Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How to get a custom license tag with OTRS permission?

I am in contact with the Historical Krupp Archive and they want to get named in the license tag like you can see it in this example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:VfGH/Katharina_Fr%C3%B6schl-Ro%C3%9Fboth Who would create a template like this and at what stage of the licencing process? I just would like to explain/describe the process to the responsible archive personal as accurate as possible. Thanks for your advice! Yeti-Hunter (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Yeti-Hunter: Hi, and welcome. Please see COM:ON#How to have a 'organisation account' that can upload images without having to do OTRS permissions for every batch.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: , I would like to thank you for your advice. Best regards Yeti-Hunter (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Yeti-Hunter: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Flag From Image

Hello!

I have recreated the Flag of the Myanmar Ministry of Education, based on what I saw in two images (found at https://burmese.voanews.com/a/student-protest-at-education-conference-while-myanmar-state-counsellor-gave-speech/5263403.html and https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/myanmar-leader-aung-san-suu-kyi-detained-1.5895593?cmp=rss respectively). I was wondering what type of copyright law would apply to the design, considering it's an official symbol of a sector of the Myanmar Government. I was also wondering what options I would tick regarding copyright in the upload process.

Thank you for your time,

Gavinxps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinxps (talk • contribs) 04:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gavinxps. Not all countries release official works created by their government's employees into the public domain (PD), and Mynammar appears to be one of those that doesn't per its copyright law as explained in point #5 of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Myanmar#Summary; so, whether the images are PD might depend upon how old they are and when they were first published. So, if the orginal image is still considered to be protected by copyright, then any slavish reproduction of the image or derivative work incorporating the image probably cannot be kept by Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Anne Anderson images

There seems to be total confusion over the date of death of this illustrator. The category says 1874-1930, the info box on the same page says 1874-1952. To make sure it doesn't get boring, this image file has 1874-1931. Most Wikipedia language versions go with the May 26, 1952 version, with a few exceptions like the Spanish and the Polish ones that use 1930.

As this does make a difference for the question of public domain or not, and it would affect a whole bunch of images (some of which have now already received a deletion request), it seems necessary to find out which date is the correct one. --87.150.13.127 12:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The user who in 2015 changed the date from 1930 to 1952 explained her point [1]. Although that edit was made by an occasional user, it apparently remained unchallenged. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, good catch!
The reasoning does sound very much like original research though: "Some sources say 1930, others say 1936 (hey! That's a new one.) But I find it more credible that she died on May 26, 1952 because there is a burial entry for someone with a similar name for May 29, 1952..." - ?
The user does not tell us any source for the May 26 date, and she does not tell us who considers the 1952 date to have "more credence" (except herself), or why we should even assume that "Annie Wright" is identical with Anne Anderson. --87.150.13.127 15:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Another user added in 2019 a reference to The Times [2]. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Notifying User:Piecesofuk, who may be able to help. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Death notice in the Times was "WRIGHT - On May 26, 1952, at Little Audrey, Burghfield Common, Reading, ANNE (Anne Anderson), beloved wife of ALAN WRIGHT." Piecesofuk (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Also the probate record on Ancestry: "WRIGHT Annie of Little Audrey Burghfield Common Berkshire (wife of Herbert Alan Wright) died 26 May 1952 Administration Oxford 19 August to the said Herbert Alan Wright artist and sir David Anderson knight civil engineer. Effects £2796 6s. 2d. ", and biography of her husband on Suffolk Artists. Piecesofuk (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

O.k., thanks, everyone! While Ancestry is not considered a reliable source on the German WP at least, The Times should be convincing enough.
So I guess this means we will have to have all her pictures deleted now, or hide them somewhere and retrieve them next year after May 26? --87.150.13.127 18:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be Category:Undelete in 2023.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, goodness :-) I have no clue how that would work. I'll have to rely on you to do that. :-) --87.150.13.127 19:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
occam and occam 2 as used by INMOS Ltd (1983, 88)

I have got a warning [1] about the rights of the composite picture [2].

The picture is a composition (by me) of two scans of the covers of two books, as excerpts. I checked it in as not "my own work", since the original was done by INMOS Limited (UK) in 1983 and 1988. I did make a copyrgight type of statement, but I guess it wasn't accepted.

I have been in contact with some of the people that worked for INMOS at the time. A search on https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ for the word "occam" yields these comments by the person who did it: "It found 13 pages of trademarks, but many were similar sets of letters or spellings such as OCAM, OKAM, CO-CA, Mocca (a lot), COMAC. Having gone through all 121 marks, I did not find the Inmos graphics for “occam”. All the ones that relate to what we know – the classes of use and those registered by ST (who owned INMOS) are now dead. The only live logo is for bicycle parts and that company, and for a Swedish management consultancy. So, my conclusion would be that it is no longer a registered trademark."

How do I proceed to get this graphics accepted through Commons? –Aclassifier (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess that my question is what to write where in (if not, where?)

if I consider it own work since no trademarks exist --Aclassifier (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aclassifier#Copyright_status%3A_File%3A1983_1988_Trademark_occam_and_occam_2_INMOS_Limited.jpg

[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1983_1988_Trademark_occam_and_occam_2_INMOS_Limited.jpg

We are concerned here with copyright not with trademarks, see COM:L#Simple design. Normally images based on an in-copyright book cover are not allowed (one of the source books is here). However, in this case I think the design is simple enough to be below the UK threshold of originality, so you could use the {{PD-textlogo}} license tag. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I see that you have tagged it as "Keep" at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1983_1988_Trademark_occam_and_occam_2_INMOS_Limited.jpg. Now, can I still just tag it with {{PD-textlogo}}? And how should I do that? I am lost! I know that the terminology is "use the tag" but where and how? (Even as a year-long programmer I need help!) If I cannot do this tagging myself, must I just lean back and be no-proactive and wait and see? --Aclassifier (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Aclassifier: In this case, "tag" as a verb means to add a transcluded copyright tag template to a file description page, like in this edit. See also COM:FAQ#What licenses do the files I want to upload have to use? and Commons:Copyright tags.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Aclassifier: Sorry to baffle you with jargon. You are allowed to change the file page while the deletion request is open. I am suggesting you add {{PD-textlogo}} to the file page, which should go in the Licensing section, that is after the =={{int:license-header}}== line. See Template:PD-textlogo, which suggests also adding {{Trademarked}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: and @Verbcatcher: thanks! I have now added the textlogo and trademarked tags in that section. I'd be happy to have it verified that it landed correcly :-) The latter, even if all trademarks are of "Status: dead" long ago (https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ for "occam" @ INMOS / SGS-Thomson). Now, who decides whether to still delete? And when? –Aclassifier (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Aclassifier: it looks good. Deletion requests are normally closed by a Commons administrator. This can take anything from a few days to several months. Meanwhile the image can still be used in Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: Thanks. Fingers crossed! –Aclassifier (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I add these photos?

On lostart.ru I found photos that I want to add to the article. That website is entity Ministry of Culture of Russia. Statue (the second one) was made in middle ages, and {{PD-RU-exempt}} says that folklore art is not copyrighted. Statue was lost durning WW2 and only photos made before war (1928-1929) exist. I don't know if photos are copyrighted here, there is no mention of author. There are already some photos on Commons from that website. Sławobóg (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

cc-by-2.5-ar or cc-by-.40

I have upload images from argentina.gob.ar (Argentine government portal) with the {{Cc-by-2.5-ar}}. Special:ListFiles/Malvinero10. But, that license has changed to {{Cc-by-4.0}} (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/terminos-y-condiciones#5). So, I simply changed the licenses (like here). ¿Is this correct?--Malvinero10 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible online meeting with IPOPHL on freedom of panorama for the Philippines (and possibly government-published images)

Reply to en:Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Possible online meeting with IPOPHL on freedom of panorama (and possibly government-published images) if you're interested to attend. I'm not sure though if they will accept participants who are not living in the Philippines, but if you are a Philippine resident, then please consider joining! pandakekok9 03:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: perhaps they will accept, as this meeting is not limited to Wikipedians here (per the reply email to me). Though unfortunately I may not be able to attend due to school and personal reasons, and also my occasional cough triggered by common colds (which fortunately has reduced). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Fourier2.jpg

Does anyone know whether I am legally allowed to reuse the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fourier2.jpg in an ebook I am writing?

I have read all the rights restrictions about this image and the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs page, but I am still in doubt because of the source of the picture.

The picture is tagged as being in the public domain with no restrictions on use. However, the source for the picture according to the Wikimedia page is Getty Images. They are selling the picture for $500 with all sorts of license restrictions. I found the same picture on Alamy for $70 again with license restrictions. I am really confused.

Is this image in the public domain or not?

Am I opening myself to copyright claims from Getty or Alamy if I use the picture?

Can anyone advise me?

Thanks, Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkNewman1976 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@MarkNewman1976: Hi, It depends. 1) As you saw in the wording of the PD-Art template and in the more detailed explanation in the "Reuse of PD-Art" page, one thing to consider is where (in what country or countries) your book will be published. An almost identical reproduction of a public domain original may be considered non-creative and thus also in the public domain in the United States and in some countries but it may not be public domain in some other countries, where the person who made the reproduction may own rights on that particular reproduction. You should be careful when, for example, a particular reproduction was made for a museum known to be enforcing its copyrights in Germany. 2) Another thing is to determine if the reproduction is actually considered creative, even in a country like the United States. If it is creative, it cannot be used without permission. 3) Which brings us to examine the facts regarding the image that interests you. It is offered commercially on the Getty website by a business that offers good reproductions of public domain originals. Some reproductions may be almost identical to the original and some may be modified, cleaned or colorized. You can compare a particular reproduction with other reproductions, known to be close to the original, and evaluate what type of modifications may have been made. For example, cleaning up the image may not be considered creative, but making a colorized version of the image may be considered creative and thus generate a copyright for the maker of that version. The image on Getty looks like it was colorized from the monochrome original. Compare with other versions of the original on Commons, File:Joseph Fourier.jpg, File:Fourier.jpg. You could have to do more research to find when and by whom the color version of the portrait was first published. It may be old. But if it is creative and if it is recent, it can be under copyright. 4) By the way, there are oddities about that page on Commons. The Getty version was uploaded by overwriting a different image that had a different source. That should not have happened. Also, a user attributed the image to Louis Boilly instead of Julien Boilly, which may or may not be correct but is different from the usual attribution. A misattribution would be a violation of the perpetual moral rights of the family in the country of origin. In the absence of more information, the status of the colored version on Commons is questionable. If you want to be cautious, it may be preferable to use a reproduction from a known public domain source. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Is 'Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)' a valid Licence that can be used here?And if it is,which is the appropriate tag for it?Any help(ASAP) would be appreciated.NairobiPapel (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but please specify the version from the list at Category:CC license tags. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Prohibied on Expressway sign in Philippines F102010.jpg

The claimed source of File:Prohibied on Expressway sign in Philippines F102010.jpg is at http://www.aaroads.com/forum/ (exact image: http://baldrunner.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/img_4462.jpg). Is the website CC-licensed or is this file a copyvio? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I tagged it as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 and Marchjuly: That tag was changed by JWilz12345 to a DR, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prohibied on Expressway sign in Philippines F102010.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi JWilz12345. This would probably fall under COM:CB#Road signs in that the sign itself might be too simple to be protected by copyright, but the photo of the sign might be considered a COM:DW, which means it's copyirght also needs to be considered. So, the copyright of the photo would be held by the original photographer (who I'm assuming is the person who wrote the baldrunner blog) and not the person who uploaded the photo to the AAroads forum or Commons unless they are all the same person. The blog post for this photo can be found here and the caption given is "Reason Why I Can't Run @ NLEX". The person who writes this blog seems to be pretty good about attributing photos that he didn't take and this photo doesn't seem to be attributed; so, my guess is that it was probably taken by the blog writer. I don't know what kind of licensing is typical for a Wordpress blog, but you can (if you want) contact the writer here and ask him about the image per COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder if you want to see if they're willing to give their COM:CONSENT for the file to be hosted by Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345, Jeff G., and Marchjuly: Commons:WikiProject Highways/Licensing#Asia told me that "Philippines - {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}"?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226 and Marchjuly: this is not an issue of DW. This is more of the photo itself: the external links indicated at the source and author fields make the copyright status of the file questionable. As for an attempt to contact the photographer, I have no time today (as of this writing) as new school works have been assigned just a while ago (it is afternoon Monday today here). But IMO (my opinion only), our road signs are not copyrighted because they are not objects of copyright in the first place (does not fall among the objects at COM:CRT/Philippines#Applicability). For this reason there are graphical renditions of road signs here like File:Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) sign.svg, File:Balete Drive sign.svg, and File:Magsaysay Boulevard sign.svg. Many of our road signs are simple too. As for that entry on that Commons page on highways, the history shows Rschen7754 added that in 2017. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't think any of those templates cover photos of signs - they only cover SVG/PNG renditions of those signs. --Rschen7754 19:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G., Marchjuly, and Liuxinyu970226: I got a reply from them (Bald Runner) via Messenger, after messaging them about this file and also a request if they would like to release the file under a free license (specifically CC-BY-SA 3.0 as used by the file). Their reply was: "I took this picture with my cellphone camera and had it posted as part of my blog. Anybody can use this picture as my blog is for the public. There is no need for other users to ask permission from me as the source of this photo. Thank you for the information. Cheers!" JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I think the preferred way to do so is COM:OTRS? i.e. tell that friend to send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, to confirm that they wanna free release this image under a proper license, note that the URL of deletion request "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Prohibied_on_Expressway_sign_in_Philippines_F102010.jpg" must be included in the body texts of e-mail. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I already told them via that message. I'm still awaiting for the response if they would like to submit an OTRS email correspondence (I messaged them last night). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
It's nice that he feels that way, but I don't think that's sufficient for Commons, at least not anymore. He might also feel differently if someone was to start using his blog photos or stories in a way he doesn't approve of. Those kinds of things would be allowed under a license that Wikimedia Commmons accepts. If he wants to release the content of his blog that way, then can simply do so as explained in here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 and Marchjuly: it's been more than a day since I sent a latest message to him via Messenger, which contains the email address indicated at COM:OTRS, and still I got no reply. Perhaps the floor is yours - I will leave the decision to keep or delete the file to the admins. The involved file is not my upload anyway - I've done my part in an attempt to contact the photographer. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Which rights template is needed for images of Evry Cathedral?

I requested and received nine images of Evry Cathedral in France for posting on Wikimedia Commons from the architect himself, Mario Botta, sent by his assistant, with his permission to use them. I uploaded the images, but they have been recommended for deletion. I am told I need permission directly from both the architect and the photographer. I will send them a template to be returned to Commons, but I don't know which template for which rights to use. Could seomone advise me? Many thanks! SiefkinDR (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: Please have them send permission via OTRS with carbon copy to you to keep you in the loop.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Work published much later from manuscript

What would be the copyright status of a book whose author died in 1908, but whose work was published from his manuscript only in the 1960s (outside of the US)? Dovi (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The copyright likely lasted for 70 years after the death of the author regardless of the date of publication -- until 1979. Ruslik (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Isn't there some kind of special protection for "unpublished works" that lengthens the period of copyright? Dovi (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
No, there is not. Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's called publication rights. Often these are claimed incorrectly on public domain works, that may not have been formally published, but were made available to the public much earlier, sometimes centuries earlier than the claimed first "publication".
Treat such claims with caution, but they do exist. List of countries' copyright lengths#Table of copyright duration by country --Fæ (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Fæ. In this case the book was still under copyright when first published in the 1960s. Dovi (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the list, I note the following:

  • Many countries have something like "50 years after publication or if unpublished 50 years from creation". But they don't mention books that were published long after they were written.
  • For the US it says: "95 years from publication for works published 1964–77; 28 (if copyright not renewed) or 95 years from publication for works published 1924–63". This does not seem to take into account a case where the author died long before.

In the case at hand, the volumes in question appeared in print from 1962 through 1975. They appear as straight transcriptions of the author's manuscript, without editing. Dovi (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  • For Finland it is 70 years pma, not extended by publication. Only for anonymous works, for which copyright lasts 70 years after creation, publication extends the copyright term with 70 years. Works not published during the copyright term get a shorter term (25 years?) of publication right. I think this is more or less the same across the EU (with exceptions such as the French about the war). if the copyediting, layout etc. are above the threshold of originality it is 70 years p.m.a. of those authors, or if they are anonymous, which probably is the case, 70 years from publication. Otherwise the original 70 years p.m.a. counts, making the books free in EU before the URAA date and thus also in the USA. –LPfi (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I suppose that if there was little copy editing, also the layout was probably straight forward, and thus it might not be under copyright. If the layout is above the threshold, a transcription (scan+OCR+copy editing+new layout) would still be allowed and could be released with a free licence (on src?). –LPfi (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Without the scan to examine, it's not possible to be definitive. If there's doubt, but you feel the weight of evidence is that the images are out of copyright, then upload it.
Copy editing is not copyrightable, but if the "manuscript" was literally that, then the transcription may well be copyrighted depending on whether the original was abbreviated or hard to read. For example transcriptions of medieval documents are often copyrighted because they are often translations and a decoding of the original takes significant skill even in the same language. Similarly modern documents, like Joe Orton's diaries, were in short-hand and transcribing the phonetic shorthand to full English may again introduce valid transcription copyrights as there are often different ways to transcribe the same sentence based on context and vocabulary choices; "had a lovely long wink" to quote the film. --Fæ (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

First upload of logo for wikidata and OSM. Your review appreciated

Hi all

I've been contributor to openstreetmap for 10 years now and more recently to wikidata. I currently focus on helping link shops (in osm) to retail chains via wikidata and the name-suggestion-index repository (note : I have no link of interest of any sort with those retail chains).

In this context, I just uploaded the logo of Natalys on File:Logo_natalys.svg. I'd like to upload more but with great care about the requirements of wiki commons.

This being my first upload, I thought it best to contact the wikicommons community. I read Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Trademarks and checked other logos templates before uploading this one. Asclepias on Commons:Bistro advised me to come here.

I believe this logo is simple enough with only text to use the PD-textlogo template. But would appreciate any comment if you think that's incorrect or if my upload can be improved.

Thanks

--Nuxper (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Derivative work of bus map

I found a some historic bus map at https://transphoto.org/photo/573077, and want to draw a map from scratch in QGIS like this image:

Does such map will be acceptable for Commons, or this still is a derivative work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svetlov Artem (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 February 2021‎ (UTC)

The bus itinerary does not appear to be itself original. So, if you draw it on a map using a different presentational form, it will not be a derivative. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Public Domain Mark 1.0

What is the proper license tag for CC Public Domain Mark 1.0? Thank you for your help. Vzeebjtf (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you want to use this for content someone else published with this license? In that case, you can use {{Cc-pd}}. To release a work of your own into public domain, you can use {{Cc-zero}}. To indicate that a work is public domain for some other reason, there are specific tags. --rimshottalk 11:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Vzeebjtf and Rimshot: I think the correct template where the author has applied the Public Domain Mark is {{PDMark-owner}}. {{Cc-pd}} is for the Public Domain Dedication, which is a different thing. --bjh21 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You're right, of course. --rimshottalk 12:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I found it on Internet Archive here, in the documentation. (Click on "Show more".) Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC))
In that case, it's the Internet Archive identifying the work as PD, not the original copyright holder. Means that {{PDMark-owner}} does not apply, but it gives a clue about what to do: Figure out the reason it is (believed to be) in the public domain, then go to Commons:Copyright tags/General public domain and find the appropriate template for that reason. --El Grafo (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
... or in this case probably better Commons:Copyright_tags/Country-specific_tags#United_States_of_America. Unfortunately, the Internet Archive does not tell uns why they consider this to be in the public domain. Next year, it will be old enough for {{PD-US-expired}}. Could be that {{PD-US-not renewed}} applies, but that would require additional research. --El Grafo (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The uploader's email address is not functional, so I looked the title and author up in the Catalog of Copyright entries for 1953 and 1954 (copyright is 1926), and didn't find it; therefore, I'm going to go with {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Thank you all for your help. Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There are several books titled The Way Things Work, but the one I refer to here is a 4 volume set published in the 1970s (example on eBay). The entirety of the copyright page reads:

© Bibliographisches Institut and George Allen & Unwin Ltd., English Edition

© Bibliographisches Institut and Simon + Schuster Inc., American Edition

Edito-Service S.A., Geneva, Publishers

Importantly, there is no year of copyright given. The clues I have as to the publication date are:

  • no ISBN number (pre-1980s)
  • refers to computer punch cards (pre-1980s)
  • refers to an IBM Selectric 72 typewriter (which I assume is from 1972)
  • refers to the Obrigheim Nuclear Power Plant (1969-2005)

Since there is no year given, the copyright notice would have been invalid according to U.S. law. However, I'm not sure what the country of origin is. It looks like it was simultaneously published in the U.S. and Britain, so it may be necessary to look at British copyright law from the 1970s as well (and perhaps Swiss?). To make things even more complicated, the book is apparently a translation of a German book titled Wie funktioniert das? (date also unknown).

If the book is in fact public domain due to an invalid copyright notice, it contains hundreds of high quality, encyclopedic illustrations that could be added to Commons. Anyone want to offer their take on the copyright status? Kaldari (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like the author was Swiss, and WorldCat has it as published in Switzerland. The author lived from 1934 to 2010. If it was a derivative work of an earlier German publication, I don't think there is any hope for U.S. PD status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Bernie Sanders at the swearing-in ceremony.jpg

This image File:Bernie Sanders at the swearing-in ceremony.jpg may not be under the correct license. Evrik (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Uploads by Garand377AB

Garand377AB uploaded a bunch of nice geometry images and 3D-models (@Garand377AB: ). Many of them are in use. I am unhappy with the license. The source does not mention CC-4.0 but says "Problemas y Ecuaciones ©". So I tagged some with „missing permission“. Two points:

  1. There is a link on the lower right under „Otros termas“ to matesfacil.com which states that matesfacil.com is CC, but there is no mention of the real source problemasyecuaciones.com and the authors names are different. I do not think that counts, but i could be wrong.
  2. Most images are simple geometry. I think Template:PD-shape applies. So my idea was to just change the license and everything is fine. But swapping the license of files is something I would prefer a second opinion on.

Thanks and greetings --Jahobr (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

1933 photograph published in a Swedish newspaper

This photograph was, according to the information provided, published in the newspaper Upsala Nya Tidning in 1933. It was taken by Paul Sandberg (sv), who according to his article was a Swedish photographer who did freelance photography for the paper and died in 1951. Although the photograph is available with a CC BY-NC-ND license, that won't cut it here. It seems that {{PD-old-70}} will apply in ten more months in any event, but has copyright already expired due to the 1933 publication, given that a) the publication was 88 years ago, and b) copyright was presumably held by the newspaper? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The copyright always runs until 70 years pass after death of the human author. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I upload photos from these book?

I found interesting photos from Oudheidkundig Verslag 1930 (photos) in Internet Archive. So far I can't find the author but it was published in 1930 by Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen.

If I'm not wrong in understanding the copyright rules, the book is now in public domain because the copyright is expired in 2000 (1930 + 70 = 2000) in The Netherlands (where the publication took place). If I set the length to 100 years (where it's more preferable by Wikimedia Commons), it means that I have to wait 10 year to clear the copyright expiration. But, the Digital Collections from KITLV/Leiden and Tropenmuseum had photos from the book and they licensed it as CC.

So, can I upload these photos? AnsyahF (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@AnsyahF: Not speaking Dutch it's a bit challenging to be firm on any details, but there are a number of issues that would concern me in that regard.
First of all, this work was published in 1931, not 1930. Naturally enough since it seems to contain an edited collection of reports of various things for the year 1930.
Second, your given term of publication + 70 years seems to be based on the author being unknown. But the introduction is initialled by the editor, which presumably makes them identifiable, and at least several pieces within the work appear to be attributed to specific named persons. Even if the individual photographs are not attributed to a specific photographer, we may presume copyright to be held by the author of the article with which it is associated. If the author is not unknown then the term is pma. 70, and it would take research into the vital years of the various authors to determine expiry; and expiry by now would be less likely under that term.
Third, the term in the Netherlands is one thing, but even under the most generous term (1931+70) the work was in copyright in its source country on the URAA date (1 January 1996), meaning its US copyright would have been restored to a term of publication + 95 years (i.e. until 2027) barring exceptional circumstances. --Xover (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Even Delpher.nl isn't sure about the copyright. So, based on your reply (either the URAA protection or the book's affiliation), I don't think there's any hope for the book to be in public domain. Even the URAA protection is expired, it's still inconclusive to photographs's copyright. AnsyahF (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Fag24.jpg

http://photokade.com is not cc by 4 Baratiiman (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: Hi, and welcome. I tagged that file as a copyright violation (and most of the uploader's files), and started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nikrad2020. Thank you for your vigilance.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What if exif and uploader don't match?

In the last time I noticed a lot of speedy deletions of files which are uploaded by users who maybe didn't take the photo themself but uploaded it under a free license. I don't mean really obvious copyvios with bad resolution or taken from the web etc but when simply exif and uploader don't match. Last example was (@Túrelio and Lutheraner: ) File:20170820JuniorenEM C1 Zoe Jakob.jpg, uploaded by User:JamesTJohnson, author as per exif is Manuela Schwerte and depicted is Zoe Jakob. Why do we assume it is a copyvio? The uploader of course may have an oral or written approval by the photograph or it may just be the nickname of the photograph herself. Would't at least a regular deletion request or asking the uploader for an OTRS ticket be the right way to deal with?

What's the difference between the first case and Category:Images from CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion? Those photos are publizised by the german governing party on their homepage under CC license, uploaded here and licence reviewed. Of course they are taken by professional photographers and neither by the uploaders to the homepage/commons nor by the depicted persons. There were some discussions about those pictures years ago and it was decided to keep them, which I fully agree with. In my opinion we're not the CIA to investigate the history of origins. --Indeedous (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is question of trust. We trust CSU-Bundestagsfraktion but not random accounts uploading some random photos as their own. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this capitol security camera footage public domain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y-yBkGeHJI Victorgrigas (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of that video you're referring to, but security camera footage from US Federal Government sources is clearly PD-USGov.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Harry, Walter and Guy Hillier, with three dogs

Hi, what do you think of this photo? It was taken in 1880, but the owner allow only non-commercial use. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom says: "Anonymous works: Photographs created before 30 June 1957: 70 years after creation if unpublished, 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation". It was published in 2014. William Saunders died in 1892. It seems to be PD. What do you think? --Regasterios (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Regasterios: I think copyright probably expired in 1880+70+1=1951 (or earlier) as unpublished, and was not revived by publication.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: thank you for your help. See File:Harry, Walter and Guy Hillier, with three dogs.jpg. --Regasterios (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Glyph stroke order

A user contends at Commons:Deletion requests/File:碎-order.gif that there is a consensus here that "files only consisting of text glyphs are not copyrightable". Is that true? If so, does that apply to gif files showing the order to use in making pen strokes to compose such glyphs? There are 8 files or file versions affected per User talk:Jeff G.#About a user who uploaded copyrighted images as new versions.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I am not an expert on the applicable law, but here are my thoughts:
  • Simply arguing that a work is copyright free because it is made of uncopyrightable components is not a particularly convincing argument. Individual letters or words are not copyrightable, but a specific arrangement of letters or words which make a poem is not.
  • The above analogy is not perfect, however, because a series of fundamentally similar images based on common knowledge (stroke order) might not meet the threshold of originality under copyright law as a poem clearly would.
  • US courts have found that vector fonts are copyrightable as written works (computer code) because they are not mere expressions of the shape of glyphs but actual instructions for how a computer should draw them. I would suggest that these gifs might be protectable as motion pictures because they are animated instructions for how a person should draw various glyphs.
  • These files appear to originate from Vietnam. How does Vietnamese law protect typefaces? They may have a different threshold of originality than the US, and works must freely usable in both the United States and their country of origin to be eligible for hosting on Commons.
In any case, this is a very interesting case and I am interested in seeing what others have to say.  Mysterymanblue  08:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Upload from Flickr

I don't get this: uploaded via Flickr and licensed "cc-by-sa-2.0", but the metadata say quite clearly "all rights reserved, no reproduction of any kind", plus the name and contact information of the photographer. Can someone explain please? --87.150.14.40 13:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the cc-by-sa-2.0 mark takes precedence over the EXIF. The photo could've been "all rights reserved" at the time it was uploaded to Flickr, before it was relicensed to cc-by-sa. pandakekok9 13:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
But why, and how? Did the photographer himself upload it to Flickr? Would that automatically relicense the photo? Why would he do that if he had previously decided to explicitly want "all rights reserved, no reproduction of any kind"? It just doesn't make sense to me. --87.150.14.40 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
A License Reviewer could ask via Flickrmail.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
So would that be an issue with this particular image or with Flickr uploads in general (in which case, there's probably a help page out there somewhere that I don't know about)? I have a faint memory of reading the term "flickrwashing" somewhere... but I can't quite make sense of it yet. --87.150.14.40 20:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That would be an issue with this particular image. It could be an issue with some or all of that photographer's uploads. I sent him Flickrmail.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The correct license is cc-by-sa-2.0.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
O.k., thanks! So what was that "flickrwashing" thing I had in the back in my mind? Is there some information on that out there somewhere? I've come across similar things a couple of times and had been wondering. --87.150.14.40 11:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see Commons:License laundering, which has 17 redirects.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! Live and learn. :-) --87.150.14.40 00:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No FOP in Bulgaria but, Template:FoP-Bulgaria?

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bulgaria#Freedom of panorama, there is no Commons-applicable FOP in Bulgaria. However, there's a template titled {{FoP-Bulgaria}}, which when visited just only gives the period when a certain Bulgarian architecture and sculpture falls public domain. IMO this should be renamed {{PD-Bulgaria-artistic work}} or some other similar title (in line with {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}} which I created two months ago and based on {{PD-US-architecture}}). Your thoughts on this? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's OK to be renamed. I'm not even sure why if/why we need such a template when "Art. 27(1) and (2)" are a standard "70+ years after author's death", which is covered by a more generic template {{PD-old-70}}. --StanProg (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@StanProg: since the generic template works as well, I chose to use it for the three eligible files previously at Category:FoP-Bulgaria. One file depicts a graffiti and so I used the generic {{Non-free graffiti}}. The remaining two seems to fail PD, and therefore have been filed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:FoP-Bulgaria. For the template itself, I nominated it at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Bulgaria since {{PD-old-70}} works the same way as it, and it just leads to misconception that there is Commons-applicable FOP in that country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I have on my computer a rare picture of an artist featured on Wikipedia. I'd ideally like a link in a reference there, to go to the picture of him stored on Commons. (It's my original newspaper clipping, but I don't think that matters.) The problem is that the clipping came a New York Herald Tribune newspaper issue of 1931. I note that paper is still under copyright. I was wondering if there is a license tag that might still work. Such as: WP has a fair use tag for a newspaper picture, if it is reduced in size and needed for ID purpose. Does Commons have any similar tag that might work. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC) PS. The picture of him has a two sentence caption underneath, though I can always crop off that caption, though it helps describe the picture.

@JimPercy: Commons does not accept fair use at all. If you are willing to do some digging, there are two reasons the photo might be in the public domain. US copyright law at the time required a copyright notice on all published works; if you have a copy of the full newspaper, you can check to see whether it has "Copyright 1931" anywhere on it; if not, it's public domain. The copyright would also have to have been renewed (you could check this by following the instructions at COM:RENEWAL); however, https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/nyheraldtrib suggests that they did renew many issues. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Vahurzpu: Thanks for reply. Okay, so I tried something else. Namely, set up a Gallery heading (at far bottom), on the WP page of the artist. (I don't want these two portrait images to be lost in time.) I have never done this before. Hence, my setting it up could be off a spec. It's located at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin_(illustrator) UPDATE. New York Herald Tribune, Feb. 22, 1931. Front page says atop "Copyright 1931." I haven't been able to figure out the renewing copyright part yet. So will have to strongly assume it was renewed. JimPercy (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Filament20

All their uploads seem to be copyright violations, either screenshots or taken directly from the internet. I have just explained to them at en.wiki that they must only upload free-to-use images. Can someone mass-delete all the images? Nehme1499 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Mass-nominated for deletion. Regards. T CellsTalk 23:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

PD or Not?

Hi, I'm wondering if photos such as this from circa 1893 would be Public Domain now even though they (the Arkansas State Archives) claim the rights? If so what licence template should be used? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That was clearly a publication at the time, so there is no longer any copyright on the content. The archives might conceivably be claiming copyright on the photograph itself -- there are some 3D fasteners along the edges of that photo -- but a crop to the original content would almost certainly make that {{PD-Art}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
If Arkansas state workers for example had created that montage recently, the boilerplate might be relevant- and I doubt they have the time or interest to decide when the boilerplate is irrelevant for specific images. It appears from the image the montage was created near the time of the legislative session, so my guess is that this would be PD-US, due to its age making the accompanying boilerplate notice inapplicable for this particular image.J JMesserly (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wondering

I hesitate to start a deletion process, but I am wondering: Why should we assume that user Friendly Toad is identical with Marco Vega, photographer of this image? --87.150.14.40 00:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Was the photo available on the internet, in that resolution, prior to upload? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

New notition of the licenses

I used to upload my images via Commonnist and with standard liceses. But after a long time I uploaded a few images as:

File:02310017_ROBIENE_(04).JPG

and now I see the the liceses are changed. It seems that:

{{User:Stunteltje/license}} {{Self|Cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL|attribution={{User:Stunteltje/attribution2}} }}

are no longer correct. See:

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike missing SDC copyright status| CC-BY-SA-3.0| Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 missing SDC copyright license| License migration redundant| GFDL| GNU Free Documentation License missing SDC copyright license| Self-published work| Self-published work missing SDC copyright license|

My question is: Can anyone give me the correct new notition of the licenses?--Stunteltje (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Stunteltje: Please ignore the "missing SDC copyright license" cats. A bot will come along to add information about your file to SDC, removing such cats.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Stunteltje: You're very welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Close your "Self" template with the double accolade. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Congress security videos and Capitol police bodycam videos PD-USGov-Congress?

Consider this CSPAN video "Security Footage of Officer Goodman directing Romney" which was evidence presented on the floor of the Senate regarding the second Trump impeachment. I know the material of the house manager speaking at the beginning of the video is PD-CSPAN, but I am interested in uploading stills and video from congress's security videos such as that at timecode 54 seconds in which was shown on the senate floor. My presumption is that clips which only had silent security video content would be PD-USGov-Congress because they are works of the US government, and it would be best to post cropped versions of these with this template. For the uncropped CSPAN frame, my presumption is that it would be best to use PD-CSPAN using the rule for aggregate content since the notice points out the more restrictive rules of use for CSPAN material. It would be kind if anyone could take time to post comments and opinions on this. I know these rights issues are complicated and would like to know prior to extracting and uploading such material. Would the same apply for Capitol Police bodycam video also used as evidence? J JMesserly (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think that a video being silent or not makes any difference? Ruslik (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: It's a legalistic technical nit which is possibly an irrelevant distraction that I should not have mentioned, but since you ask- The security videos do not have audio. Any audio present would technically make such a clip aggregate content, the audio rights for which are CSPAN's who would have restrictions if the video were displayed in a committee. The restriction is not relevant since the content was presented on the Senate floor, but I would think it considerate to mention that a portion of the aggregate content was CSPAN's subject to its rules (which allows its use on Commons).
Whether this consideration is or is not an issue, do you have any opinion on the larger issue: whether It is proper to upload such capitol police security videos to Commons?J JMesserly (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
We can't use any of CSPAN's stuff here. The reason the Senate/House floor stuff is OK is because the cameras there are the government's, not C-SPAN's, so that video (and/or audio) is PD-USGov-Congress. CSPAN simply rebroadcasts that, while adding their logo. If there is any CSPAN content beyond the raw feed, then there could be an issue. Security camera footage from the Capitol would also be PD-USGov-Congress (if even eligible for copyright, which is a harder question, so probably just stick with PD-USGov). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, since there appears to be no comments arguing the content cannot be placed on Commons, I will proceed as I proposed using PD-USGOV-Congress. Regarding CLindberg's statement "can't use any of CSPAN's stuff", I am sure s/he is aware we do have a PD-CSPAN template, used by nearly a hundred Common images. I presume by "their stuff" what was meant was the material using CSPAN equipment and facilities, such as content from CSPAN studio interviews and moderators interacting with CSPAN viewers. J JMesserly (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a perhaps distinct issue, but Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices may be useful. It say that for fixed surveillance cameras, it is an untested issue in the United States. On the other hand, fixed surveillance footage in England goes to the owner. In many continental European countries, this is not true--there it does not surpass the threshold of originality. And in Russia, security footage is not considered a work of authorship.
I don't think this is the same case as for bodycams, but perhaps this is useful. I'd also be curious if my understanding here is correct. If so, I can think of a couple photos and videos that might be useful. Jlevi (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for feedback: Copyright status: File:Anita Caspary and James Shannon.jpg

Seeking guidance on first Wikimedia upload. File is an image of an artwork (a double portrait of two persons who have Wikipedia pages, both of which are absent any visuals). While it has not been released with a Creative Commons license, this is neither an attempt to assert nor test fair use since the terms of use provided by the owning institution proactively identify acceptance of "personal, educational, and other non-commercial uses" (Smithsonian terms of use, see: 2b. "Other Content – Usage Conditions Apply", cross-referenced to the file's "Usage Conditions Apply": National Portrait Gallery's page for 'Anita Caspary and James Shannon'). Cannot otherwise find applicable chapter and verse in copyright or help pages, unsure if OTRS is appropriate, ready to delete upload if incorrect about use case. --Migozared (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Other non-commercial use" which I interpreted as CC-BY-NC isn't compatible with Commons. Permission is required for this image. Regards. T CellsTalk 22:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@T Cells: Thanks for thoughts, will proceed with removal. Migozared (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(c) for photo from books

I have come across this photo from WikiCommons. It was uploaded there by an editor who photographed a book page, presented it as "own work", and offered it as copyright-free for further use. It shows an event from 1918. I have checked and it is being offered FOR A FEE by the Central Zionist Archives here. I know this doesn't mean that the CZA are the (only) reproduction rights or (c) holders, but I also don't know if our colleague's formulation ("own work") is OK. I also believe one should check if the actual photographer isn't known by name, as he should be mentioned in the file as the actual author. There weren't all that many official photographers in Jerusalem in 1918. Anyone who knows the laws (which differ from area to area, stricter in the EU and less so in the US) & WP rules? Arminden (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The claim of "own work" is incorrect as the uploader is clearly not the author. This needs to be corrected. However, this is one of the series of photos taken at the Hebrew University Cornerstone laying in 1918 by Strajmaster & Werner and should be in the public domain in Israel since it was taken before May 2008 and possibly PD in the U.S as it looks like it was published prior to January 1926. I have fixed the copyright information. Regards. T CellsTalk 17:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Countries above 95 years for anonymous works

Do any countries actually have copyright terms for anonymous works that exceed 95 years from publication? Here's my understanding:

  • The United States (CRT) and Jamaica (CRT) both have 95-year terms.
  • Ivory Coast (CRT) had 99-year terms until 2016, when they were dropped down to 70 years. What I don't know, however, is whether the reductions were applied to existing copyrights or just newly-created ones.
  • Mexico (CRT) normally uses life plus 100 years, but the CRT page says that "[a]nonymous works are in public domain until the author or the owner of the rights are identified".

I ask because I wonder if this makes the one year-holding parameter within {{PD-anon-expired}} superfluous. Its life as {{PD-anon-1923}} made it clear that it meant to track US terms, particularly in 2008 when 1923 was 85 years ago, but I honestly think that the change in situation makes {{PD-anon-expired}} very well suited to become a PD-worldwide tag. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are basically right -- that is effectively a global tag. Mexico does have a 100 year term for government works, which are one form of anonymous works -- but yes, their law is a bit different in that way. That is, so far, just a nominal term -- it was 30pma as of 1982, so expirations have effectively been frozen since then, and so are about 69pma now (69 years from publication for government works), increasing one each year. It would take another 27 years before their government works term would actually go beyond 95. The Ivory Coast was similar -- they increased from 50 to 99 non-retroactively, so expirations were simply frozen, and they changed their law to 70pma just as the effective term reached that point. So no anonymous work was ever actually protected for more than 70 years from publication there. Jamaica went from 50 to 95 in 2015... their existing law was by default non-retroactive, while the 2015 amendment does not specifically say other than the term extensions were deemed effective on January 1, 2012 (so a little bit retroactive), but no anonymous work more than about 60 years old is still protected there (though that will again increase by one each year). I guess the line there is 1960 (as 1961 works, due to expire on Jan 1 2012, presumably got extended). The various U.S. -expired tags were renamed from -1923 tags, since I guess we did not want to put the number 95 in the tag (in case the U.S. increased it again), but the PD-anon-1923 tag was meant to be a combined tag for the U.S. plus other countries, and still is -- it would apply pretty much everywhere. I think 80 years from publication (Colombia and in some cases Spain) are the actual next step down from 95, so PD-anon-1923 has been pretty much a worldwide anonymous term template since 2004. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I think we really should just get rid of the listed parameter; for what it's worth, using {{PD-scan|PD-anon-expired}} on its own currently renders the year as the 125-year point, rather than the 95-year point. While that error could be fixed, I'd rather simplify things to make life easier. And hey, the name is perfectly set up for this to be a global tag. {{PD-China-expired}}, {{PD-Russia-expired}}, and {{PD-Taiwan-expired}}, on the other hand... -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama for bridges in France

I know that there is no freedom of panorama in France. However, I found several entries from other contributors for this month competition, which depict bridges constructed in France in the past century. I would like to upload my own pictures of bridges from France, but I thought that I cannot because of the lack of freedom of panorama in France. Am I wrong? Should I report the pictures?--Роман Рябенко (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Роман Рябенко: you are free to upload images of old bridges in France, or bridges whose architects or designers have been dead for more than 70 years. Be wary of modern bridges like w:Millau Viaduct, as they may be copyrighted (the management of Millau who acts as proxy of the rights of its architect Norman Foster explicitly stated in their website that every image of the bridge is not royalty-free). However, if the bridge in in background and not the principal focus, the image should be fine. Take note: no freedom of panorama in France. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Another thing to be considered is that if the bridge is original enough to make it copyrightable. Per COM:FOP France, the following are some criteria for originality based on existing jurisprudence (in the case of buildings): a) a definite artistic character; b) if the creation is original, but not if the realization is purely technical; c) a harmonious combination of its composing elements, like volumes and colours (TGI Paris, 19 June 1979); d) an "aesthetic preoccupation", here the choice of a sphere and of a mirror surface (CA Paris, 23 October 1990, about La Géode); e) a choice which cannot be ascribed to purely technical reasons (CA Paris 20 November 1996, about stairs and a glass roof); and f) works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn't think the Pont de Recouvrance was artistic, but the result at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pont de Recouvrance was to delete. I'm still not sure how we work out when the copyright expires. --ghouston (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, The Recouvrance bridge is IMO original enough to get a copyright, but most of Highway bridges in France are probably OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fête des Lumières case

Upon digging through one of the specific categories under French FOP cases, one of which relate to files showing this famous French light show. Various decisions were made, mainly using "no FOP in France" and "even light shows are copyrighted" (using Eiffel Tower at night case). Most resulted to deletion, like files under Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des Lumières by Romainberth and Commons:Deletion requests/Perspectives lyriques, Fête des Lumières. There are some that resulted to kept, however, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:La fontaine des Jacobins pendant la fête des lumières 2010 à Lyon (2ème arrondissement).JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fête des lumières, on the grounds that copyright in light show doesn't extend to still pictures/photos of it. This is the major daunting question: are images of Fête des Lumières really derivative works? Or is the "actual" show only copyrighted and not "still pictures/photos" from this? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Another interesting case page is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cath. St Jean (2).JPG. File is twice nominated for deletion, but in the end kept. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

One the other hand, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Лион. Спасибо,Мария.jpg was twice nominated. First kept, but in the last nomination it was eventually deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I put my two DRs on photos of this light show (Commons:Deletion requests/File:FourvierePalaisdeJustice.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fête des lumières 2016) on hold while this thread is active. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi,


I uploaded this item

but it's under copyright, can I upload it. I'm not sure if I can.

Please advice.


Here are the links:

https://cdm17191.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/asm0530/id/1097

https://dp.la/item/1b8a57c1bf914d388b6d20e093224a9c?q=Metrorail


This material is protected by copyright. Copyright is held by Michael Carlebach. All rights reserved. For additional information, please visit: https://digitalcollections.library.miami.edu/digital/custom/copyright-guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanolivasnic (talk • contribs) 06:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

We only accept media that have been given a free license. This can mean that they are out of copyright (mainly very old images) or are still copyrighted but have been given a specific free license by the copyright holder, e.g. {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. --rimshottalk 08:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

URAA Deletions

I started a deletion request recently, and was informed that "Pure URAA deletions are not done anymore." However, COM:L states, "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work," and the file was uploaded after the Supreme Court decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder, which is when Commons decided to revise its policy of accepting files even if they were nonfree under the URAA. The file in question was not in the public domain in the United States after being restored by the URAA. The URAA section of the COM:L page also brings up the precautionary principle, which I interpret to be "if there is significant doubt about the copyright status, it should be deleted." The work brought up in the deletion request is almost certainly still copyrighted in the United States. Has the URAA section of COM:L been revised by community consensus, but the page has not been updated yet? Does this mean that I can upload a file that is public domain in its source country, but not necessarily in the United States, so long as the author or copyright holder does not attempt to enforce the copyright? --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

COM:L is current policy. However, the URAA is haphazardly enforced... some admins do not want to follow that policy. It did briefly change, but a subsequent discussion resulted in the current policy. However, since there had not been a lot of investigation into older laws and the actual status in 1996, there was no blanket deletion. The policy does seem to imply that we need to really show that the work was in fact restored by the URAA. For the work in question, it was painted in the Netherlands in 1938. Was it first published there? If it was "simultaneously published", i.e. within 30 days also published in the U.S., then it would avoid the URAA. I have only found mention that it helped establish his U.S. reputation at the time (he was trying to get a U.S. visa but did not succeed until 1948), so it was likely published at some point there. The question is was it published there at about the same time it was (presumably) published in the Netherlands. I see there is a book on the painting, published in 2009 by the museum which now owns it, but could not find much info about how it was initially published. If it was first published in the Netherlands, and not simultaneously published in the U.S., then yes its U.S. copyright is still valid via the URAA. I do see it in one place with a copyright notice of the Artist Rights Society, but a 2016 year, so they may just be claiming copyright on a photograph. The policy states that an allegation that the URAA applies is not quite enough -- we need to show that it does in fact apply. So finding at least some information about its original publication might be necessary here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Printscreens of Team Viewer

I have been uploading printscreens as part of our user group activity by using Team Viewer (due to COVID restrictions) for capturing moments. Can someone tell me are these images legit? These are the examples: 1 and 2.

Dandarmkd (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Dandarmkd, Screenshots are derivative works and are usually subject to the copyright of the display contents. In this particular case, the contents on display is available under CC BY-SA 3.0. De minimis apply to the other icons on display. So, I don't see any problem with your uploads. T CellsTalk 14:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Ibrahim El-Khoury and Bachir Gemayel.jpg

I would like some other opinions on this file's licensing. From the EXIF data and from File:Ibrahim El-Khoury with Bachir Gemayel.jpg, it looks like a photo taken by the uploader of another photo that was originally taken in September 1974. The file "Ibrahim El-Khoury with Bachir Gemayel" was uploaded under a claim of "own work", but the uploader seemed to be trying to correct this by re-uploading the file under a different name as "Ibrahim El-Khoury and Bachir Gemayel" and re-licensing the file as {{CC-zero}}. The re-uploaded version seems to be attributed, but the attribution is not in English and there's no source or anything else provided which might help aid in verifying this. A number of other similar types of files by this same editor are currently being discussed in various DRs; so, perhaps this one should go there as well. It might, however, be better to combine all the DRs related to this uploader's files into a single DR instead of trying to discuss each one separately. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is apparently not "own work" but a "derivative work" and I appreciate that the uploader is trying to correct this mistake but there is no evidence that this work is a PD in the source country, Lebanon. According to the uploader, the original image was taken in 1974 but the Lebanese Law No. 75 of 1999 on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property states that "The term of protection granted under this Law to the economic rights of the author, shall be the life of the author and 50 years after his death, to be computed from the end of the year in which the death has occurred". So, if the original photo was taken in 1974, there is no way this would be PD in the source country and in the U.S. now. T CellsTalk 12:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Jens Mohr's photographs don't fall under PD-Sweden or PD-1996

Category:Jens Mohr contains tons of photos "provided to Wikimedia Commons by Skokloster Castle as part of a cooperation project with Wikimedia Sverige ... the copyright is held by the museum which has made it available as CC0 or licensed it with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." Unfortunately, many of them, like File:"Resa til Frankrike, Italien, Sweitz, Tyskland, Holland, Ángland - Skoklosters slott - 86060.tif, use the {{LSH artwork}} template with the photo-license= PD setting, which uses {{PD-Sweden-photo}} and {{PD-1996}}, neither of which are relevant for a work taken in 2007. It looks like these are all books, and stuff like File:Aert Jansz van nes - Skoklosters slott - 99599.tif are PD-art, but that doesn't make the license correct (or fixable by someone who doesn't want to mess with the LSH artwork template.) Stuff like File:"Resa til Frankrike, Italien, Sweitz, Tyskland, Holland, Ángland - Skoklosters slott - 86060.tif, on the other hand, I would think are marginally copyrightable in the US (don't know about Sweden), and should probably have a CC0 or CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, but not having OTRS access, I don't know which.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

YouTube screenshot detail

YouTube using Wikipedia for fact-checking

I request confirmation that this image is compliant with the standards of Commons. Otherwise, please identify of the elements which are problematic. Below are extra details which perhaps no one needs to read.

Various other tools are reusing Wikimedia content. Here I have a picture of a YouTube video with an alert box under it. The social context is that there is misinformation in the media ecosystem about climate change, which is the subject of this video, and YouTube is recommending Wikipedia as a fact-checking service for its users. I made an article about this at en:Wikipedia and fact-checking, and I would like to put this image into that article.

I used these license tags

Here are some potentially copyrightable elements which I considered, and why I think Commons can have this image:

  • individual features
    • There are the video window itself, tools for playing the video, the audience advisory, the title with metadata, and the social media sharing interface. I claim that each of these are common, functional, and not creative beyond the threshold of originality. These features are not eligible for copyright.
  • The overall layout
    • I think the overall layout is not copyrightable because all the elements here are commonplace in media, and also their use together is commonplace. Again, this is a functional layout and does not merit copyright.
  • the icons
    • Wikimedia Commons has already established that icons like these are simple geometric shapes not eligible for copyright.
  • The Wikipedia sentence
    • The text here is the current first sentence exactly as it appears in en:climate change. Its copyright is for the author of that sentence in that Wikipedia article. I would like to credit that one sentence, but I am unsure if Commons has a template for non-Wikimedia presentations of copyrighted Wikimedia content.

Thanks for consideration and feedback. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this particular screenshot. The elements (aside the icons) are utilitarians and are not protected by copyrights. The icons are below the threshold of originality as they appears to be simple geometric shapes. The principle of De minimis also applies. The texts on display is available under {{CC-BY-SA 3.0}} as it was copied from the article en:climate change. Maybe you could provide the attribution in the edit summary but attribution of the text may not be necessary as the information appears to be on record and readily available. T CellsTalk 09:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@T Cells: Thanks for the review and feedback. I added a CC license for the reuse of text from English Wikipedia.
I also set up a Commons category Category:Off-wiki reuse of Wikimedia content to better organize a precedent. Right now I have this climate change example from YouTube and a COVID example from Google search. Thanks for helping with the license modeling. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome and please stay safe. T CellsTalk 10:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio on art photos?

Artist Arturo di Modica has died and so his biography is being proposed for the en-wiki homepage. I am concerned about the rights to some of the images in his entry, which are:

  1. File:Arturo Di Modica Early Abstract.png
  2. File:1970 Arturo Di Modica Moore Inspired Bronze.jpg
  3. File:C.1977 Di Modica Monumental Abstract outside Grande St.png
  4. File:Di Modica 2000 abstraction.png

Those are the files of most concern to me, for the copyright of the sculptures and for the “own work” claim on png files and non-matching metadata and dates that suggest screenshots rather than own photographs (though not impossible!) But for completeness and because they are all uploaded by the same user, the entry also includes:

  1. File:1990-5 ADM and Charging Bull.jpg
  2. File:Arturo Di Modica in Ciprianni Downtone.png

If someone has a moment to look over these I would be grateful. Meanwhile pinging the uploader Artislife1406 in hopes they may be able to shed light. Thank you all. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I learned while working on Wikimedia Commons that the building is copyrighted.

Then, What is the copyright of an unauthorized building?

When taking pictures of a cityscape, it is often the case that you also get an unauthorized building.

Especially when taking pictures of slums, many pictures of these unauthorized buildings are taken.

Are these unauthorized buildings also affected by freedom of panorama?

Ox1997cow (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The answer may vary depending on jurisdiction. What country are you talking about?
A few thoughts on this anyway:
South Korea recognized the copyright of illegal works through the last pornographic copyright decision. Pornography is illegal in South Korea. This ruling
If so, which countries do not recognize the copyright of illegal works?
Ox1997cow (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: This is such a niche question that you would probably have to consult with a lawyer in every country in the world to get a definitive answer.  Mysterymanblue  23:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Does this logo meet the threshold of originality?

I was looking at this logo, which is meant to spell out "211", but the 1's are replaced with simplified illustrations of a person in a graduation cap. Does this meet the threshold of originality under US copyright law?  Mysterymanblue  03:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If the simplified illustration of a person is itself in public domain (due to lack of originality or by some other reason), then yes. Ruslik (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Glen or Glenda (1953).webm

The license used states that this 1953 film is public domain because it was not renewed after 28 years. However, I found this renewal filed in 1981. I was about to nominate it for deletion however I saw that it was assessed for use as a Media of the Day. Am I missing something here? Tagging uploader Racconish. Regards, Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Howhontanozaz, I agrre with you and started a DR. Thanks for asking first. — Racconish 💬 09:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A friend gave me a photo he took in 1973, does it need a license?

Hello - I am writing a page about a WWII resistance hero named Moen Chait. He died in 1975. A friend of mine took a snapshot of Chait in 1973. He scanned the 1973 snapshot and sent it to me to use in the Wikipedia page. I can't figure out how to fill out the license page on the Wikimedia Commons upload wizard because the snapshot never had a copyright and doesn't appear to belong to any of the categories. My friend has made it very clear that he feels it would be an honor to have his photo of Chait freely available to all as part of Wikimedia Commons. How do I fill out that page so I can upload the image and put it in the Wikipedia page? Thanks for your help. --DP1944 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi DP1944. Your friend as the photographer automatically has the copyright, so the Commons needs to record his permission—that can be done here: Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator. I believe you can also get that form started for him. Thanks for going to the effort to contribute to the Commons! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the link! --DP1944 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m back with a more specific art copyright question.
If a photograph depicts a portion of a public sculpture, as in File:Grouping of Works from Fountain.jpg (showing one of three sculptures in the piece), and the photographer freely licenses their image, does that satisfy Commons policy? The sculpture is post-1978 so not covered by US FOP as I understand it. So the question is basically whether one needs permission to show a portion of a work like this or if it’s considered a type of legitimate excerpt, as one could quote a portion of a poem but not the whole? Thanks to those lending their guidance. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Both the photograph and the work depicted must be freely licensed or public domain (except in the case of de minimis). Kaldari (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the current situation of freedom of panorama in Sweden?

A statement and a ruling pertaining to Sweden's freedom of panorama are:

Statement: On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden issued a statement that the first paragraph in Article 24 does not extend to publication of works of art in online repositories.
Ruling: On 6 July 2017, a lower court of Sweden ruled that linking to depictions of copyrighted works of art hosted by Wikimedia (including on Commons) in a database constitutes copyright infringement.

And in the statement and the ruling above, nothing related to the building was mentioned.

The statement was issued five years ago, and the ruling was issued four years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ox1997cow (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If so, what is the current situation of freedom of panorama in Sweden?

Does it apply only to buildings like the United States, Japan, and Russia, not sculptures or statues? Or is there no freedom of panorama like France, Italy and South Korea?

--Ox1997cow (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this very question here. Zoozaz1 (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Zoozaz1: The content of the document is too long to read. Please summarize briefly. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
FoP has been ruled not to apply in a specific case. For other uses on the internet the situation is unclear. FoP on buildings is unaffected: the paragraph about them was carefully avoided by the courts. FoP is also unaffected for use not on the internet (postcards, T-shirts, books etc.)
The problem is that the supreme court made a confused statement, both unconstitutionally acting on a crystal ball on future legislation and confusing Wikimedia Sweden, Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia Foundation. Because the statement is surprising, questionable and confused, it is hard to extrapolate it to other cases.
As a result of the statement a lower court judged that the offentligkonst.se web site, linking to Commons photos, was infringing on the authors' copyright (in the cases where it hadn't expired). The lower court also said, in passing, that it believes nobody is entitled to uploading photos of copyrighted works on the internet. Some lawyers agree with that interpretation, but it has not been tested in court and seems against the intentions of the legislator (as the reasoning on the "post card exception" very much applies to uploads to the internet).
The WMF recommended that we do not delete files based on the supreme court statement or the lower court ruling. Our use is not directly affected. We have changed the template to warn reusers about the unclear legal situation.
–LPfi (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the statement from the supreme court is unclear. The law says there is FOP but the court said that one specific database was not okay. The court did not say that all databases are not okay. Now 4-5 years after BUS artists' society (that started the case) have made no attempts to remove files from Commons, en.wiki etc. (at least as far as I know) so I see no reason to call for the precautionary principle (if "there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted"). So I would say that there is FOP but there may be special cases where that does not apply. --MGA73 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow and Zoozaz1: See also discussions in Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
By the way, @Zoozaz1: no discussions about IP laws can be really short, that discussion is also only a bit short, there are several thesis-like discussions about IP laws elsewhere. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out whether or not this film is in the public domain so as to upload it to Wikimedia. I have seen some sources over the internet say that it is but I have seen some dissenting voices saying otherwise. Looking through the copyright listings makes me think there is some copyright to a piece of music but I am not definite on that. GamerPro64 (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=One%20Eyed%20Jacks&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&REC=0&RC=0&PID=wSRWtdd2Z2c_2gOpuCFH69ja5bLD&SEQ=20210222190016&SID=1 says:
Type of Work:	Entry not found.
Registration Number / Date:	RE0000409372 / 1988-12-29
Renewal registration for: LP0000019590 / 1960-12-31
Title:	One-eyed jacks. By Pennebaker, Inc.
Copyright Claimant:	David R. Baer (PWH)
Variant title:	One-eyed jacks.
Names:	Baer, David R.
Pennebaker, Inc.
Now that's not clear what the type of work is, and I don't know who "David R. Baer (PWH)" is, our article One-Eyed Jacks doesn't mention him, and says it's a March 1961 film ... but it also says "Production company: Pennebaker Productions", and Dec 31, 1960 is not that far from that date, so I think there is a good chance that this is the renewal for that film. So not in public domain for another 35 years or thereabouts. Sorry. --GRuban (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Well that is disappointing. Thanks for the help at least. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hello GRuban and GamerPro64, just to provide additional context; the type of work is motion picture and it's been pointed out here that David Baer fraudulently filled a copyright notice before. This is partly the reason why the English Wikipedia article One-Eyed Jacks didn't mention him. The film was renewed and still protected by copyright as correctly pointed out by GRuban. T CellsTalk 11:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    That's interesting, but not very clear, for example that poster actually says it is PD, right? I think we should still assume it's copyrighted until we know more clearly. That's just a few volunteers discussing at the Internet Archive just like we're discussing here, right? --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree we should assume it's still copyrighted per our long standing precautionary principle. T CellsTalk 19:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is {{NoFoP-US}} template?

For countries where the freedom of the panorama applies only to architecture and not artwork or sculpture (e.g. USA, Japan, Russia, etc.), there are both FoP templates and NoFoP templates.

For example:

I found {{FoP-US}} template. However, I didn't find {{NoFoP-US}} template.

Where is {{NoFoP-US}} template? Does the {{Not-free-US-FOP}} template do that?

Ox1997cow (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: hello. It's early dawn here in the Philippines hehe. There's really no such template for such cases in the U.S., like Denmark, Norway, and Finland. But I think that's no longer necessary: {{De minimis}} already performs that same function (though it may be unwieldy as you need to explain why the file is tagged as such). But I also think other admins and longtime editors (Jeff G. et. al.) will better decide if {{NoFoP-US}} is desired or not (and also {{NoFoP-Denmark}} and some others). {{Not-free-US-FOP}} is not suitable for this case: it is used for all copyrighted non-architectural works (sculptures, monuments, etc.) located in countries with FOP like Germany, U.K., Singapore, Canada, etc. This was the result of a discussion which heavily debated on the merit of the 2012 Claes Oldenburg takedown notice against Wikimedia, wherein some of the subjects in the notice are sculptures that are supposed to be free in their countries of origin courtesy of FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion was here: Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law. More than 1 K files are tagged as such. If ever FOP is introduced here, I might also use that template to tag all images of copyrighted sculptures here, as works like w:EDSA Shrine and w:People Power Monument may be copyrighted in the United States. Again, that template is applicable only to non-US sculptures that comply with FOP provisions of their countries of origin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
USA has a special status in Commons because WMF is located there and its copyright laws apply to WMF directly. So, USA specific templates may be quite different from other countries. Ruslik (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: What text do you think should go into such a template?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Just put in text similar to other NoFoP templates. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: Here is some draft language:
"17 USC 120(a) (United States Copyright Law) does not allow reproduction of an artistic work that is not a building, so photographs of non-building modern artistic works are not considered as "free works" on Wikimedia Commons. Please do not upload photographs showing such works, unless they are old enough to be in the Public Domain. See also Freedom of Panorama."
  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Does this precedent affect Non-free graffiti template?

I have found the following precedent in South Korean copyright-related precedent. This news is in South Korean, so you need a Google Translate.

Look at this news.

This news is not related to graffiti, but is related to pornography, but I used this news as pornography is illegal in South Korea. (Graffiti is illegal work.)

Here is a summary of the precedent in the news.

The High Court of South Korea ruled that pornography is subject to protection under the copyright law, even if it is illegally regulated by laws other than the copyright law. Also, the court did not accept the claim that illegal pornography had no character in the work.

I don't think this is in line with the claim that an author might be denied any copyright relief based on an illegal act written in Non-free graffiti template.

However, unlike graffiti, pornography is legal in Japan, and Japanese pornography companies have filed this lawsuit.

Does this precedent affect Non-free graffiti template?

Ox1997cow (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Essentially, it depends on what the South Korea law says on illegal works. If the law is silent about such works, we can always refer to the ruling of the High Court of South Korea. But generally, specific court verdict or judgment does not supersede an existing law and in most cases does not result to the amendment of laws. T CellsTalk 12:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

United States Coast Guard photo / PD-USGov-Military

Would it be possible to upload this image of the Bass Harbor Head Light under the {{PD-USGov-Military}} license? It is posted at the United States Coast Guard web site, with a header "Images provided are in the public domain" and with a comment "This photograph is considered public domain and has been cleared for release". It looks like the photographer is unknown ("na"). The photo was taken in 1951 (this date is given by other sources describing the history of the lighthouse). Is it safe to upload it under {{PD-USGov-Military}}? Thanks a lot, — Adavyd (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It was taken from a plane, likely military one. So, it is presumably {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Ruslik (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Done. Thank you! — Adavyd (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Scotese paleomaps

Some time ago I nominated a bunch of paleomaps by Christopher Scoteste for deletion (which they were, see Commons:Deletion requests/Christopher Scotese maps). I did not at the time find any obvious evidence of permission. However, I recently downloaded what I believe to be the same maps from here, and in the zip file there is a text file that says the whole thing is licensed under CC-BY 4.0. I am not sure with we should have those files here as a result or not. funplussmart (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If that is the original source, then it's fine to upload them here under the same license {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}} but I doubt earthbyte is the original source. For example this file in the zip is a screenshot which is a derivative work and subject to the copyright of the display object. Unless, you are sure of the author (or source) of the file, we may not host it here per Common's precautionary principle. T CellsTalk 11:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

nordvpn

there is two of this file with two licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NordVPNhorizontal.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo-NordVPN.png Baratiiman (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The licenses can be harmonized, but it's not really a conflict. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to change the licenses on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NordVPNhorizontal.svg to {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}, and then export it to here?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice about filming

This file shows a notice by Constantin Film informing residents about filming that is going to take place in the neighbourhood. I'm not sure if this is copyvio, the text is quite long and reproduced entirely. -- Discostu (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Despite its length it may still be a non-original standard text. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I've created a deletion request -- Discostu (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Winston Churchill's death certificate

I looked everywhere for the original copy of the death certificate [3] of Winston Churchill, but it is public domain by the British government, but the exception of photographs are still copyrighted (after 1 July 1957), but documents only (which is published before 1971. --Frontman830 (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a slavish copy of a 2D document not an original photograph requiring some artistic decision making. Ww2censor (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Kahoot.jpg

I'm pretty sure this isn't the "own work" of the uploader, but I'm not too sure whether it's OK to change the licensing to {{PD-logo}}. This appears to be a logo for en:Kahoot! and a similar file (File:Kahoot Logo.svg) is licensed as "PD-logo". I do think this would likely be PD per COM:TOO United States, but I'm not too sure about COM:TOO Norway (which seems to be the country of origin). Any opinions on whether this can be kept by Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Kahoot Logo.svg probably is not PD in the US because it is an SVG and vector fonts are protected under US copyright law.  Mysterymanblue  13:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I upload scans of photos taken by my father (died 2001)? The copyright passed to me as sole residual legatee of his estate. English Law applies.--Keith Edkins (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Keith Edkins: If the photos were not created under a contract or as an employee, you can license it under any of these licenses, {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}}, and {{Cc-zero-heirs}}. Regards. T CellsTalk 11:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, they are private photos.--Keith Edkins (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, feel free to upload the photos under any of the aforementioned licenses. Regards. T CellsTalk 20:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Or any other licence you choose, but those templates mark you as heir. –LPfi (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nazi comic artist disappeared in the late 1940s? Date of death should be counted before 1950?

I am interested in uploading the works of en:Vica (cartoonist), a Russian emigre and Nazi supporter who disappeared in the late 1940s https://repository.duke.edu/dc/vica

Would the date of disappearance be enough to satisfy France's 70 years after death requirement, or do I need a judgment from a French court on when Vica legally was declared dead?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The date of death and date of disappearance may be different. If the dates are the same, it would satisfy France's 70 years p.m.a. Otherwise, you do need to find out when he was officially declared dead. If that information is not publicly available, you will need a pronouncement from the French court on when Vica was legally declared dead. T CellsTalk 20:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Demanding a judgement from a French court seems excessive; a court generally won't get involved until there's a lawsuit or serious controversy, at least in the US. My problem is that that source literally says "The author, Vincent Krassousky (also known as Vica), disappeared in the late 1940s.", with no source or explanation. With en:Harold Holt, who disappeared beneath the waves on 17 December 1967 in a well documented manner, or en:Ambrose Bierce, who disappeared in the middle of the Mexican Revolution, with neither having any documented reason to want to disappear, I'd accept the disappearance date as being close to the death date. But with that date, Vica could have retired to a small French village and stayed out of the news well enough for a US university to declare him disappeared. Or as a Russian emigrant to France, he could have picked up and moved to any number of countries, possibly living into his 90s. I see far from enough evidence to go with anything besides PD-old-assumed, when that becomes valid.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
fr:Vica offers a more substantial cite of "Patrick Gaumer, « BD & politique : Le cas Vica », dans Guide totem : La BD, Larousse, 2002 (ISBN 9782035051301), p. 40." for Vica's disappearance. I still feel this could be like cartoonist en:David A. Trampier, who disappeared circa 1988 and then reappeared in 2002 when a newspaper happened to mention his current occupation as a taxi driver in an article. If David Trampier had died in 2000, it's possible his Wikipedia article would call him disappeared in 1988. And Vica, unlike Trampier, had obvious reasons to disappear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Indeed. Vica's also less likely to appear since he was born in 1902 and it's already 2021 (he would be about 118-119 years old by now). I got the bit about him disappearing from the Duke University repository (this is cited later in the enwiki article) so I suspect Duke University's staff may know more about this. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/02&oldid=540742272"