (Q6042472) has a picture in link "Svenska amerikanaren. Pub. Date July 28, 1921" Question: Is it ok to use this newspaper picture and upload it to Wikicommons? - Salgo60 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The newspaper was published before 1925. Thus, it is in public domain in USA. In Sweden it can be in public domain as well although it is more tricky. Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

CD or LP pictures

Hello, I would like to ask is it problem to be uploaded in Wikimedia files, on which are pictured CD's or LP's, from music albums and music singles? I understand from here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rock_Around_the_Clock.jpg, that such a files, which included "an image of a simple geometric figure is not subject to copyright and is therefore in the public domain because it consists of information that is public property and does not contain original copyright works," can be used, without any problems. its that right? I mean, that we can not use pictures of CD's or LP's, on which is the same original cover of the album, but in cases, where on the CD's or LP's is just written the header of the song or the album, are not problem to be used? --Stanislav Nikolaev (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your understanding is basically correct. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, thank you very much. Stanislav Nikolaev (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Bing Bong

Can someone comment on whether File:Sidetalk NYC logo.png and the associated svg fall below COM:TOO United States? Bait30 (talk) pls ping me when you reply 14:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but I would doubt that reaches TOO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Name and death of lithographer

I recently uploaded this file[13], showing an 1883 lithograph I assumed to be PD old, and thought it would be easy to find the death date of the artist, A. Gawan, but turns out I can find out little else than the fact that they were an artist. So I wonder if anyone else here is better at finding such info? FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

[14] is the best I can find, so far. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
See also d:Q46998329. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Another work here: [15]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, much closer to anything I could find. I wonder what the full name was? And could the same info be found for the lithographer "J. Green" here? FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
1890 is the date for his last known activity, not his date of death. But we are quite safe here, as if he started working in 1870, we can assume than he died before 1950. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I think I have found him. Alfred Gawan is in the 1891 census living in London with an occupation of "Artist Pala Outological" that is probably a spelling error for "artist palaeontological" (spelling errors were common from handwriting the census sheets at the time and then digitising them in recent years). I doubt there were many A Gawans in England at the time working on drawing old bones. I'll flesh out Alfred's record, which should give us a birth and death date. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
We can use {{PD-old-assumed}} if we can't find a death date. There aren't many A Gawans at all; the most likely on freebmd.org.uk seems to be an Alfred Gawan born in 1834, married 1859, and died in 1915. No record of a middle name but the refs above may indicate his middle initial was W. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Amazing detective work, guys, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
On a related subject, I have found that we have several images already by A. Gawan (identified through checking his employer's categories). For one series of images he is credited as "A. Gawan del & lith." Lith is clearly an abbreviation of lithograph but can anyone identify what del would mean in this context? File:Catalogue of the fossil sponges in the Geological Department of the British Museum (Natural History) BHL12327684.jpg. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"Del - (Latin, delineavit) He (she) drew it." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
That's useful, thanks. Currently this series of images credits the book's author for the lithographs. In the one linked above I named both Gawan and the book's author as creators, but should we just have Gawan for these if he was both the illustrator and lithographer? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Probably - it's a Common issue here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Probably, though the publisher might be (or might have been) the copyright owner, so may still be OK to still mention them (but specify "publisher"). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

J. Green

Regarding the supplementary query above (re en:File:Proceratosaurus_skull.jpg; in a 1910 publication); there is a 1900 lithograph by a "J. Green" on Pinterest.

This does not refer to James Green who lived 1771-1834.

Unfortunately, Green is a very common surname in England. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, too bad there's no death date... FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Team mascot costume

Would the mascot imagery shown in File:Barky The Bulldog.jpg make the file a COM:DW per COM:COSTUME? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it a reproduction of a copyrighted character, or just a costume resembling a bulldog? Ruslik (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
It appears to be a generic bulldog design sold by a company called Team Mascot.[19] From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Ruslik0 and From Hill To Shore for the replies. I don't think it's a copyrighted character in the sense that school took it from some movie, comic or other source; I'm not sure, though, whether a school may copyright it's own mascot. It does look to be the same as the generic costume found by From Hill To Shore, but I don't know if that means it can be copyrighted by Team Mascot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
It is difficult to say how original is the Team Mascot's design. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Derivative work?

Hello copyright experts,

Could you please have a look at the uploads by this user. I can't find them anywhere on the internet, but they sure look like scans from some book to me.

I asked this question on the user's talk page too, but since his last contrib was in May, I doubt that he checks his talk page on a regular basis. --91.34.32.188 08:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I may add that these files are mainly being used by this user who has a history of being blocked for repeated copyvio. --91.34.32.188 12:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
You may open a DR to allow discussion from the community. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Would some others mind taking a look at File:Clayton D MOss.jpg. It's uploaded under a claim of "own work", but that seems a bit questionable. The file does have some detailed EXIF data that matches the information given in the file's description, but there's no mention of a copyright holder. Similar photos seen here and here look to have been taken at the same event, and they are attributed to "Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts". This is the only file uploaded by the uploader so it could be a case of a simple misunderstanding of COM:NETCOPYVIO. Is assuming good faith here OK or should this be further discussed at COM:DR? FWIW, the same photo can actually be seen used online on various websites like this, but it looks like they might have gotten the photo from Commons or might otherwise be mirroring Wikipedia where the file is currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I've dealt with fake metadata before, but here I cannot find any evidence that the EXIF is not genuine. The camera model did in fact exist at the time of the shot, and the shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and focal length are all reasonable for the camera model and scene. The resolution is unfortunately too low to distinguish between point-and-shoot and DSLR quality, but I will note that there is no bokeh which is again consistent with it being point-and-shoot. I imagine these are events with tons of photographers so it would not be surprising to have similar photos by others. Looking at their Wikipedia contributions, the account might be COI which is why they had such close access to the subject, but that is an issue for Wikipedia, not Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the response King of Hearts. I wasn't sure, but what you posted does make sense. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  Comment The image is here, a bit smaller resolution than Commons. No date of publication there. Yann (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The image exists here as well, marked "Photo by Andy Minh Trieu - © Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts." Not sure it has EXIF there, but I think it has been there since Feb 26, 2012. Doesn't feel like we can assume good faith here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Smithsonian images licensing

Hi, there are a number of very high quality images of aircraft engines (and other subjects) at the website of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Some of them are clearly marked CC-0 and I have uploaded several of these already for use in Wikipedia articles. There are other engine images which have not been freely-licensed yet (assuming that is the eventual aim) but are labelled 'Usage conditions apply'. This image is an example.

The text refers to the terms of use where I believe the section b. Other Content – Usage Conditions Apply is relevant. I would just like to confirm if these are ok to upload to Commons and how they should be licensed (CC-BY perhaps?). The photographer is usually the same person whose name (along with the photo date) is in the metadata. Thanks Nimbus227 (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The Smithsonian has some employees which are federal government employees, and their work is PD-USGov ({{PD-USGov-SI}}). They also have some employees who are paid out of a trust fund, and their work is copyright the Smithsonian. From the outside, it's impossible to know one way or another. The CC licenses only apply if the copyright owner puts them there -- they can never be assumed. So, I would keep to the ones you actually see CC0, or the ones they upload to Flickr under the "no known copyright" label. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the way I was thinking. It's a shame as they are great images, maybe they will freely license them eventually. Will have a look at Flickr, I didn't know that they uploaded there. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

mfa.am

Good evening. On the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, at the bottom of the page, there is a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license icon, which allows free use of materials, including for commercial purposes. However, following the link to the Creative Commons website, the license CC-BY-ND-3.0 is indicated, which prohibits creation of derivatives on its basis. I would like to ask experienced members of the Wikimedia Commons about this situation, especially those who live in Armenia. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It is better to ask them for a clarification. Ruslik (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@MasterRus21thCentury: Per COM:PCP, I think no, as too many information contradicts: The icon is CC-BY-SA, which links to CC-BY-ND-3.0, plus a website disclaimer that states that their content are "all rights reserved". Though, clarification is the best option to make things clear, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The "all rights reserved" is fine -- that is true even for CC-BY licensed works. But the discrepancy in the licenses... would probably assume the more restrictive one, since following the link is the actual license text they are agreeing to. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
As such, {{Mfa.am}} may not be appropriate under PCP concern, unless clarification shows that CC-BY-SA is used instead of CC-BY-ND. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  Comment Probably someone from m:WMAM can help us on asking their employees in Armenian. @WikiTatik: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

French lighting displays

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel Tower in pink, Paris - Oct 1, 2021.jpg, a user posted extensive research (including sources considered by the English Wikipedia to be reliable) supporting their assertion that the lighting display at the Eiffel Tower is subject to copyright under French law (and not freely licenced), and therefore images of this display cannot be hosted at Commons. This is also supported by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France#Works of arts, including architecture, exhibited in public spaces.

Another user claimed that this is copyfraud and that the first user's sources simply repeated the claims of SETE (the organisation that manages the alleged copyright), but has posted no citations at all to back this up.

This has descended into a meaningless back-and-forth between these two users, and could really use some extra eyes. Brianjd (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a confusion between 2 different things. A judgment of 11 June 1990 confirmed that there is a copyright on a single light show, which included fireworks and animations. This judgement never said that all light displays on the Eiffel tower are under a copyright (like SETE claims). Beside that, a judgement (in 1990) cannot decide about a copyright of a display (in 2021) which didn't happen yet. Things which are under a copyright are listed in French law: shows and animations are included, lighting is not. So basically SETE claim is not back up by any copyright law. It is just that nobody dares to challenge them, as it would cost a huge amount of money for very little gain for the challenger. Yann (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Please don't fork the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Also there is a bit of inconsistency here. Why deleting this one, and not all in Category:Eiffel Tower at night? The DR is categorized in "Undelete in 2142", which is complete nonsense. Why any copyright would last 120 years? Yann (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I think we should open a community-wide RfC to decide once and for all whether ordinary night lighting of the Eiffel Tower (note that it wouldn't include this special pink edition) should be accepted on Commons, and record it officially in Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. If the answer is yes, then all subsequent DRs of the tower under ordinary night lighting should be kept regardless of the arguments at the DR. If the answer is no, then all subsequent DRs of the tower under lighting of equal or greater complexity than the usual should be deleted unless the discussion determines the tower to be COM:DM or otherwise exempt. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, COM:CSM has to have a "Light" (or call an "Ordinary Light") section to clarify, IIRC for those light-related DRs, it looks like 65% were kept based on "ordinary lights are not human-made, not copyrightable"?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Correcting a license

Hi. File:The Western Wall in Jerusalem.png was derived from File:Western Wall, Jerusalem, Shavuot.JPG. The original has a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, while the derivative is published as PD. The "share alike" requirement implies that the derivative's license should also be CC-BY-SA-3.0, right? Am I allowed to simply change the derivative's PD template to CC-BY-SA-3.0? --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you can correct the license, but there is no reason to use the PNG format in this case. It should be cropped with CropTool, and reuploaded as JPEG. Yann (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The uploader's other uploads were also claimed PD, and now nominated for deletion. Brianjd (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Seems like From Hill To Shore beat me to it. And while I totally agree that a photograph like this should use JPEG, I also feel the cropped derivative was a bit unnecessary to begin with. It is not in use anyway. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Structured Data Bots

There are some problems with the which I want to illustrate with File:Säulenhalle Humboldt-Schule Kiel (5).jpg:

  1. I don't want my attribution note copied to structured data (because thereby this personal data is easier to use, but this is irrelevant). And Wikimedia Commons is obligied to remove such information to the extent reasonably practicable. And obvious it is, because I myself did it. But the the structured Data bot reverted me.
  2. The information data of this page was obvious never explicit licensed as CC0. The whole database of the File-namespace is mostly licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0, not CC0. In this case you could argue, that this database isn't protected, but big databases like Commons:Batch uploading/Kieler Stadtarchiv likely are. And the automatic copy without the license CC-BY-SA is likely an copyright infrigment. Therefore such images copied from othere Share-Alike Databases must either prohibited and deleted or the data removed.

If you argue that databases itself cannot be protected, than I want to stress out that the license CC0 (It is not the Public Domain Mark) itself aknowledge, that this is possible something protected which need licensing to ensure the public domain. Habitator terrae 🌍 20:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC) PS: For the first point (not the second) see also User talk:Multichill/Archives/2020/October#Edit-War a year ago which lead nowhere

I will only comment on the first point. Yes, CC licences require users to remove some or all attribution information on request. But I interpret that as the complete removal of that information. If the licensor does not desire complete removal, but rather removal only in a particular format, then there is no provision in CC licences for them to demand this. CC BY-SA 4.0 section 3(a)(3), which the OP linked to, comes right after 3(a)(2) (emphasis added):
You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material.
Providing the required information in information templates and licence tags is reasonable, and doing this in combination with structured data is also reasonable. Brianjd (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Habitator terrae I think some of your arguments are getting lost in translation. I suggest you post in German; I am sure there are other German speakers here who can respond. Brianjd (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:TOO

What's the point of a template to tell us the file might not be free? If it's not free, it should be deleted.

That's the argument made at this DR, but it seems to be going nowhere. Your input is welcome! Brianjd (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Is simple photo of simple 2D object having own copyright?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Wanderwegsymbol_W15_Waldm%C3%BCnchen.png https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Wanderwegsymbol_o-Rot_O-Wei%C3%9F_(Reiteralm).PNG - would it be ok to treat such photos as Template:PD-shape? Or is it inapplicable to photos even ones with no or basically no creativity, where photo is taking picture of a simple shapes? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like somewhat a 3D object to me. At least the dirty borders are visible. So, it is quite possible that a copyright can subsist in this photo. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Advice on Australian copyright and URAA

I recently stumbled across File:StateLibQld 1 118980 Sir Raphael and Lady Phyllis Cilento, January 1949.jpg, which is an Australian photograph created in 1949. I found some other photographs of the subject online and uploaded File:Sir Raphael Cilento 1941 IE175532 FL177183.jpg from 1941 and File:Sir Raphael Cilento, April 1937 IE166164 FL172516.jpg from 1937. All of them were created before 1955, so are eligible for {{PD-Australia}}, which covers the Australian copyright. Unlike many other templates, {{PD-Australia}} does not mention US copyright (either as a warning to add a US copyright template or as confirmation that one isn't needed. Looking at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, the key issue is the copyright status of the images on 1 January 1996. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia say that at the time a blanket 50 year copyright term was in effect. The 1949 image would have become PD in Australia in 1999, so URAA should take effect to restore copyright in the US and the image is ineligible for retention on Commons. The only exception to the URAA rule I can see is if the 1949 newspaper photograph was also used in a US publication with copyright notice in 30 days of initial publication (but would that have generated a new US copyright from the 1949 publication date?). The 1941 image would have become PD in 1991 and the 1937 image PD would have become PD in 1987. For these last two, URAA does not appear to apply and the copyrights in the US have expired. Is that a correct interpretation of the situation? From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, right on all counts. (The 1937 photo would have become PD on Jan 1 1988, and the 1941 image in 1992, but same result.) If the 1949 photo was simultaneously published in the U.S. (within 30 days of publication in Australia), then the URAA would be avoided, and you'd have to see if the U.S. copyright was renewed or not. But you'd have to show that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. I have started a deletion discussion for the 1949 image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:StateLibQld 1 118980 Sir Raphael and Lady Phyllis Cilento, January 1949.jpg. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I have commented on the deletion page, but repeat it here so it will be more readily available:

::FHTS, thanks to a unique provision relating to Australian photographs made by a non-government entitiy, you don't have a problem. Take a look at this document, issued by the Australian Government. The bottom row on page 1 specifies that if the photograph was made before 1 January 1955, its copyright has expired. If the photo had been made by the federal government or a state or territory government, it would come under the provisions shown in the first row on page 5: copyright would expire 50 years after the end of the year it was made or first published (e.g., 1 January 2021 for photos made in 1971). So you are clear on both counts.

  SCHolar44 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I've replied on the deletion page and I would suggest that further discussion is held there to prevent a fork in the discussion. Unfortunately your advice only deals with the Australian copyright. It is the US copyright that is cause for concern here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Threshold of originality

 
Program of the ceremonial commissioning of the 380 kV interconnector Berlin-Wolmirstedt

This is the invitation / program of an official inauguration of the 380 kV line which connected Berlin with the RoW. Is this a piece of orginal work which has copyright protection. If not - how to address this on the commons' page for this scan? --Gunnar (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It is probably covered by {{Pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Gunnar, I see a bot has put an automatic deletion tag on the page (expires 5 December) because a copyright has not been entered. Cheers, SCHolar44 (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I added the PD-text template and removed the bot tag. Hope that helps. --Gunnar (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Illustrations in Italy, by Frank Fox

Hi, In Category:Italy (Fox), we have paintings claimed to be anonymous, at least some are signed (e.g. File:Italy by Frank Fox (47).jpeg). There are probably all by the same artist. I did some research, and the book doesn't mention the artist's name, i.e. 1913 edition, 1915 edition. The 1918 edition was deleted from IA. A copy is available in HathiTrust, but it is not accessible to me. One of the file was already deleted. Any idea who is the artist? See also record in LoC. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Technically yes, if a painting is signed, it's not anonymous. If it's a pseudonym the term would be the same, but if it's a person's real name, the term is longer. The cover of the book says: Italy by Frank Fox Illustrated by Alberto Pisa and others. So they are not all by the same artist, but none of the others are explicitly named in the book (in fact, Pisa is only named on the cover). File:Italy by Frank Fox.jpeg has a signature of an artist who died in 1943 apparently (Creator:Ella du Cane). File:Italy by Frank Fox (47).jpeg is Alberto Pisa. The books says there was a 1913 version with 32 illustrations, the 1918 edition had 64. No idea if they used the same ones as 1913. I guess if any are not signed, they are anonymous, otherwise we may need to try and read the names and find death dates. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. If we know that the painters are either Alberto Pisa or Ella du Cane, we are safe, even if we can't determine for sure which one painted what. I fixed the 2 you mentioned. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Italy

I spent a while reading through the pages and discussions linked from COM:FOP Italy, but some of the "cultural heritage" stuff is still pretty confusing to me. For the photos in Category:Museo Guggenheim (Venice) Facade, for example, should those all be tagged with {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}? It is more than 70 years old, so it "should be assumed a cultural heritage asset" per COM:FOP Italy, and it's also listed on the Ministry of Culture's beni culturali website. I'm pretty clueless about this stuff so any guidance is appreciated. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You can mark them with {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} if you are sure that this is needed. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of update to PD-AustraliaGov template

Dear colleagues,
I have outlined some ideas for updating the PD-AustraliaGov template, ☞ here. Please add your expertise! :-)  SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 04:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Logos of Brazilian political parties

I am concerned that user Chiinamii has uploaded several files that are logos of Brazilian political parties (for example File:PTC - Partido Trabalhista Cristã.png) and has declared them as licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but with no indication of where that licence may be found, or that the user has the right to licence them. I have tried to find licensing information for a couple of them on the parties' websites, and not found any. I see that one file that Chiinamii uploaded has been deleted for copyright infringement: I wonder about the others. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chiinamii.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright discussion regarding Fleischer/Famous-produced animated short films

Some titles are public domain; some others are not. I just found the forum thread on the Internet Animation Database where contains the list of renewal registration entries filed by various proprietors.

Example: "Chinatown, My Chinatown" (Screen Songs, 1929) was supposed to be in public domain, but U.M. & M. renewed it in 1956, so it won't enter the public domain until the first day of January 2025.

Will y'folks help me nominating files before deleting as making them unavailable due to legal issues?

HarvettFox96 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC), edited on 10:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1919 photograph published in 1949 book

Plate 54 of Six Centuries of an Oxford College by Robert Howard Hodgkin is a photograph from 1919. It is attributed, according to the preface (p. vii) to "Messrs. Gilman and Soames". This is presumably a reference to Gillman and Soame, a school photographer. Could anyone please advise on the copyright status of the photograph? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: For this to be stored on Commons we will need to address the UK copyright and the US copyright.
In the UK, this will be an anonymous work. We know the company that took the photo but it is highly unlikely that there is any record of which employee took it in 1919. The current rules on UK anonymous photographs has two routes to becoming public domain. First, an anonymous photograph becomes public domain 70 years after first public exhibition or publication. Second, if the anonymous photograph was not exhibited or published within 70 years of creation, it becomes public domain in its 71st year. In this case, we know it was published in 1949, so the latest date that it became public domain was 1 January 2020. However, that assumes the 1949 book was its first publication or public exhibition. If the photo was on public display in 1919 (perhaps by being on the wall in one of the public areas of the college) then the earliest date that it entered the public domain in the UK was 1 January 1990.
For the US copyright, the relevant guidance is at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. Any photograph that was public domain in the UK on 1 January 1996 would be public domain in the USA as well. Any photograph that was under copyright protection on 1 January 1996 would have had its US copyright restored to initial publication +95 years.
If we can show that the photograph was first published or on public display on or before 31 December 1925, then it is in the public domain in both the UK and the US and can be uploaded to Commons.
If we can only support 1949 as the earliest kmown publication, then the photo was in copyright on the URAA date. In this scenario the US copyright was restored in 1996 as first publication +95 years. The photograph can't be uploaded to Commons.
Do you have evidence of publication or display prior to 1949? From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
While firm evidence would be better, it would be rather likely that such a photo came from a yearbook or other from the year it was made. At the least, distributed or displayed in the school. I'm not sure any remanining doubt would rise to the "significant doubt" level, so I'd have no problem marking that photo {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-US-expired}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Applying a licence tag to part of a file

For example, the file Microsoft Windows 95 Version 4.00.1111 command.com MS-DOS Prompt 492x259.png contains an MS-DOS icon. The icon itself is tagged {{MIT}}, which is fine. But when we try to apply the same tag to the Windows 95 screenshot, we have a problem:

This file is licensed under the Expat License, sometimes known as the MIT License

No, it's not. Part of it is, but certainly not the whole file. Adding a note above the tag that it only applies to the icon doesn't really fix the problem. I have not been able to find any good examples of how to fix this problem. Any ideas? Brianjd (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The logo - which is probably not copyrightable anyway - has been published under the MIT license. The text - which is most certainly copyrightable - has not been published under any sort of license that Wikipedia/Commons accepts. It doesn't matter what tags you put on the page or how you put them there - that's not going to solve any problem. The image should be deleted. A previous DR came and went with one person (incorrectly) claiming that because the text had no literary value it wasn't copyrightable and with another proclaiming that the image was valid for fair use (which of course we don't accept here). The closing admin made the obviously incorrect decision and kept the image. There's no amount of tagging the image that's going to make it acceptable to use. The logo is probably not copyrightable and even if it is, Microsoft has offered it under the MIT license. So if you want to upload a different image containing only the logo and a simple C: prompt, you're fine doing that. Or if you want to upload an equivalent screenshot from MS DOS 2.0, which is published under the MIT license, you're fine doing that. But this image with this text is not fine and no amount of tagging will make it fine. --B (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@B: What license did the user manuals have?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: All of the source code (including any help text) in MS DOS 2.0 was released under the MIT license. Most DOS commands have some amount of help text built into them. Unfortunately, the help text built into this command in MS DOS 2.0 is completely and totally unrelated to the help text built into this command in Windows 95. --B (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@B I already mentioned another example of a file with a similar issue at the DR, and I am sure there are many more. I am focusing on the Windows 95 screenshot initially because the other user is so keen to tag this one. Brianjd (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Brianjd There is nothing that can be done for this image regardless of what you or any other user want to do to tag it. For the hypothetical situation that might arise where an image contains multiple works under two different licenses, what is usually done is to just indicate it in text. For example, in a Wikipedia screenshot, you might have the Wikipedia text, which is cc-by-sa-whatever-it-is-nowadays and an image contained in the screenshot, which might be under some other license, like the GFDL. When this happens, I don't think there is a template for it - someone usually just adds both templates and uses words to indicate which template is for which part of the text. (That is probably becoming less and less desirable as we make more of an effort to make data machine-readable.) --B (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  Comment so if {{MIT}} and {{Expat}} are having no different by this section, why don't we just merge both? Are we sure that we need {{MIT}} to let users choose one (Expat or X11)? Or license their files using both MIT license variants? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why there are separate templates. Also, the en:MIT License is the far more common name for it, so the template should say "... licensed under the MIT License, sometimes known as the Expat License", not the other way around. Googling "expat license" [20] gives you 129K results. Googling "MIT license" [21] gives you 25.9M results. It's not even close which one is the more common name. --B (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
'MIT license' is a somewhat confusing term. The MIT template supports both the Expat and the X11 licenses (both known as the 'MIT license'). MIT has produced a number of other licenses which could theoretically be called a 'MIT license' and while in practice people know what you mean, ambiguity and legal issues are two things best not mixed. The result is a preference to refer to either the Expat or the X11 license, for example this advice from the FSF. ~ El D. (talk to me) 16:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/11&oldid=615439693"