Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/04

Art in Embassies Program YouTube channel copyright

Hi, I'm trying to upload a single frame of this video (specifically of the speaker at the beginning) uploaded by the YouTube channel of the U.S. State Department's Art in Embassies Program. I've noticed that YouTube channels usually denote if they would like to upload a video under a CC license, etc, but there doesn't seem to be anything like that marked on this video. I was wondering if this video falls into the public domain or if that's not a safe assumption to make. Thanks! Aranya (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aranya: Hi, and welcome. That video has the standard YouTube license, which is normally incompatible with publishing here, see COM:L. However, if you can show verifiable official support of the channel by the US State Department, you can assume the video "is a work of a United States Department of State employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties" and use {{PD-USGov-DOS}}.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. The author is listed as the Tate Modern on art.state.gov, so I don't think it's the work of a state employee and in the public domain. Aranya (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aranya: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Aranya (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Reproduction restricted

Any idea why the Library of Congress evaluates this photograph as "Reproduction of this photograph is restricted: Permission to reproduce this image must be obtained from the Office of the Sergeant at Arms [...]"? -- Asclepias (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Asclepias: The only thing I can think of is that the law that makes U.S. government works public domain states "A 'work of the United States Government' is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." (Source). It is easy to imagine that taking photographs is not part of the official duties of the Sergeant of Arms of the U.S. Senate, and therefore a photograph taken by someone from that office might not be considered PD.  Mysterymanblue  04:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Scratch that, it seems that the Senate Photographic Studio, from which this photo comes, is under the direction of the Senate Sergeant at Arms (Source). If you think it's in error, maybe you could try contacting the LOC?  Mysterymanblue  04:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's in error. The LoC is usually good at telling that an item is free when it's free. I thought of something along the lines of what you said above, maybe the photo was taken for the SPS but not by a regular employee. But no name of photographer is mentioned by the LoC, so it's difficult to tell. Or maybe there's a legal provision somewhere. Just curious about what the reason is for the LoC's assesment, and trying to figure out what we do if someone finds a copy of the photo and uploads it Commons (see this file). -- Asclepias (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Asclepias: Is this image, File:Senator Mathias attending President Reagan's swearing in.jpg, not the same one already uploaded here? You may want to review this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Senator Mathias attending President Reagan's swearing in.jpg and its permission ticket. Ww2censor (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It is the image, as far as I can tell. There is a link (perhaps too discreet) to the file in my comment above. In fact, it was the discussions about the uploader's files that made me research this image, and others. All we had was the uploader's comment that he copied the image from some document given to him. Plausible enough, but no author, no date, no title that could be verified. Given that information on various files was dubious, I searched a few images, including this one to try to find some information and confirm if it was indeed a government photo or not and I found the LoC image. The good news was finding that it's a Senate photo. The bad news was the stamement that it is not free. Hence the question here. (Some other files turned out to be plagiarized from images found on the internet. Others are plausibly from copies in possession of the uploader, although he's often using statements such as "I can be seen on this photo because it was taken with automatic shutter release.") Note that the OTRS ticket from the uploader is useless to answer the question. The uploader may well reiterate his guess that the image is PD, which may or may not be correct, but the guess of the uploader carries no authority to confirm that, not more than any other Commons user and certainly not more than the opinion of the personnel of the Library of Congress. I expect that the argument of the uploader in this UDR about this image is similar to what he wrote in his OTRS mail. It doesn't provide more information to ascertain the status of the work. Actually, the presence of the OTRS tag in the description page is confusing, as it gives the false impression that it is some confirmation of the status. Usually, we require that the facts are established to allow the conclusion that they meet the conditions of a license tag. On most SPS photos on Commons, the photographer is named in the exif. For photos from government-related sites, some Commons users are very good at finding if a photographer was a government employee or not. For example, in this 2016 DR, the full-size photo was available, the photographer was named and it was known that he was a government employee, so the file was kept. (A contrario, it implies that the file would have been deleted if the fact had not been established.) Here, we have a different situation. There is no name of photographer, the full-size file is not available at the LoC, and there's notice that the image is not freely usable. Do we reverse the usual presumption and assume that the photographer was a government employee and that the image is free, or do we delete per PRP? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

We should assume that works from the U.S. government are public domain works of the U.S. government until we have a credible doubt on the actual copyright status of the work. The LOC's statement provides that credible doubt, and we should play it safe and delete the photo until more information is ascertained.  Mysterymanblue  08:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

2d graphic work

Hi, In regards to this image - As it fails FOP:UK (due to the 2d train graphic) can I draw the outline to the train and bridge but not be as detailed or would I still be infringing on the rights of the original drawer?.

(So I would draw less bridge supports and the train would be less detailed)

I've tried merging this with this however it doesn't look great and my drawing skills are beyond poor (literally have the creativity of a toilet brush!).

Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Accurately tracing over the image, even if it were less detailed, would likely constitute a derivative work and would infringe on the copyright of the graphic. As you have correctly surmised, there is no issue with doing this so long as you base your work entirely on other freely usable works (such as the two other photographs you linked to). However, you should be careful to not let your knowledge of the graphic you are trying to recreate substantially influence your creative decisions; while the idea of drawing a train over the medway viaduct cannot be protected, the particular expression of that idea can be.

That being said, I am not confident that it would be worth the effort of trying to replace the graphic with something you have made, because the resulting image would no longer represent a real plaque. I know it is disappointing to see your photographs be taken down from Commons, but often the things that you could do to get around these copyright restrictions also happen to decrease the value of the work.  Mysterymanblue  05:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mysterymanblue, Ah I had a feeling it would and I certainly agree with your last statement - the last thing anyone wants to do is decrease their image or ruin it etc etc. That's very true too it wouldn't represent a real plaque either. Thank you so much for your informative reply and help it's greatly appreciated :), Take care & stay safe. Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 12:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

About a music album cover.

Good time of day. I recently uploaded a file that is an album cover: File:DMBX1.jpg. So far, I have indicated that I will indicate the license within 7 days. How do I show that the file is uploaded under fair use conditions? Thank you in advance. KAA-Kir (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

KAA-Kir Where did you upload the file? Commons does not accept fair-use files. T Cells^Talk 15:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Then under what license are music album covers distributed? KAA-Kir (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Since Commons do not accept fair-use copyrighted files, album covers can only be uploaded here if they are either too simple to be copyrighted, freely-licensed, or in public domain due to age.--Vulphere 02:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

See also Commons:Help desk#Copyright help regarding File:DMBX1.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Asclepias. KAA-Kir I think it's important to keep this discussion in one venue. Have you looked at Commons:Help desk#Copyright help regarding File:DMBX1.jpg? Regards. T Cells^Talk 19:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violation

If I upload a photo to the site, and license it under CC 3.0 or 4.0, can a retail store take my print, remove attribution from it and sell it online? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:8802:270A:6000:41B4:7C0B:90F3:F6BD (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If you release your work under these licenses; {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}} and {{CC-BY-SA 3.0}}, a retail store can sell the photo but they must attribute your work to you. T Cells^Talk 15:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I bought my photo from them, it does not have any attribution whatsoever. Also it would seem that this is a violation of Share and Share alike, right? The seller is Walmart.. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:8802:270A:6000:41B4:7C0B:90F3:F6BD (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Why would you buy your photo from them? Is the photo on Commons or not? If so, what file is it? If it's elsewhere online, where is it? Maybe the seller obtained it from another source where it was not credited. The absence of the required attribution is a violation of the attribution clause, and if the license is not mentioned, that is a violation of the clause that requires mention of the license. That's not necessarily a violation of the share-alike clause. Share-alike just means that derivative works, if any, must also be offered under the same license. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Can someone help me on this file?

I uploaded some files from Up tourism website: http://www.uptourism.gov.in/article/map "The material posted on the website may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed." says this website of UP Tourism: http://www.uptourism.gov.in/article/copyright-policy

But as you can see, those people did not make it clear what ‘license’ they were publishing it under. What to do about this? Heres my talk page with more information: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:16AdityaG09 16AdityaG09 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@16AdityaG09: Unfortunately, we cannot host these works on Commons because general commercial use must be allowed for a file to be hosted here. The license terms they specify are simply too restrictive. If you wish to use the works on a Wikipedia, you can consult their local licensing guidelines to see if fair use is allowed. See Commons:Licensing for more information.  Mysterymanblue  17:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright on https://www.nlm.nih.gov/?

Hi! I'm working on an article on an extinct bird, but the paper's hosted on https://www.nlm.nih.gov/. I'm not too clued-up about copyright terminology, etc (I have seen the Copyright section, I'm just an idiot), so is there anything that says I can or can't use the images in it? Thanks in advance! Borophagus (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You should specify which image you mean. Ruslik (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My mistake! I mean this one! Borophagus (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The PMC website is merely hosting a copy of an Open Access article published in Nature's Scientific Reports. The article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ({{Cc-by-4.0}}), so yes you can upload the images here and reuse them with attribution. Works at PMC may or may not have licenses compatible with Commons. --Animalparty (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic! I'll get to it.Borophagus (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments requested on Flickr image

I wonder if anyone wishes to comment on the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander McQueen design2008.png. I was thinking of withdrawing the request for deletion as the original rationale was wrong (the image I compared it to appears to be a different image on closer examination), but decided to not to withdraw it because the Flickr user does not appear to own the copyright to the image to be able to release under license indicated (some of the images he has are of very low resolution - e.g. [1]). Such images are really only taken by professional photographers at runway shows and there is no indication he is one (where the copyright owner is given in the images uploaded by the user, they are all different people - e.g. [2][3][4]). Should I have withdrawn my nomination or is it still a reasonable nomination given the uncertainty over its copyright status? 10:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzh (talk • contribs)

I've commented in the discussion. I think threre's enough circumstantial evidence to belive your suspicions are correct, although I haven't found the exact photos from the particular fashion show. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and whatever happens in the above discussion should apply to File:Alexander McQueen Fall 2008 Collection.png, from the same Flickr account and the same runway show. The image is a tiny PNG that's geotagged in Los Angeles instead of Paris. All the signs point to (unintentional) Flickrwashing, in my opinion. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Imagine-Learning-Logo-Horizontal-900x0-c-f.png

This doesn't appear to have been released as licensed, but it might be {{PD-logo}} since the country of origin seems to be the US. Is a simple license conversion OK here or should the file remain as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you can replace the licence tag with {{PD-logo}} for that file.--Vulphere 17:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

File:SSME_powerhead.jpg

This image is tagged as "This file is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA" (my emphasis). Yet it is obvious from the watermark on the diagram that it was not solely created by NASA, rather it was created by the Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International on behalf of NASA. Legally speaking, I thought that materials created by US federal government contractors were by default copyright, unless the contract specifically assigns them to the public domain. Depending on the details of the contract, either the copyright is assigned by the contractor to the agency (in which case this diagram is copyright by NASA and/or the US federal government), or else the copyright stays with the contractor but NASA gets a very permissive license to use it. What should be done about this image? (Maybe someone should ask NASA?) Mr248 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Unable to determine creative commons and image author deceased for less than 70 years

This may not be the place to post this question, and if so, I apologize. I am currently attempting to upload a copy of the map/image found at [5]. I have sent an email to the Assistant State Coordinator of the TNGenWeb Project, who informed me that the original creator of the image is deceased. The image was also made prior to 2004, and I have been unable to determine any Creative Commons Attribution used on the website. If the author of the image is deceased and the site coordinators are unsure of any Creative Commons licensing, how do I go about attributing the correct licensing? Any help would be appreciated and I can clarify anything I need to. Dofftoubab (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dofftoubab: Unless you explicitly get a free and open copyright license, you have to wait 95 years from 2004 as the best estimate of year of publication so post it in 2099. The alternative is to contact the estate of the deceased and request a copyright license. Sorry about the illogical nature of all this but that is how it is. 70 years may matter in Europe but this was probably made in the United States, so 95 years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Works first published 1978-2002 in the US expire the later of 2048 or life plus 70. Works first published after 2002 are life+70 in the US, even if the author died before 1978.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Yikes thanks I have been corrected. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks for y'all's help! Dofftoubab (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Claiming of authorship

I am looking for an advice what to do with user @Giacomo Silvano and these three files: File:Accesso al castello di Brindisi di Montagna.jpg, File:Il castello di Brindisi di Montagna.jpg and File:Le mura del castello di Brindisi di Montagna.jpg. The files were uploaded in May 2019 by @Agata Maggio and almost two years later Giacomo Silvano comes out of the blue and changes author's name of these files. BTW, as you can see in the histories, most likely it was him who tried to change the authorship as an anonymous user (no-brainer revert for me). What should I do? --jdx ^Re: 13:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Both accounts can belong to the same person. Ruslik (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Xp040407 Georgetown photos

Hi, I'm pretty sure all of the files uploaded by new User:Xp040407 yesterday come from the www.georgetown.edu website. They tagged them all as self published... even the photos from 1900. Can someone look into the collection and probably flag for speedy delete copyvio?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Most or all of the color photos are probably copyright violations. I found these matching images, which are unlikely to have been copied from Commons:

• File:View across the Georgetown University Law Center Quadrangle.jpg
  • at https://www.shepleybulfinch.com/projects/georgetown-law-eric-e-hotung-international-law-building-and-scott-k-ginsburg-sports-and-fitness-center/
• File:View of Penn Quarter, Washington, DC.jpg
  • at https://capitolcrossingdc.com/250xsouth/ [Image 2 of 7] https://capitolcrossingdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/0028-e-%C2%A92018-DavidMadisonPhotography.com_-1.jpg
• File:Aerial view of the Georgetown University Law Center Law Library.jpg
• File:William Edward Bennet Law Library Atrium view from the base of the grand staircase.jpg
  • Both at https://www.hartmancox.com/edward-bennett-williams-law-library-1
• File:Edward Bennet Law Library reading room for students.jpg
  • at https://practicesource.com/director-of-the-law-library-georgetown-university-washington-dc/

Verbcatcher (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright of picture

Hello, How can i prove that i bought the rights of this pic I use for this bio? Thank you

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JLS_WIKI.jpg#filelinks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasminkaa (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yasminkaa: , you need to establish that you own the copyright of the image, not just a physical photograph. I suggest that you arrange for the photographer to email the COM:OTRS system to establish their licensing of the photograph, or their transfer of its copyright to you. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I've reached the photographer and she will send the email with permission / confirmation. Thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasminkaa (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Closure of deletion requests by non-admins

User:Dreamspy and I have reverted each other's edits to File:Jack O'Legs mural Letchworth.jpg, in which Dreamspy has attempted to close a deletion request on the grounds of " No consensus to delete". Dreamspy is not an admin. In my view this does not follow the guideline at Commons:Deletion policy#Closure. Where should I go from here? Commons:Deletion policy#Appeal says "To appeal debates of image not deleted, you might first want to discuss with the admin who closed the discussion", but it does not say what to do if the closer was not an admin. Moreover, should the deletion policy be changed to disallow closure of copyright-based deletion requests by users other than admins and license reviewers? Verbcatcher (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-admins are allowed to close as keep only uncontroversial deletion requests, which this one is not. Ruslik (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely a non-controversial decision to keep; the image had been nominated for deletion for three months and during that time the nominator has been the only supporter of his own nomination. If keeping the image is controversial or the image shouldn’t be on Commons where is all the support to delete? I think three months of inactivity regarding the nomination is long enough to gauge support for deleting - or keeping. Dreamspy (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dreamspy: Tuvalkin is correct below. It's really a bad idea to remove {{Delete}} from a file while it's still being discussed at COM:DR. Not only is doing so not going to be considered a "close", it's also likely going to be considered disruptive by a Commons administrator if it keeps being removed. The template will be removed from the file's page once the DR has been formally closed. Moreover, while it's true that a non-administrator can close a discussion, I would not advise you try to do so here because (1) the fact that others have !voted to delete the image does mean it's a contentious DR and (2) you became an involved party in the discussion when you posted a "keep" !vote. It would be much better to let an uninvolved editor (ideally an administrator) close this DR. Feel free to ask one to do so at COM:AN; such request are usually made in the "Other" section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The other editor voted to delete only after I had closed the nomination. My vote to keep was after the other editor voted to delete. Until that point the only support for deleting was from the original nominator. The other votes were all applied yesterday. My decision to close the nomination was after three months of inactivity on the nomination. Dreamspy (talk)<

@Dreamspy: You didn't close the DR. All you did was remove the {{Delete}} template from the file's page which isn't the same as closing the DR. Moreover, as explained in COM:DR#Overview, a Commons DR isn't a straight !vote because of the precuationary principle. Furthermore, as stated in COM:DR#Closing discussion, Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. If in doubt, don't do it. While you might try and argue that three months (it was actually more like two months actually) of inactivity means that a closure wouldn't be controversial, the fact that you didn't seem know the difference between removing a template from the file's page and actually closing the DR could be seen as you not having a good enough understanding of the process to close the DR. Either way, there are now more editors commenting on the discussion which means that things will be sorted out one way or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Info They are talking about this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jack O'Legs mural Letchworth.jpg. Which by the way is now showing as closed not indicated in the files’ talk page. I’m not a deletioniust in any way shape or form, but this was not a non-admin closure, this was a user deleting a DR notice from a file page with no further action, which is always wrong. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Can someone very informed on copyrights answer this?

For a photograph, is it the copyright laws of the country where the photograph is taken that apply or the laws of the country where it's first published? For exemple if an American reporter takes a photograph in Somalia and then publishes it in a magazine in the United States, do American copyright laws apply or is it Somalian ones? From what I looked up I'm pretty certain it where it's first published which matters, but I've seen some wikimedia users argue it's the place where it was shot that count... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djam N'Bisso (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The Berne Convention, to which 179 countries are party, provides for protection based on the "country of origin," which is a defined term generally meaning the country of first publication or, if simultaneously published (within 30 days) in multiple party countries, the country with the shortest protection term. When simultaneously published in a non-party country (like Somalia) and a party country (like the United States), the country of origin is the party country (United States). Accordingly, if "an American reporter takes a photograph in Somalia and then publishes it in a magazine in the United States," the United States would be considered the country of origin and thus its laws would apply. The country of mere creation ("the country where the photograph is taken") is seldom, if ever, relevant. Эlcobbola _talk 16:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank for your answer. I you find the time, could you please bring your insight to this deletion discussion in which this argument is at the center of the debate? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:S%C3%A9tif_massacre.jpeg Djam N'Bisso (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Celebrity Pictures

I found a photo of the Brady Bunch on wikimedia from 1971 that is listed that it is in the Public Domain. Can I use the photo on a mug to sell it? Or do I need permission from the Celebrity? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.241.14.144 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Image personality rights are complicated and can differ from territory to territory (please read Commons:Personality rights), but in general, yes, you need the consent of the celebrity if you want to use the image commercially. Also, since the Brady Bunch is itself an intellectual property, you likely need its rights holder's permission to create licensed products. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

See also Commons:Help desk#Celebrity Pictures. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Template for Wikimedia screenshots of interface or data without copyrightable content

the data visualization is not content which is eligible for copyright, but the interface itself could be copyrighted, however we have an almost free copyright for this interface. How do we note this?

Do we have a template for Wikimedia screenshots of copyrightable interface tools without copyrightable content?

We have {{Wikimedia screenshot}} to provide a license rational for screenshots of Wikipedia articles and similar. The imagined use case is that website design or software interfaces have a copyright, and so can the content in that interface which in this case is typically the CC-By-SA content of Wikipedia articles. The problem with this template is that it by defaults tags images with that CC-By-SA license, when also with various Wikimedia platform tools or now with Wikidata there can be images of Wikimedia interfaces which are eligible for copyright but which contain no copyrighted content.

The license should say, "This is a Wikimedia screenshot. It is the intent of the Wikimedia Foundation that nothing in this image have copyright protection. If anything must have a copyright license, then the license is CC0". I am a bit confused by software licenses and whether a free software license applies to the creative design of the interface it generates, or whether free software could generate a data visualization which somewhere, somehow could be eligible for copyright protection.

Can anyone say whether they know of a precedent for managing this, and what license we recommend? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There are so many different cases, it seems a lot of them will just have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. For this one, you could probably just ping MusikAnimal and see what he'd like to set the license as. My only contribution to the UI was picking out the colors and I license my contribution as CC0 (although it's probably not significant enough to warrant copyright protection). Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I need some of my uploaded images deleted

Can somebody please delete these two uploaded images I uploaded? They are copyright-protected, and I accidentally uploaded them when I didn't know what copyright was. I want to fix that and upload them under a fair use license on Wikipedia.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KidsHelplinelogo.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Medici_JC3.png Bear420 (talk)

@Bear420: I have opined at Commons:Deletion requests/File:KidsHelplinelogo.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Medici JC3.png for you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction of copyright in description and license

In File:PCDF (4960262351).jpg is mentioned in the description: "Reproduction prohibited. © All rights reserved. Image protected by the Brazilian Copyright Law No. 9610 19/02/1998 ". Under license is mentioned that FlickreviewR 2-Bot confirmed the license cc-by-2.0. Can I conclude that what is mentioned in the description can be deleted? Wouter (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I discovered that this point has been raised earlier. See this village pump thread and Category:Photographs by André Gustavo Stumpf (son). Wouter (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Somali FOP again

While it is understood that Somalia's copyright law (1977) is poorly enforced because of the lack of a relevant agency or copyright office there (maybe due to their unstable situation), plus the seemingly-compulsory copyright registration, I found a link at COM:Somaliland. It is http://www.somalilandlaw.com/somaliland_copyright_law.html . It has an in-depth summary of Somalia's copyright law history and the law of 1977. Seeing the relevant section, the following "fair dealing" exceptions are (inside the collapsible box)

Fair dealing provisions

Where the work is used in a court. There is also a confusing reference to use by authorised public bodies. Where the work is reproduced, translated, adapted, arranged or transformed for personal use only. Illustrations (in the sense of explanations and not drawings) and any other extracts (or quotations) of the protected work may be included in another work on condition that the name of the author is acknowledged and  the illustrations and other extracts (or quotations)  should not exceed the extent justified by the purpose of their use.  Where illustrations or extracts from articles published in newspapers or periodicals are used,  the names of the authors of the articles, if signed,  must be acknowledged, and if they are not signed, the source of the articles must be acknowledged. When articles (written or broadcast)  relating to economic, political, religious, and social  affairs (which show no express indications prohibiting their use) are reproduced in newspapers, periodicals or anything similar (which should cover now websites), or re-broadcast for communication to the public, the author and the source of the news must be acknowledged. Illustrations or extracts from a work or a recording may be included in another work or communicated to the public for use in schools, universities, training programmes and other similar places, on condition that the use shall not exceed the intended purpose; it  is only for educational purposes; and the title name of the work the name of the author is  acknowledged. Public libraries, schools, Colleges or any other educational places may reproduce, photocopy or otherwise publish a literary, artistic or academic work which has been previously lawfully published, but the number of copies made shall not exceed the required number; and the reproduction must not damage the (legitimate) interests of the author. Any publicly delivered lecture, address,  sermon, legal submission at a court or other similar public activity may be  published or broadcast for the purpose of informing the public about current affairs.

On the initial glance it appears there is no FOP in Somalia. But the compulsory registration requirements combined with the lack of a copyright law office there makes Somalia's FOP status more "grayish". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ping Clindberg for some input. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Somaliland is not a synonym for Somalia. There's no reason to think that what's written about Somaliland applies to Somalia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: however, according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Somalia that is the prevailing copyright law of Somalia, and the Somali Democratic Republic intended to apply it to the whole country (Somaliland included). And besides, Somaliland is like Nagorno-Karabakh where Azerbaijani copyright law applies for the purposes of Commons, and Crimea where the more restrictive Ukrainian copyright law (no commercial FOP) applies for the purposes of Commons. So my question is on the confirmation of the FOP status of Somalia, which will also be the status of FOP for Somaliland. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Captain Mit Singh 1.jpg

This file I believe has been misattributed as 'Own Work', and is found on the British Indian Army page. I, Admittedly, have been engaging in an edit war with the uploader. Could someone please advise me if my suspicion is correct? IronBattalion (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The person who uploaded this has an interesting list of uploads. A book that was presumably published about a century ago is also, they claim, their "Own work". Your question is very similar to the one I post immediately below (and indeed it prompted me to post that). -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Grade-school yearbooks in the public domain vs. personality rights laws

I own several high school yearbooks from the 1970s, and at least one elementary school yearbook that's from 1962, that are all in the public domain due to lack of a copyright notice. However, do you think it's legal to upload entire scans of grade-school yearbooks to Wikimedia Commons? I'd really like yearbooks to be preserved in a place like this, whenever copyright law happens to allow it at least, and possibly make transcriptions of the yearbooks at Wikisource (and have any images etc. within the yearbooks happen to be usable for other purposes across the Wikimedia projects for educational purposes).

A problem with this might be related to Commons:Personality rights, and the fact that while yearbooks were published and peer-reviewed, etc., they were (usually) published for a very limited set of people (students, faculty, and parents of that school)—however I don't know how much publication scope actually matters in determining if it's a breach of personality rights laws in the US.

I know there are a few in Category:Yearbooks but those are in the PD due to 95-year expiration and are high school yearbooks, meaning those students mentioned and shown are most certainly dead by now. So those scans in particular would not likely be in contradiction with personality rights laws.

But I do worry, that some of the more recent ones might, especially if we're talking as recent as yearbooks from the 1950s onwards. The people mentioned/shown in those yearbooks have a high likelihood of still being alive today.

So what do you guys think? Is uploading entire grade-school American yearbooks that are in the public domain at Commons permissible by law, or do personality rights laws significantly enough effect their distribution that we can't host them? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Legally speaking, in the US, I can't imagine any personality rights laws that it would come close to violating.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

File:GadsamNewLogo.jpg

The uploader of this file has had a number of their uploads tagged or nominated for deletion for questionable licensing and claims of "own work". The uploader also posted this at COM:AN/B in which they say I will continue uploading copyrighted images after final warning. Unless the uploader has some serous difficulty communicating with others in English, such a statement further raises questions about the author's "own claims". This file might be OK per COM:TOO United States, but I'm not sure about it's country of origin (which seems to be COM:Indonesia). Can this be kept by tweaking the licensing to {{PD-logo}} or should it be discussed at COM:DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In order to keep a record attached to the file, I'll prefer a regular DR. A keep should be properly documented. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Hedwig in Washington. I was going to start a DR about this, but the file was deleted per COM:F1 before I could do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Can I make noCurrency templates?

After I make currency copyright world map, I have a new idea.

It's noCurrency template.

I conceived this from noFoP templates (such as {{NoFoP-South Korea}}, {{NoFoP-France}}, {{NoFoP-Italy}}, etc).

Taking the UK(per COM:CUR UK) as an example, it looks like this:

Example

Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright. This image features UK banknotes or coins. UK banknots are fully protected by copyright, so no images of these banknotes may be uploaded to Commons. UK coin designs are copyrighted by the Royal Mint and publishing images of coins may only be allowed with the official consent of the Royal Mint, so none of these images is allowed on Commons. This template can only be used when the currency is de minimis. Otherwise, the file will be deleted.

Can I make templates like this?

Ox1997cow (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Ox1997cow: I think {{De minimis}} is enough. Just explain using relevant parameters of the template on why the involved images are compliant with de minimis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: However, like many photos of buildings and sculptures that are uploaded without knowing freedom of the panorama, they are often uploaded without knowing the copyright or terms of use of the currency. So, I think currency should also have warning templates like NoFoP templates.

Ox1997cow (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps that's one thing to be dealt with. Perhaps "veteran" users here know the best. Pinging one of them, @Jeff G.: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I agree that using {{De minimis}} with parameter 1 of "a UK banknote, fully protected by the Royal Mint copyright" without quotes would work instead of creating new templates. See the result at Template:De minimis/doc.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G. and JWilz12345: OK. So, I won't make NoCurrency Templates. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition, Can I make Currency-unknown template? I looked at the {{FoP-unknown}} template and thought of the idea. The purpose is to use for currency photo of countries where the copyright of the currency is unknown (countries not listed in COM:CUR).

Ox1997cow (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I think this one is a good idea.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G. and JWilz12345: OK. So, I will make Currency-unknown template. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I made {{Currency-unknown}} and Category:Currency-unknown. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: Thanks, I made some tweaks.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it OK to upload Laosian currency image?

After I made {{Currency-unknown}}, I think this.

File:Stack of 360 banknotes of 50'000 kips (Laos).jpg is an image in COM:CUR and it's QI.

However, Laos is not listed in COM:CUR.

Is it OK to upload Laosian currency image?

Ox1997cow (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The Laotian law probably does not specifically mention banknotes. So, you should assume that they are protected by copyright. Ruslik (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this Mars 2020 experiment logo meet the threshold of originality?

logo for the RIMFAX (Radar Imager for Mars' Subsurface Experiment) experiment on the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover

Should this logo have the {{Trademark}} and/or {{PD-textlogo}} templates to applied to it, or does it meet the threshold of originality?

I'm leaning on the side of it being okay but I'm not sure enough to do it myself. Aluxosm (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It is just a map superposed with a text. So, probably not. Ruslik (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Thanks for your input! I've applied the templates but I'll leave this unresolved for the moment in case anyone disagrees. Aluxosm (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I think that logo fall below ToO so it is permissible to stay here.--Vulphere 13:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Satellite images of Spratly Island features by Minh.sweden

Could anyone please check the uploads of @Minh.sweden: , specifically the satellite/aerial images of Spratly Oslands features claimed to be sourced from https://landsatlook.usgs.gov/viewer.html (yet the indicated author is "NASA" and the licenses are claimed to be CC-BY-SA 4.0). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The link does not work. Ruslik (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean if they're Landsat imagery it can be used here, those CC tags should just be replaced with {{PD-USGov-NASA}} @JWilz12345. Currently the Landsat viewer is down for me however, so I can't check. — Berrely • ^T∕_C 14:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

non free brokerage logo

is this free File:AgahLogo.png Baratiiman (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it’s ineligible for copyright since it’s all text and simple shapes. {{PD-textlogo}} is appropriate. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ytoyoda: Huh? Isn't COM:TOO Iran very low? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: I stand corrected. I was thinking mostly from US standards of ToO, but I'll defer to editors who are more familiar with Iranian copyright law. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Requests the end of DR which is in progress for a long time.

I've found some of long-running DRs that are no longer adding opinion.

Here they are.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cable car up the Seoul Tower (33580430468).jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gocheok Sky Dome WBSC Premier 12 2019.jpg

Related above DR

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gocheok Sky Dome.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gocheok Skydome outside.JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gocheok Skydome.jpg

• Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Bulgaria
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jang Chung.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dongdaemun Design Plaza
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hand of Coexistence.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/NoFoP templates
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of North Korea — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.133.172.39 (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(There are a lot of others, but only some were imported.)

Please decide whether to delete or keep these DRs and terminate them.

Ox1997cow (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ox1997cow. You might want to try asking about this at COM:AN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Lepus images

Can I upload these images?

• https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/40890455 (for en:African savanna hare and the articles in other languages)
• https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/42446205 (for en:Broom hare and the articles in other languages)
• https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/7633860 (for en:Tehuantepec jackrabbit and the articles in other languages)

All images seem to be licensed under CC BY 4.0. I have read Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses, but I want to be sure. --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 11:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@NGC 54: Yes, you can!  Mysterymanblue  12:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, you can upload those images.--Vulphere 13:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Just add {{Licensereview}} somewhere in the page, so that the license on the source site can be verified. Thanks! --Ruthven (msg) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There's also {{INaturalistreview}}, which gets automatically reviewed by a bot. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@NGC 54: You might be interested in User:Kaldari/iNaturalist2Commons, which imports map location and metadata as well. It's currently more tailored for browsing suitable iNaturalist images of a given taxon, as opposed to uploading preselected images straight from iNaturalist, but it is helpful. --Animalparty (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

File:J Class World Championship - Newport Shipyard by D Ramey Logan.webm non-free audio

This file appears to contain non-free audio licensed under a non-commercial, no derivatives license, shouldn't the audio be removed and the old revision redacted? I am doubting myself as it was uploaded by an experienced user and made its way on to the main page as MOTD despite this. Dylsss (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This is NOT a commercial use of the work. It was used under the license as the license dictates in a non commercial manner. The site the music was acquired from provides FREE MUSIC and under your assertion, the songs while provided free on the site your claim that adding it to a video is a none derivative manner, I had checked with the creator before it was uploaded. --Don (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Commons only hosts works that can be used commercially, which does not include this music. The audio should be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I have permission from the files owner: https://www.facebook.com/tom.cascino and have asked him to address this personally with a OTRS. --Don (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The file page says "Under The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License." That's not being disputed. Are they willing to relicense it under a license Commons accepts? If not, nobody is contesting your right to use the file, just it's acceptability on Commons where neither noncommercial or no-derivatives licenses are accepted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, I have asked him again. I had reached out to him in 2017 before it was published. Let the guy enjoy his easter, he works for Go Pro and I am sure is not sitting at his computer. --Don (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I am exporting a new file, using CC 4.0 music now and should Tom not reply today I will load it later in the day. Issue resolved: --Don (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@WPPilot: The old version will still have to be hidden.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

After consuming my computer for 24 hours, I have a new 4k version ready to upload with free 4.0 music on it and the server will not allow me to upload it. https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmyFn0U7_rmJpAr8kIaBiqG3pRXd?e=MXgPAm It is 1.7 gb in size and the max the server now allows is 100 mb. Any suggestions? --Don (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@WPPilot: You could try using User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js to overwrite (documentation is on the talk page).   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Go right ahead, I have enough time into this already. --Don (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@WPPilot:  Doing…   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Great thank you. I have already update the page with the songs used so once you get it uploaded go right ahead and remove the old version. Feel free to archive the "convo" and Thank you for your help. Cheers! --Don (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@WPPilot: Sadly, the first attempt failed, see phab:T279407. I am trying again with "use stash and async (recommended for large videos and photos)" unchecked.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 06:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@WPPilot: The third upload attempt (a retry with extra comment) completed. Hopefully, a kind Admin will hide your upload.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I will get it taken care of. Thanks again for your help--Don (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC).

@WPPilot: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• WPPilot, really sorry to be this nitpicky, but you still need to change the license of your file from CC-BY 4.0 to CC-BY-SA 4.0 (or a CC-BY-SA 4.0 compatible license like the Free Art License), otherwise you are not complying with the license terms of https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Vincent_Augustus/Nightlife_for_Morning_People/7_Indigo. Dylsss (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Dylsss I don't have time for this, I am not changing anything else and if you care to strip the music, nominate it for removal etc. then you go right ahead ok Dylsss. --Don (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The license on the music states the following:

You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

Now the video itself is under 4.0 and the legal text reads:

You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix – to adapt the work Under the following conditions: Attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

I don't want to be a copyright attorney and I have never played one on T.V. but what is it that is missing here?

Are you asserting that my video should be release under the 3.0 and I should, could somehow now after 5 years change the license from

[| Creative Commons Attribution 4.0] to the [International to Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)]???

Don't you have something better to do with your time? --Don (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Don: I changed it for you to cc-by-sa-4.0 in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Jeff G. I don't see any problem with adding SA. Thanks @Jeff G.: . --Don (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I am glad that this is resolved now, please do appreciate that I am not trying to make it harder for you to contribute, I am simply trying to make sure that reusers of our files can use them safely and that Commons is only hosting perpetually free content, which as volunteers of this community, should be in our best interest. Dylsss (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • DylsssAs you have noted, I have been here for a long time. Rather then approaching the public copyright board, you might want to consider reaching out directly. It is like using a bullhorn when a quick text would suffice. --Don (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Help needed (Bonhams item)

Resolved

Hello! I would really like to upload this picture for one high-profile article on the English Wikipedia (Battle of Chaldiran).[6] Does anyone know which license I need to add? - LouisAragon (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Same goes for this item from the same website.[7] - LouisAragon (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Unfortunately as a 3 dimensional work, the photograph is copyrightable and cannot be uploaded. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, specifically the sections about 3d works. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah thats unfortunate, but thanks, got it! - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Screenshot from (presumably) Google Earth - copyright violation?

Hi all. I noticed that File:Peter_Sinks.jpg is a screenshot from (what looks like) Google Earth, and is currently filed as CC BY-SA 4.0, which I doubt is valid for screenshots of Google Earth. Is that correct? What should be done with that file - should it be marked for deletion? Thanks. Jokullmusic (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If it is actually a Google Earth screenshot, it is a copyright violation. If you can go to Google Earth and produce a link to the same image, that should be evidence enough to make any deletion proposal straightforward.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Jokullmusic and Pere prlpz: I've seen the same image on my own google earth. It is already marked for speedy deletion by Wcam. [pinging Wcam: @Wcam: ] --Red-back spider (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Cook Islands FOP

Relevant for:

• Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Cook Islands

Can anyone access this WIPO pdf file of Cook Islands' copyright law, Copyright Law 2013? For some reason, I cannot access WIPO pdf files lately. (WIPO description page: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/legislation/details/15477) According to Barrett (2018), "many Asian Pacific jurisdictions were once British colonies or protectorates of Australia or New Zealand, such as the Cook Islands, whose own copyright legislation has traditionally followed United Kingdom law." Barrett adds, while the New Zealand Copyright Act 1962 broadly followed the Copyright Act 1956 (UK), "the former included murals in freedom of panorama, whereas the latter did not. New Zealand exempted murals until its 1994 Copyright Act commenced, whereas the Cook Islands continued to include murals in its freedom of panorama exemption until 2013." So it seems to indicate that Cook Islands has FOP that is based on UK-NZ FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can access the WIPOLEX.--Vulphere 11:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Their 2013 law replaced the 1962 NZ law, but I don't see any FoP provision at all in there. So FoP may have ended there in 2013. I don't see a specified term for anonymous or pseudonymous works either, which is kind of odd. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In this case, I might now ping @Aymatth2: for the composition of the FOP section of CRT/Cook Islands. It seems weird that I cannot view or download WIPO pdf files, but I can access WIPO text versions. The Cook Islands copyright law has no text version, however. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I started a FOP section. A search on "cannot download a pdf file" may give some tips. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Aymatth2: I can download other pdf files, but cannot download those from WIPO. I can't be sure if they have did some tweaks that might have prevented Samsung browser from asking to either download the pdf file or view the pdf file on my pdf viewer app. Anyway, I will post queries on countries' FOP statuses here if the English text (not pdf) versions of each copyright laws are unavailable, or if it is only pdf version available and not the text version (like Cook Is.'s). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • That is odd. I mostly use a Windows laptop with the Chrome browser, but have Samsung Galaxy A10 and have no problem opening the PDF of the Cook Islands 2013 law. Dunno. I am in Costa Rica - don't know if it is country-specific. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment@Aymatth2: And how about Niue? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Logo upload

Hello. Is this logo suitable to be uploaded under {{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademark}} or any other? Link to company's Patents & Trademarks is: https://www.etcconnect.com/IP/#trademarks. --Gpkp (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This is probably an example of {{Pd-shape}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

COPA copyright policy

Hi I was curious about migrating this video to commons https://vimeo.com/536331629 but I'm unclear about the copyright policy from COPA under §6.1.1 Video Release Policy here: https://www.chicagocopa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Final-COPA-Rules-and-Regulations-April-2018.pdf can someone advise? Victorgrigas (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything in there addressing copyright. They will release stuff to the public, which would be public records, but there is no indication that the public has any right to use them beyond fair use (which would be a pretty wide scope for stuff like that, but still would not allow commercial use etc.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

SVG versions of copyrighted diagrams

Hello. I would like versions of two diagrams to be made in SVG format for WCommons: this one (from here) and this one (from here). Is it possible? Since the models are copyrighted, and I am aiming at a faithful recreation of said models, I wonder if the new SVG versions would infringe copyright or fall under the copyrights of the models; and if they do, I wonder if versions a bit different from the models would count as original work. Veverve (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Veverve. See COM:SVG#Copyright, COM:CB#Scientific or technical diagrams and COM:DW for more details. Even if a separate copyright for the svg version can be claimed, you still would probably need to take into account the copyright status of the original diagram for Commons to keep it. Even if you try to do make things a little bit different (I'm not sure what that means), it seems that would still be a derivative work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Veverve I checked the diagrams out, and I also agree that a lot of creative decisions went into selecting the topics and asserting the relationships. If this is unambiguous factual data then there may be no copyright, but otherwise this could be a creative work and a creative design. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Preferred process for raising doubt about a claimed license?

Hello -- In occasionally patrolling new images, I often see images that come up that claim to be self-released into a CC license or the public domain, but there is not strong indication that it is indeed the work of the uploader. What is the preferred method for raising a license concern of this nature? I'm talking about images that don't appear to clearly fall within {{copyvio}}, {{subst:nsd}}, {{subst:nld}}, or {{subst:npd}} -- it rather just appears that the license/permission being claimed is unlikely. For example, I'm presently looking at File:Logo-vfb-1928.jpg -- it simultaneously claims to be published in 1928 but that the uploader released it into the public domain themselves. Is the preferred process to just nominate for regular deletion via the sidebar automated tool and describe the issue there? To raise the issue on the file/user's talk page? I'm just a bit confused on what is most useful when the license information isn't missing per se, just doubtful. Mathmitch7 (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Correction:OK, I was misremembering -- on the file I link as an example, the user claims that the copyright holder (Author: "Diverse") released it into the PD themselves, which is... also doubtful? But a bit different than when somebody claims "Author: Self" as I've seen many times. Mathmitch7 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mathmitch7: The default process is deletion nomination. I recognize that the usual function of deletion discussions is not clarification license ambiguity, but that is the workflow which we have in place to get the kind of community review which such files would need. Any alternative would be a one-off. If you have 5-30 such cases, then you might list them here in a single discussion. If you have 30-500 cases, then you might list them on a project page then link to it from a discussion here. There is no dedicated noticeboard or template or process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks!! Mathmitch7 (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Commercial image source after permission granted

Hello - my question concerns this file which was initially uploaded without completing copyright release validation. It is now received, with the commercial contact following the Commons template and legally releasing the copyright in an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (and to my personal email) on 14 April 2021. I have received no notice confirming that the release was in order and accepted, and the file appears in danger of deletion. Its Wikipedia page is here. Zefr (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The image file is shown as licensed, although there remains a pending OTRS review as of 16 April (one editor indicated a 13 day backlog at present). For the record, I initiated the original request for OTRS so was provided the ticket number, 2021041410000471, while simultaneously taking the corporate representative through the template email which she transmitted a day later to the Commons permissions email, where, apparently, it now sits in the queue for final review. Zefr (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zefr. The file has been tagged with the template {{OTRS pending}}, which means that OTRS has received an email related to the file and the email, but the email is still awaiting final vefication. So, the email is in the OTRS system and now it's just waiting to be checked by an OTRS volunteer. If the email checks out, an OTRS volunteer will add the template {{OTRS permission}} to the file's page; if, on the other hand, the OTRS volunteer feels there's a problem with the email, they will add the template {{OTRS received}}. In either case, the file isn't in danger of immediate deletion and eventually things will addressed by an OTRS volunteer. If you were the person who emailed OTRS, I think you should've received an automated response stating that your email has been received and is being processed as OTRS ticket number XXXXXXXXXX. The OTRS ticket number is sort of like an OTRS case number that you can refere to if you have any questions about the file's status at COM:OTRS. If you weren't the person to email OTRS, then there would be no reason to notify you because OTRS only discusses the emails it receives with the persons who send them; OTRS won't discuss any specifics with anyone else and they won't discuss any specific on any public Commons pages. OTRS will most likely email the sender if there's a problem and explain what further is needed. Now, as for This has been resolved as a copyright-free image, that is not the case at all. The file is currently licensed using a Creative Commons license which is not the same as being "copyright free". There's been no transfer or cancellation of copyright here; all that is happening is that the copyright holder is making a version of this particular image available for others to use as they please, but they will still need to do so in accordance with the terms of the {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I linked the file and Ticket:2021041410000471.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Togo FOP?

I reviewed the FOP clause of Togo, revisiting the actual en translation from WIPO. I analyzed the wording: "The reproduction in a film or television program or public communication of figurative works of art or architecture that are permanently located in a public place or included in the film or program in a way that is incidental to the main subject, shall be lawful." I think that the "incidental" wording may only refer to the film or (TV) program, but I hope someone who knows French will access the French version, to determine if the French translation has the same guess as mine or applies the "incidental" wording even to photos (which COM:FOP Togo currently stands). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The French translation on Commons says "Est licite, la reproduction en vue de la cinématographie, de la télévision et de la communication publique des œuvres d'art figuratif et d'architecture placées de façon permanente dans un lieu public et dont l'inclusion dans le film on dans l'émission n'a qu'un caractère accessoire ou incident par rapport au sujet principal" (which is the same as the French original) only mentions "la cinématographie (film), de la télévision (television) et de la communication publique (public communication)," nothing about photos. That being said, any usage of a photo in commons is arguably public communication. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Tanzanian FOP outside Zanzibar

The FOP world map and COM:CRT/Tanzania#Freedom of panorama are inconsistent with each other. The map states that Tanzanian FOP is not OK, but on CRT page it is OK (for moving images and videos). I revisited the WIPO text of their copyright law, and the relevant FOP-like clause is: "The reproduction of works of art and of architecture in an audiovisual or video recording, and the communication to the public of the works so reproduced, if the said works are permanently located in a place where they can be viewed by the public or are included in the audio work or video recording only by way of background or as incidental to the essential matters represented."

The terms "audiovisual work" and "communication to the public" are clearly defined in the first part. The former means "work that consists of a series of related images which impart the impression of motion, with or without accompanying sounds, susceptible of being made visible and where accompanied by sounds susceptible of being made audible." The second one means "means the transmission by wire, or without wire, of the images or sound, or both, of a work, a performance, a sound recording or a broadcast, in such a way that the images or sounds can be perceived or accessed by persons outside the normal circle of a family and its closest social acquaintances at a place so distant from the place where the transmission, the images or sounds would not be perceivable or accessible and, further, irrespective of whether the persons can receive or access the images or sound at the same place and time, or at different places and/or times individually chosen by them."

I don't know if this FOP provision of Tanzania is compatible for Commons, and which among the two (the FOP map or the CRT page) has the most correct interpretation. If Tanzanian FOP is not OK (given the fact that majority of files here are still images), then the mark on CRT should be "not OK" in my opinion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

File: Benjamin Smith - Air France.jpg

Hello

I posted this picture to Benjamin Smith (executive) page from this link: https://www.airfranceklm.com/fr/groupe/gouvernance/comite-executif

And it was deleted, claiming copyright infringement.

I work for Air France KLM and we would officially like to use this photo for our CEO’s wiki page. How do we make this happen?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.lipsey (talk • contribs) 16:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please follow the instruction at COM:OTRS. Regards. T Cells^Talk 20:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Edmund L Gettier III ca 1960s umass v2.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation

I need assistance. The following file was flagged as a possible copyright infringement (@‪Magnolia677‬ notified me) and I don't know what to do. The picture was in our family for ~50 years, and was first published by me on 4/16/21: after my father's pasing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edmund_L_Gettier_III_ca_1960s_umass_v2.jpg. Edmund L. Gettier has a notable Wikipedia presence but had no picture, which was causing a great deal of confusion and misappropriation. I published two versions of the photo Edmund_L_Gettier_III_ca_1960s_umass.jpg and Edmund_L_Gettier_III_ca_1960s_umass_v2.jpg, the later fixing an imperfection in the original. The later photo is the best photo, and Edmund Gettier's family wants that photo on his wiki page, as it is presently.

Between the first and second publication of similar (yet different camera shots, hence the imperfection) pictures, the site https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/04/10/the-gettier-problem/ used the first published picture to fix a misappropriation in their original picture. However, the second photo came back as a copyright infringement when I tried to publish it since https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/04/10/the-gettier-problem/ used the first one.

Using the waybackmachine I was able to verify that the previous photo 1000wordphilosophy.com had as of 2020-11-20 was: https://thesymposiummagazinedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/26369_edmund_gettier.jpg, which is a completely different person, Not Ed Gettier. They in fact changed the picture at our request, as we are trying to clarify our Father's picture on the Internet.

Please advise. We are trying set the record straight regarding the correct picture of him, and the family doesn't want the picture removed. Thanks! DaveGettier (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion started at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edmund L Gettier III ca 1960s umass v2.jpg. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Museum release of a photo of an artwork with permission from the artist to release the photo

Let's say we're in a country no FOP. A museum releases a photo of a painting in its collection. The painting is under copyright. The museum submits evidence of that release to OTRS along with a statement that the artist consents to release this depiction of their artwork. We do not have evidence directly from the artist, and the copyright of the depicted painting is unaffected (the artist does not intend to release the painting with a free license). Is this sufficient to host on Commons?

This is the underlying question of a thread at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Requesting_second_opinion_regarding_a_release. I hoped to resolve this quickly so the uploader's (Kruusamägi, also the OTRS representative who accepted the ticket) FPC nomination would not be affected. Regrettably, the nomination was closed.

This seems like a very straightforward matter for which one of us (quite possibly me) has fundamentally misunderstood. Perhaps posting here will find a resolution, and if I am wrong Kruusamägi can renominate and we can move forward with egg on my face. :) The file in question is File:Ekspositsioon - Tiit Pääsuke.jpg. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It depends on what kind the photo is. If it is a slavish copy, it is probably not possible to release the photo without releasing the underlying work as well. Ruslik (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's linked above. Regardless, could you give an example of when a painting is the main subject of a photograph and not itself freely licensed but it is ok to host on Commons? (assuming no FOP exception) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: My guess is that Ruslik0 might be talking about COM:DM, but perhaps he did mean something else. Anyway, I'm not an OTRS volunteer, but my understanding has always been that an email is needed for both the photo and the work in general, unless the copyright holder of both is one and the same. Is it possible that the museum is acting as the official representative of the artist? In such a case, a single email might be considered acceptable, wouldn't it? At the same time, OTRS has verified the email which means the file should be OK unless the OTRS volunteer made the wrong judgement call. Anyway, in either case, this seems to be something that OTRS volunteers needsto resolve among themselves; so, maybe the thing to do would be to try and ping some other OTRS volunteers into that OTRSN discussion and see whether they can sort this out. I do think OTRS volunteers have chatboard where they can discuss things among themselves more privately; so, maybe they'll be able to sort things out there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Let's even make an assumption that the museum has the legal authority to act for the artist, is it sufficient for the artist to consent to the release of the photo of the artwork without changing the copyright of the work itself? I've long understood this to be a hard no without something like FOP. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the work itself needs to be licensed in such a way so that every photograph taken of it at anytime could be released under a free license since that would seem to be asking quite a lot of the artist and kind of sounds like they're being asked to relinquish all copyright claim over their work. They might, however, agree to release a particular photo of their work under such a license. There could be a risk associated with this in the fact that others can freely reproduce or create derivative works based on that photo, but perhaps this is something the artist has considered and is willing to accept. My understanding is that a CC license doesn't mean that the copyright holder is transfering their ownership to a third-party reuser or relinquishing their claim of copyright, but rather only making a version of their choosing available for others to freely use in accordance with the terms of the license. Maybe that's incorrect, but that's always been my understanding. On English Wikipedia, for example, editors agree to meta:Terms of use each time they click "Publish changes"; this doesn't mean (per my understanding) that they no longer can claim copyright ownership over the content they create, but just that they are agreeing to nake it freely available or others to use as long as they abide by the terms of en:WP:REUSE. Maybe, however, my understanding about that is a bit off as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

asking quite a lot of the artist and indeed isn' tthis why we have so few pictures of copyrighted works. If we could say to an artist "no, don't worry, you don't give up any rights at all -- you just have to say it's ok for me to upload this photo of your painting" then that would solve a lot of our problems. My understanding of the way Commons works is that in order to have an image freely usable and modifiable by anyone for any purpose, if that image depicts a copyrighted work, then that work needs to be freely usable and modifiable by anyone for any purpose. Permission applicable only to a single depiction of that work isn't, AFAIK, sufficiently legally transferrable to other uses/modifications of that image. no longer can claim copyright ownership over the content they create, but just that they are agreeing to nake it freely available or others to use - right. When you release something with a CC license, you still own the copyright. You give up the right to sue someone just for using or modifying the text. In this case, the artist isn't doing that; they're not agreeing to let people use or modify their copyrighted work; they've only allowed a museum to release its picture of the work. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether many artists would agree to making their work freely usable and modifiable by anyone for any purpose because that would seem to imply that they'd be OK with people actually physcially modifying their original work at anytime in any way they see fit; they might, however, be OK wth releasing certain pictures of their work and giving people permission to modify that particular representation of their work. It would seem that even the right to modify a photo of a public domain work would not extend to actually the right of being physcially able to modify the actual work itself. I'm certainly no expert on this so perhaps I'll just step aside and let others more knowlegable about the subject matter sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem may appear if we have a photo that is not considered a separate copyrightable work, eg. a 2D photo of a 2D work in US legal system. I am not sure if a work presentation form that is not subject to copyright can be subject to licensing. No problem if the photo is a separate work: the artist is free to decide which work his license applies to and in case of derivative work the author of the original work can be considered a co-author of the DW. So, in my opinion, no problem to license the work separately if they indeed can be considered separate works. Ankry (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I actually meant that it is not possible to release the photo, which is a slavish copy of another work, under a CC license without releasing the original work under the same license. This is because the slavish copy is not an independent work and does not have a separate copyright attached to it. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This photo is not a work itself. It is a copy of another work. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Ankry: I don't follow how this applies to the original question? Can a museum say "the artist said it's ok if we publish this photo of their painting with a free license" and Commons host it just based on that? The reason [at least as I've always understood] we need a compatible free license from the artist directly, not from the photographer (regardless of separability) is that we need documentation that the artist is ok with anyone using or modifying the likeness of their painting for any purpose, commercial or noncommercial, forever (i.e. a Commons-compatible license). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant the same as Ruslik above: it depends what the photo presents. If the photo also presents also something other than a 2D art, it can be released (CC-licensed) without releasing the art itself. If the photo is "slavish copy" of a 2d art, the photo cannot be licensed separately (however, this may depend on jurisdiction - in some countries such release may be still possible, but problematic elsewhere). Ankry (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

As that "slavish copy" is given under free license by the artist, then none of it matters anyway. We can discuss the details of it all day and night, but permission is there and so that is free. If it indeed means, that the underlying work must also be free, then that could only mean that the underlying work IS free. If it does not mean that, then that file is still free for everyone to use. So there is no reason to discuss it further... unless we really plan to break into the museum (as it is currently closed due COVID situation in Estonia) and take some images of that painting, that we would also like to share under free licenses. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC) 

BTW I have not claimed, that this particular photo has some copyright on its own. It doesn't. I even specifically explain that in my longer comment (and this part of discussion is now happening in the middle of it).

And yes, some very specific nuances could be discussed -- like, if there is that kind of permission, then could we claim that the work itself is also free... or is it too big of a stretch. But to us for all practical purposes that discussion is pretty meaningless (or purely theoretical as this doesn't affect the file in question nor would we need other copies of that painting). When we have one high-quality repro of a painting, then we just don't need another. Why waste server space on some worse quality repros? (as it would be impossible to make any better quality repros from a mere museum visitor anyway) So for all practical purposes we now have what can be considered an absolute maximum there could be. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

To me it seems that the main misconception is on when something becomes free. Rhododendrites interprets that in a way that is far more strict, than how that works out in the real life (and as this is not uncommon in Commons, that overly strict approach is taken, then this is not surprising that there may be this assumption).

Asking permission from the artist normally means that the person asks permission regarding the use of a photo (or sth like that) of a copyrighted object on a specific place and/or under specific conditions (for example the permission to use a photo in a book). This is the standard approach. Now asking that the artist should give the underlying work into free use is very much an extreme case and this has fairly little to do with the thing mentioned previously. People can still do that, but it is a very different situation. There are many legally suitable ways how a photo of a copyrighted object can end up being under a free license (and also free to use), but this is (or has) never been a requirement for the underlying work to also be under a free license so that a photo of it could be under a free license. It is just one option among many.

With this specific file, the mentioned difference is pretty small as this is 2D work. That is why I illustrated my point on some earlier comments with 3D work so that it would be easier to understand the difference regarding asking permission (and I assume this is why this FoP was mentioned in some comments, even though that is irrelevant as paintings are usually never permanently exhibited outdoors etc; anyway, FoP or lack of it doesn't apply here).

To illustrate once again this extremely big difference, then let us assume we have here a photo of a sculpture. I agree that my work (the photo) will be under CC SA-BY 4.0 and I ask the sculptor if he/she agrees, that this image can be under that license. If the permission is granted, then that photo is indeed under CC SA-BY 4.0 and everyone could use that photo freely. All claims that this is somehow non-free image (as the underlying sculpture is not under CC SA-BY 4.0) are just baseless. I mean people can say that, but this is not valid legally. With a sculpture, it should be fairly easy to understand, that the photo is a separate work and this could be under CC SA-BY 4.0 license, even when the sculpture is not. There are many ways how that could happen, but we do understand that this is so. That is also what Ankry told.

Now with a truthful reproduction of a painting, the photographer will not have any copyright. So we can safely ignore it. But we could not ignore the artist. What we need there is that the artist will agree that this repro is under a free license (not that the painting itself is under such license; as I explained earlier, then this is something different!). If an artist grants this, then this (specific!) file could be used freely by everyone. But if the artist agrees that the painting itself is under that license, then not only this file has to be free, but so would be free all other photos made of that painting in the past or in the future). It is a bit more complicated (as this is 2D work), but let's not get over into minor nuances.

It is not uncommon that there are tens, if not hundreds or even thousands, of different quality photographs of well-known paintings (that even has a specific term). It is usually considered a problem. If the artist says that only this repro is free to use, then that could help to reduce the spread of bad quality repros (as only derivates of this file are truly free to spread). From the perspective of a museum, an artist, and an encyclopedia, that is a good thing to keep it so.

Things could also be a lot more complicated. For instance, I don't know what rights does the museum has (as the institution, or a person, who buys the painting could also buy the rights!). So just to be on the safe side I asked permission via the museum so that both museum and the artist have agreed that this set of files is indeed free (and files themselves come from the museum anyway as they made the repros). Also: it would be a lot easier for the museum to convince the artist (especially as they are in the ownership of the physical item and use the repros in their marketing) + we want to stay with the good standing with the museum (and excluding them from the permission talks could harm that).

That pretty much closes the topic. But then again we could ask if is it true that the museum indeed got permission from the artist? In the current case there is a special exhibition about the works of that artist right now on the museum walls and that naturally means the museum has had extensive discussions with the artist regarding all sorts of topics (up to the point that there was a lengthy book published and the depictions of the paintings are used in the museum shop merchandise). So we have no reasonable reason to doubt with the word of the museum director. (And I also personally know several museum staff members and know that that this is indeed so and this is a part of a longer cooperation project with the museum.) Kruusamägi (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kruusamägi: Ok. I'll stop pursuing this, as nobody has jumped in to suggest I have it right. I find it concerning that I feel like I have a pretty good handle on copyright issues on Commons, and yet this was an apparent glaring exception which our documentation did not clearly address. Additional information on our help pages for such a case may be helpful. Thanks for taking the time to try to explain (on multiple pages), and sorry to take up so much time. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: It would also be difficult to convince me, if it would be just one person arguing against me in a similar situation (it is not that we could solve that easily with some book and claim, that "it is written..."). So I understand the wish to get some more people involved. I've also had other cases in Commons when something has been nominated for deletion for similar misconseptions. So definitely there have been cases like that and this clery makes it more difficult to set records straight.

As for the painting... well I like it (I even chose it here, as it seems to reprecent well the Estonian painting at that time period). FP nomination was a fail and I didn't even get input if it would be resonable to nominate something like that or not. Maybe I'll try with this. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this might be a stupid question, but since the pictures of the artwork have been released under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license, I (or anyone) can put those pictures on t-shirts and sell them, right? Or mugs or calendars or in books or any of the merchandise that galleries usually sell to accompany an exhibition like this? Is that right or am I misunderstanding? Jorge Cisne (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes they can. Kruusamägi (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• This artwork has a free copyright license The permission from the museum is acceptable and this is a conventional media release.
  • There is only one copyright in play here, which is the copyright of the original artwork
  • There is no copyright of a photo here, because the copyright of a faithful reproduction of a work is the same as the copyright of the original work. Faithful reproductions do not get an additional copyright, but the exceptions are at Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs
  • Copyright attribution goes to the original artist. The museum does not hold a copyright here for the reproduction or anything else.
  • The museum is able to communicate copyright permission on behalf of the artist for this artwork. In Commons we trust by default that when a reputable institution like a museum says that they are acting on behalf of an artist, and in their official capacity they say that the artist wishes to have their artwork in Commons with a Wikimedia compatible license, then we accept that.
  • There is nothing extraordinary or unconventional here. This is an artist applying a free license to a painting, with the museum acting as their agent for communicating the license.

I propose changing the file to indicate that Copyright attribution goes to the original artist, as right now the attribution on the file page is to the museum.

@Kruusamägi: I think that I agree with you but do you see a point where our positions are different? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I have not seen the OTRS ticket myself. My understanding from what Kruusmagi said (and what another OTRS volunteer said) was that the museum framed it as releasing that particular file to which the artist consented; not releasing the artwork itself. I agree there is not a separate copyright, but from this discussion it sounds like the artist is not actually releasing the painting with a free license; only this particular file. The impossibility of the latter is why I opened this to begin with. I cannot see the ticket, however, so perhaps it is a more straightforward release of the artwork itself and this has all been a non-issue? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: ee... different? That is pretty much what I have been telling all along (like to copyright of photographer is irrelevant, the museum is a perfectly suitable agent etc.). As it is already a third page where this discussion is happening, then I haven't read it through specifically with an idea, are my answers still enough clear for people who have not read the previous comments.

I'm a bit confused about you saying that "the attribution on the file page is to the museum". Where do you take that? As it uses "Artwork" template, then all this is somewhat different, but it clearly identifies T. Pääsuke as the artist and by default artist is the person who should be attributed. What refers to the museum, are "what collection this item belongs" (Tartu Art Museum painting collection) and "where does the image of the artworks come from" (Tartu Art Museum). Kruusamägi (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kruusamägi: Ah, I misread about attribution. You are right. Okay, I think you said all these things first, then I just repeated. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Let me make it a bit more complicated for you. What if I go and take a photo of the backside of that same painting... probably the artist has written something there, maybe even draw or sketched something. That would definetly be copyrightable. Would that photo be also under CC BY-SA 4.0 by default? If the painting is under CC BY-SA 4.0, and I specifically document the backside of it, then this image must be under the same license. There could be no other option. But the image here has 0 bits of information about how the backside looks like (we can only deduce the dimensions). So if that image here is under CC SA-BY 4.0, then what about that potential image about the backside? Kruusamägi (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kruusamägi: Not sure what you are getting at, but the answer is that there is no backside to artworks. This is a 2D work. If there is art on the backside, then the other side is a different 2D work with a different copyright. If a work really has multiple angles then probably it is a sculpture with some other copyright considerations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I know. The reason for me asking that was to deal with one of the previous claims, that artwork itself must be given under free license so that photographs of it could be published under a free license. Like a photo of a sculpture in a non-FoP country could not be free when the sculpture itself is not. That is just not true (the sculptor may agree, that photo of his sculpture could be under a free license, and that does not mean, he/she has to give his/her sculpture under the same free license as well). But it seemed that this was also requested here and claimed, that artist must give his/her work under a free license and this is the only way. So my point was, that here we are dealing with this specific file (i.e truthful reproduction of what this painting depicts), but that doesn't mean that everything associated with this artwork is automatically free (like the backside of that painting... if there is anything) nor that it has to be (even though there isn't really much else what could be there, as this is 2-dimensional work and this is the public side of it, but that is why I previously used the example of a sculpture to bring out this difference).

Anyway, I guess we are done here. Thank you for your input to the topic! Kruusamägi (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It does seem like you are saying different things, though. What I have been saying (and what I take bluerasberry to mean) is that, yes, the artwork itself does need to have a free license in this case (let's put aside 3d artworks for the moment). The copyright is on the image/visual likeness of the painting, not on this particular file/photo. This has been the primary point of contention from the beginning. It's meaningless to release this particular file/photo because there is no separate copyright on the file/photo. It's the image of the painting that must be freely licensed such that any photo/file would be permitted. This is the point that it sounded like others were disagreeing with in the beginning of this thread, but seems to align with Bluerasberry's understanding (although he may be articulating it more effectively than I have). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the right conclusion is this: We accept forwarded permissions if 1) the text of the release clearly indicates that the copyright holder agrees to the license, assuming it is not forged; and 2) the forwarder risks significant reputational damage should the release turn out to be forged. So valid forwarders would include Commons admins, OTRS agents, and well-known institutions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: But the issue of forwarding is secondary here. While it's ideal for us to hear from the artist directly, we can reasonably expect a museum to be a reliable agent, I suppose. The bigger issue is about whether consent to release a specific file depicting an artwork is sufficient or whether the artwork itself would need to be released with a compatible license. My understanding is that, especially with a faithful photo of a 2d artwork, the license of the photo itself is more or less irrelevant, and all that matters is the copyright of the depicted work. Therefore we'd need a release for the artwork and not just a particular depiction thereof in order to host it here. It seemed like this thread was headed for a conclusion that, yes, it is possible for an artist to retain all rights while releasing only one particular photo of their work, but bluerasberry's addition suggests I'm not crazy after all (or at least I'm not the only one). :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not about the license of the photo, as in this case, the photo part is irrelevant (I have stated it several times). Why I talked about the difference of that in 3D objects is because of the false idea, that photos of a sculpture are not allowed when the sculptor has not allowed the sculpture under a free license. That is a grave misunderstanding. The truth is that author could give permission to a photo and does not need to allow the sculpture itself under a free license. It seems rather reasonable to fix that misconception, as otherwise it would create problems in the future with some other images.

As for this specific permission there indeed is some room for thought: does this permission now mean, that whoever wants could take a photo of that painting and publish it under CC SA-BY 4.0, or is it valid for only this specif repro (i.e only to a truthful reproduction) and all derivates from it. For practical purposes that is not important to us, as we don't need other photographs of this painting anyway and it would be very difficult to get some, as this museum only shows temporary exhibitions (so when the museum opens up again there would be already some other paintings on the walls). So as I have stated, this is a purely theoretical question and has no real implications for us. Nor does this change anything about this file. Kruusamägi (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

What I say is that the artist is not obliged to give the artwork under the free license and that is so just as true with 2D works as it is with 3D works. Yes, with paintings for all practical purposes it makes no difference in most cases. But let us say, that we have a detail of a painting: something like that (but not that). I say that artist could just as well say, that he/she allows that photo of a detail of a painting under a free license (so only a section of a painting is free). He/she is not required to allow a repro of all of the painting. That is the difference. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Helps from Moroccan users needed

It seems that some recent logo-related deletion requests are affecting Morocco, do we have any ideas to judge the level of Threshold of originality (TOO) in Morocco? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello I am not a lawyer but it seems that arywiki active users may help you? @Enzoreg: @Ghaly: @SADIQUI: --117.136.1.10 15:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

Of course you’re not a lawyer, @117.136.1.10: , you’re a bus livery designer and also an abuser of multiple accounts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC) :-D --JPF (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC) @Tuvalkin and J. Patrick Fischer: I'm asking something about Morocco, not that IP guy, and I don't familiar with that guy, let's back to the main topic, ok?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Sure… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC) And this IP guy was indeed saying a lot of nonsense things, so I would ignore their inputs, checked arywiki their actual active users are @Anass Sedrati and Ideophagous: . --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hello! How can I help? By the way there are other active users on the Moroccan Wikipedia such as @سمير تامر, OussamaOuh, and Reda benkhadra: -- Ideophagous (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC+2)

• Ideophagous, I need to know that in Morocco, which logos are copyrighted and which are not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: I had to search a bit to gather some information. Copyright on logos is generally not mentioned explicitly, but it's presumably protected under general laws of protection of copyright on artistic and commercial creations. These paragraphs may be relevant:

There is no specific system for the registration of copyright. The protection resulting from the copyright law shall begin as soon as the work is created, even if the work is not fixed on physical media. Moroccan law provides copyright protection for the literary or artistic expression of an idea, and there are no registration requirements to invoke such protection.

In principle, the protection of the economic rights over a copyright lasts the entire life of the author, and 70 years following the author’s death. The moral rights of authors are imprescriptible, inalienable and transmissible to the successors.

[what is protected under Moroccan copyright laws] ... (b) Figurative signs such as: devices, labels, seals, selvedges, reliefs, holograms, logos, synthesized images; shapes, particularly those of a product or its packaging or those that identify a service; arrangements, combinations or shades of color.

Morocco also signed the following conventions:

• The Berne Convention (on literary and artistic works), since June 1917.

• The WIPO Convention, since July 1971.

• The Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite, since June 1983.

• The TRIPS Agreement, since January 1995.

Chapter IV article 15 from a 2014 document issued by the Moroccan Ministry of Justice and Liberties, also specifies that the use of copyrighted material for non-commercial educational purposes without explicit permission from the author is perfectly legal, as long as the source and the name of the author are mentioned.

I hope this answers your question. If not, please let me know how I can be of further assistence. -- Ideophagous (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC+2)

References

God Save The South - wrong tag?

File:God_Save_the_South.ogg was uploaded today under the CC0 1.0 licence by User:E bitcc lol (his account also created today) but he's listed the copyright owner of the music as unknown. I'm fairly sure you can't use CC0 1.0 for an unknown work because it claims the singer has waived all rights to it. Can someone confirm that please? The C of E (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That is correct. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Prince Philip funeral TV India.jpg

I have some COM:Derivative works concern on File:Prince Philip funeral TV India.jpg. While the screen showing the funeral rites programme can be considered as COM:De minimis, the title suggests this TV as an important element here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that the name of the file really matters. Ruslik (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

What to do if someone claims to be the owner of the website they got a picture from?

Mujeeb134 claims to be the owner of these websites:

• https://totalshape.com/
• https://mygreexampreparation.com/
• https://www.transport-executive.co.uk/
• https://besttennisracquets.net/
• https://babyjourney.net/
• https://www.wellpet.org/

Most of his/her uploads are from those websites so I've decided to not to mark for speedy deletion yet. How do I check that he/she own or made the images for the websites? See User_talk:Mujeeb134#Copyright_violations
--Red-back spider (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Red-back spider: Check the domain registrations with whois.com. If they are different, ask why.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I've never used that site so I've got no idea how to do that but I have noticed that in the registrant contact section the phone numbers were different for https://babyjourney.net/ and https://www.wellpet.org/. --Red-back spider (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Red-back spider: I meant ask at User_talk:Mujeeb134#Copyright_violations. If you don't get a satisfactory answer, start a mass DR. An honest websites' owner will be willing to post permission on their websites or send it via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

"Own work" that isn't

File:NationCarry1_f.jpg is the "Own work" of User:Marianne.r.williams. It was taken "circa 1935. Photo by Ernie Deane" (presumably this person).

Well, that's simple: "Williams" is Deane (and probably a centenarian).

Uh, no: Williams is, she says (or said, on 2 April 2018) "the current Librarian-in-Residence at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Arkansas", and very much younger; the photo, or anyway something unspecified about it, is "courtesy of the Arkansas State Archives".

I think it's likely that everything here is above-board, just misdescribed. So in late March I invited Williams to clarify.

No response.

Variations on this are commonplace (I suspect in part because, during the upload process, choosing "own work" promises a quicker end to the legalistic interrogation). I can of course (i) nominate this for deletion, or (ii) pretend I haven't noticed it and do nothing. But is there a third alternative? -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you know when this photo was first published? Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No, Ruslik0, I don't. And for all I know, it may have been previously unpublished. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the source and the date according to the description. The license should be changed as well (assuming it is OK for a reason or another). Regards, Yann (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Yann. And I have changed the authorship from Williams to Deane. Left unspecified is the identity of the person who states that "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license". It can't be Deane, who died eleven years before Creative Commons copyleft licenses were introduced. The result is absurd. Note also that File:Ua 3432 f.jpg, photographed in 1954 by an unspecified photographer, is also the "Own work" of Williams, who looks considerably younger than the 80+ she'd have to be if the photo were hers; and note also that the thread immediately above, about File:Captain Mit Singh 1.jpg really asks the same question, this or that minor variant of: "What do we do when 'Own work' seems just to mean 'Yes it was me who scanned this for upload', and the scanner claims the right to copyleft the result?" (The problem seems endemic in Commons.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: There are probably many problems which are endemic to Commons. Since you're an English Wikipedia adminsitrator, I'm sure you can say the same about English Wikipedia. There are always going to be people who upload content to Commons as their "own work" even when it's not. I don't think there's any 100% way to stop such a thing from happening other than to vet everything upload as "own work" before it's allowed. This seems a bit unfeasible given the way Commons is set up, but requiring OTRS verification for all files uploaded as "own work" would probably stop catch many of these files as soon as they're uploaded. Otherwise, I guess the best that can be done is to try resolve them as best as possible when they're found either by adding appropriate speedy deletion templates or discussing them at COM:DR. COM:PCP seems clear that whenever there's significant doubt raised about the en:provenance of a file that can't be resolved, then the file should be deleted. If any issues related to a file can be eventually sorted out, the file can possibly be restored per COM:REFUND or COM:DRV. Anyway, FWIW, I think you've pointed out enough issues in this particular case to warrant further discussing the file as a DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Just want to add that in many cases those uploading content created by others as their "own work" are probably just doing so because they're not familiar with COM:L or COM:2D copying and not because they're trying COM:LL or anything else they clearly know to be wrong. So, sometimes, a friendly user talk page message help or even template notication can help explain things without coming down on their heads like a ton of bricks. It's only when they repeatedly do such things despite warnings or having prior uploads deleted for similar reasons that {{End of copyvios}} or stronger action is probably needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The biggest contributing factor in my book is cross-wiki uploads. For those who are unaware, the cross-wiki upload tool was "designed" to only support own-work uploads. Of course, that fact gets lost on the vast majority of people and they use it to upload other types of files anyway, with the hard-coded {{Own}}/CC-BY-SA-4.0. They don't necessarily know they're doing anything wrong, and probably don't even see our talk page messages because they're hidden behind a gray number on the notification icon, and not the orange bar of death. They only figure it out when their next upload happens to intersect with a time when we've blocked them. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That probably is a contributing factor. I've even seen a couple of cases where a file uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content was transferred or reuploaded to Commons under a claim of "own work". This might've been done because the person doing the transferring was having problems complying with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; so, they figured everything would be OK if the file was uploaded to Commons instead. I guess there's no way to stop someone from uploading something that's not there own work as "own work" if they're really intent on doing so other than, as I mentioned above, by vetting such files before they can be added. Such a process, however, would be both time and labor intensive and might unnecessarily penalize those who are really uploading their "own work". Maybe if cross-wiki uploads are a main cause of this, only that particular tool would need to be tweaked. Perhaps you should need a special user right to use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Excuse the absence, Marchjuly and AntiCompositeNumber: "RL" has been demanding. En:Wikipedia does indeed have endemic problems; but (perhaps just because of my relative unfamiliarity with Commons), once one is away from areas of ethnic grudges (Turkey/Armenia, the Balkans, Kashmir, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc etc) and the (numerous) products/obsessions of English-speaking mass media, it seems more or less controllable; whereas Commons routinely has people announcing, about other people's work: "This is my Own Work and if it wasn't already copyleft then I hereby [and irrevocably] copyleft it!" And yes, come to think of it, a lot of this does seem to have been first uploaded to Wikipedia (more often than not en:Wikipedia). Of course I've long known that it's possible to move files from Wikipedia to Commons but it's an area of which I knew next to nothing till a few minutes ago. I now look at en:Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons and (the flowchart there) is problematic. Here's how I'd guess it often works:

1. "Is the file tagged Free or Non-free?" | ⟨⟨Free⟩⟩
2. "Does the media contain any derivatives of non-free content?" | ⟨⟨WTF does that mean?! Jeez, so much gobbledygook in Wikipedia. Oh well, let's look at the next question.⟩⟩
3. "Was the file created by the uploader?" | ⟨⟨Yes it was, straight out of my scanner.⟩⟩
4. "OK for Commons" | ⟨⟨Yay!⟩⟩

-- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I've personally never moved any files from English Wikipedia to Commons; so, I don't exactly know how it works. I have, however, tagged files which I think probably should be moved to Commons with en:Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. I usually only try to do such a thing when I really think the file is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection (i.e. something Template:PD-logo) or too old (i.e. Template:PD-US), or when it's been verified by OTRS, etc. Occasionally there are files uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content just as a precaution that don't really need to be treated as non-free; so, I change the licensing and tag the file for a move. If I have any doubts about whether this is OK to do, I usually ask at en:WP:MCQ or here to see what some others might think. FWIW, I always assumed that the actual move itself is going to be done by someone who knows what they're doing and might even need a special user right to do. I wasn't aware that anyone could basically do it. I have noticed that sometimes when I come across a file which I think has questionable licensing that is has ended up on Commons because of a "cross-wiki" move, but ddn't know that anyone could do such move. Anyway, en:WP:MTC is an English Wikipedia so any problems with it probably need to be addressed over on English Wikipedia, either on its talk page or on some suitable other talk page. Maybe a Wikipedia administrator or a en:WP:FILEMOVER should be required to check a file before it's moved.

While the "cross-wiki" moves and bogus "own work" claims are problems, even files not uploaded under a claim of "own work" and which are properly attributed to their copyright holders often have issues because they're not released as the uploader claims they are. So, I don't think there's going be any way for Commons to stop people from doing this type of thing though as long as it allows people to freely upload content without some kind of vetting/review/approval stage as part of the upload process. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, en:Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons shows files that, it's claimed, may/should be moved to Commons. Is there a category here of files that have been moved? (File:Hatchet Hall, the last residence of temperance advocate Carry Nation.jpg, as Yann has now renamed it, doesn't appear to be in any such category.) And if not, is there some way to get an overview of files recently moved here? -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Special:Log/import is basically just file imports using FileImporter, if you only want enwiki imports. I don't really think file imports, at least in this way, make up for much of Commons copyvio or non-true "own work". In my experience, the majority of bad uploads are using the cross-wiki uploader in the VisualEditor, and I think what Marchjuly is describing, is people downloading non-free content and uploading to Commons as if it were "own work", they aren't file imports or transfers, and the FileImporter extension will not actually let you transfer files marked as non-free or with redacted revisions. Dylsss (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Dylsss. If I understand right, the problem then is generally misdescription (ignorant and well-meaning rather than malicious) during the first upload process. -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary, Dylsss, Yann, and AntiCompositeNumber: File:Nmb logo.jpg is sort of an example of what I was referring to above. It just showed up on my watchlist again by chance due to a cleanup edit, but it seems to be a case where a logo was a "Cross-wiki upload from en.wikipedia.org" under a questionable claim of "own work". The logo is probably OK as {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States; I'm not 100% sure about COM:Tanzania since that seems to be country of origin, but it looks pretty simple. This file was moved to Commons back in 2016, but a file of the same name was deleted a couple of times back in 2007 from English Wikipedia. I can't tell if that's the same file and the English Wikipedia article where the Commons version is being used was created in 2010. There's also no local history that I can find for the file on English Wikipedia so I can't see who might've originally uploaded it and how it was licensed. This seems to be the only file uploaded to Commons by this particular editor and their contributions history on English Wikipedia is limited to a handful of edits to the article about the bank back in January and February 2016. My guess is that this was someone connected to the bank (perhaps an employee) who just decided to "update" the page. They might've even been instructed to do so which means they assumed that "own work" was acceptable since they represented the bank. The CC license seems wrong here, but at the same time I don't think the file necessarily needs to be deleted. These are files I occassionally come across when looking at logo use in Wikipedia articles. It might not be possible to transfer a non-free file to Commons per what Dylsss posted above, but I'm wondering whether it's possible to convert a non-free license to PD locally on Wikipedia and then transfer the file to Commons as long as it doesn't have any deleted revisions. Once again, I don't think it matters much with respect to the NMB file, but maybe it might in another case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I'm not sure if or how such file transfers are categorized. Perhaps there's a hidden maintenance category that's only visible in the code or maybe there's some mentioned in the Wikidata? I only notice it when I check the page's history and it says "Cross-wiki upload from en.wikipedia.org" like it does for File:SAUD BIN MISHAL.jpg. In addition, Dylsss might be right above about the situation I was trying to describe.

As for how to resolve your concerns about a particular file or files, I guess that depends upon how self-assessment of the situation. You've stated you've already tried to get more details from the uploader, but she hasn't responded. They haven't edited on either Wikipedia or Commons since March 25, which is the same day you posted your query on her English Wikipedia user talk page. The time stamp on your English Wikipedia post shows that it was made about 15 to 16 hours after her last edit to either English Wikipedia or Commons. Perhaps, she'll respond the next time she logs in. I guess it's possible that she might just be busy out in the real world; more likely though from looking at her contributions is that she just logs in when she wants to make a particular edit and is not really that active of an editor. You, however, don't have to wait for her to do so though to take further action and can always tag the files for speedy deletion if you want (e.g. {{Npd}} or {{Dw-nsd}}) or start a COM:MDR about her uploads. There are corresponding notification templates for each method, but whether she will even notice them is anybody's guess. A MDR will, however, give others a chance to participate and discuss things if they want.

My personal opinion is that she probably means well, but probably just didn't look at COM:L as closely as she should've done. It seems unlikely that she would be trying to engage in anything like COM:LL if she's going to use her real name for her username, post who she is and post where she works on both her Commons and English Wikipedia user pages. The last file she uploaded to Commons was File:Ida Roberta Bell, Sojourner Truth Bell doll.jpg on March 25 and she attributed it to the museum of the university where she works; so, maybe she's trying to learn as she goes along. However, even though she didn't claim that file as "own work", I think there might still be problems with it per COM:CB#Museum and interior photography and COM:CB#Art (copies of) which probably should be sorted out. Since there are only three files involved, a single MDR could probably resolve them all. If she logs in before the MDR is closed, she can clarify things if she wants. If she doesn't log in until after the MDR has been closed and the files end up deleted, she can seek clarification via COM:REFUND and try and get them restored if she can sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't disagree with any of that. But I'm still at a loss for what to do when I encounter "Own work" that fairly obviously is not. Take DR:Works by Willem van der Does, for example. This must have used up at least one hour of my life, and yet has been gathering cobwebs for half a year. And I'm not surprised: anyone thinking for a moment of closing the "debate" (in reality three soliloquies of mine) probably then proceeds "Do I want to spend half an hour or more of my life figuring out what all this is about? No." I encounter these "Own work" fictions pretty often, and only act on perhaps one in five of them; I was hoping to be directed to some wonderful semi-automated system (cf the en:Wikipedia process for accepting/declining/rejecting drafts) that would fire off templates in each needed direction. -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There tend to be more DRs than there are admins working on closing them which means there also tends to be quite a backlog. Sometimes when I come across a DR like this, I post a request at COM:AN to see if there's an admin who might be willing to look at it. Sometimes that works like COM:AN#DR queue and COM:AN#Commons:Deletion requests/File:1000 Peso Bill ENGC 2020.png case page, but sometimes it depends on how long the DR has been open like COM:AN#Requests the end of DR which is in progress for a long time. The DR you've mentioned above probably would be a case of more of the former than the latter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I renamed 2 files to have meaningfull names. These files can't really be CC-anything. I hope they can be in the public domain for one reason or another (publication without notice or renewal, etc.). The uploader should fix that, or the files should be deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yann, I have already attempted to get the uploader to do something, without success. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Then I see no other option that deletion requests: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hatchet Hall, the last residence of temperance advocate Carry Nation.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louis Freund at work in Hog Scald Hollow on Beaver Lake in Carroll County.jpg. I also let a message on en.wp. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The latest: Commons:Deletion requests/Paintings by Karel Schadt. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I understand it’s frustrating to come across this type of thing, but I don’t think you can do anymore than what you’ve been doing so far by tagging files for speedy deletion or starting DRs. If an editor continues to upload files with questionable licensing despite many of their uploads being previously deleted for similar reasons, then you can try adding {{End of copyvios}} to their user talk, but sometimes even that doesn’t slow the editor down and the only option left is to try and get a Commons admin involved either by contacting one directly (maybe one who has already some of the other files) or by posting at COM:AN/U. As you probably know from your experience as a Wikipedia admin, some editors only stop doing stuff they shouldn’t be doing when that can’t edit anymore because their account is blocked. FWIW, MaxPoker has never responded to any of the notifications left on their user talk page, and has continued to upload questionable files despite these notifications. Sometimes the only way to get the attention of an editor like this is a block. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Unless the user has multiple copyvionotes since 31 January 2021, I suggest use of {{Fcs}} before {{End of copyvios}}.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as you point out, an "fcs" warning might be more suitable in a case such as this. Thanks for the link to that template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Lego Technic official models

If someone could look at these and determine the best course of action, that'd be great. COM:TOYS came to mind when I first saw them. 1989 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If the user assembled them themselves and then made photos, they will be ok. Ruslik (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:Files_for_upload#The_Times.png

Hello. Requesting a copyright tag suggestion for this file. Does {{PD-old}} suit? --Gpkp (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Improper copyright tags, U.S. National Guard

What I'm inquiring about is the United States National Guard logos I sent were marked as having contradictory licenses. Now that I've added the National Guard licenses, I'm unsure if the logos still qualify as valid. What more should be done beyond modifying the file descriptions? The second file on the list was not sent by me, however I did use it in a draft page.

• File:Massachusetts NG logo.png
• File:Texas Air National Guard subdued seal.jpg
• File:NE-Logo.png
• File:Florida National Guard logo.jpg
• File:Wyoming National Guard logo.png
• File:Joint UTNG Logo PNG.png
• File:Rhode Island National Guard logo.jpg
• File:North Dakota National Guard.png
• File:NY-Army National Guard seal.png
• File:NMNG logo.png
• File:Njnglogo.png
• File:New-hampshire-natl-guard-logo.jpg
• File:Montana National Guard logo.png
• File:Missouri National Guard logo.jpg
• File:Michigan National Guard logo.jpg
• File:Idaho National Guard logo.png
• File:Maryland National Guard logo.png
• File:Iowa National Guard logo.png
• File:Connecticut National Guard logo.png
• File:CNG-logo.png

SuperWIKI (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The state national guard organizations are usually part of the government of that state, not the U.S. National Guard (though the national organization does sometime supply some of their employees, which would be different). So not sure we can keep all those logos, unless there is information they were designed by the national bureau. Well, if any were published before 1989, they are likely PD, so they may be OK that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection: PD or not?

I tried to download an image of a painting from the website of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum (in order to upload it here), and found a copyright mark and this text: The exploitation rights of the images belong to the Fundación Colección Thyssen-Bornemisza. Therefore, regardless of the conditions of use of the images set out by the Foundation, it is necessary to obtain permission from the author of the work or the holder of their rights. The Fundación Colección Thyssen-Bornemisza permits the images to be downloaded in high resolution from its website for private or educational/academic purposes, subject to the terms of use below.

The painter involved died in 1944.

There are quiet some pictures from this museum on Commons already. Can I ignore this text? Do we have permission already? Or don't we and should the other pictures be deleted (for reasons I don't really understand) Fransvannes (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The painting and any photographic reproductions of it are in public domain. So, you can upload them. Please, use {{Pd-art}} template. Ruslik (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

What should I do if banknotes were exposed to UV rays and photographed?

I uploaded File:Anti-counterfeiting of South Korean Banknote.jpg.

In this photo, South Korean banknote is exposed to UV rays.

Do I still have to comply with the terms of use in this case? (Per COM:CUR SK, South Korean banknotes must be marked with SPECIMEN.)

For banknotes that cannot be uploaded to Commons, such as UK banknotes(Per COM:CUR UK), can I upload photos taken with UV rays?

These photos of banknotes exposed to UV rays are used to explain anti-counterfeiting.

Ox1997cow (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: That picture is still a derivative work of the original banknote, so the copyright in the original banknote still applies to it and you need to comply with the requirements that apply to the original banknote. So the answers to your questions are "Yes" and "No" respectively. --bjh21 (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Ennis 0005.jpg

Can someone help me verify this photo I already sent the email to OTRS. Golffan233 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Golffan233: You've got mail re Ticket:2021030610002781. Sorry for the delay.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

East Timor and FOP

@J. Patrick Fischer: Poked in some DR pages, that looks like confused by me (tldr...). The current problems are:

1. COM:East Timor is one of the only two CRT pages (another one is COM:Somalia), within the UN members scope, that don't have a "Freedom of panorama" section (or just, the only Asian country that don't have), for Somalia a discussion was gain no consensus on this topic due to lack of actual enforcing IP, but for East Timor, sorry I even can't see any discussions.
2. Regarding the occupations, the areas that are today parts of this country were under Portugal control between 1769 and 1975, and then Indonesia from 1975 and 1999.
3. Portugal is a FOP OK country, though only based on the 2017 amendment and I'm having no ideas about the past status, for buildings completed before 1975, I can assume that they are ok for Commons, but others accept?
4. Some recent discussions confirmed that Indonesia is a FOP Not OK country, but JPF said that "The restrictions in Indonesia existing since 2014. Occupation was between 1975 (annected 1976) and 1999." But I also didn't found anything about FOP in the 1982 Indonesian copyright law. Indeed hocus pocus, for buildings completed 1975~1999.
5. Due to still lacking of IP law in this country, for buildings completed since 1999, which rules applied? An OMG case: Category:Buildings in East Timor says these are probably also covered by Indonesian law as of 2002 (sic., written by @Bahnfrend: ), well if this is true, then FOP is still not OK?
6. PS: its URAA restoration date‌* field says "1 January 1996", instead of "none" from e.g. COM:Iraq, COM:Iran etc. (these are countries of {{Copyright notes}}), any evidences of this?

In short, are we really sure that the FOP status in East Timor is so free? Any buildings are okay just by licensing as {{PD-TLGov}}? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW: It is not clear, if laws of Indonesia are valid for the time between 1976 and 1999, as occupation was internationally (USA too) not accepted. It was considered still as Portuguese territory. --JPF (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That's just one of the reasons I decided to open this VPC discussion, @JWilz12345, Aymatth2, Clindberg, Jeff G., and Prosfilaes: @廣九直通車: sorry for canvassing. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I will have only one off-topic question here (as I don't want to speculate on the status of FOP for the two "unknown" countries at File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg): are there any news if there are plans to implement a copyright law in Timor-Leste? Or if the country has plans to introduce FOP? That's all - I don't want to speculate if the country itself lacks a copyright law combined with the complicated history of the administration/jurisdiction from the last century up to now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

And also, about Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020-09-07 Ministro da Agricultura e Pescas 2.jpg, flagpoles are not architectural or artistic works, so these are not FOP-reliant. Take a look at File:242Rizal Park landmarks attractions historical memorials 46.jpg and File:Rizal Park (Manila; 07-22-2020).jpg for example. A simple flagpole that lacks architectural or artistic characteristics. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Presumably the government of East Timor would not consider that Indonesian laws are relevant, since they never accepted that Indonesia had any legal status in their country. They would have inherited Portuguese law when they declared independence in November 1975, and in the absence of any new IP law, that is what would apply. That is, Civil Code (approved by Decree-Law No. 47344 of November 25, 1966). We need someone who speaks Portuguese to interpret that. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI, we have three Portuguese-speaking administrators @Dantadd, DarwIn, and Érico: . --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone really knows. Law of East Timor says their law is based on Indonesian law, saying that was determined by the United Nations, but gives no references. You would usually assume continuity of law from what already existed, with changes coming from there. I'm not sure they did anything explicit to invalidate any and all Indonesian laws. Circular 38a (which is about U.S. copyright relations with other countries) says East Timor relations are "unclear", so nothing is certain when it comes to copyright. Any assumed URAA date would be based on Indonesia. East Timor did join WIPO in 2017, but it does not appear they have produced any intellectual property laws of their own. They likely have higher legislative priorities, so something like FoP I doubt anyone there really knows, or probably cares. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, copyright in East Timor is unclear, though I seem to recall that the country generally follow the Indonesian law which was in place before Independence. In any case, anything up to 1975 follows the old Portuguese copyright law (life + 50 years, photos -> 25 years after production), since it was undoubtedly Portuguese territory until then.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 02:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

See also what is written at {{PD-TLGov}}. "This file is in the public domain in East Timor, because it is published and distributed by the Government of Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, according to Article 13 of the Indonesia Copyright Law No 6, 1982, which is still valid in East Timor after independence 20 May 2002." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

And Liuxinyu970226 IDK the status of copyright for government-owned FOP-reliant works there (e.g. Timorese presidential palace, legislative buildings, or national monuments). Because here in the Philippines it is clear that the artists (i.e. the architects or sculptors) still retain the copyright and the government or public only own these physically (for example, government-commissioned statues), see COM:Philippines#Commissioned works ("unless there's a written stipulation on the contrary" to transfer copyright, and payment of fees doesn't automatically transfer copyright). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Comment My understanding is as follows:

1. Photographs taken before the Indonesian occupation (ie before December 1975), or, perhaps, before Indonesian "annexation" (on 17 July 1976) are covered by the copyright law, including the FOP law, in force in Portugal and its territories at the relevant date.
2. The status of photographs taken during the Indonesian occupation (ie 1975 or 1976 to 1999) is unclear, because almost all other nations refused to recognise the occupation as lawful.
3. Between 1999 and 2002, control of East Timor was vested in the UN - Portugal did not regain control or seek to amend East Timor's laws during that period.
4. Since East Timor recovered its independence in 2002, the East Timorese Parliament has not enacted any copyright laws.

The effect of the above appears to be as follows:

1. If, as a matter of law, Indonesian law never applied, then the pre-occupation Portuguese law, including its FOP law, still applies to photographs taken in East Timor. Under that law (which has been amended since 1975-76 for Portugal), all photographs taken more than 25 years earlier are public domain, and FOP applies to "works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places", possibly including public interiors - see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Portugal.
2. If, as a matter of law, Indonesian law came to apply in 1975 or 1976, then the Indonesian copyright law as of 2002 (which has been amended since then for Indonesia) still applies to photographs taken in East Timor since 1975 or 1976. Under that copyright law, there is no FOP. However, there is a separate law (ie not an FOP law) saying that things published and distributed by the Government can be published by anyone else without copyright infringement. Thus, they can be tagged with {{PD-TLGov}}, which is the equivalent of {{PD-IDGov}}. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia. So, eg, under the Indonesian law a photograph published by the Indonesian government since 1975-76, or by the East Timorese government, would be capable of being published on Commons without copyright infringement, whoever took the photograph. The same would probably apply to a photograph taken since 1975-76 of a building owned by the government, and therefore displayed to the public by the government, at the time of the photograph, even if, in the absence of the Indonesian law, someone else would be able to enforce copyright over the building. That's because publication without copyright infringement is just that, ie nobody can enforce copyright over the relevant material no matter who might otherwise have been able to do so.
3. Either way, photographs of the exterior of government buildings taken at any time can be uploaded to and published on Commons. Such photographs are FOP and may also be public domain under any applicable law of Portugal, and are also capable of being published without copyright infringement under any applicable law of Indonesia. Additionally, standard copyright concepts such as de minimis and simple design would apply. On the other hand, whatever might be specific to the law in the Philippines or any other country apart from Portugal or Indonesia would not affect the position.

Bahnfrend (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Bahnfrend: just to be clear, I used the Philippine case for comparison purposes, as the rule on commissioned works here (including government-commissioned ones) is clear (the architect/artist retains copyright unless there's a written stipulation). But I think that's different in the Timorese case, as public buildings may be P.D. after all (by virtue of {{PD-TLGov}}), even if the architects are still alive. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  I would say that the problem peoples are not easily to understand PD-TLGov tag, is IMHO because of its 2nd line:

“

which is still valid in East Timor after independence 20 May 2002.

”

Which evidence is supporting this? The Wikipedia article? But that doesn't have any references support it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

About the evidence, the law is valid:

"According to UNTAET Regulation 1, 1999, East Timor was to follow Indonesian law insofar as it did not conflict with international human rights and the UNTAET mandate, together with subsequent legislation introduced by UNTAET and later the RDTL (Democratic Republic of East Timor). Although Indonesian law was not specifically mentioned, by political agreement it was understood to apply de facto: the Australian Section of the ICJ recommended at that time that further action was needed to make Indonesian law the applicable law. This matter came up again later when the President of the Court of Appeal issued a ruling along the same lines, resulting in the enactment of a law, with retrospective effect, to put beyond doubt that the legislation to be applied in East Timor consisted of all Indonesian legislation that was in force de facto prior to 25 October 1999."[8]

It is quite ridiculous to see how some people believe there must be a legal regulation on freedom of panorama or copyyright when things like the right to privacy, presumption of innocence, violation of legal secrecy and journalistic deontology remain unexplained except as catchwords in the constitution.[9] The constitution is the only Timorese law, which is giving some informations about copyright: "The State shall guarantee and protect the creation, production and commercialisation of literary, scientific and artistic work, including the legal protection of copyrights. "[10]

No mention of a limitation of the freedom of panorama. Including the panorama of flag poles. --JPF (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit and the main thing I can take away is that most of the East Timorese government/legislators don't know what the copyright situation is.

There have been day long seminars on the subject of copyright in East Timor in 2013 and 2014. The Constitution says "The State guarantees and protects the creation, production and commercialization of the literary work, scientific and artistic, including legal protection of copyright," which isn't particularly helpful, and the one piece of legislation I've found on it says "1. The applicable administrative fines and penalties are provided for in the respective legal and regulatory provisions on industrial property, copyright and the registration of trademarks and patents," which mentions no specific law. Even the government website just gives the vague statement of "The content of the Timor-Leste Government portal is protected by copyright under the laws in force and international conventions, and cannot be used outside the conditions allowed on this Portal." (it also conflicts with PD-TL-GOV along with a wide variety of government websites, implying that the Indonesian law is not in force.) All of these imply some sort of copyright law in force.

However, the government feels the need to "Create appropriate legislation to protect intellectual property and copyright," implying that there is none, and since 2014 there have been efforts to create copyright legislation. In addition to that, the UN states "Timor-Leste currently does not have specific legislation that directly addresses intellectual property (IP) rights... However, drafting of a copyright law is underway and IP legislation is a high priority as part of the national ICT Policy strategy."

What makes the most sense to me is this statement, specifically "Timor-Leste... has specific legislation on the copyright, having adopted the right comparison of Decree No. 46,980 of 27/04/1966 from Portugal" which says that East Timor has no copyright law itself (as the UN says and as the attempt to develop one indicates) but uses the 1966 Portuguese law (which explains the seminars and references to copyright law). The only way to confirm this, I believe, is to contact the seminar presenters (Although there seems to be an organization which has a "Code of Copyright and Related Rights for Timor-Leste" with an email address. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1 and J. Patrick Fischer: By [11], there's no "Indonesian copyright law of 1999" existing (the only one 1999 entry, Penal Code (Undang-undang R.I. No. 27 Tahun 1999, tanggal 19 Mei 1999), isn't related to copyrights but the patents), so which file are you both citing when editing that CRT page? THE COPYRIGHT LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA CONSOLIDATED TEXT OF LAW NO. 6/1982 AS AMENDED BY LAW NO. 7/1987 AND LAW NO. 12/1997? Note that if yes:

1. Article 14 Provided that the sources are fully cited, the following shall not be deemed as copyright infringement: ... d. reproduction of scientific, artistic and literary works in Braille for the purposes of the blind, unless such reproduction is of a commericial purpose; f. modification of any architecural works, such as building construction, based on consideration of technical implementation;
2. Article 22 Unless agreed otherwise between the Copyright Holder and the owner of a creative work in the form of a photograph, painting, drawing, architectural work, sculpture and other artworks, the owner shall be entitled to without the consent of the Copyright Holder to display the work in a public exhibition or to reproduce it in a catalogue, with detracting from the provisions of Article 18 and Article 19 if said work of art is in the form of portrait.

So unless WIPO is also wrong (likely?!), East Timor should be colored yellow (i.e. FOP OK for buildings only) in File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg? As it looks reproduction of architectural works are simply allowed in any proposes, and reproduction of sculptures and artworks can only be ok in non-commericial usages, and even we can't modify em? By anyway, please modify the "Indonesian copyright law of 1999" wording. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: The wording was meant to refer to as of 1999 rather than of 1999; I've corrected that. The East Timorese Civil Code says "The provisions of this code are... applicable to authorial and industrial ownership rights to the extent that they are related in kind to those rights, and when they do not conflict with the regime especially established for them," and later states "The property owner fully and exclusively enjoys the rights of use, enjoyment and disposition of the things that belong to him, within the limits of the law and in observance of any restrictions it imposes." To me, that last sentence means there would be no freedom of panorama. That being said, the question in my mind is if "the regime especially established for them" would refer to the Indonesian law or if "within the limits of the law" would refer to the legal provisions you brought up (in the case of a conflict East Timorese law would apply). If it does, then we would rely on the 1982 Indonesian law.

Article 14 reads to me as applying to the modifications of architectural schematics for buildings if they are impractical to build, although I could be wrong on that. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: Based on above discussion, I'm afraid that East Timor should be removed from {{Copyright notes}} as that 1982 Indonesian copyright law applies for later works (or otherwise URAA date would be a big issue), copyright terms should be life + 50 years per Article 26, and I would love to write such a FOP section to say NotOK for non-governmental works (let's say that works of government are always PD-TLGov applied). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

East Timor should remain in {{Copyright notes}}. The country is not a participant in the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright with the United States. It does not inherit Indonesian treaties, but must make its own. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Right. It's going to be complex historically, but it's clear that a work made and published in East Timor by a citizen thereof today is going to be PD in most of the world. (There might be a little much emphasis in that note on the US restoring the works; won't most of the world retroactively apply their copyright laws to older East Timor works if they sign the Berne Convention?)--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Just thinking the same. Telling a Timorese sth about copyright will surely makes him laugh. :-D --JPF (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@J. Patrick Fischer: You indeed made me laugh, because Aymatth2 explained "It does not inherit Indonesian treaties" above and you are trying to reverse your "Indonesian copyright law as of 1999 applies", just thinking the same? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Check the connections. --JPF (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Under Prosfilaes's comment, I'd love to reset "URAA restoration date‌" to none. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW, @Liuxinyu970226: Do you really think, it is useful to tag files with deletion tags, when the deletion discussion is finished and the applicant has accepted the explanations? --JPF (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: In addition, East Timor does not know the copyright protection period nor the copyright status of the currency. (However, from 1975 to 1999, Indonesia was under control, and Indonesia's currency copyright status is public domain. Portugal's currency copyright status, which had ruled until 1975, is unknown.) Ox1997cow (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: So, I've attached a notice to Category:Coins of East Timor to something similar to the one in Category:Buildings in East Timor. Ox1997cow (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: So, what about stamps? First of all, Indonesian stamps are public domain. However, the copyright status of Portuguese stamps is unknown. Ox1997cow (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

What about NoFoP-Japan and NoFoP-Russia?

Commons:Deletion requests/NoFoP templates, This DR was decided to keep.

However, {{NoFoP-Japan}} and {{NoFoP-Russia}} need further discussion.

Unlike other countries in NoFoP templates, Japan and Russia have freedom of panorama for buildings only.

And {{NoFoP-Japan}} is for category use only.

So, I think {{NoFoP-Russia}} should be changed to a use only for category as well.

What do you think?

Ox1997cow (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@DarkSTALKER, Jean-Frédéric, CT Cooper, AVRS, and Artem Karimov: @JuTa, A.Savin, and Krd: What do we think about that tag? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I think, {{NoFoP-Russia}} is actually unnecessary. Unfree stuff not covered by FoP-Russia, e.g. sculptures, should be nominated for deletion straightaway, instead of tagging. --A.Savin 22:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

However, there may be cases where DM is applied to the photo and the photo is kept. In this case, this photo is moved to the category which can be attached NoFoP template (for example, Category:Sculptures in Russia etc.), and then attach NoFoP template to that category. Ox1997cow (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@A.Savin: And, as new users are often unsure about freedom of panorama, I think that these warning templates are useful. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, we should be able to prevent as many new users as possible from uploading No-FoP stuff. Not sure though, if tagging already uploaded files with this template helps much. --A.Savin 15:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@A.Savin and Ox1997cow: there's no guarantee. Uploads of Louvre Pyramid and Burj Khalifa images continued even with those templates (though far lesser than before). One time recently Krd questioned the purpose of these templates, launching Commons:Deletion requests/NoFoP templates. Eventually the decision was to keep. Uploads of no FOP infringing files continued in France and Ukraine (as evidenced in their high number of deleted files), and France alone has more than 180 pending case pages. This might exclude case pages that are still uncategorized. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I know there is no guarantee, too. Attaching that template will not eliminate the possibility of uploading photos of buildings or sculptures in countries without freedom of panorama unless apply de minimis, but it is still better than none. In fact, in the case of File:Lotte World Tower near Cheongdam Bridge.jpg I uploaded, {{NoFoP-South Korea}} was attached, and after this was attached, I knew there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea, so I only pick and upload photos of buildings or sculptures in South Korea that apply de minimis. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: If so, do you agree to change {{NoFoP-Russia}} like {{NoFoP-Japan}}? Ox1997cow (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said @Ox1997cow: , Russian Wikipedians know better / the best, since the template is managed / regulated by them, not me who only regulates {{NoFoP-Philippines}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Therefore, I ping you. Do you agree to change {{NoFoP-Russia}} like {{NoFoP-Japan}}? Ox1997cow (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. --A.Savin 18:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I also want to heard about opinions of other Russian users. If there are more opinions to change, I will edit the template. However, I can't write Russian. So, I need help with editing the template. After editing, in what categories will you attach the template? Ox1997cow (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

no objections from me, too. rubin16 (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ownership of a painting and copyright of that painting

MaxPoker writes in Commons:Deletion requests/Paintings by Karel Schadt: "I (maxpoker) bought all these paintings which are now in my private [collection] and these are [photographs of them] I took after doing the restoration of the paintings. I am fine for these pictures to be used on Wikipedia license free." I hadn't thought that ownership of a painting brings with it ownership of the copyright to a painting; am I wrong? (MaxPoker also claims that the files are his "Own work" and copyleft under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, which to me isn't the same as "license free".) Normally I'd just let the deletion request run its course, but precedent tells me that this may and probably will take months, and MaxPoker continues to upload images of paintings by Schadt (example); in view of this, could some knowledgable peeps (an administrator?) quickly tell MaxPoker, me, or both of us that he is, I am, or we both are mistaken? -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

PS I've found Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#2D art (paintings etc.), which is clear enough. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Are there any errors on this map?

Not long ago, I created a map showing the availability of currency uploads to Commons by country.

However, I worry about this map has some errors.

Are there any errors on this map?

And do you think there is a legend missing?

If so, please modify the map accordingly. (correct errors, add a legend, etc.)

Since I was the first to create such a country-specific copyright map, there may be a lot of deficiencies. So editing is always welcome.

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I suggest that you merge the sections "not OK" and "OK until a certain period of time, not OK after that" and replace both sections with the text "OK once the copyright of the coin or banknote has expired". Martinvl (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Martinvl: I've marked them in red if they match or in yellow if they don't match (i.e. if the currency's protection period is shorter) depending on whether the currency's protection period matches the copyright protection period. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I happen to notice that you have "not OK" for Belarus, whereas Commons:Currency#Belarus (transcluding Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Belarus#Currency) says "OK". You don't show East Germany: Commons has Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Czechoslovakia but seemingly nothing analogous for East Germany, which seems a bit of a mystery. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany deals with East German stamps but doesn't seem to mention East German currency. -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Countries that do not currently exist are not indicated. And I will edit Belarus. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is the deletion of banknotes and sculptures different between SK and UK?

Photos of sculptures of SK are deleted, but photos of sculptures of UK are kept.

Conversely, photos of banknotes of SK are kept, but photoes of banknotes of UK are deleted.

Why do these differences occur?

2001:2D8:E516:E87A:0:0:301:483D 18:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

In this section, SK means South Korea, not Slovakia. 2001:2D8:E515:75C7:0:0:514:C83D 18:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• @2001:2D8:E515:75C7:0:0:514:C83D: see Commons:CRT/United Kingdom and Commons:CRT/South Korea, under sections "Currency" and "Freedom of panorama". Someone will address your question on banknotes; for the sculptures these are typically artworks that are eligible for copyright protection in all countries, if the sculptors are either still alive or dead recently (in most countries deceased for 70 years or less). Commons doesn't accept images showing copyrighted sculptures (even publicly-situated monuments), unless there is a freedom of panorama, suitable for Commons, that allows free reproductions and publications of freely-licensed images of sculptures. UK has that provision in their copyright law, but sadly SoKor has none. Technically SoKor has FOP but limited only to noncommercial uses of such images, which is incompatible with Commons:Licensing. The pillar of licensing policy is that media licensed under noncommercial licensing is unacceptable. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Regarding banknotes, there are two possible answers. One is that the Bank of England's conditions for reproducing banknotes[12] are stricter than those of the Bank of Korea[13], and that puts them on opposite sides of the boundary of what's acceptable on Commons. Another possibility is that our documentation is wrong and either South Korean banknotes should not be allowed or UK ones should be allowed. Personally, I think the list of forbidden kinds of advertising in the Korean restrictions are enough to make them non-free, falling within the "Political" group of restriction that are not permissible on https://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions. --bjh21 (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bjh21: a slightly off-topic question: regarding the restriction group in the Freedomdefined webpage, what do you think of the commercial restrictions being imposed for the Philippine government works? According to the law, no copyright subsists in the Philippine government works (supposedly p.d.), but prior permission is required if such works are to be exploited for profit. Current consensus here is that such restrictions at the PHL gov't works are mere "COM:Non-copyright restrictions", but the enwiki perspective claims it is unfree (and the equivalent template at enwiki is fair use-type, while our template is p.d.-type). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bjh21: I think the list of forbidden kinds of advertising in the South Korean restrictions corresponds to COM:NCR#Authors' moral rights. Since banknotes are the core works of certain countries, I believe that moral rights are strongly applied. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bjh21: An example of authors' moral rights is this: I worked hard to draw a pretty school girl character. I have released this character for use under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. However, someone is using this character for inappropriate purposes, such as using it for pornography. In this situation, no matter how freely licensed I distribute it, I can respond with author's moral rights. This is also stated in the Bern Convention. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Swedish radio recording

Hello, I have a recording which comes from Swedish national radio from a program that was broadcast in July 1935. The person speaking in the recording died in 1938. In Sweden this would be in public domain as it is older than 70 years. I wrote to Sveriges Radio (SR), and they confirmed this (they said that recordings older than 50 years are free to use). Since audio recordings often seem to be special cases, I wanted to ask here before uploading whether it would also be free in the US. --Lundgren8 (t · c) 13:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#General_rules its copyright term in USA is 100 years after publication. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

UN SDG logos and icons

Currently, the images in Category:Sustainable Development Goals English icons are tagged with Template:PD-UN-doc. Given they are not text documents, this does not feel correct. Further, there are UN guidelines about their use, including the need for permission for certain uses, which suggests they are not in the public domain. Are these images useable on commons, and if so, what would the correct licence be? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The death of a 'juristic person'

I've built a new article for the german wikipedia (Splash_(Musikgruppe)) and rebuilt the as 'stub' marked english version (Splash_(German_band)). Not clear is, how to arrange the copyright situation of the promo picture of this band . The groups existence ended with their label WEA - WEA was not adopted to Warner Music - they only adopted the companies structure, as officials say. Within this, there doesn't exist any copyright anymore, but I don't know, how to declare this within Wikimedia Commons. As my discussions show, there seems not to be a clear 'official' information background for the major differentiation of a living and juristic person, within the case of copyright (regular humans knowledge) and I don't know, how far this is made clear by law. I need help to get a clear state about this and how to arrange this within Wikimedia.
(Splash_(Musikgruppe).jpg)
--Jörg Lenau (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you are referring to an orphan work. Orphan works are still protected by copyright, even if the original rights holders no longer exist or are untraceable. Yes, it is ridiculous, but so is most of copyright law. Kaldari (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it OK to upload South Korean cheques?

I coincidentally have a South Korean cheque.

I want to upload a South Korean cheque for explaining.

However, South Korean cheques are copyrighted by Korea Federation of Banks.

I entered website of Korea Federation of Banks, but I didn't find terms of use of South Korean cheques.

Is it OK to upload South Korean cheques?

For reference, banknotes and coins of South Korea are copyrighted by the Bank of Korea, and for uploading availability, please refer to COM:CUR SK.

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If you know that cheques are copyrighted, and you can't find the terms, then you'd better assume that they're copyrighted "all rights reserved", or anyway you can't assume that they're copyleft. So no, it's not OK to upload images of them. -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Oh, I see. It's OK to upload banknotes and coins of South Korea, but it's not OK to upload cheques of South Korea. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

EXPORT IRANIAN APP LOGO

IS THIS simple enough iranian app icon? https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%BE%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87:Logoshad.jpg Baratiiman (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Baratiiman. It seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the United States per COM:TOO United States, but the copyright laws of the country of origin (which I'm assuming is Iran) also need to be taken into account. According to COM:TOO Iran, the threshold for originality (TOO) in Iran seems to be quite low and thus most logos are not OK to upload to Commons. So, if the Iranian TOO is anything close to COM:TOO United Kingdom, then this probably shouldn't be uploaded to Commons. Perhaps someone else more familiar with Iranian copyright law will clarify things, but it will need to be {{PD-logo}} in both the US and Iran for it to be OK to upload to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Valinor map

The file Valinor.jpg has been shared by User:Saggittarius A under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, in which he states to be the original creator and copyright holder. However, this fictional map is a derivation of one I made in October 2000, which has since been made public at Tolkien Gateway under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. For context, I used to edit tolkienion.com and tolkien-maps.com, which have been out of mainetenance for 15 years now. While I do not mind the usage of something I made, I am concerned about someone claiming sole authorship. What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cush (talk • contribs) 08:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cush: The uploader has recent contributions. IMHO, you should contact the uploader on his talk page and settle this amiably with him. If he admits that the file is derived from your map, tell him how you want to be credited and what free license (other than GFDL) you offer. Although not necessary, it might be a good idea to consider adding the same free license to your map on tolkiengateway. If you accept to offer a free license and the uploader accepts your conditions, problem solved. If you refuse to offer a free license or if the uploader refuses your conditions, then there's a problem and the file can be nominated for deletion from Commons. Do you have anything to say about File:Numenor.jpg and File:Terra di Mezzo.jpg? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cush: It's true that from your image I took (precisely) the profile of the coast and (less precise) the mountain range. However, there are also differences, as in the small central island. I can make changes to the image and remove the similarity, or indicate your name in the summary. On the other two maps there is no doubt because they are better known territories and there are many maps all the same. Valinor's geography is little known and i needed to see on the web. -- Saggittarius A (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Are election ballots subject to copyright?

Hello. I had a discussion on wikipedia years ago which had an user assure me that ballots used in election or referendum were in the public domain. It's been quite some time since then so I'm unable to find it back, but I remember asking it because the ballot had the photos of the candidates for the second round of the tunisian presidential election, and I had been enquiring if we could use them. I do recall that the answer I had been given was that the ballots were by definition somewhat in the public domain, but only if reproduced exactly as they were, so you couldn't cut out the photo out and publish it separately. I didn't end up doing that, but ever since then I have been thinking ballots could be posted on here. Now, there's been this discussion, and I find myself not knowing how to prove it, nor even be so sure of it anymore. Do anyone here know the answer to that specific problem? I tried searching for "Ballot" in the FAQ but it came out empty. --Aréat (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment - The copyright status of election ballots varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some countries, they may be copyrighted. If the ballot is entirely designed or produced by the government in a jurisdiction where governments works are PD, the ballot may be PD. Generally, ballots are protected by other non-copyright restrictions regardless of whether they are PD or not. T Cells^Talk 20:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Newb: how to credit a photo?

Hi all, uploaded a photo to Wikimedia, did not see how I could credit it. It's now registered as own work, photographer would be fine with it, but I want to give credit where due. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideeënbus (talk • contribs) 08:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ideeënbus: Hi, and welcome. What can you tell us about the name and lifetime of the photographer and the dates and countries of photography and publication? Also, please see COM:L and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ideeënbus and Jeff G.: You could also try asking the creator of the image to fill out this form and then copy the generated text and send it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org, attaching the image too. --Red-back spider (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ideeënbus: If the photo is by Mirjam van der Linden, then write "Mirjam van der Linden fotografie" in the "author" field. In the "source" field, write how you obtained this copy of the photo. Ask Mirjam van der Linden to send the permission for free licensing according to Commons:OTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G., Red-back spider, and Asclepias: Thank you, adapted and will use for next page! Ideeënbus (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Red-back spider (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Escritura cortesana samples

Hi, I'd like to create an article about escritura cortesana (court script) and I would like to know if these samples of ancient writing can be uploaded to commons:

1. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Dokument_Katholische_K%C3%B6nige_1501.jpeg
2. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Cortesana_procesal_Buchstaben.gif
3. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:A_cortesana.jpg
4. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:B_cortesana.jpg
5. ...rest of these letters [14]
6. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Abk%C3%BCrzungen_cortesana.jpg

The first is a monochrome copy of an ancient letter which i presume is PD-old. The others seems to be scans of a book, but within that book they are copied from ancient documents so not sure if that material can be copyrighted. Thanks for your help.--Serg!o (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Serg!o:

1. Yes, for sure; it is PD-scan.

The rest: I do not know, but I would lean towards yes, because it does not meet the TOO (those are just letters). Veverve (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like currency of UK copyright policy has changed.

In the course of discussion, I visited this site to check the status of the banknote copyright in UK.

This phrase was written at the top of the site.

"We allow you to use images of our banknotes if you comply with our reproduction conditions."

I have confirmed on this site that the copyright rules for British banknotes have changed in 2019.

Will the changed rules allow UK banknotes to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons?

If so, what are the current copyright rules for British coins?

Ox1997cow (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

For reference, It seems that the inappropriate or novelty reproductions clause appears to correspond to COM:NCR#Authors' moral rights. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pajz, Verbcatcher, ShakespeareFan00, Bjh21, Ameisenigel, Wehwalt, and DemonDays64: What do we think about their situation? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

In my view the limitations in the reproductions conditions is incompatible with Commons' requirement for allowing commercial use of the work: "You must not produce or use images of our notes in a way that we consider offensive, inappropriate or that undermines the integrity of the currency. This includes reproductions that: [...]" I don't think we can discount this as 'authors' moral rights'. The limited permission given by the Bank of England only applies to banknotes, UK coins are the responsibility of the Royal Mint. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: My opinion is different. Since banknotes are the core works of certain countries, I believe that moral rights are strongly applied. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, they look like personal rights or trademarks laws. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: Authors' moral rights allow (for example) an author to object to some uses of a work, outside of the framework of economic rights, and does not require an associated licence clause. In this case the Bank of England's reproduction rules require users to meet the specified conditions. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: However, these terms of use often include non-copyright restrictions as well. This is because even if there is no problem with copyright, there may be problems elsewhere. Ox1997cow (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, this is straddling the lines. I have no doubt that we can host the images they provide, and many others, without breaking their conditions. The question is if they are "free" or not. If the only rights they will use to enforce are moral rights or counterfeiting laws, then you know they are non-copyright restrictions, and the boundaries of what they can enforce. If they are also going to use copyright to enforce their terms though, which they explicitly note they could, then it could be an entirely different matter. They do not allow use of any "inappropriate" uses, with the determination of "inappropriate" being their "sole opinion". So they do not have to prove inappropriate to anyone else -- if they feel it is inappropriate, then you could be automatically committing a copyright violation. That in a way is almost a revocable license, and there is no way terms like that would ever be considered "free" in a normal context. The stated goals of their rules are somewhat in line with preserving integrity, i.e. moral rights stuff and in the interests of currency-specific concerns, but ... if they will use copyright to enforce their view of things, it's probably quite different. They disallow putting someone else's face on a bill -- that would normally be well within derivative work possibilities of a "free" work, and also normally outside of moral rights if it's a clear modification. I can see the currency-based or even trademark-based restriction in that you don't want to possibly confuse users that it might be real currency, but if they use copyright to enforce that restriction, then there is a "free" problem. Similarly, they don't allow any modifications along those lines they feel are "disrespectful", which can go beyond moral rights as well (which are usually limited to cases which are prejudicial to the author themselves). Those type of terms in a copyright license would absolutely be non-free. So it's a bit hard for me to see through to calling these "free", unless they disclaim using copyright to enforce them, where the opposite appears to be true. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Carl, we should not be hosting photos of British banknotes.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Clindberg and Jeff G.: I read the page carefully, and there was the word "infringe copyright" in the section of the article in question. In view of this, it seems that the restrictions on British currency are not non-copyright restrictions. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Which license do I use?

I wish to upload a copyrighted logo file [15] which I plan on using only once in the infobox of the relevant awards page to help readers identify it. I'm not sure what license to use so the file doesn't get deleted. Alexataylor07 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You upload it to English Wikipedia under en:Wikipedia:Fair use rules. Ruslik (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Go to English Wiki- on the left bar -Chose upload file. A wizard opens, you click the big button- and follow the questions. The tricky one is at the end ´How are you ensuring the file is minimal' Reply 'Encased in a single infobox'. It seems to be sufficient. I call each logo file 'Fair use logo organisation name.png' but do keep them small- it is checked. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexataylor07 and ClemRutter: Hi, and welcome. Small as in under 100,000 pixels (0.1 megapixels). Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload svg or jpg versions, too.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 06:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with copyright

What is the status (ie Public Domain or otherwise) of the of images produced by the state of Michigan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain_status_of_official_US_government_works#U.S._State_governments

The licence template "PD-MIGov" is not active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geodeakgol (talk • contribs) 02:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Geodeakgol: Hi, and welcome. They are nonfree. Please see COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 06:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Post-Vatican II Ordo missaes and others

@Snaevar: , @Jmabel: , @HyperGaruda: , @Jeff G.: after this discussion, I decided to dig further into the images of Catholic Ordo Missae. I have found several of those which were published after 1965:

• File:Missale Romanum 2008 01.jpg
• File:Missale Romanum 2008 02.jpg
• File:Missale Romanum 2008 03.jpg

As well as some with no date given: File:Lectionarium Missae cum Ordo Missae Coreanorum.jpg (also contains a lectionary) and File:Missale Romanum 01.JPG
Do you think those should be nominated for deletion? I believe they do, because the post-Vatican II missals and lectionaries are quite different from the pre-Vatican II ones. The drawings are also very likely copyrighted. Pinging the authors of the pictures : @U2em: , @Patnac: . Veverve (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Support a DR.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Val Valentino.jpg

File of concern: File:Val Valentino.jpg. Is the purported statement of permission at File talk:Val Valentino.jpg sufficient, or not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: No, an OTRS is needed. Also, on the conversation on the talk page, the actor released the image under GFDL, but did he have the rights to? Veverve (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done adding no permission warning tag (also to its derivative File:Val Valentino (cropped).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note an admin reverted my tagging of that warning tag, so now I commenced a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Val Valentino.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

File:1800Shakey's Pizza in the Philippines 17.jpg

Is File:1800Shakey's Pizza in the Philippines 17.jpg a COM:DW/COM:PACKAGING problem or not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Uploading an image that I have permission for?

I find the image upload process confusing. I wish to upload an image to a page (the page is not yet public but hopefully will be). The image is the logo of the organisation and is copyrighted, but I have permission from the organisation to use it. However, the four freedoms that are listed in the help article on the topic suggest that everyone else who can view the image should also be allowed to use it, or at least that is how I read it.

I would appreciate some clarification on this, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardmw (talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wardmw: Hi, and welcome. Exactly where may we find the logo online, and what permission were you given? Please see COM:L and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jeff G: . The logo is visible here: https://widowssons.org.uk/contact.html (and other pages on this site). I was given permission by the copyright holder because I am one of the IT people for the group. I am looking at creating a Wiki page for us and we would naturally want our logo to be included.

Also, sorry for the lack of signature, I am still trying to find my way around the wikiverse. Wardmw (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wardmw/sandbox

Hmm, I reread your question so let's try again: I was given permission to use the logo, unaltered, by the copyright holder. Wardmw (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wardmw: Please have an authorized representative post permission on the organization's official website or social media or send permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you. Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload an svg or jpg version, instead. If you can't get a compliant license, the logo may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response :@Jeff G.: , I will keep the image size and type in mind. I can certainly get the authorisation you ask for but I need to know what constitutes an authorised representative? I'm not trying to be awkward or rude, I just want to be sure that the chairman of the organisation, who will be responding, does so in the correct manner. Peter can send you an email but how would you know that he is the chairman of the organisation? It wouldn't be from a WSMBA-based email address because we don't have that facility, sadly. We *do* have email forwarding though, so if you were to send an email to chairman@wsmba.uk, for example, then it would route to Peter and he would respond, but it would come from his personal email.

Again, I am not trying to be awkward, I just want to be sure that you get the approval you need and in the correct manner. Wardmw (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wardmw: He may carbon copy that email address, or you may set up one of his devices or webmail accounts to use that address as part of an alternate identity or user profile.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Soviet Space Images

https://www.roscosmos.ru/29219/#foto

The above link contains historical photographs in the lower section that could be useful for Soviet space pages like Luna 15, which currently rely on images of postage stamps:

Roscosmos material usage guidelines:

Roscosmos text, photo, audio and video materials (hereinafter - media materials) are available for free use and distribution for purposes, that do not mean a direct or indirect commercial and political benefit-sharing. The authors, who intend to use media materials in accordance with this policy, may not apply for the permission of the State Corporation, but are obliged to indicate Roscosmos as a source.

Roscosmos may decide to restrict the use of some media materials. Such materials will contain relevant information on the limitation of distribution.

Roscosmos website can contain media materials, protected by copyright. In this case, Roscosmos notifies the site users about these restrictions, indicating the authorship of the media. The using of media materials with copyright protection by Roscosmos does not mean that this right passes to users of Roscosmos website. The user shall discuss the question of using the copyrighted media together with the author of the media material.

http://en.roscosmos.ru/20744/

Because no direct license is specified, how should the images be attributed? Or, could these images potentially fall under PD-RU-exempt?

W3r456 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not a free licence (it doesn't permit commercial use) so they're still not OK here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Understood! Thanks for reviewing. W3r456 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Red-back spider (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

FindaGrave Copyright

What is the copyright on images on FindaGrave specifically these photos,https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/182937642/john-henry-hammond/photo? Is it like Wikipedia where any image you find is useable since it is user generated or is there copyright on certain images? Thanks for clearing this up! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: I just had a quick wander around the site, and I can't see any indication that pictures there are required to be freely licensed in the way the Commons requires. However individual members can license their own work and I notice that Bobby Kelley, who supplied the pictures on the page you cite, says in his profile, Any photo i have taken is open source, they can be reposted, saved, and used for any purpose.[16] I'd say that that's sufficient permission for Commons' purpose for photos taken by Bobby Kelley: use {{Copyrighted free use}} and quote the text from their profile in the "Permission" field of the {{Information}} template. I don't think that the photo of John Henry Hammond II is covered by that permission, though. --bjh21 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@bjh21 How do I find I find out the copyright of the photo of John Henry Hammond II? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: You'd need to find out who took it and what its publication history is. There are several different ways it might now be out of copyright (see Commons:Hirtle chart), or you might be able to track down the photographer or their heirs and ask them to release it under a free licence. Your first step, though, is to find out the history of the photo, and for that you might start by contacting Bobby Kelley, who added it to Find A Grave. I notice that Getty have this picture in their library[17], which may mean that it's still in copyright, but may just mean that Getty want you to think it's still in copyright. --bjh21 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Photo Rights

I have a question regarding this photo, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/168352747/william-douglas-sloane/photo. The person who added it allows for the use of all of his photos and it is from an unknown author before 1920. I believe that means it should be in the public domain. Am I correct? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If published only recently, the copyright in USA will last for 120 years after creation. Ruslik (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy

Pre 1926

Are all U.S photo from before 1926 copyright free except for potential exemptions? For example if I find a photo of someone from 1906 is that free for use anywhere? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: Not necessarily; see User:Alexis Jazz/Assuming worst case copyright.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

I want to know if the pictures I have uploaded recently are in public domain. They are almost all pre 1900 and have no photographers or artist mentioned anywhere. I have seen multiple times that most Pre 1922-1926 photos have no copy-right. Am I correct in the uploading of these images. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This Photo

Is this photo under copyright. (note it is pre 1926) https://minnetrista.pastperfectonline.com/photo/B5FC4AA3-9536-4011-B81E-280254548200. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 13:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: My answer above stands. See also COM:HIRTLE, COM:TALK, and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Most probably OK for me. --Yann (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I get my photo from BBC. How can I know their license?

Title. - On that page, not is specified on what date is, also the license - can any help me? Impostor7804 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Impostor7804: Hi, and welcome. Exactly what page are you writing about? See also COM:UK.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: File:7 colors' mountain, Cusco, Perú.jpg Impostor7804 :p - 10:38, Wed, Apr 28 (UTC -5)

@Impostor7804: That appears to be from https://cdn-image.travelandleisure.com/microsites/images/2017/photo-contest/color-thumb.jpg , first found on Oct 3, 2017. The largest version available appears to be at https://tr-images.condecdn.net/image/Ad465WrYwLK/crop/3000 as displayed by http://www.cntraveller.com/gallery/where-to-go-on-holiday-in-september , first found on Jun 1, 2018. It is probably copyrighted by Condé Nast Britain or one of their contestants.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Impostor7804 and Jeff G.: To piggy-back off on Jeff's research, Conde Nast credited the photo to Getty Images (https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/vinicunca-cusco-region-peru-royalty-free-image/697536378) which in turn sourced it from their stock photo website IStock (https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/vinicunca-cusco-region-peru-gm697536378-129201379). IStock photo was uploaded on June 18, 2017 by a user named sorincolac. Howhontanozaz (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Howhontanozaz: Thanks! Of course, neither Getty nor IStock provides licenses we can use on Wikimedia Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Darya Dadvar concert

I just can't believe BBC Persian has released this concert under a CC license. Does BBC hold the full copyright over it or just an honest mistake (maybe just the video, not the audio)? If it's okay, then I'm going to upload it to Commons. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you asked the BBC directly? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I just sent an email to BBC Persian using this form. However, I don't hope they reply back as I have contacted them several times about other issues (not about this concert or any licensing matters), but I have never received any responses. Maybe I should write in English and send it to BBC itself (not its Persian service). The form reads in Persian "we try to read all messages but can't guarantee responding to all of them".

That being said, isn't BBC supposed to be well-versed regarding licensing matters? If we can't rely on BBC for such matters, who else can we trust? 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Even the BBC can overlook things, and generally the BBC hasn't released material under Creative Commons in the past. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@4nn1l2 and ShakespeareFan00: As I wrote in this edit, I would not trust BBC Persian's photo credits if I were you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Firebird Suite

Am I correct in judging Stravinsky's "The Firebird" (1919) as public domain in the United States but NOT public domain in its country of origin because it was first published in Switzerland and Stravinsky died less than 70 years ago?  Mysterymanblue  17:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mysterymanblue: Probably, see File:Léon Bakst 001.jpg and its licensing. Pinging Jeff because he knows more copyright stuff then me: @Jeff G.: --Red-back spider (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Cropping, copyright, and the author field

Last August I opened a discussion about the appropriateness of someone who crops someone else's photo adding their name to the author field as "cropped by". This came up initially because I saw a photo I took "in the wild" attributed both to me and the person who cropped it.

It was archived without a clear resolution, and I continue to see this so I'm hoping to ping participants there.

Here is my position following that thread: The author field is typically for attribution, and that attribution is determined by the copyright holder. Assuming a standard crop which does not render a new creative work, if the copyright holder would like to specify that it was cropped by someone else, they can, but otherwise the author is the only one who should appear in that field. It is appropriate, however, for information about who cropped it to appear in the description.

Is this an accurate summary of the discussion (or of consensus regarding this issue)? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• The cropped version may be considered a derivative work. You are right that the author field is typically for attribution, and that attribution is determined by the copyright holder. But this would only apply to the uncropped, and original version of the work. Technically, the DW version has its own separate copyright which is dependent on the original work, of course. For the derivative version, the author field could be used for attributing author of the original and the cropped version. T Cells^Talk 18:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The general conclusion is that a crop of a work, in normal circumstances, does not generate a new copyright. I personally don't think a rectangular crop still containing a large part of the original image would ever get a new copyright, and I have a hard time imagining any crop copyrightable under US law that would be in scope for Commons; cropping the Mona Lisa in the shape of your fantasy character might be copyrightable, but also out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Which country's copyright laws apply to the United States military bases in South Korea?

South Korea is an ally of the United States, and for this reason, there are the United States military bases in South Korea.

And as far as I know, US military bases in South Korea are treated as US territories.

Which country's copyright laws apply to the United States military bases in South Korea?

Do the laws of South Korea apply? Or does the law of the United States apply?

In other words, is there freedom of panorama for buildings only at US military bases in South Korea?

See also: COM:FOP SK, Template:NoFoP-South Korea, COM:FOP US, Template:FoP-US

Ox1997cow (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: US, N, Y, Y.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: You're welcome. They should be just like embassies.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G. and Ox1997cow: I don't think embassies enjoy that same treatment: see Nat's input at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-03#File:US Embassy Athens.jpg. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanese embassy in Iceland.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Embassy in Paris.jpg, both of which formed my bases for starting Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Embassy of Vietnam (Malate, Manila). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Jeff G. and Ox1997cow: Barring a specific agreement that grants extraterritoriality, the laws of the host country generally apply on the military bases of a foreign state in that country. While it does provide some exemptions of the applicability of certain ROK laws on members of the U.S. military forces and accompanying civilian components in Korea, the US-ROK status of forces agreement does not provide such extraterritoriality -- it is safe to assume that ROK copyright laws apply on U.S. military installations in South Korea. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Nat: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• I second to Nat's inputs, PD-USGov can't apply. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Liuxinyu970226: This has nothing to do with the applicability of {{PD-USGov}}. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Nat: We don't really care if the US's laws apply on ROK soil, though. Legally, we are bound to respect only US law, which allows FoP worldwide. English Wikipedia has chosen to follow only US law, while Commons has chosen to follow the law of the country of origin as well for moral reasons. Therefore, I'd argue we have discretion on deciding what the country of origin is, since we are merely trying to enforce an internal policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• @King of Hearts: The crux of the question(s) is whether U.S. laws should apply or ROK laws should apply to photos taken on U.S. military installations with regards to Commons. If Commons has chosen to respect the laws of the source country, then it does matter. In this matter, with respects to FOP, ROK laws would apply. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  We can define "source country" however we'd like, because it is not a legal requirement, merely a policy one. When there are multiple competing claims for being the source country, there is precedent for using the more permissive one. For example, if a novel is published by a British author simultaneously in the UK and US in 1925 and the author dies in 1975, we accept US as the source country, even if the author has no ties to the US and has never even set foot in the US. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am OK with using the most permissive one when there are multiple competing claims. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

On Italian FOP - cases and status

It seems to me that there are discrepancies regarding Italian FOP. Despite the accepted consensus that there is no freedom of panorama of any sort in Italy, the case I started, Commons:Deletion requests/File:2013-06-15 Roma Stazione FS Tiburtina.jpg, was closed as kept because the closing admin claimed the station lacked creativity and that there is a purported list of protected buildings in Italy by MiBAC. This is a stark contrast to an older case page, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Roma Tiburtina train station. It seems analogous to the case of Rome's Jubilee Church, in which the relevant case pages were variously closed as either deleted or kept. An older DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chiesa dio padre misericordioso roma.JPG, was closed as deleted, while the newer Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chiesa di Dio Padre Misericordioso was closed as kept. This issue even extended to the undeletion requests (where my attempt to restore the deleted Jubilee Church photo failed). Hence I see a lot of discrepancies surrounding the Italian FOP cases, and more so, the Italian FOP situation. I am tempted to restart the deletion request for Tiburtina Station (as I doubt the building as a "protected work by virtue of MiBAC"; the protected work status is supposedly for public domain works anyway according to COM:FOP Italy), but I will leave that nomination to other users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Please don't restart recently closed DRs! It could be seen as an edit war. In Italy the ToO is very high, meaning that a work, in order to be copyrightable, has to clearly show some creative aspects (this is aplied to photography, for instance, where "simple photographs" have a limited protection). Italian copyright law on architectural works protects the blueprints, of course, but it is not clear how it applies on the representation of the exterior of a building by a mean different from architecture (e.g. painting of photography). The Ministry explicitly protects only the architecture, in the sense that a building in the protected list (which is published and maintained regularly) cannot be modified without a permission, because it is considered important artistic character. All the other buildings can be altered without permission, simply because their aspect is not protected.

In Italy FOP is strict about artworks (e.g. statues), but there are no court cases about architecture. Adopting the list of protected modern buildings from the Ministry is the only official way to consider a building as architecturally creative, all other forms of judging are purely subjective (e.g. an admin's advice). I can understand that this point of view is very close to the ouput we have from the institutions on the matter, but, again, is the only rational way to judge an architectural work in Italy. (for a more detailed review on the matter - a work in progress - you can read this essay) --Ruthven (msg) 10:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ruthven: are there any legal or official documents and/or sources or any other material that state there is de facto FOP in Italy for buildings? (This seems analogous to the Argentine FOP in which even their copyright law has no FOP provisions but a scholarly work of an attorney and legal resources there confirmed the de facto existence of Argentine FOP for buildings only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether someting is creative or not creative is the main point: if a buliding is architecturally creative, it is in the important buildings list of the Ministry of Culture and it is protected; if it's not in the list, it is not protected because it is not considered creative. For the same principle, if a photograph is not creative, and it is only a documentation of reality, it is protected by law only for 20 years, and afterwards it is PD. --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: As far as I know, the only official pronunciation by the Italian government about panorama freedom is this (we have it on Wikisource!). It was a 2008 parliamentary question. The most important sentence says: "In Italy, since there is no specific discipline, it must be considered lawful and therefore possible to freely photograph all the visible works, from the new building of the Ara Pacis to the Colosseum, for any purpose, including commercial, unless, by modifying or altering the subject, you do not come to offend its decorum and the values it expresses." The following text of the same document suggests (IMHO) that you can upload an image with a free license into Commons and use it on Wikimedia projects, but the eventual reuser of the same images in a differents commercial context (such as, a commercial book printed in a high number of copies) will be required to pay. This does not invalidate the free license of the photo, because it doesn't refer to copyright, but other different laws about the heritage (laws usually applied to the preservation of ancient, non-copyrighted national heritage). --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marco Chemello (WMIT): it seems to be a positive finding. Are there any more documents or any similar writings? This may mean that Italy has de facto FOP for buildings, if the restrictions indicated are COM:Non-copyright restrictions (because as you say even p.d. works like Colosseum, and I assume the Leaning Tower and the Renaissance-era cathedrals of Florence and Venice have restrictions on commercial use on cultural heritage grounds, similar to MiBAC case). I can see the sister of Argentine FOP in Europe, the Italian FOP (if ever), because even Argentina has no FOP provisions, but an official and legal interpretation has made FOP for architecture in Argentina possible. Pinging @Jeff G., Liuxinyu970226, and Clindberg: for this important finding by Marco Chemello :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marco Chemello (WMIT) and JWilz12345: This makes photos of protected ALL Italian architecture unfree for use in derogatory commercial derivative works, meaning that we can't host them.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: No, of course. ;) It means that SOME kinds of commercial use of SOME images outside Wikimedia projects may require IN SOME CASES a further authorization (or in other cases a simple and free communication), not that ALL commercial uses are forbidden. It may sound strange, but this does not impact on the Creative Commons License, as the legal code of the license includes explicitly this possibility. In other terms, Wikimedia users are safe. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marco Chemello (WMIT): For argument's sake, let's say I were in the business of digging steel & concrete foundation posts that went all the way down to bedrock, starting in the sands of Italy. I saw a 60 Minutes piece that mentioned such a company in California. Would I be legally allowed to advertise it with a photo of the leaning tower of Pisa and an overlay of text reading the Italian equivalent of "Don't let this happen to your building, use Jeff's Bedrock Foundation Posts"? What if my company expanded outside Italy?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: The question is more on the "moral" side (like in the French copyright law for instance, or in the Korda's case, or for the moral rights in the Creative Commons licenses). You can use the leaning tower of Pisa to advertise your company in that way (to be leaning is not an insult), but you probably cannot do it if you use the image of Pisa to promote/illustrate robbery (which is amoral).

@JWilz12345: This kind of no-copyright protection is already present and used here on Commons for Italian artworks, e.g. {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}, where commercial publications in Italy of Italian heritage need a permission from the Ministry. For the rest, I agree that Italy has de facto FOP for those utilitarian buildings that are not recognized as deserving special protection from the Ministry (but no for artworks in the public space, as they are creative work almost by definition). Ruthven (msg) 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ruthven: in your sense, the restrictions are related to moral rights (non-copyright matter). Inferring from you and Marco Chemello (WMIT)'s inputs, there may be de facto FOP in Italy for buildings, but for those with special architecture a tag {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} is to be used. Then, for all other architecture (those with no creative properties), full de facto FOP? Note that various Italian architecture include Colosseum and Leaning Tower of Pisa (those that are supposed to be public domain), and Jubilee Church of Rome, Tiburtina Station, and Torre Garibaldi (a notable Milan skyscraper). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite right. The fact is that artworks (architectural works included) cannot be used in Italy in such a way that their use might result as defamatory or however as a detriment to the honour and reputation of the work and/or the author. This is a general rule, it also regards any correctly licensed work. Yes, the reason for this is the protection granted to the moral rights, which are independent from the economical ones, live a completely autonomous life and - expressly - cannot be extinguished (oddly enough, not even in the case the author in person would withdraw himself from them).
The best known case was about Michelangelo's David (this one) which was used to advertise weapons, and for some poorly tasted popular shots (Katy Perry); we unsuccessfully discussed this subject with the Minister's staff and the Director of the Accademia that hosts the statue, in Rome, at Villa Giulia, in a 2017 WLM event. As said, this has nothing to do with the "ordinary" management of economical rights, and literally any work, even if its author releases it in CC0, is subject to the same limitation.
Apart from this, Ruthven is right and correct in describing how it goes, I would only add that we directly confronted about FOP with Italian MPs in 2015, in a public debate at the Parliament (there we were): the outcome was that most political parties soon after ordered their respective Italian Euro-MPs to actually vote in favour of our indications in the first moves of what would have become the European copyright battle. Within that Roman discussion, no one could provide us reasonable counter-arguments about FOP per se. So FOP in Italy essentially is limited only by a debatable provision that requires the Ministry's authorization only for those architectural works which are specially protected (and expressely listed as such).
I do believe that we should soon start considering a new discussion with the Italian institutions about what is in the list, and the same reasons for a list; in the meanwhile, apart from the list, no rights seem to be hit and rules infringed for all those uses that don't constitute an insult to the author or the work. It's not our job to prevent final users from insulting; rather, our mission is to sell pillows, which is a fully legitimate commerce even if there is a high probability that someone sooner or later will be suffocated with one of our pillows. We sell good stuff, indeed, . Let's respect the list, now, but let's also re-organize our public proposals. --g (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gianfranco: if I may interpret you (correct me if I'm wrong), per Ruthven and Marco Chemello's inputs, there is de facto FOP for Italian architecture (analogous to Argentine FOP for buildings which was made possible by legal or official interpretation despite having no FOP in their copyright law whatsoever), and those buildings on the list should be tagged with {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} (it is irrelevant if it is the millennia-old Colosseum that is supposed to be public domain, or the decade-old Jubilee Church), while all other buildings regular license tags apply (apart from, {{FoP-Italy}}[?]). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Almost right. All the buildings protected by the MiBAC ministry should have the template (which supersedes {{Soprintendenza}}). On one side you have historical architectural heritage buildings for which the template was created (e.g. Tower of Pisa, Colosseum), on the other side you have the recent buildings for which the architect's rights could still hold, but which protection is recognized only if they have "important artistic character" (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, art. 11 co. 1.e). This recognition is made through the Directorate-General for Contemporary Art and Architecture and Urban Peripheries (DGAAP), a commission that evaluates the requests for protection and publishes the updated list of protected contemporary architecture. For these buildings on the list, we applied so far the FOP on Commons by deleting the photos. All the other Italian contemporary buildings are not recognized for special protection by the MiBAC. --Ruthven (msg) 06:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ruthven: for some reason the link you provided doesn't work (is it dead link or was it just my phone's browser?) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Try open it from laptop or PC, it works for me. Unfortunately, the motivations on the list are in Italian, but the list is what matters here, and it's easily readable. FWIW, I can totally confirm Ruthven's and Gianfranco's positions - full disclosure: I was on WMIT's board from 2014 to 2017, and from 2018 on I'm taking care of Wiki Loves Monuments Italy, so I was there when we were bargaining with the Ministry about FOP. Sannita (WMIT) (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sannita (WMIT): I have no laptop or PC. Sorry. And too bad I cannot read Italian :-( BTW, two unrelated questions: is FOP one of the priorities of Wikimedia Italy? And are there any plans in the Italian government to introduce explicit FOP provision in your country's copyright law (at least for buildings only)? While Marco Chemello (WMIT)'s finding (a statement during the parliamentary discourse) may be a welcoming development (and may change Italy's standing here in Commons from "red countries" to "yellow countries", analogous to Argentine FOP), I find better if there's an explicit provision in your copyright law. Personally, I pity the no FOP status of Italy (under Wikimedia Commons' interpretation) whenever I look this FOP world map, and causes me to ponder when will FOP be officially introduced in this famous and culturally-rich country (at least for buildings only, if outdoor 3D works like sculptures is not yet OK for the country's government officials and relevant agencies). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blackcat, JWilz12345, and Ruthven: Note that there's also {{WLM-Italy-disclaimer}} available, which isn't mentioned in the COM:FOP Italy section, and even undocumented. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: Never seen it! :) But I can understand what it is/means. Made by Sannita (WMIT), it should be used for those works that have a permission for WML, so to avoid counterproductive DRs (as it often happens). The main issue here is that such permissions are hosted and made available by WMI (the Italian chapter), and not by OTRS/Znuny. New users are often confused in not seeing the usual "Permission" template. Ruthven (msg) 09:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Liuxinyu970226, Gianfranco, Blackcat, Marco Chemello (WMIT), Jeff G., Marta Arosio (WMIT), JWilz12345, and Sannita (WMIT): (pinging who participated so far) I would like to wrap up this discussion, given that a lot of information has been exchanged. Is there consensus to reformulate the COM:FOP Italy section on the model of the Argentinian one, using the right references? Moreover, it has been noticed that this section is somewhat incomplete, in particular with some central templates missing a mention. Ruthven (msg) 07:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that reformulating the FOP Italy section on the model of the Argentinian one is a really good solution. --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ruthven: I'm leaning towards considering Italy as having de facto FOP for buildings only (analogous to Argentine FOP). However, more insights may be needed from several users: @A1Cafel, Ankry, Yann, Nat, Ox1997cow, David Wadie Fisher-Freberg, and Aymatth2: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Mention also @MGA73 and Taivo: for some opinion about the outcome of the discussion, that Italy has de facto FOP for buildings only, as much as Argentina has de facto FOP for buildings (but for Italy, through a 2008 statement from the parliament, which I mentioned again below after being mentioned by Wikimedia Italy's User:Marco Chemello above). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am fine with JWilz12345's proposition. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Had you read Italian copyright rules? Read it carefully and judge whether or not FoP. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: for some reason your mentioning didn't work (again? ☹) . Anyway, Italy's copyright law has no mention of FOP whatsoever, but a recent finding by Marco Chemello (WMIT) of Wikimedia Italy has generated a major breakthrough. This one, a 2008 official pronouncement from the Italian parliament, includes a statement that reads (translated by Italian Wikipedians) "In Italy, since there is no specific discipline, it must be considered lawful and therefore possible to freely photograph all the visible works, from the new building of the Ara Pacis to the Colosseum, for any purpose, including commercial, unless, by modifying or altering the subject, you do not come to offend its decorum and the values it expresses." The specific "restriction" here, according to Italian Wikipedians who commented here, is a form of restriction of moral rights which even exists in various public domain works in Europe and in the Americas (like the Korda's case from Cuba), which is not related to copyright whatsoever. Accordingly, as long as moral rights are respected when making modifications of such images, it is free to photograph Italian buildings from ancient to modern ones, for any purposes, including commercial purposes. The same moral rights restrictions exist for all public domain architecture of Italy, which also includes all Vatican buildings (St. Peter's Basilica, Sistine Chapel, etc..) I see this de facto Italian FOP similar to the Argentine FOP. Argentina too has no FOP provision in their copyright law, but a published legal study from the 1990s state that it is free to photograph buildings there for any intents, without the need to seek permission. I find both Argentine and Italian FOP situation for architecture very similar to each other. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Ruthven: I agree with JWilz12345 on this.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: If Italian FoP is applied for buildings only, we will make {{FoP-Italy}}. And {{NoFoP-Italy}} will be changed like {{NoFoP-Japan}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: Hi, maybe you should read again the whole discussion, because it is the other way around, and nothing to do with {{NoFoP-Japan}}. We should make a template on the model of {{FoP-Argentina}} wrt recent buildings, specifying that there is a local protection for cultural heritage artistic works (and no FoP for artworks). The latter is is already taken care by {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}. Ruthven (msg) 08:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ruthven: I think Ox1997cow meant that if the {{FoP-Italy}} is made (on model to Argentine FoP), the {{NoFoP-Italy}} will might be transformed into a category only template just like Japan's no FoP template. Or, will it be retained as a file namespace template for non-architecture artworks, similar to Russia's no FoP template? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Yes. I told about that. There is currently a discussion on {{NoFoP-Russia}}. It would be good to refer to it together. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Through some examples, I think Italy has very high bar on threshold of originality, in which even complex buildings are not copyrighted. However, I'm not sure if it's related to FOP. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Section break

I separated this into another subsection as this has become too long. With inputs above about the high bar of TOO in Italy, perhaps it can be accepted that Italy has a high bar of TOO for architecture. COM:FOP Italy may need to be modified. But it does not in any way change Italy's FOP status (my answer to Ox1997cow's input.

• For the FOP, however, after translating the whole Parliamentary reply just recently, it appears it doesn't suit Commons' conditions, because of one strange and disappointing thing (see the quote and the Google translated version in the collapsible box).

Parliamentary reply, original Italian

OGGETTO: Interrogazione parlamentare n. 4-05031 In merito all’opportunità di introdurre nel nostro ordinamento giuridico l’istituto del "panorama freedom" per consentire ai gestori di siti internet privati la pubblicazione di immagini di opere d’arte contemporanee e non, al fine di favorire ed accrescere in Italia ed all’estero la conoscenza del nostro patrimonio culturale, occorre procedere ad alcune precisazioni preliminari. Pur non essendo espressamente disciplinata nel nostro ordinamento, la libertà di panorama ossia il diritto spettante a chiunque di fotografare soggetti visibili, in particolare monumenti ed opere dell’architettura contemporanea, è riconosciuta in Italia per il noto principio secondo il quale il comportamento che non è vietato da una norma deve considerarsi lecito. In altre legislazioni, invece, tale diritto è disciplinato diversamente a seconda dell’interesse che si ritiene di tutelare prevalentemente (si pensi, ad esempio, alla legislazione belga ed a quella olandese che consentono di fotografare liberamente solo gli edifici mentre è necessaria la richiesta di un permesso per le sculture ove costituiscano il soggetto principale della fotografia; oppure a quella tedesca secondo cui è possibile invece fotografare anche le sculture pubblicamente visibili per usi commerciali; infine a quella statunitense che, similmente a quella italiana consente di poter utilizzare le fotografie scattate in luoghi pubblici o aperti al pubblico per qualunque scopo, salvo che si tratti di opere d’arte non stabilmente installate in un luogo pubblico poiché in tal caso è necessaria l’autorizzazione del titolare). In Italia, non essendo prevista una disciplina specifica, deve ritenersi lecito e quindi possibile fotografare liberamente tutte le opere visibili, dal nuovo edificio dell’Ara Pacis al Colosseo, per qualunque scopo anche commerciale salvo che, modificando o alterando il soggetto, non si arrivi ad offenderne il decoro ed i valori che esso esprime. Per quanto attiene alla tematica del pagamento dei diritti agli autori delle opere contemporanee, si evidenzia che l’art. 2 della legge 9 gennaio 2008, n. 2 (in G.U. serie generale n. 21 del 25 gennaio 2008) ha modificato l’articolo 70 della legge sul diritto d’autore ampliando il regime delle esenzioni. In particolare, è consentita la libera pubblicazione attraverso la rete internet, a titolo gratuito, di immagini e musiche a bassa risoluzione o degradate, per uso didattico o scientifico e solo nel caso in cui tale utilizzo non sia a scopo di lucro. Pertanto, ove il soggetto fotografato fosse un’ opera di autore vivente, l’utilizzo non potrà avvenire che nei limiti anzidetti. Il problema chiaramente non riguarda le opere considerate beni culturali, ossia aventi più di cinquant’anni e di interesse culturale che si trovano in consegna nei musei o negli altri luoghi della cultura, le quali possono essere riprodotte ai sensi e con i limiti previsti dagli art. 107 e 108 del Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio (autorizzazione da parte dell’amministrazione consegnataria e pagamento di un canone, salvo che la riproduzione non sia chiesta per scopi personali o didattici e non commerciali). IL SOTTOSEGRETARIO DI STATO On. Danielle Mazzonis.

Translated (rough translation via Google Translate)

SUBJECT: Parliamentary Question no. 4-05031 Regarding the opportunity to introduce the "panorama freedom" institution in our legal system to allow the managers of private websites to publish images of contemporary and non-contemporary works of art, in order to encourage and increase in Italy and foreign knowledge of our cultural heritage, it is necessary to proceed with some preliminary clarifications. Although not expressly regulated in our legal system, the freedom of panorama, that is the right of anyone to photograph visible subjects, in particular monuments and works of contemporary architecture, is recognized in Italy for the well-known principle according to which behavior that is not prohibited by a rule must be considered lawful. In other legislations, however, this right is regulated differently depending on the interest that it is believed to protect mainly (think, for example, of the Belgian and Dutch legislation that allow you to photograph freely only the buildings while the request for a permit for sculptures where they are the main subject of the photograph; or to the German one according to which it is possible to photograph sculptures publicly visible for commercial use; finally to the US one which, similar to the Italian one, allows you to use the photographs taken in public places or places open to the public for any purpose, except in the case of works of art not permanently installed in a public place since in this case the authorization of the owner is required). In Italy, since there is no specific discipline, it must be considered lawful and therefore possible to freely photograph all the visible works, from the new building of the Ara Pacis to the Colosseum, for any purpose, including commercial, unless, by modifying or altering the subject, you do not arrive to offend its decorum and the values ​​it expresses. As regards the issue of the payment of rights to the authors of contemporary works, it should be noted that art. 2 of the law 9 January 2008, n. 2 (in the Official Gazette General Series No. 21 of 25 January 2008) amended Article 70 of the copyright law by expanding the exemption regime. In particular, the free publication through the internet, free of charge, of low resolution or degraded images and music, for educational or scientific use and only if such use is not for profit. Therefore, if the photographed subject is a work of a living author, it can only be used within the aforementioned limits. The problem clearly does not concern the works considered cultural heritage, that is, having more than fifty years and of cultural interest that are delivered in museums or other places of culture, which can be reproduced pursuant to and within the limits provided for by art. . 107 and 108 of the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code (authorization by the consignee administration and payment of a fee, unless reproduction is requested for personal or educational and non-commercial purposes). THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE Hon. Danielle Mazzonis.

• source: Interrogazione parlamentare - Diritto al panorama (2008)

While I may agree that Italy may have de facto commercial FOP for buildings, I need additional responses from Wikimedians from Italy on what I call "resolution restrictons" ("of low resolution or degraded images..."). This seems to contradict the previous paragraph which states all Italian architecture can be photographed freely for any purposes, including commercial exploitations. Pinging @Marco Chemello (WMIT) and Ruthven: , what are the "of low resolution or degraded images" condition for? Is it for other works of art only, or extends to architecture too? Also pinging @Ox1997cow, Jeff G., and Nat: to analyze this Parliamentary response. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I think kept photos are due to high threshold of originality in Italy. It's not related freedom of panorama. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: The "low resolution or degraded" condition allows to freely distribute copies of original copyrighted works (such as a music or a painting) for non-commercial purposes and was originally approved to facilitate the spreading on the web by anyone with no permission from the original authors. I think this doesn't apply to buildings, as a photo of a building is not a "copy" of the building. So I think it only applies to bi-dimensional artworks or music. Consider also that any jpeg image is "degraded" because the jpeg compression is lossy, and that there is still no further explanation from the Italian Parliament or government of what exactly means "low resolution" or even "degraded". The original proposer of the law - that I met in person many years ago, before the law - said that it simply means "with a lower quality than the original" [18]. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

To go into more detail on this part, I opened a related discussion in Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Italy. It would be better if you participate together. Ox1997cow (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I think it is best to focus the discussion here. There are fewer attention/watchers for CRT talk pages.

One last question @Marco Chemello (WMIT), Sannita (WMIT), and Ruthven: does that parliamentary pronouncement on de facto FOP for Italian buildings applies to all Italian buildings (including protected architecture), or only applies to unprotected buildings? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: If it only applies to unprotected buildings, it is related to TOO, not FOP. If it also applies to protected buildings, it will affect the FOP status in Italy. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 and Ox1997cow: Actually the two aspects are intermingled. I am coming to this later. In the Parliamentary reply there are two points that are of interest for us:

1. There is always the possibility to use copyrighted works for educational uses (thus no commercial uses). But the definition of "low resolution" is not clear. Years ago, on it.wiki, we used 600x400 pixels for photographs, but now, with tech advancement, this limitation can rise up to 1 megapixels. It is a sort of "fair use" for educational purposes.
2. Works of all the visible works of living authors have the aforementioned limitations. Please note: of living authors. I never thought about extending this to statues and other artworks, but yes, they talk about a de facto FOP for deceased artists (architects included, because architecture is the main point of this Parliamentary pronouncement).
3. For living artists, there are limitations because there are the monetary aspects of the copyright to be considered. So, if you wanna publish a photo for no commercial use, it must be a lower resolution. This point does not concerns Commons, because here we want works that can also have commercial uses.

From the Parliamentary pronouncement above, we can then say that we're very close to the Argentinian model for NoFOP. I resume below:

• For historical heritage, to comply with the Ministry directives (and agreement with Wikimedia), we've to add {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}
• For artwork in the public space of deceased artists (and architects), we have a de facto FOP, confirmed by a Parliamentary pronouncement.
• For artworks of living artists (and architects), we have a de facto FOP for non-commercial purpose, confirmed by a Parliamentary pronouncement.

Relatively to the ToO (which is pretty permissive in Italy), even works of living artists (and architects) can be considered below the ToO, and can be published here under certain conditions. When? For sure, when their work is registered and accepted by the MiBAC as a work of important artistic character. The list of these notable buildings is published by the MiBAC Ministry (list of protected architecture). This list is an objective reference, and should be kept in mind by any administrator closing a DR.

I am adding a new element to the discussion, relative the this very last point (sorry if it is becoming long, but the matter we're trying to clarify here is complex). Deborah De Angelis, Italian Creative Commons Chapter Lead & representative for the Creative Commons Global Network Council answered on this topic on it.wiki, at Progetto:Coordinamento/Sportello_Creative_Commons. I resume the main points:

• Only the original architect can ask for its work to be recognised as "importante valore artistico" to the Ministry. (my comment: this might in part explain the reference to living artists only in the above Parliamentary pronouncement). It is up to the Ministry to evaluate the criteria for judging a work of "important artistic value". The request can be denied.
• Only "original and creative works" are protected by copyright in Italy. This includes architecture as well. (my comment: this is where ToO come into play)
• The MiBAC officials evaluating an architectural work of "important artistic value" must consider the following criteria: originality, creativity, notability, quality, innovation, experimental use of materials and construction techniques. At least 3 out of 7 criteria must hold.
• The list of the MiBAC of protected architectures is indeed valid to decide whether a building of a living artist is protected by copyright or not. This list shouldn't be considered exhaustive. However there is no case law at all wrt copyright of photographs of recent buildings in Italy, nor official documents. Thus there are no guidelines on the matter besides the list of the MiBAC and the criteria above (which however should be evaluated by the Ministry officials).

To come back to the propositions you made above, we should indeed modify the guidelines about Italy and {{NoFoP-Italy}}, and possible make a {{FoP-Italy}}. Ruthven (msg) 20:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Ruthven: from your inputs now, I think the no FOP status will still prevail. Because FOP should also encompass works by still-living architects or sculptors etc. (just like the recognized Commons-applicable FOP statuses around the world). Though as you say once they are dead, the de facto FOP applies. I think a new template must be made. But I now advice avoid creating {{FoP-Italy}} because, it will create confusion that there is de facto FOP for "all" works. For ToO for Italian architecture, I also suggest a new template (either the template that will also accommodate the de facto FOP for works of deceased architects and artists, or a new template).

I think the de facto Italian FOP is almost close to (but haven't reached the status of) COM:FOP Argentina.

For relevant areas at Commons

COM:CRT/Italy#Freedom of panorama: Modifications may be made, but as there is still a noncommercial limitation for works by living architects and artists, the country will still be treated as having no FOP unfortunately. But the rules may now become more lenient as works by recently deceased architects and artists, plus buildings by living architects that doesn't pass ToO, may now be hosted here (and several undeletions may also be requested, though it's better that Italian Wikimedians will request those as they are more familiar with Italian buildings and works).

However, the overall status of not OK will still prevail as people may thought works by living architects and artists "are OK", if we change the overall status to OK. Not OK for overall status, but there will now be two exceptions for works by deceased architects and artists, and buildings by living architects that do not pass the Italian ToO for buildings.

I also suggest a list of protected works that may not be allowed at Commons (until the time when the author dies), indicated at FOP section of CRT/Italy too and cited by the pdf link you gave (until now I cannot access this pdf).

Maps: Because of that noncommercial limitation for living works, unfortunately, Italy will still be regarded as a no FOP country in maps like File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg.

Commons:Freedom of panorama/table listing: Same as above: still no FOP. The de facto FOP only for works of deceased architects and artists is not sufficient.

@Jeff G., Yann, A1Cafel, Ankry, Clindberg, and Aymatth2: what do you think? Also ping @Blackcat, Marco Chemello (WMIT), and Sannita (WMIT): JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 and Ruthven: I read them carefully. Therefore, I suggest the comments below.

{{NoFoP-Italy}} is edited and kept. And we create a template that can be used for photos of buildings not protected by Italian copyright.

Ox1997cow (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you: it's better to be conservative and not update the map. However, Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama must be updated with the new information and templates. Ruthven (msg) 09:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I also suggest to read the matter under another light: 1. A building (no matter what its threshold of originality is) is different from a record or a book. When you buy a record or a book you buy a copy of an author's work, and the right to listen or read it as much and as long as you want. But you haven't the property of the author's work, you only have a copy of it. 2. A building is usually property of its committent, and usually in our country the rights of the owner come first. The ratio is clear: if I owned a building designed by a famous architect I wouldn't be able to use for commercial purposes photographs of my own property. The Italian law doesn't limit property rights because of these small issues. As I said, all these considerations come even before any discussion about the threshold of originality of a building. -- Blackcat 09:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• A photograph or drawing of a 3D work like a sculpture or building is not a copy of the work, but the law may still impose restrictions on use of the photograph. FoP means there are no restrictions: the photograph can be freely used for purposes that would be considered highly offensive by the author and owner of the work. In this case I suggest clarifying {{NoFoP-Italy}} to note that works by dead authors are o.k., and creating {{FoP-Italy}} for works by dead authors. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Shall we move to the discussion page of the templates, so to refine the text modifications there? Ruthven (msg) 09:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruthven:  Support I agree this. Where should I move it? Ox1997cow (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

We can start in Template talk:NoFoP-Italy, and draft the texts for the two templates. Ruthven (msg) 14:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruthven: OK. Which template are you drafting? Ox1997cow (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Please open a discussion in Template talk:NoFoP-Italy. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I have no mood of starting a fork of the discussion at another area. I will give a suggested wording here (inside collapsible box). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions

JWilz12345's suggestion (note: raw form without links or highlighting

For NoFoP template This image features an architectural or artistic work by a living author, photographed from a public space in Italy. There is no freedom of panorama exception in the Italian copyright law, which means that they cannot be photographed freely for anything other than personal purposes. However, de minimis non curat praetor concept may be applicable. Two de facto exceptions also exist for two cases, one for works by deceased authors and another for buildings which are not creative enough to attain copyright protection: see Commons:CRT/Italy#Freedom of panorama for more information. For COM:CRT/Italy#Freedom of panorama  Not OK..., but with two de facto exceptions. Please tag... Pictures from public places don't enjoy any exception in Italian copyright law;.... Object still under copyright....Additionally, photos of any cultural heritage asset.... The following are considered cultural heritage assets:.... (Photo with caption, placed at right) Simplifications were envisioned.... For Wiki Loves Monuments participants,.... De facto exceptions OK for works by deceased authors. (Description/info) OK for buildings by living architects that are not creative or artistic enough to be copyright-protected. (Description/info) (Will this be removed because, de facto Italian FOP will start on the January 1st of the 1st Year of the author's death?)Note: Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author.... (How about this) For works published by the Italian state (i.e. under the name of the state, and on their account),...

I have edited several elements of the draft. --Ox1997cow (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: It looks much more clearer than the actual version. We should add the references though. I answered you at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Italy Ruthven (msg) 14:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Anyway, we should clarify that which files are ok for using one of {{Soprintendenza}}, {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} and {{WLM-Italy-disclaimer}}, the second one only mentions words like "see also {{Soprintendenza}}", and the first and third still don't have a useful documentation. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: I reckon that the phrasing in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy is fine. In any case, all of these are no-copyright restrictions so, if they are not used in a file, it is not a reason for deletion. To resume:

• {{Soprintendenza}} is superseded by {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}. I wouldn't mention Soprintendenza anymore.
• {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} should be added to all Italian photographs of cultural heritage (yes, this includes the Leaning Tower of Pisa)
• {{WLM-Italy-disclaimer}} looks pointless, given that {{Monumento italiano}} already exists to link the WLM permission to the photograph of the monument. Probably WLM-Italy-disclaimer has been created to avoid DRs, as it often happens with WLM photographs, as said before. New users aren't necessarily aware that the local chapter generally has the permissions for the monuments, instead of VRTS.

Asking to WikiMedia Italy users if they want to add something to this analysis of the templates: User:Marta Arosio (WMIT) User:Marco Chemello (WMIT) User:Sannita (WMIT). Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 06:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"All Italian photographs of cultural heritage" (for {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}) is not really "all" IMO, but only the National (State) heritage, and the heritage owned by Italian municipalities (comuni), because the law cites only the two. We can consider also Regions (for common extension). But the law does not cite private heritage, such as church heritage. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

So should I say that the Sopri... is deprecated? If not, revert me. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess Ruthven's solution is fine. I'm only slightly worried about the possible superseding of {{WLM-Italy-disclaimer}} since, as he pointed out, there is still some risk of DRs and I guess {{Monumento italiano}} is sometimes too small or too "invisible" for people to read. Sannita (WMIT) (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow and Liuxinyu970226: To come back to the draft above. For works published by the Italian state the limit of copyright is 20 years is not an exception to FoP, it is just that works made for the State (e.g. a monument for a municipality, a bridge for a REgional govnmt) is PD 20 years after the inauguration. So the copyright holds for 20 years (instead of 70). Any more point to clarify before editing the guidelines? --Ruthven (msg) 09:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

. Note after achriving: this discussion is obsolete. Another conclusion followed from this discussion of August 2021. Elly (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)