This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It looks simple at first glance but there are several specific decisions made by the author that make this chart copyrightable imho: The line colour, background colour and the use of the grid are elements that can be adjusted to make the chart look just like this. So there is enough creative input to warrant a copyright. On that note, the image looks Python-ish where that output results from choosing a specific plot style, i.e. it was the author's intent to make it look like that. So, the standard OSM CC licence should be alright. De728631 (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Nope. Even with the latest, somewhat stricter, jurisdiction on TOO in Germany, this should still be PD-textlogo. De728631 (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Just want to confirm licensing for this map made on the 17th century is ok
Now I edited the Licensing section to add this template:
This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason:
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer.
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse
The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details.
I just want to confirm if this is enough or if I should do something more. Any info that can help me learn how to do this better next time is welcomed. Thanks --Beethoven (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This is exactly the right license tag, no need to do something more. Generally, when you pick up images from the internet that are obviously out of copyright due to old age, you should use the {{PD-art}} wrapper because you didn't scan or photograph the original work yourself. As to the proper copyright situation, when the authors have been named, we try to find the lifetime dates if there is significant doubt that they could have been alive well into the second half of the 20th century. For unknown authors or unknown lifetime dates, you may also use {{PD-old-assumed}} if the work was created more than 120 years ago. All these, however, would also need an appropriate US copyright licence like PD-US-expired though. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
FOP in France
Does COM:FOP France apply to File:Extension siège L'Oréal (43707042205).jpg? In additon, the file was originally verified by Flickrbot (see the archived link) as having a "Some rights reserved" license, but it currently has an "All rights reserved" license. Not sure why the Flickr licesned ended up being changed, but perhaps it's due to France's FOP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
First, in France there is no FOP. Second, these two questions: FOP and license are not related to each other in any way. Ruslik (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Apologize for the poorly worded query. I’ll try and rephrase things. Can this file be kept as licensed even if there’s no FOP for buildings in France? Does the original Flickr license accepted by Flickrbot apply to only the photo or also the photographed building?Finally, just to clarify the Not sure why the Flickr licesned ended up being changed, but perhaps it's due to France's FOP of my post, I was speculating out loud whether the reason why the Flickr account holder changed the license was related to France’s lack of FOP. Perhaps the Flickr account holder found out later that the license the originally chose had issues. However, in hindsight, the only way to know for sure why the license was changed is to contact the Flickr account holder directly. The question for Commons though is still whether the original Flickr license is still OK. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
"PD-EU-no author disclosure" and proving a negative
{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} The template currently reads: "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication." This needs to be reworded, I constantly see the argument being used at deletion that the uploader has to provide "reasonable evidence" that a photographer has never been attached to an image, but Evidence of universal absence is impossible. What evidence is actually expects when a person scans an image, or downloads an image. Whatever requirement is demanded needs to listed in the template. I would like to see the paragraph reworded to list what is required. Perhaps saying: "If you found this image online please list the url for the website" I don't know what is expected when you scan an old photograph yourself. Perhaps: "I attest that the original photographer was not named on the original image". --RAN (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The EU directive is for anonymous and pseudonymous works. To know that a work was truly published anonymously, and not that the author's name has simply been lost via Internet copies, you really do need to know something about the initial publication. If we don't know that, then it's hard to apply that section of law. The other part of the EU directive is that for some countries, the initial publication with no author disclosure means the work is forever 70 years from publication (i.e. a later disclosure of the author within 70 years won't turn it into 70pma). That again needs evidence from the original publication. If we don't have that evidence, or at least beyond a significant doubt, then the works in question are more like orphan works, which are not OK here. So yes a slight rewording may be in order, but the necessary evidence really doesn't change -- you do need to show reasonable evidence that work was indeed anonymous, at least initially. Just providing an Internet URL with no provenance information is not enough to apply the law/tag in question. If there is no author named on a photo you have, then what is the provenance of that photo? If that copy was the original publication, then yes the scan would show anonymous publication (you can scan the entire work, and maybe a scan of the back as well, then overwrite with the version you want to use). If you don't know where the photo came from, then we may not have enough evidence to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Publication according to the definition in Berne and URAA agreements is "made available to the public", not appearing in a magazine or newspaper. See: Commons:Publication. If an image exists as a print not in the hands of the commercial photographer, it has been made public. It is rare that an original negative remains in the hands of the commercial photographer. This happens when an archive like the Library of Congress buys the original negatives, like the Bain Collection. --RAN (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
If we boil it down, what you are trying to accomplish is to shift the burden of proof (here: that some work is anonymous/pseudonymous) from the uploader to whoever is arguing that the work is not anonymous, as evidenced by your “If you found this image online please list the url for the website” line. Which would mean that it would be ok for anybody to upload to Wikimedia Commons, as an "anonymous" work, any picture they found online without a credit, as long at it is at least 70 years old and somehow connected to an EU country. Then if someone points out that the work is not anonymous at all because the author's name actually is known, you say Oops, we'll apply some "clawback" or whatever your favorite term is and generously allow deletion. Which of course is in no way compatible with Commons:Project scope/Evidence, one of the core rules here. So no, I don't think that the template needs to be reworded to allow for more unsourced uploads with dubious claims of anonymity. --Rosenzweigτ20:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Evidence of universal absence is impossible, but convincing evidence of absence is possible. And that is what is needed to use this template Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
What exactly is the "convincing evidence of absence" you are expecting, show an example of what you expect. --RAN (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
A valid example would be a file sourced to a reputable GLAM (gallery, library, archive, or museum), which publishes an image with a mention that the author is unknown. Yann (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Or finding what appears to be the first publication, with no author being named. In an old book, or newspaper, or something like that. Or an entire postcard or publicity photo (not cropped, and back visible, with no credits there). Or, a source with good provenance information, and/or a source which would have mentioned an author if known, as Yann mentions. Some countries had a copyright term based on time of creation; those would need less evidence obviously. The "anonymous" terms however do come with a need to show some indication of the anonymity (which means an uncredited author on the first publication). If there is an author name credited, the terms are 70pma, even if you can't find when they died, so in those cases a death date becomes necessary (until PD-old-assumed can be used). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Postcards from Paper Jewels
I have concerns about 755 images of postcards, from colonial-era India, in Category:Postcards of India by Paper Jewels. They seem to be good-faith uploads by new users, so please be kind. They are from the website https://www.paperjewels.org/ and may well be PD by dint of age, and (in some cases) being by unknown creators.
About the images, their "Image rights" page says: "Use as you see fit, even commercially. Do credit the original artist, photographer or publisher and PaperJewels.org." [1]. So, the general copyright notice of their website does not seem a claim of copyright on the images of the postcards, but a copyright on whatever is original to their website or to their book, and their request of credit to the website can be understood as a request not for authorship but for credit as the source, which is fair. The mistakes in the description pages of Commons look like the sort of mistakes that are very common from many users, e.g. lack of research, naming the website in the author field, placing a bogus CC license. I suppose that many can be fixed and the files kept, some others will probably have to be deleted. The problem is to review them individually and do whatever additional research may be necessary and, if you want to do it systematically, to organise a workable method of review. If one or a few uploaders uploaded a large proportion of those files, they could be asked to do their share of the work. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
They have a CC license, but the person also puts in the descriptions that they "do not give any permission to share, reuse, reupload, or post my photos anywhere". Jmchuff (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Criterion Collection
Recently I nominated File:Detour (1945).webm, which was taken from a Criterion Collection Blu-Ray disk for Featured Pictures. It was pointed out that, since The Criterion Collection restored a public domain movie, it might not be eligible for protection. So it would be nice for some clarification. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not see a restoration as restarting the copyright clock because they are restoring the film to look like it did when first released. The US courts only awarded a new copyright for colorization because of the creative decisions about what colors to add. I would think that if the color choices were determined by color stills taken during production, there would be no additional creative effort worthy of a new copyright. --RAN (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Movement Strategy Implementation Grant for the creation of an all-purpose file tool
Hello! I'll be developing an all-purpose file tool that includes the feature to detect potential copyright-violating images that also appear on the Internet. I thought it would be a good idea to request a Movement Strategy Implementation Grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information about the scope of the tool and the grant on m:Grants:Project/MSIG/EpicPupper/Fortuna. Feel free to leave comments, questions, suggestions, or ideas on the grant talk page, and endorsements or offers to translate or localize the tool in the relevant sections. Thanks! EpicPupper (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Doubtful
I am a bit doubtful about the uploads of this user. Many of them were taken in a theater, so first of all, they would not fall under freedom of panorama. Also, I assume that there are a lot of different rights involved, like those of the costume designer or the stage designer. Personality rights might also be involved, especially when there are more persons than the main one in the image.
Not to mention the fact that many of them simply are not great pictures... --217.239.8.13314:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama is the right to take photographs with a copyrighted work in the frame. The new picture is made but the copyright of items included in the picture aren't transferred to the new picture. Freedom of panorama rules vary between countries.
The point Yann is making is that because none of the images appear to include a copyrighted element, freedom of panorama isn't relevant (there is no copyrighted object to transfer copyright to the new image). From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
But that's exactly my point. Taking pictures indoors is not covered by freedom of panorama in Germany. You need the consent of whoever has the rights within that building to take pictures at all. --217.239.10.19612:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"You need the consent of whoever has the rights within that building to take pictures at all." - this does not affect copyright, as far as I know. Maybe people taking this photo violated law or regulations of venue, this is not affecting copyright status Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight: Copyright is the only legal issue that matters here? It does not matter if the image was taken violating other laws? --217.239.14.24312:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
You have come to the Copyright noticeboard and asked primarily about copyright. Freedom of panorama doesn't apply in this situation and a review by a few editors can't see anything on copyright grounds that requires deletion (I have looked through a sample of the uploader's images and found no issues but I can't vouch for the full batch). Now on the subject of personality rights, we have Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and the more detailed Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Germany. This suggests that we may need formal consent from the person depicted in the photographs unless one of the exceptions applies. If you think that the exceptions don't apply to a photograph (or batch of the photographs) you can start a deletion discussion and point to those guidance documents to explain your rationale for deletion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
To elaborate on that: It's not so much that it "doesn't matter" per se, it's more like Commons' rules and culture being strongly biased towards US law for various reasons (some good ones, many bad ones). In the US, there are very few restrictions on taking, publishing and even commercially using photographs of people without their permission. That's one reason why we do not usually require any kind of evidence that a person agreed to a photo: from a US perspective in most cases it is just not necessary. The other one is that we can barely handle tracking permissions for copyright. There are no resources left for that. We're apparently not even capable of making {{Personality rights}} a requirement, let alone {{Consent}}.
But there's a another level to the whole thing, that brings us back to US law. Copyright violations are a problem for the Wikimedia Foundation, because they will be the ones being sued if they let them happen, and if they happen too often that may turn into a threat for the whole project. Personality rights affect individuals, but copyright is the battlefield of big companies too. When personality rights are being violated, it is probably the photographer or uploader who will be sued. The situation is similar with other non-copyright restrictions: If you upload a picture you took in a museum that does not allow photography, that's between you and the museum. El Grafo (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
You are right, I did end up in the "copyright" section. I thought this was the place to ask about legal stuff in general.
Thanks for everyone's elaborations. The personality rights issue is one that had me worried several times in the past too, particularly because we do have very strict laws on that in Germany... and rightly so, in my humble opinion. I certainly wouldn't want MY picture showing up all over the place. I am not a lawyer, but to the best of my understanding, someone like Ingmar Thilo would be way below the threshold of being a "Person der Zeitgeschichte".
Anyway, from what I figured out by now on the German user's page, the uploader and author of the article appears to be his wife who probably has the rights on everything that concerns his posthumous personality rights. And since she was involved with that theater too, I guess we don't have to be too concerned about that either.
How to add photo to Ellinor Catherine Cunningham van Someren page?
Sorry to trouble you, but I can't understand how to do this. There is a passport photo of this late entomologist (Ellinor Catherine Cunningham van Someren, died 1988) inherited by her son. The problem is how to provide the copyright release text. Her son is an elderly gentleman who does email but will not upload the photo himself or use the on-line release generator (Wikimedia VRTS release generator). I can email the text from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates to him, declaration of consent to use copyright-protected media, and I hope he will be willing to email the completed version back, copying in permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, with the photo attached. I can upload the picture and paste in the release text into the box Another reason not mentioned above on the second page (Release rights) of the upload wizard. Also put a template for Permission pending on the Ellinor Catherine Cunningham van Someren page. Somehow this will get matched to the email? Is that the thing to do? The various FAQs and Wizards are confusing for this situation (or I have not yet stumbled over the one that explains it) --MerielGJones (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know precisely but she looks middle aged, so say 1955 - 1965 (born 1915, died 1988). Also, was taken in Kenya where she lived. MerielGJones (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
{{PD-Kenya}} assumes that the photograph was published, which may not be the case here. If this is a passport-style photograph but not used in a passport, it has not been published. If the photograph has been used in a passport, we would need to determine whether that is sufficient to constitute publication; the image would be presented to security and transport officials but not generally accessible to the public (i.e. no publication in the traditional sense). From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advice so far. From the stamp on the photo, it was used in a passport. So, what is the situation with passport photos? In general? MerielGJones (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
RAN (talk) From Hill To Shore (talk) There is a statement in Commons:Publication that 'Australia and the UK (as the U.S.) ... generally require the distribution of copies necessary for publication.' I imagine Kenyan law was/is similar, so a passport photo would not be considered published since copies are not distributed? The text about copyright in Kenya says: 'Audio-visual works and photographs are protected until 50 years from the end of the year when the work was either made, first made available to the public or first published, whichever date is latest.' (Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Kenya) Date runs from when it was made. So this photo is unpublished and more than 50 years old. Does the Public Domain Kenya template apply, or is detailed release text needed from the photograph's owner? MerielGJones (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Distribution would be the transfer of prints to the person sitting in front of the camera, from a negative in possession of the photographer. Generally the photographer takes one photo that gets 4 copies printed to a standard 4x6 inch print and cuts them into the standard passport size, you keep two and forward two to the government, they keep one stapled to your application, and one gets stapled/glued/riveted to your passport. That is distribution and the clock starts in the year it was taken. --RAN (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Not PD?
Any ideas about this one? I’d say unblinkingly it’s {{PD-text}}/{{PD-font}} just by looking at it if it were here in Commons: It’s just "+ O.C.S.O.", a trivial dotted initialism (of a centuries-old designation — {{PD-old}}?) in a nondescript typeface. Yet it’s explicitily marked to avoid its move to Commons. -- Tuválkin✉✇20:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Do these images meet the threshold of originality in this country?
This section was moved from the main Village Pump - I think this is a better place to get expert opinions on matters like this. --El Grafo (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This and this logos are uploaded as non-free on Wikipedia. The copyright laws of their country of origin, Japan, is stated on COM:TOO Japan. It looks like the threshold of originality is quite high in Japanese law. Does anyone here think that these two logos are below that line and hence could qualify for exporting to Commons? --Morita Akio (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
already here - should it stay?
@Morita Akio Regarding the second one, we already have the one on the right. However, it appears that this was uploaded with a German perspective on copyright/TOO rather than a Japanese one. From my personal POV, this feels way too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. El Grafo (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Morita Akio: These logos may have been designed by one of Sony's US subsidiaries, do you have evidence otherwise? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Months ago, I started uploading seals of departments and Ministries in the Thai Government, using the PD-TH-exempt Template as a reason for the files being in public domain. The template states that:
This file is in the public domain according to section 7 of the Copyright Act, BE 2537 (1994) of Thailand, for it is a part (or whole) of these followings: 1. News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain 2. The Constitution and legislation 3. Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units 4. Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports 5. Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units
Most of the files were taken from Thai government websites rather than government announcements/works/orders/etc., since they have higher quality. All of the seals found in government websites are identical to those found in government announcements and are essentially just digital recreations of the original seals. Around a week ago, most of these files were tagged as copyvio and deleted, with the reason that they are "not part of any news of the day, legislation, judicial decision, etc." I understand the reason that those files were deleted, but since all of these files are just identical to the ones found in announcements, wouldn't that make them in the public domain as well?
To make a long story short, you need to provide a source indicating that "PD-TH-exempt" applies to the work in question. You did not do so for any of the deleted files. A work is not copyright-free just because it is related to a government agency. --Miwako Sato (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I understand that. What I don't understand is that wouldn't these seals be in public domain, since they are just an exact digital recreation of the seals which are in public domain? -- ILikelargeFries (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I recently learned about the Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world, and it's a thought-provoking concept. Accompanying the article on Wikipedia (and various other projects) is File:Culture Map 2017 conclusive.png, whose description page includes this licensing claim ({{PD-shape}}): "This image of simple geometry is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship."
This unique map or diagram (because it is not even really a map in the traditional sense) is not simple geometry, corresponds to no map I've ever seen, and represents untold person-hours of research, data collection, analysis, and synthesis, and is a unique, possibly unprecedented effort in creative map-drawing. The claims of "simple geometry" and "no original authorship" are patent nonsense, and if we cannot secure some kind of license to it, I'm afraid it should be removed (much as I would hate to see it go, because it's very interesting, partly because it *is* so creative). Barring a complete misunderstanding of our licensing requirements on creative content by the OP, I'd be inclined to examine the licensing claims on all their contributions. Mathglot (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The survey results themselves are just data, but the particular lines chosen for the groupings, and really even determining the set of groupings, probably amount to copyrightable expression to me. A graphic work expression, and a selection and arrangement expression for the sets chosen. That one is a bit dicier, since the criteria of those would eliminate the selection part, and the dots are placed via the data, so... maybe not. But the lines, most likely a graphic work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Flickr upload
I don't get this Flickr upload thing. Is it legal or isn't it? I just hit upon this image which says quite clearly "Copyright holder: Copyright 2016 Gennady Grachev. All rights reserved." How does that go together with a CC license? --87.150.10.14222:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
"All rights reserved" simply means they claim copyright -- it's a holdover relic from the Buenos Aires Convention, where people combined a copyright notice to claim rights in the U.S. (and later the Universal Copyright Convention), and the phrase "all rights reserved" to conform to the Buenos Aires Convention, so that copyright is retained in all countries conforming to either convention. Obviously since Berne, that is not strictly necessary, but the old habits die hard. Creative Commons used a pun on the phrase, "some rights reserved", but that's all it is -- it is not an antonym of being licensed. Indeed, one must own/retain copyright in the first place in order to license it. So a statement of "Copyright 1990 My Name, All Rights Reserved, CC-BY-SA-3.0" is perfectly fine. The photo in question no longer exists on Flickr, but that is why we have bots which double-check the license and mark it as such on the image page, so we know the photo from Flickr was licensed OK at the time (users can change licenses there too). Not all Flickr photos are OK; only ones marked "CC-BY" or "CC-BY-SA". Of course, if the Flickr account owner is not the copyright owner, it is most likely a bogus license and should be deleted if noticed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I have also come across photos on Flickr that have a CC license but the photo itself has a copyright wordmark. Normally this means that the photo was intially copyrighted but since then the owner changed the license to CC. --Morita Akio (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I shot these. I'm guessing that we can't have them on Commons but thought I'd ask the experts. Murals from a late 1920s speakeasy in Seattle (so U.S. law is what's relevant), recently rediscovered and partially restored. Artist unknown. No copyright notice, of course; never really "published" within what might be presumed to be the artist's lifetime, just visible for an unknown duration during Prohibition on the walls of an unlicensed speakeasy. Thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk00:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
By the law at the time, display without limitation on copying (including by artists) was publication. They should be fine. s:American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister is the controlling case; that turned on a museum explicitly saying that no one could copy works displayed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I have recently uploaded new pictures under the Works Progress Administration's Museum Extention Project. Everything made under this project was funded and conducted by the federal government. However, I have posters for the Pennsylvania Game Commission under the Museum Extention Project. Does this take it out of Federal copy-right licensing?
If so, I have noticed that works made by the federal government are in the public domain, BUT the footers on my images suggest that the Pennsylvania Game Commission made them. Even though I know, they are made under the federal government. If this is the case--that a state agency makes them, this copyright exemption won't apply.
The source of the image doesn't specify its copyright status.
The image was published between 1935 and 1943 and with the copyright notice, so Template: PD-US-no_notice doesn't apply. However, Template: PD-US-not renewed could if the Pennsylvania Game Association did not renew the work's copyright status. I looked up the US copyright office's online catalog which indicates that the PA Game commision did not register anything from 1978 onwards, so therefore they were not registered.
Do I need to use Template instead: PD-US-not renewed from now on? Or can it still apply under the Federal copyright licensing exemption rules? If this is the case that it needs to be changed from exempt to PD-US-not renewed-- how do I go about doing that?
Note: this is a new user, so please ping her upon reply (and Ian (Wiki Ed) as well). Loveleyla, the section title above is my attempt to distill the essentials of your question; feel free to alter it, if you wish. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Few files in need of attention
Can an admin have a look at File:Lt Gen Nathu Singh Rathore.jpg? It has been published many times on the copyrighted sites before an editor uploaded it to the Commons in May 2020. Note that its higher resolution versions were uploaded on the net as early as 2010: [2]. So there shouldn't be an issue with its speedy deletion. On a different note, the uploader in question seems to have a lack of understanding of the Commons' licensing, as they seem to be copying files from the net, along with providing irrelevant sources, wrong licensing, and unsourced/made-up descriptions, e.g. see File:Raja dinesh singh.jpg. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think this logo image should be exported to Commons
This one from Wikipedia: [3]. I am certain that it qualifies for Commons under the {{pd-textlogo}} license, because it must be below the Commons:Threshold of originality of its country of origin, Japan. Unless someone wants to argue against, can a contributor kindly export this to Commons? --Morita Akio (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The uploader (User:Bbearegg) claims that the photographer is "Bbearegg". I see the same image at a higher quality here (62th photo from the top). However, low quality and small size image which may or may not be own work of uploader, there is nothing to indicate that it is. It is doubtful that the uploader and the photographer(s) are the same person.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems like I did something wrong because no one responded when I doubted whether or not the image is copyrighted.--Kai3952 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I often see people uploading images without the permission of the copyright holder, but then, after being blocked by admins on zh.wikipedia, I don't have the right to nominate for deletion any image on Commons. Because my judgment is questioned by individuals who believed misinformation about Commons's policies. If I see images without the permission and report to the same admin every time, he might get annoyed. For example, seen copyvio image (uploaded from external websites) before two days, today I saw it again on Commons. You can look at Special:ListFiles/Sirodesu. If possible, I hope that some admins will find time to check my report for copyvio image and keeping their eye on newly report in the future.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The description includes "Stamp of France with ALGERIE overprint", indicating that the stamp was originally published in France and that the black text 'ALGÉRIE' and '+5F' was added later. Nothing in the image contradicts this. If this is accurate then we should apply French law. The overprinting is too simple to establish a new copyright. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I see (in "Category:19.. stamps of Algeria") that there are many stamps with the same issue, all uploaded by Gone Postal. We need a global decision. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Derivative Work of CC-SA-Attr
Hello! I took this image: File:Statue of Lenin Seattle.jpg
And added some slogans and designs which I donate to the public domain and/or the same license I received the image under for fair use (the commentary constitutes fair use):
Being a mainly text-based wikipedia contributor, new to commons, I'm not sure that I annotated the metadata correctly. Please check and make corrections if necessary. Thanks, Jaredscribe (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, the photo's expression can be licensed that way. But you'd need permission from the statue's copyright owner for some uses, which makes the photo non-free here. It's not "copyfraud" really, just against our licensing policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Clindberg: The uploader used cc-by-sa-2.5 as license for them upload at commons, even though them is not the photographer nor the sculptor or copyright owner of the foto. Them even uses cc-sa in the title of this section. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
If they did not take the photograph, and therefore can't license it, then yes that is more copyfraud. But a photo of a copyrighted object can be licensed CC-BY-SA; you would just also need permission from the sculptor to host it here. I was assuming the photo itself was fine; I may have misinterpreted "I took this photo". Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible to move this file to Wikimedia Commons? Now it is uploaded to the Ru-Wiki under the principle of fair use, but I want to know: is this photo and its «colleagues» (described here) in the public domain?--Futbollo (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
For reference, these are cards of German football players published in Germany by en:Kicker (sports magazine) between 1937 and 1940. At least the 1939 one was edited/put together by [4]Hans J. Müllenbach and Dr. Friedebert Becker. The latter died in 1984. Photographer(s) may or may not have been named in the album. El Grafo (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The file File:Liberate Russia Down with Lenin 3arrows Leninfall.png was deleted within hours after upload as no FoP-USA (a fair use version of this image exists at en.wikipedia.org and is used in the article about the Freemont Lenin). It was a depiction of the so called "Fremont Lenin", a statue by a sculptor who died in 2017. There is another File File:Fremont lenin.jpg that looks very similar to the deleted file and depicts the very same Fremont Lenin statue. I used VFC with the no-permission option to give the uploader 7 days to have the copyright owner send a permission to VTR (VFC notified the uploader, causing ECHO to send a mail to the uploader unless them deactivated notifications). However @Ikan Kekek objects: The file is needed for wikivoyage and has to stay in full resolution under the fair use rationale of wikivoyage (that is not the fair use rationale of la.wikivoyage.org or vo.wikivoyage.org, but the catchall fair use rationale of wikivoyage.org that demands full size images, as wikivoyage users need to see every detail of the image). The fair use image from en.wikipedia.org obviously doesn't satisfy the needs of wikivoyage. Also seven days is to speedy for wikivoyage authors to save the file and I am not to use VFC with no permission in cases where FoP is the only issue (not only in this case, but generally). So can we close the DR as kept? C.Suthorn (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
C.Suthorn, you are misrepresenting things. Wikivoyage does not demand full resolution; we simply have no policy relating to resolution, as we use files solely as thumbnails on pages and warn users that if they download non-free files and use them commercially, they do so at their own risk. You are also deliberately ignoring current guidelines on Commons, laid out in Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#F3. Derivative work of non-free content, which I quoted for you: "This does not include freedom of panorama cases." The previous speedy deletion presumably took place before the clarification was made to Commons' criteria for speedy deletion in 2021 [Edit: It did not, and was in violation of the new criteria]. If you don't like current Commons speedy deletion criteria, you should be honest that that's what you're disputing and discuss them in the appropriate place, Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
C.Suthorn, the notification in Wikivoyage and on the page in Commons stated that it was a speedy deletion tag. Maybe the "permission missing" template needs to be rephrased to clarify that it is not a speedy deletion tag. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
COM:DERIV in published artwork
COM:DERIV is written in the context of a Commons user making a picture and uploading it. Does anything change if that user is a notable, exhibited artist?
Is Andrew under the same onus as any other uploader to show that she had permission to use Tama's work in this way? --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
File:IMAGE PROBLEM ON MOBILE DEVICES.jpg is a screenshot taken from the mobile version of the Wikipedia article en:The Anthropocene Reviewed. It was uploaded by someone asking about it first at en:Talk:Jimmy Wales, but the post was then moved to en:WP:THQ#The images do not match the description on mobile devices. The screenshot contains multiple images, each of which has been uploaded to Commons. Each individual image is licensed differently the other and all of the images except one is licesned differently from the license used for the screenshot. The screenshot is licensed as {{CC-by-sa-4.0}} which is slightly differently from Wikipedia's general content license of {{CC-by-sa-3.0}}. Even though this is most likely the only time this screenshot will ever be used, I'm still wondering whether its licensing is OK as is because one of the individual images is licensed the same way or whether it should be tweaked to at least "CC-by-sa-3.0". Just for reference, all of the individual images in the collage are added separately to Wikipedia article and the collage effect is created using a template; it's not a case where someone first created a collage and then uploaded that to use in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It's fine. The full article is a collective work, containing the text (licensed one way), and the images (all licensed however they are). They are otherwise unrelated works (i.e., not derivative). The credits for the underlying images should be present though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this Clindberg. All that is basically needed, then, is for the individual images to be attributed in some manner on the screenshot's file page, right? Does it matter how this is done? Can the attribution be to the Wikipedia article or does it need to be to each image specifically? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Since it's including the images, it should probably reference the explicit images and not just the article (though it should still reference the article too, if there is any of the text showing, since that is also included in the composite work.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Confirm that a single word can't be copyrightable?
This is a pretty terse and not particularly helpful response…I know I couldn’t upload the entire image, hence asking about a specific word. Your link doesn’t address that. Umimmak (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
A written representation of a single word or even letter can under certain circumstances be complex enough to be copyrightable.
@Umimmak To elaborate, there are a couple of layers of copyright at work here. Before uploading, you might want to consider the following:
The original text (literary work) from before 54 B.C.E is certainly old enough to be out of copyright pretty much anywhere in the world. The same is true for things written in the 1300s.
If you were to pick a single word from that text, in virtually all cases, that would be considered too simple for copyright. Unless the writing itself was so fancy that it made a work on its own (see image). But that copyright too would have expired by now.
Oxford cannot claim copyright for the content of the text nor how it was designed. However, they appear to be claiming copyright for the digitization. Commons policy (!) is to dismiss that and insist that digitizing a flat surface in a purely mechanical manner cannot create new copyright (essentially claiming that what Oxford is doing is COM:Copyfraud). See COM:ART and COM:SCAN for a discussion of that.
So when exactly do films go into the PD in Germany?
Faust, a 1926 German film directed by the same guy as who did the popular Nosferatu, reached the public domain this year in the United States due to expiration, in both the English and German versions. The page on Category:Nosferatu says "This category should contain images related to the 1922 film Nosferatu. Due to the film being under copyright in Germany, no images from the film itself should be uploaded to Commons until the film enters the public domain, which will not happen until 2028 at the earliest (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:NosferatuShadow.jpg)." But what went into deciding that year as the PD release date? Who are the exact people that need to have been dead for 70 years, in terms of a film, for the film to be considered in the public domain in Germany? And shouldn't we have a template or something describing this very situation? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Right that's what I was thinking. But that would put the films in the PD in Germany already. But Commons claims they're not, so I'm trying to figure out why. There were claims in that deletion discussion about multiple individuals being considered "authors", so I want to know the exact determination method. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
2. The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work.
Countries can be very slightly different in how they implement the directive, but that term should have been incorporated into EU laws with little variation. Germany does it in their law pretty much word-for-word in Chapter 7, section 65. The only other complication would be if the pre-EU law of Germany specified a longer term than that, which would then take precedence -- can't remember for sure on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
As for Nosferatu, it appears the director was F. W. Murnau (1888-1931), the screenplay (and I assume dialogue) was Henrik Galeen (1881-1949) and the music (presumably done for the movie) was by Hans Erdmann (1882-1942). It's a derivative work of a book by Bram Stoker (died 1912). Based on that, the German copyright should have expired in 2020, unless there was some other "co-author" based on older German law. Commons:Deletion requests/File:NosferatuShadow.jpg pretty much says the same thing; the date of 2020 is in the comments. However, someone added the "Undelete in 2030" category to it later on; I wonder if that was just a typo. Category:Nosferatu says 2028, but that date was never mentioned on the DR as far as I can tell -- maybe another typo? The cinematographer was Fritz Arno Wagner, who died in 1958, but that position is not mentioned as affecting the copyright term, and if he was considered an author, the public domain date would be 2029. So... that may have just been typing mistakes made a long time ago, which prevented this from being undeleted in 2020. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can see, old versions of the relevant German law did not have specific rules for the copyright duration of films (all versions of the law here). In that case, § 8 about Miturheber (co-authors) would possibly apply to older works (and the director of photography could be considered a co-author). Copyright would then expire 70 years after the death of the last surviving co-author. I'm not 100 % sure about this though. --Rosenzweigτ06:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
freeworldmaps.net licence history
Do we have any dates for when this website switched from a usable CC-Attribution licence to an unusable "number of used maps is limited to 5 (five) for a publication"? It was raised a few years ago that the licence had changed, but it'd be useful to have a {{Pexels}} style template to say that images that can be shown to have been published there before a certain date are acceptable at Commons and others aren't.
Soviet war correspondent's photos and mil.ru license.
The photo that I took from the pages of the newspaper "Krasnaya Zvezda" was nominated for deletion and deleted Commons:Deletion_requests/File:RedStarNewspaper56.jpg.
The archive of these newspapers for 1941-1945 was published for free use on the website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation [5].
Example of another similar foto that not deleted: [6] and it's source [7].
I, as it should be according to the rules, asked the administrator a question, who summed it up - why did he do it? User_talk:Yann#DR_on_File:RedStarNewspaper56.jpg And receive a very interesting answer: that only the Soviet Union owned the copyright to these photos. And since it does not exist, the copyright has returned to the author and belongs to him.
But as I think: the photographer was a war correspondent of the "Krasnaya Zvezda" newspaper and serves in the Soviet army. Taking these photos was his job, his duties in military service. And the results of his work belong to the Soviet army (as a newspaper owner) and now to its legal successor - the Ministry of Defense of Russia (as the current owner of the newspaper [8]). And today Ministry of Defense of Russia may use it as it want. And this foto could be published by "mil.ru" with free-license.
Am I right or wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kursant504 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Soviet_Union; copyright fell to successor states on the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The page refers to the copyright laws of "the successor country of origin". See Template talk:PD-Soviet for the (no longer accepted) theory that pre-1973 works from the Soviet Union are in the public domain. There is also, it seems, no works-for-hire exemption, so the copyright on the photo lasts for many years after the death of the photographer.
Should the mil.ru template even be used? Does the Ministry of Defense own this image, or does the estate of Yefim Kopyt? I have no idea, but the whole situation seems complicated. grendel|khan21:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe on the first one, but I'd still lean delete on it. The other two have some surface decoration too which I think puts them easily above the line. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
A piece mentioned as having been shown at a public exhibition doesn't count as "published", correct?
I've been uploading the works of Norman Lindsay, mostly to the English Wikipedia (see en:Category:Norman Lindsay), as they're in the public domain only in the US. (He was Australian and died in 1969, so I've been tagging them for transfer here in 2040.) He was a remarkably prolific artist. As I understand it, all of his works (apart from those done for the government, e.g., File:Lindsay fall in.jpg, or first published in the United States before 1927, e.g., File:Norman Lindsay Ephesian Matron.jpg) are in copyright in Australia.
Per COM:HIRTLE, anything published anywhere in the world (certainly in Australia or the UK) before 1927 by an Australian creator is in the public domain in the United States, though not in Australia. This includes copies published in American journals (see en:File:Norman Lindsay - Death of Pierrot (1919).webp, a 1919 work included in a 1922 journal) and British exhibition catalogs (see en:File:Norman Lindsay - Unknown Seas (1922).jpg, a 1922 print which was also published as a watercolor in 1923).
These catalogs aren't easily available. (Especially since Google Books hasn't made books published 1924–1927 freely available en masse.) Even modern publications aren't apparently scanned anywhere, and are are hilariously expensive. So this involves a lot of scraping auction records (here or here) and old art journals.
What will be London's verdict on the astounding drawings of Norman Lindsay, exhibited on the respectable walls of the Royal Academy? Those that will arouse a storm of discussion and probably vehement protest in certain quarters are entitled, "Scherzo", "The Terrace", "Man's Heaven", "Beethoven", and "Battle," states the "Daily Express."
No other works are mentioned by name. It appears that, per COM:PUBLISH, this does not place these works in the public domain in the United States unless a copy was actually published in an exhibition catalog or art magazine, correct? And works like "The Lute Player", the provenance of which is "Estate of the artist, Faulconbridge, New South Wales / Thence by descent", indicating that it wasn't sold during the artist's lifetime, possibly not even exhibited, are definitely not in the public domain. Is there anything I'm missing here? grendel|khan22:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
In the United States, displaying a work publicly before 1978 without a prohibition against copying counts as publication. I believe the US definition of publication applies worldwide as far as US copyright is concerned, so anything "published" (according to the US definition) anywhere in the world before 1927 should be OK for PD-US. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠22:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Further complicating matters, were photography policies even a thing in, say, 1922? Amateurs didn't have cameras that could take decent pictures of art "from the hip" at the time, right? What if there was no policy, period? grendel|khan23:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Wow. Thanks for clearing that up! So, does that mean that anything publicly exhibited prior to July 1, 1909 is always considered "published", or am I misreading this? (Prior to 1909, "publication" didn't exist as a concept in copyright law, if I'm reading this correctly?) grendel|khan17:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Grendelkhan: No, the concept of publication, notice (albeit a different form) and renewal existed in the U.S. copyright laws before 1909. See Copyright Act of 1870. As mentioned below, the key Supreme Court case regarding the "further copying" of exhibited works was in 1907, before the 1909 law (and that law did not try to change anything about that ruling). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The Commons page Carl Lindberg linked has the 1907 case that set up such rules; apparently in 1907 there were enough artists who would do quick sketch copies for publication to ban them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to ask if I can transfer the render of Navi (https://www.deviantart.com/nintendokater/art/Navi-render-20220521-916801372) to Commons. The character is from The Legend of Zelda and I wanted to ask, just to be on the safe side, if an upload is okay from a copyright point of view. (I would do a higher resolution version, because I am the creator of the modelling and render file :))
Hello everyone. I recently uploaded the cover of Videodrome's Restored Edition Soundtrack to be used on its corresponding Wikipedia article but it was immediately marked for speedy deletion. I understand I don't own the rights, and fair use is not allowed, but if the original release's cover is there, why can't I upload the new one? Also, can anyone tell me how to add tags and licenses to images?
Most covers are uploaded directly to English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale -- they cannot be uploaded to Commons. The only covers that Commons can have are ones so simple that they don't qualify for copyright (typically lettering-only covers). The licenses are just references to a licensing template in the wiki text of the image page (looks like {{PD-USGov}}). You can click "edit" on an existing image to see what that looks like. The upload process often has some helper tools to pick a license without having to know the wiki text markup, though they can't cover all possibilities. You can "edit" an image after upload to make any changes after that, if a license was missed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Film projections (including faces projected onto mannequins)
Quick question - is a blurry, poorly captured film still in the background of an image likely to be a copyvio? The image is so blurry and indistinct that it seems highly unlikely to cause any issues, but I thought I should check. I have found some excellent Flickr shots of Pierre Cardin fashions from a 2019 retrospective that I have uploaded, avoiding as much as possible anything showing large background photos that cannot easily be cropped out (which I have done with File:Pierre Cardin at the Brooklyn Museum, 2019 11.jpg), but a few have film projections behind them. File:1997 Pierre Cardin wedding dress and 2012 "Parabolic" evening dress.jpg is the clearest example of this, but I am particularly concerned by this one: File:Pierre_Cardin_at_the_Brooklyn_Museum,_2019_18.jpg given how large the projection is - even though the image itself is abstracted and blurred and generic and could be by anybody. Should the images be cropped to take out the projections or the projections further blurred/obscured?
Along the same lines: what about instances like the files in Category:Jean Paul Gaultier in Kunsthal Rotterdam, 2013 (not uploaded by myself!). Many of them show mannequins with photographs/film projected onto the blank faces, and I am wondering if that is problematic from a copyright PoV, or is it considered de minimis as it isn't the focus of the photos? Thank you for your thoughts Mabalu (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you - I have seen some exhibition images nominated for deletion because they show a large background photograph as part of the exhibition decor (the deletion request was averted by cropping out the problem image) so I wanted to double check on this. Mabalu (talk) Mabalu (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems rather unlikely that File:Bill Jaques.jpg is the "own work" of the uploader given the apparant age of the photo and that it also looks like a crop. I tried asking the uploader about this at User talk:Ronitsunny#File:Bill Jaques.jpg in July 2021, but I never got a response; so, I kind of forgot about the photo. The file isn't currently being used by any other WMF projects, but it was being used in en:Bill Jaques before being removed by an English Wikipedia administrator as a "probable copyright violation". The file was just edited by a bot so it showed up on my watchlist again. I previously asked about the file at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07#File:Bill Jaques.jpg and got quite a few responses, but never followed up on them. Would it be acceptable to relicense this based upon the previous VPC discussion. Pinging Ruslik0, Clindberg, Asclepias and Animalparty as a courtesy since they participated in the prior discussion, but new input is also welcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think the file's removal from the article was improper in any way because the "own work" claim is quite questionable. I'm just trying to figure if there's a way to relicense the photo so that it can be kept on Commons; once that happens, the file can be re-added to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
File:OBA Market.png seems the be questionably licensed as "own work", but it seems more than simple enough to be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States. The question, though, is whether its also "PD-logo" in Azerbaijan. There's nothing in COM:Azerbaijan about TOO, but I'm wondering if COM:TOO Russia might somehow apply since Azerbaijan was once part of the USSR and also the CIS. Perhaps Azerbaijani copyright laws are somewhat influenced by Russian copyright laws. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I doubt this file is actually licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 as it claims to be, but that it is rather under a nonfree license and is thus not allowed here on Commons. What is the correct action to take in this situation? SURJECTION·talk·contr·log·04:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I was aware that the works created by employees of the states of California and Florida are often uploaded under the licenses {{PD-CAGov}} and {{PD-FLGov}}, but I wasn't aware the same also applies to works created by employees of the State of Texas per {{PD-TXGov}}. There's nothing about this mentioned in en:WP:PD#US government works and Texas is listed as a "yellow" state by copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/. The PD-TXGov license was boldly created in December 2021, but it doesn't ever appear to have been vetted or discussed anywhere. It also seems like it might've been created specifically to upload File:Emma Presler's mugshot 082621.png to Commons based on the uploader's global contribution history. I only came across this license because of File:Salvador-Ramos.jpg, but there are other photos using it found in Category:PD Texas. If this license is really OK for Commons, then there are probably lots of files uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content which could possibly be relicensed and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a Harvard site which collects information related to state government copyright; Texas is "yellow" there, which is better than many but no real explicit indications, so we assume copyrighted status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Erick Soares3: I'm not sure if the logos are copyrighted in Brazil, but the second is definitely above the ToO in the U.S. Keep in mind that a work must be free in both the United States and the country of origin to be accepted on Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ixfd64: my difficulty is how to judge it. See the Popular Unity as an example: the letter UP are geometric shapes, but the fists seem complex - but since "...the concept of creativity in Brazil is way more strict and exigent than in the United States...", I'm not sure if it would be copyrightable. Anyway, it could be the case of analyzing all the fair use logos from the political parties and see what could be moved to Commons under TOO-Brazil. Erick Soares3 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I just realised that {{GreensAU}} (and the copyright page that it refers to) says: "This website, excluding trademarked logos and images or content noted otherwise, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia Licence." Do you think this means all images are not covered under CC-BY-SA or only images noted otherwise are not covered under that license? Looking at all images using that template, the latter seems to be the most common conclusion here as all Greens members who have articles on enwiki have images from the website. (I mean, if all images are excluded, why have this template at all in Commons, some might say.) But this also includes logos of the Greens which are tagged under this, even though trademarked logos are more explicitly not covered. Twotwofourtysix (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I went through a similar thought process when I first saw that copyright page, and my eventual reading was that only images noted otherwise are not covered. I figure that if they wanted it to mean that all images are excluded from CC-BY-SA, they would have included a comma after "images" i.e. "excluding trademarked logos and images, or content noted otherwise". I've also just found this relevant statement from the Greens' then-National Communications Advisor in 2008: "We chose to use a CC license as we need people to recognise and attribute our work, whilst at the same time ensuring that the license is passed on." Hope that goes some way towards answering your question @Twotwofourtysix: ? Neegzistuoja (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it might be possible for en:File:Carl Banas - Rock Radio Scrapbook.jpeg to be OK for Commons in some way per COM:CANADA. The immediate source of the image can be found here, but that doesn't seem to be the original source of publication. My guess is that the Canadian radio station en:CKFM-FM would be considered the copyright holder for it and that it was most likely a typical publicity photo the station had taken of its on-air talent. The image appears to be from 1975 and most likely meets the definition of COM:PUBLISHED. There's no visible copyright notice that I can see, but the back isn't visible and I'm ont sure that matters anyway when it comes to Canadian photos. I think it could enter into the public domain in 2026 as an anonymous work first published in 1975, but I'm not sure if it's really the case that it's anonymous. There is another photo of the same person that appears to be from the en:CBC Television produced series en:Wojeck that aired from 1966-1968. If it's assumed that the photo was taken in 1968, then perhaps it would be PD by now if this was considered to be anonymous. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
There's probably not much we can do with File:Carl Banas - Rock Radio Scrapbook.jpeg. An anonymous work published in 1975 would enter the PD in Canada in 2051 (1). You might be more lucky with the CBC image. I'm not sure about what is Crown copyright or not in works of government corporations (still waiting for comments on a related question about another government corporation at this DR). -- Asclepias (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello ,
Following image of Patriarch Alexy File:Patriarch_Alexy_I.jpgI I have uploaded.
It is derivative work: colorization done by me with My Heritage coloring photo option on grayscale picture I have made from original photo from my family archive, but do not know which would be best copyright tag for it.
Probable dates for original photo might be from between February 1945 till April 1970 in USSR or other countries he was visiting.
I have done research on attribution, but could not find any particularly matching photo portraits to attribute authorship. So asking for help
Regards EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
It is unlikely to be free from copyright. For anonymous works in Russia the copyright lasts for 70 years counting from the first publication. Ruslik (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, The source says "No copyright", "Unknown date" and "Unknown author" which doesn't make sense. This doesn't seem so old (1950s) that the copyright expired. What do we do in this case? Yann (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The source is given as Europeana, but the page refers to gallica.bnf.fr, which has a link to Notice bibliographique, which says "Publication : [S.l.] : [s.n.], 194?", so seemingly published in the 1940s, more than 70 years ago. Not enough for the USA though. The Gallica page also says "Collection numérique : Originaux de la BNU Strasbourg", which could help in getting more information. –LPfi (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Could an administrator or a trusted reviewer please review this file manually? I downloaded this file from Flickr and cropped it before uploading on Commons because there are sculptures on this photo which do not fall under FOP Netherlands: the photo was taken in a private garden, so not in a public place, which is required for FOP Netherlands. But the photo was published on Flicr with CC BY 2.0, so it may be adapted and published on Commons. --JopkeB (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Until now, I've followed what came out from this discussion, where the consensus was not that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion", and a proved copyvio would be needed.
I reckon that before implementing any massive file deletion policy, more users should participate to the discussion. Admins that will implement the decision are more than welcome. --Ruthven(msg)11:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
That page is not the policy. Following that closure, and the subsequent editing of Commons:Licensing, there were further large discussions, at mentioned at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. Following those discussions, it was decided that yes, URAA restoration can be the sole reason for deletion, in line with long-standing policy that requires public domain status in the United States, and Commons:Licensing was updated accordingly. However, an allegation that the URAA applies is not enough; you have to know enough of the historical laws in the source country to show that it was indeed still under copyright on the URAA date. For example, France did not have 70pma terms at the time, but rather 50pma + wartime extensions (8 years and a fraction). Italy was effectively 56pma, due to their wartime extensions. Austria was 70pma, but pre-1932 photographs could have a much shorter term, even though they were fully restored in Austria just a couple months past the URAA date. So to me, the policy does have something of a shift in the burden of responsibility to the person nominating a file for deletion, to show that a file was indeed restored. A claim or a theoretical possibility based on unknown publication dates may well not be enough to delete. If the result of that evaluation is that there is at least a significant doubt (per COM:PRP) of its U.S. status, then the file should be deleted. That has been the policy since that time -- the Not-PD-US-URAA tag should no longer be used. Many files were tagged without really knowing it for sure, however, and the energy to go through them has not been there it would seem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@AstrOtuba: It was fixed on 7 May with this edit.[9] You had copied the text from the original licence but that didn't include the category information our bots use to tell if a licence is valid. You should have used {{PD-textlogo}} instead, which includes both the text and the category information. If you are uploading files with an unusual licence and are unsure which {{template}} to use, feel free to ask on this page. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I did upload many of photographs using the license in question, precisely the the point b) which states (b) inventions, legal, administrative and judicial acts, as well as other official creations and their collections, presented in order to inform the public;. A photograph, in my opinion falls under official creations and their collection when are created or owned by government or other state agencies. Almost all the images in question are official portraits of state officials posted in governmental websites or official works in order to inform the public. Moreover, the definition of "public information" is also provided by another law, which I mentioned in a discussion in one of the images deleted. -- Bes-ARTTalk19:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
In addition, two very similar licenses in the text, which are based on laws similar to that of Albania, and which are used for similar purposes in commons.wikimedia are also those of {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}} and {{PD-Croatia-exempt}}, which also need to be considered here in terms of photographs. I am not mentioning the licenses of other countries, such as the UK, because they seem to be much more specific when it comes to stuff published by the government.-- Bes-ARTTalk20:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Can I upload an image from someone's Twitter account?
I was concerned about the copyright of Twitter and the reply from Vallery Lancey on April 24 that I said, "Can I upload these photos to Wikipedia?" I thought that Wikipedia accepts non-free work, kind of asking the photo owner about these images' permission. The tweet said, "16th and Mission," which took place in San Francisco, she edited these three photos and added alt text to make the photo beautiful. Although, she didn't reply to me, can I upload an image by Vallery Lancey into Commons? Evan0512 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)You can only upload the files to Commons if the copyright holder (i.e. Vallery Lancy) agrees to give her COM:CONSENT to do so. There are a few ways they can do this as explained here, here and here. In the first case, the copyright holder posts something on her Twitter account which clearly states that they are releasing the image in question under a free license that Commons accepts: once they do that anyone can upload the image to Commons and provide a link to the Twitter statement for verification purposes. In the second case, the copyright holder sends an email to Wikimedia VRT which states they're giving their consent for the image to be uploaded to Commons: they can do this after someone else has already uploaded the image, but the file will be deleted if their consent can't be verified. In the third case, the copyright holder creates an account on Commons, uploads the image themselves and then uses the VRT release generator to verify their consent.Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content as explained here and it only accepts certain types of licenses as explained here and here. English Wikipedia does allow certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded and used as non-free content, but there are lots of restrictions placed on it as explained here and here; so, you might want to ask about that over at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or en:Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
No way would English Wikipedia allow the photos in question be used under fair-use, as they are deemed ‘replaceable’ with a free-use photograph. Bidgee (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
All materials of the official website of Rosoboronexport JSC can be reproduced in any media, on Internet servers or on any other media without any restrictions on the volume and timing of publication, indicating the source (website www.roe.ru). The permission equally applies to newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV channels, websites and pages on the Internet. The only condition for reprinting and retransmission is a link to the original source (roe.ru). Rosoboronexport does not require prior consent for reprinting.
What licensing template should that be translated to? Someone has uploaded images and videos from the site as CC-Attribution, which isn't exactly what's being said here. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
No. The {{Attribution only license}} includes "[r]edistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." The roe.ru site makes no reference whatsoever to derivatives. This is required per COM:L, as is explicit reference to perpetual duration/irrevocability which is also lacking. Эlcobbolatalk15:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we need an explicit reference to perpetual or irrevocable is required ({{BSD}} doesn't) but it helps -- if a license like this does not mention it's revocable, or put a time limit on it, it's probably OK. Derivatives may be harder... a license like this may come down to what "reproduce" really means, since derivative works involve a certain amount of reproduction, but they also may not intend to allow that much (i.e. it's more of a -ND type license). That is more based on the particular wording, which can be lost in translation especially. I'd be most nervous about that aspect failing the "free" test. Otherwise it's pretty close, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
See also the section "#CC BY ??", a few sections below, with a similar question. It seems that the wording is used by several websites. "Reproduction" depends on context. Here, the context must allow at least some adaptation of the material of the website, for example if it is reused by a radio station, which is specifically allowed. Another aspect of concern is that the permission seems intended for use by the media. The difficulty is to decide if it must be understood as restricted or not to this type of use. The permission says that the material may be reproduced "в любых средствах массовой информации", "in any means of mass information". A restrictive understanding of the whole permission could be something like the material may be reused in mass-media of information (either on Internet or on any other support, such as newspapers, etc.). Or a permissive understanding would be to take "any other support", "любых иных носителяхnot", not only in the context of mass-media of information but also as allowing uses outside of that context. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
1. I suppose it depends on how restrictively or permissively the Russian term for "reproduction" can be interpreted, to include or not a reuse with modification. 2. Another question is that the permission seems mostly about reproduction by mass media of information. But how can " любых иных носителях " be interpreted? Would that include reusing the material by anyone in any way? 3. Even in cases when a license can be interpreted as being free enough to allow it, IMHO it is generally not a good idea to replace the original license with a different license when the material is merely copied to Commons without creative modification. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
1. I don't know, that is basically the essence of my question. 2. I would understand "или на любых иных носителях" of original Russian text of the license (awkwardly translated as or in any other media in the English version) as "not only in the Internet but also in paper editions, on TV and so on". But Commons is definitely covered by the next sentence, "Это разрешение в равной степени распространяется на газеты, журналы, радиостанции, телеканалы, сайты и страницы сети Интернет" (This permission applies equally to newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV stations, websites and pages on the Internet). 3. Fair enough; does it mean that in this case one should just copypaste the full text of the license to the pages of images taken from this website? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
A good solution is probably to contact the organisation and ask them what is their own official interpretation of the text of their permission. They could even be asked if they would consider placing their website under CC-by. On point 2, the problem is that all material on Commons is not limited to Commons and it must be reusable in any manner outside of Wikimedia. Can the permission, as worded, be reasonably read as allowing, for example, printing the material on T-shirts and coffee mugs for any purpose? On point 3, ideally the actual text of the license can be mentioned, although a template is also necessary on Commons. If the license is considered free enough, a specific template can be created for this website. Or some general template, such as attribution, might be used, provided that any subsequent reuser can still be made aware of the original license. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Does the inside of an airport terminal in Spain count as a public thoroughfare for purposes of determining whether a photo of a sculpture permanently located within the terminal is subject to freedom of panorama?
The New York Public Library has a collection of the photographs. They label each image (in a random sample I looked at), "Free to use without restriction", for example Image ID 1219157.
Does anyone know what the correct copyright status is, and why?
After further research, it seems the book and picture collection, respectively, are not the same thing. The book includes a fraction of the collection's pictures, plus original text. Abbott renewed the book's copyright in 1967. Since the pictures were made for the Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration, the proper template would be {{PD-USGov-WPA}}. Vzeebjtf (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Creative Commons
Hello,
I want to know if it's possible to use crop pictures (only portrait) on images with license Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 Internationalexample.
If the question is whether such crops are allowed by the licence, I think "NoDerivs" rules them out. Depending on the specific wording of the licence, of course. Here the licence seems to be CC-BY-NC-ND (the used label is non-standard), which seems to use legislation for the definition, probably the legislation in the jurisdiction where you are going to use the image (probably standardised in the Berne convention at least to some degree). I don't know to what extent cropping is seen as "modifying in a manner requiring permission". –LPfi (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Original deletion request
I uploaded a video yesterday and thought I had removed the audio track. The original still has it on it and needs to be deleted: Searls Station rail cars filled with Basalt by D Ramey Logan.webm. TY --Don (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@WPPilot: If you want to delete a file within 7 days of upload, you can add {{SD|G7}} to the page. That will mark the file for speedy deletion and an administrator will normally remove it in a few hours. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Then you need revision deletion. When I was in your situation, an admin recommended {{SD|G7}} and reupload. In that case there were not yet any edits to the file by others. You don't tell the name of your upload, so you have to figure out for yourself whether there are edits that should be kept in the file history. –LPfi (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Baby Ruth wrapper, and questions about Swiss copyright laws in general
A photograph of a Baby Ruth candy bar that I transferred from the English Wikipedia was recently deleted. However, the design on the packaging seems too simple to be copyrightable. Although someone pointed out that Nestlé is a Swiss company, the Wikipedia article says that it is an American candy bar.
So my questions are:
If an American product is made by a company based in another country, then which is the country of origin?
In this particular case, does the Baby Ruth logo exceed the threshold of originality in either Switzerland or the United States?
Is there a place where we can search Swiss copyright registrations, similar to the Library of Congress catalog for U.S. works?
I asked the first two questions in the DR but didn't get a clear response.
@Liuxinyu970226: Thanks for the explanation. This answers my first two questions. It would seem that the "country of origin" of a physical product is based on the location of the company rather than where the product is made or sold. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Legally, we are only required to follow US law. The source country rule is more of a customary thing intended to protect the most likely reusers of the image. In this case, I think it is pretty clear that the source country is the US, regardless of what its parent company is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠03:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
In this case, I would suggest to upload a SVG format of Baby Ruth trademark, as this would not be controversial to say below the TOO in US. The deletion rationale seems based on entire designation rather than just a logo. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Legally, since we only need to follow US law, we don't care about what the Berne Convention says is the country of origin, except in cases where US copyright law piggybacks off of the status in the source country (e.g. COM:URAA, which says that works are PD in the US if they were PD in their source country in 1996). In this case, COM:TOO US is a single standard that is applied by US law regardless of what country the work came from (see the Vodafone example for the US refusing to go along with the source country). As far as Commons is concerned, I think we should treat source country as a "come on, where is it really from?" rather than any particular legal definition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠04:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I haven't actually seen any Swiss court cases on the copyright of logos, so the deletion seems to be based on mere speculation/assumptions. I think what Lupo wrote in the 2012 discussion linked to by Ixfd64 still applies: "I have not found a case about the precise question of copyright on a logo; the Swiss appear to be not that litigious, and thus many edge cases that we like to consider here are, as far as I can see, simply not firmly settled in Swiss jurisprudence." Anyway, traditionally, Switzerland set a rather high, not low bar on TOO (unlike Austria, where even the simplest of text logos can be copyrighted, as confirmed by Austrian courts). So I would question the deletion of that Baby Ruth logo on the assumed grounds of likely protection in Switzerland. I'm not so sure it is even protected here (I'm Swiss myself). Gestumblindi (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding question #3, no, there are no Swiss "copyright registrations" at all, because Switzerland follows the Berne principle that copyright exists automatically from the creation of a work and doesn't need registration. There is a trademark register, of course, but that's not relevant here. Gestumblindi (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: Would it be fair to use the country and date of trademark registration for Berne countries like Switzerland which have no formal copyright registration process, as an indication of country of origin? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me13:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: So it seems that the threshold of originality in Switzerland may be higher than we expected. This would make sense as Switzerland is a civil law country. Do you think it would be a good idea to request undeletion of the image? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, it is not just the "Baby Ruth" logo after all but the whole packaging with various additional design elements, though these are rather simple, too. In the deletion discusion, SCP-2000, however, argued "The whole design (not only the logo) is complex". It seems to be a borderline case. Per Jeff G.'s suggestion, I tried to look up the trademark in the Swiss trademark register, but it seems that "Baby Ruth" is not registered as a trademark in Switzerland. It's apparently a US brand, though owned by a Swiss company, and as a Swiss person I can say that it is completely unknown here. So, if we we assume the US as the "country of origin" per that line of thought, I think we would be on the safe side to only consider US copyright for it as well. This still doesn't make it a clear case. Might it fall under COM:PCP? If yes, then it probably should stay deleted. Gestumblindi (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Per my comments above, I think we should open a broader discussion to get a consensus on what "source country" actually means, when such determination has no legal effect on US law (e.g. for COM:URAA). That is, in cases where "PD in source country" is just a Commons house rule, then we get to decide what it means. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠16:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The Berne Convention term is "country of origin". "Source country" is a very very similar concept for the URAA. Neither really have any bearing on threshold of originality; if you want to make use of a work in a country, then you need to follow that country's laws, whatever they are. If a work is from country A, and you are from country B, and it's below the TOO in both countries, but want to actually exploit the work in country C, then it's country C's threshold of originality that matters for that use (provided they have a copyright treaty with country A). Per Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., the U.S. will use only its own law to determine if something is a copyright infringement (which would include any threshold of originality issues). Berne Convention pretty much says the same -- a country's own laws govern use within that country. That logo is nowhere close to a U.S. copyright to me. The entire design on the wrapper... eh, probably not, though it is a little closer. There really aren't many elements to arrange. I don't really know about Switzerland, but they have seemed to have a higher threshold in many areas. Some countries used to have a higher threshold when trademarks were involved; unsure about Switzerland. But absent any court cases which give some solid indication of problems, I'd probably keep that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
With regards to the design as a whole, the logo seems to be the one used from 1997 to 2019. That alone is definitely below the threshold of originality. However, there is also a graphic element that contains the text "4 Grams Protein" on a yellow background. I'm pretty sure that is not copyrightable either. The question is whether these two elements are considered a single work or two separate ones. Even in the former case, I still think it's too simple to be copyrighted. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ixfd64 I guess the reason why SCP-2000 claim that "the whole design" is because of the aluminium foil part of package, not those texts? In this way, I need to know the physical composition of Baby Ruth packages before any attemps to request restore (or re-allowing import from en.wikipedia). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Info file is now under deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Extension siège L'Oréal (43707042205).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensMelogo.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RedStarNewspaper31.jpg#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Done Obvious copyvio, deleted. Yann (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment: I just found another image of the logo that was nominated for deletion but kept. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
