Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06

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

Question on copyrights in Italian law

A screenshot of a newspaper first page violates the rights of the editor? the reproduction of first pages of newspapers of historical significance, common in WP, is often significant to document history and collective memory for the legitimate non commercial use of WP. Is this one of those cases where there is a risk of being more royalists than the king in WP? I would not be surprised if newspaper editors would not only not oppose, but be pleased with snapshots of their archives being used for that purpose, which underlines the historical importance of their newspaper, without subtracting a dime from them. My cursory look at the law suggests that there might be exceptions to the main rules, but I know no more. Thanks in advance for any advice. No sure whether there is a country specific page for this talk.--Tytire (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the screenshot of a newspaper's first page violates the rights of the authors and photographers shown on that page. If newspaper editors would not oppose, they can give us a license to include a first page, which several magazine editors have. The legitimate non-commercial use of WP is irrelevant here; you can probably upload such files to the English Wikipedia as fair use, and if you can't to the Italian Wikipedia, that's because they've decided not to exploit such exceptions to making a completely free Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tytire and Prosfilaes: On itwiki, they have it:WP:EDP and helpful English translation it:Wikipedia:File non liberi/English.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
many thanks ! I see now where I need to pursue this further. --Tytire (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tytire: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ellin Beltz requesting to delete photos that meet the stated license

Ellin Beltz has requested a bunch of photos I uploaded to be deleted (see above). Here is the problem. The Billie Eilish photo (which is the first one) belongs to my OWN SISTER! She took the photo and gave me permission to use it anywhere and whenever I wanted! The impractical joker photos were uploaded by James Murray. One of the main four of the show. The Chris Issac one is perfect quality and was uploaded by someone else and gave permission to use it on Wikipeida. And the music ones provide coverage to "primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question". Shoot for the Stars (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shoot for the Stars Simple, then. Have the real copyright owners of the images which are not own work send permission via the simple email form at COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I have recently started some deletion reviews for images created by Stephen Cribb, after I identified that he died less than 70 years ago. Cribb was a UK-based press photographer, so his photos would normally be protected as life+70. For one of the cases, a photograph was published in a book in 1904 in both London and New York. If it was published in London alone, it would still be in copyright as life+70. If it was published in New York alone, it would be free of copyright as a publication in the US before 1926. With conflicting territory rules, which one takes precedence on Commons? From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The image is public domain in USA now but not in UK. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Which doesn't really answer the question--which one matters for our purposes?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: If it was simultaneously published in the UK and the US then it is a US work for Commons' licensing policy purposes and you can ignore the pma.+70 UK term (document it for the benefit of reusers in the UK, but it's not a deletion reason). If it was published before 1925 it is PD in the US. --Xover (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I uploaded photos of my license plate collection to the Commons, to be used on their respective pages. However, I got a 7 day deletion notice saying they’ll be deleted if I don’t provide the correct copyright info (look at my user talk page for more info). However, I already have a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license on all of them. What do I need to do to prevent them from being deleted? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertCars824 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@RobertCars824: The issue is that there are two copyrights that apply to these files. You, the photographer, hold the copyright over your photographs of these plates. Additionally, there is copyright over the designs of the plates, which is held by the states (or whoever designed the plates). In order for the photographs of the plates to be eligible to be hosted on Commons, we must have free usability on both of these fronts. While you have provided information on the license that you applied to the photographs, you have not provided sufficient information for the design of the license plates. Unfortunately, it is very likely that the license plate designs are not freely licensed or in the public domain, so they may be deleted.  Mysterymanblue  20:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok good to know, thanks for explaining. However, how would any license plate be able to be on the Commons if this applies? To my knowledge I am the only person who has uploaded photos of them to then get takedown requests for them. I see many other examples of people with the same licensing/copyright info I had put, for current plates, just from other states. I’d just like to know why mine don’t work but theirs do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertCars824 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi RobertCars824. First, I've moved your post since it really wasn't necessary to start a new discussion thread just to reply to Mysterymanblue. Whenever you want to add a new comment to an already existing discussion, all you need to do is go to the section heading of the particular thread and click on "edit". That will open the edit window for that thread and you can then add your new post. In addition, you should also always try to remember to COM:SIGN your posts because it help make it easier for others to know who posted what and when they posted it. Signing a post is fairly simple and basically just entails adding ~~~~ (i.e. four tildes) to the end of your post.
As for your question, there are lots of people who upload files to Commons who mean well, but you might not fully understand Commons:Licensing; so, they make a mistake similar to the one you made. In some cases, such files could go along time before they are noticed and nominated or tagged for deletion. So, just because you see a file on Commons, that doesn't mean they should be on Commons. With respect to US state license plates, you might want to take a look at the information in COM:TOO and COM:PD. In some cases, the plate design might be something that is considered too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright laws, which means taking a photograph of it isn't really an issue as explained here. In some cases, the state which issues the plate might have passed legislation that designates all content created by its employees as part of their official duties to be within in the public domain and thus ineligible for copyright protection regardless of how complex it might be. The US government does this and there are some state governments that do this as well. Now, if you go to the search window at the top of this page and search the keyphrase "COM:License plates", you should see lots of deletion request listings for images of license plates uploaded by other people. If you click on the links, you'll be taken to the relevant discussion and be able to see why the file was nominated for deletion and whether it ended up being deleted. Some of the discussion are from many years ago and for countries other than the US, but there are quite a lot; so, it's not something that has only happened to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@RobertCars824: Hello. I have just created a new category under derivative works-related DR category: Category:License plates deletion requests. You may want to look at some case pages at the /deleted subcategory. Note that the categorization work is still in progress (other users and admins can also help in categorization, as long as the use of "noinclude" tags is encouraged to avoid collateral categorization of daily listings where DRs are also embedded or transcluded). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thanks for answering my questions! And for putting up with my lack of knowledge on how to properly use talk pages here. I appreciate it!--RobertCars824 (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Milwaukee Brewers cap logo on navy.png

Is File:Milwaukee Brewers cap logo on navy.png really {{PD-textlogo}}? I get that the logo consists of the letters "M" and a "b" as well as a "baseball" combined together to give the appearance of a baseball glove and ball, but that combination seems to have quite a creative aspect to it that goes a bit beyond a simple text logo or font. The same logo is uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:Milwaukee Brewers logo.svg licensed as non-free content, and that can't be the case if this file is OK as currently licensed. I get that COM:TOO United States is pretty liberal when it comes to logos, but I'm not sure that it's this liberal so I'm interested in know what others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

My gut says above TOO, but if w:Milwaukee_Brewers#1978–1993 is to be believed, it was first published in 1978, so notice or registration would be required for copyright protection. I didn't find any registration with a quick search, but I don't have enough evidence to say that it was published without a notice. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

First I would say that this logo is not a "simple" text logo. Second, the current ball-in-glove logo as the Brewers refer to it as is not the same as the 1978 ball-in-glove logo. In the new logo the top of the b and the m touch, and the ball now has two baseball lines that curve up on each side of the ball, in the original logo, the ball had one line that curved diagonally across the ball, and the blue of the b and m do not touch. both logos can be seen https://brewers.fanportal-mlb.com/glovestory/ on that page by each logo can be seen as well as the TM logo by each of the logos shown. I don't think the text logo is the proper justification for use. may be wiser to take down and replace with a lower resolution copy of the logo from the glove story page citing the source and trademark, and making a fair use argument.BrewCityStu (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


Are Paraguayan currencies allowed?

I found two categories.

Category:Banknotes of Paraguay Category:Coins of Paraguay

However, Paraguay is not listed on COM:CUR.

I think Paraguayan currencies are copyrighted.

So, I attached {{Currency-unknown}} at two categories.

Are Paraguayan currencies allowed?

Ox1997cow (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

User uploading loads of copyrighted images as their own

Hi, I have not reported any user on here before for uploading possible copyrighted material so hopefully this is the right board but an account I came across, [1] has been uploading lots of images since March as their own material when they are likely all copyrighted and contain no source information. For example, [2][3], [4], [5], [6] etc etc are definitely not this user's own work, they are photographs taken in Europe between the 1960s and 1980s so are likely under copyright law for example this [7] was taken in 1972 but no source is given. This user just uploaded this image today [8] but I am fairly sure it is taken from the International Vegetarian Union website. In total there nearly 30 images like this. What can be done here? Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyrighted Image should be deleted

File:Ruma Modak.jpg Collecting this image from this link, the uploader considers it his work and has also created an advertising promotional article on Bengali Wikipedia. ~ Nahian Talk 04:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done nominating it for DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ruma Modak.jpg, @Nahian: . Note that my reason is that it has FB transmission code in its incomplete metadata, which means the uploader may have taken it from FB. Therefore, a previously-published image requiring proof of identity verification so that the uploader is indeed the same as the person who first published (posted) it on FB. You may want to leave your inputs and comments on the deletion nomination page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Raja Hasan Khan Mewati.jpg is a pic of what seems like someone's personal painting, e.g. following are a couple of its other pics from different angles: [9] & [10]. There are many other variants of it on the net. It was uploade in 2018, but it also appears at the end of this video of 2017. I guess it's a copyright violation of the painting's creator. So I want inputs from knowledgeable editors. BTW, people of various communities of India regularly make this type of paintings of historical personalities and upload them on social media as well as here for social upliftment or caste promotion purposes. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Statues of useful articles

File:Weber Grill Restaurant - Schaumburg.jpg prominently displays a large statue of a Weber grill outside of a restaurant. It is my understanding that useful articles are not protected by copyright law. Would this large, non-functional statue - which appears to have the same design as a useful article - then be protected by copyright?  Mysterymanblue  07:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: I recently uploaded File:Weber Grill headquarters.jpg, which includes a similar situation. If you have reason to believe that the statue is protected by copyrighted and that its inclusion is not sufficiently insignificant for de minimis to apply, please ping me here or leave a message at my talk page. Thank you.  Mysterymanblue  05:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a giant en:kettle grill is going to be considered an artistic work. It's basically a super-sized version of one of the grills that Weber sells so the question would be whether the actual-sized model meets COM:CB#Utility objects. If the actual-sized one isn't eligible for copyright protection, then I don't think a larger- or smaller-scaled version would be eligible for copyright protection just because of its size if everything else is the same. If a restaurant had a giant fork installed out in front without any distiguishable copyrightable elements added to it, it would seem odd that the fork would be eligible for copyright protection just because of its size. That would seem to be nothing more than a slavish reproduction on a very large scale that wouldn't generate it's own copyright as a COM:DW. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the input Marchjuly!  Mysterymanblue  08:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

upoalding an image from free access journal

can i upload an image from a free access article from the journal epilepsia or do i need permission from the authors or publisher to do so? please guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandanYardi (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@NandanYardi: Probably not. I looked at one open-access article, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/epi.16930, and that page has a copyright notice that says "This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License". The "NonCommercial" restriction means that the article can't be used on Commons, since our licensing policy requires that works be free for commercial use. If the image or article that you're interested in has a different licence then the answer might be different. --bjh21 (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks.I will try to sort out the licensing of this image with the publishers or authors before uploading--NandanYardi (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Derivative work?

Can Commons keep File:Camden Riversharks for June 12, 2009 Game.jpg as currently licensed. It's not own work really since all the uploader seems to have done was to scan/photograph the ticket. The shape of the ticket and the superimposed text aren't copyrightable elements, but the background imagery might be and it's too complex to be public domain. Should something like this be treated like a COM:DW since it's sort of part COM:CB#Advertisement, part COM:CB#Payment cards, part COM:PACKAGING, etc. because the printed design on the ticket might be eligible for protection even if the ticket itself is a COM:CB#Utility objects. FWIW, I don't think you can argue COM:DM because the ticket is the focus of the image and the design of the ticket isn't really incidental to the image. If you take a way the background imagery, all you're left with is a box with some text and it seems unlikely that the uploader uploaded the file with that in mind. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

brainstudy.info

If I search for my images at images.google it turns up a large number of images at "brainstudy.info". When I follow the link to the brainstudy.info site, i get instead notified that i am the billionth user of the search and won a 1000$ amazon voucher. If I open brainstudy.info with lynx I am told that the domain is up for sale and that it is a free service by godaddy!

What is brainstudy.info?

--C.Suthorn (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The blue-white-red logos in Category:Logos of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project were created in the Soviet Union by en:Galina Balashova (living person). They are not "works of the US government" in any way, yet licensed here as PD-NASA.

The story as known from the artist herself is even more complex. It goes like this: the Soviets and the Americans developed their insignia independently, but the Soviets were the first to publicize Balashova's design to great pomp. The NASA reluctantly abandoned their own artwork and adopted Balashova's. Then, the Soviet management created a nominal copyright holder in Switzerland, hoping to milk some royalties out of it - but this did not work out at all. The Soviets waived their rights to the IP to settle their debt to Swiss lawyers. (source: [11])

Who owns these rights today... nobody knows. The ASTP agreements certainly contained something on IP, but the exact specifics are not known and can't be googled easily. It it acceptable to infer PD-NASA or not? Retired electrician (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In USA this logo may be just {{Pd-logo}}. However in Russia Balashova may still be the copyright owner. I am not sure that her past renunciation has any legal force. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Retired electrician, based on what you said, it seems clear that PD-NASA would not apply and that the files should be deleted until free usability can be established.  Mysterymanblue  20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Also found https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/logos_patches/Apollo-Soyuz.html on NASA.gov which clearly states the designer. Unless there are any objections or cases to be made, I'll nominate these in a day or so. Obviously NASA cannot release material to the public domain that it does not have the legal right to. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

U.S. coins and the mint's design use policies

Most U.S. currency is in the public domain because it was designed by employees of the federal government as part of their official duties. However, the designs of some currency—especially from the U.S. Mint—are either:

  1. based on intellectual property owned by third parties and licensed to the government or originally created by third parties, or
  2. based on intellectual property originally created by third parties and transferred to the government.

Some U.S. coin images are not in the public domain, but they are hosted on Commons under the Mint Circulating Coin Design Use Policy and the Mint 50 State Quarters Design Use Policy. For example, many of the 50 state quarters were designed by citizens of the states, and would therefore not be public domain U.S. government works under 17 U.S. Code § 105(a) and 17 U.S. Code § 101.

My question is: are the mint design use policies an acceptable free license for U.S. coins on Commons in the absence of public domain status?

Under Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, "[the] license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable" to be acceptable on Commons. The mint design use policies do not include language to this effect. In fact, the policies are phrased in such a way ("The United States Mint will not object to use of...") to suggest that the mint might change its mind at any time.  Mysterymanblue  20:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been researching copyright in America Samoa and I found a somewhat bizarre situation that I have added to COM:American Samoa. Essentially, US copyright law does not extend to American Samoa, and yet American Samoans are eligible for copyright protection when they are in any part of the United States outside of American Samoa. Does this mean that American Samoa's copyright situation is similar to the Marshall Islands and there is no real copyright there, or am I misreading this? The source is not very concerned with the situation ("it is likely that no need has arisen that has required giving attention to this subject" and the issue should be resolved only "when it is convenient to do so").

I've also taken a guess at the implications of this for freedom of panorama at COM:American Samoa; I would appreciate further opinions on this. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This means any work is technically in public domain in Samoa. So, as far as Commons is concerned only the copyright status of the work in USA matters. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Those 5 countries have now implemented the EU Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market. See https://www.notion.so/CDSM-Directive-Implementation-Tracker-361cfae48e814440b353b32692bba879 for the details. Each country needs a volunteer to read through the new laws and update the information at Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs and Commons:Copyright rules by territory for that country. If you are interested, please declare so below and list which country you are handling. Nosferattus (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Unlicensed use

Hello. My name is Ratibor and product manager. We at the company are engaged in the copyright protection of digital content creators and are currently investigating cases of misuse of content within the framework of the NFT marketplaces. As part of our investigation, we came across a likely misuse of content by a user of your service. The link provides details. https://mintable.app/art/item/Feeding-Cat-Sketch/Nxq9fwnclrkXzsM https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gato_boceto_001.jpg

Tell me, was the content really misused? What do you think of this? Do you provide legal support to authors in case of unlicensed use of their content? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.72.4.9 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The creator of the NFT probably infringed on the copyright of Clerc~commonswiki, who originally uploaded that drawing of a cat to Wikimedia Commons in 2008, long before NFTs—or even cryptocurrency—were a thing. Clerc~commonswiki published the drawing of a cat under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. In general, it is a violation of copyright for any person, including the person who created the NFT, to distribute the image without attributing Clerc~commonswiki and providing information on the licensing terms, as detailed by either of the two licenses. Unless the person who created the NFT is Clerc~commonswiki or has received permission from Clerc~commonswiki, their distribution of the NFT is likely illegal because they did not comply with at least one of the two licenses.  Mysterymanblue  20:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

The files in Category:Coat of arms of the German-speaking Community of Belgium and Category:Flag of the German-speaking Community of Belgium have all got licenses such as {{PD-self}} and {{Self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. These licenses are obviously incorrect. I don't know if the copyright has expired or if it's still valid. If the latter, then can someone find out what the correct license should be? If the prior, then I guess {{PD-old-70}} would work per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Belgium#General rules. Jonteemil (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:01, 5 May 2021‎ (UTC)

Photos made from...

Can i upload photo made from that place? Land and building records say - it is someone area. Reality, photo from that place say - in day of making photo - there wasn,t any fence. Also, there wasn't any sign: "no photo", "private area", etc. In map, there is unpaved field road. In available Google Earth satellitary image in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2016, 2019 - i clearly see road (in 2013, 2018 not clearly and in 2020 i cannot see it). Did COM:FOP Poland applied?VVerka5 (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@VVerka5: If you are the photographer, or if the photo is in the public domain or available under a free license, you can upload photos you took there to Wikimedia Commons. COM:FOP Poland should apply because you were on a publicly accessible road.  Mysterymanblue  05:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed position. Link in earlier text shows place in neighbour forest. Other info correct, however in actual satelite photo i cannot see road. Photo: File:Panorama Goworowa z okolicy śródpolnego lasu (wschodniego) w południowo-wschodnim Goworowie w 2018 r.jpg. VVerka5 (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@VVerka5: In fact even if there was no Freedom of Panorama in Poland such photo wouldn't infringe copyright per COM:DM as no copyrighted object is a main subject of that picture. For instance that skyline, taken in the country with no FOP, was kept after a DR. There are three cases when you should worry about Freedom od Panorama in Poland – first, when photographing a temporary exhibition including posters, adverts or not permanent sculptures, second, when photographing modern interiors (Polish FOP doesn't include interiors) and third, while taking a photo of a copyrighted object that is not visible from publicly accessible space. I think the first two cases are the most frequent. Apart from that three exceptions Poland is generally OK for taking photos. Here you can find deletion requests regarding Polish FOP to see it in practice. ~Cybularny Speak? 11:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
And what about photos like in that case - Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kormoran324.jpg. I have a lot photos of similar boards, someone with information about which institution is - i don't know - autor? founder? organizer? don't know how describe status of that part of information boards. I have doubt's did COM:FOP Poland apply (that photos of board can't be described with COM:DM in most cases, similar like in case - Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kormoran324.jpg. So i don't know did i can and which ones i can upload to Commons. VVerka5 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are photos of chimney allowed without freedom of panorama?

Tall freestanding structures include skyscrapers, towers, and chimneys.

Photos of skyscraper or tower are disallowed if country doesn't have freedom of panorama.

For example: Category:Burj Khalifa {{NoFoP-UAE}}, Category:Lotte World Tower {{NoFoP-SK}}, Category:Milad Tower {{NoFoP-Iran}}

However, when I opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Trbovlje Chimney per {{NoFoP-Slovenia}}, it ended up being kept.

Therefore, photos of chimney are allowed without freedom of panorama.

Why are photos of chimney allowed without freedom of panorama?

Ox1997cow (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The reasoning seems to be that such a simple work is not really a piece of architecture, and that it falls under the threshold of originality required for copyright. That is, there is nothing creative about the way the chimneys are made: they are just long tubes of concrete. If the chimneys were fancier (example), they would then qualify as a creative/architectural work, and they would be protected by copyright.  Mysterymanblue  04:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Invalid license?

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Photo of a painting claimed as "own work".

The image at File:Francisco Coronado picture IMG 4884.JPG is claimed as "own work" by the uploader, who says "I took the photo at Deaf Smith County Museum in Hereford, TX." There is no information on who was the creator of the painting, and nothing about the copyright status of the painting. - Donald Albury (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Someone took a wider angle that includes the signature on the painting and an explanatory plaque. Unfortunately, I can't quite make out what it says: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth12140/.  Mysterymanblue  04:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this out @Mysterymanblue: and @Donald Albury: . I contacted the museum to ask some questions about the author. I doubt is painted by the uploader (please note their Userpage, I suppose being a painter would have been listed). I asked the museum to send the answer to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Regards, Elly (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Yui Mizun.jpg

Hello everyone. I think this photo is copyrighted. How can I get it reviewed and removed?. Thanks in advance.

--Papiroflexia (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it was on Pinterest in 2016 [12]. In such cases, you can perform a google search of the image, to see where it appeared first. --Ruthven (msg) 08:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the help, --Papiroflexia (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Claims of identification

was: "Being accused that my claims on identification of important and significant people in newly discovered antique and vintage photographs as “random” by wiki admin and deletion" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, i admit i am hopping angry. Feeling abused by the wiki powers that be to delete my work and effort. Dismissing them as random. I am not savvy to copyright but logic and common sense tells me that there should be no issue with tintypes of potentially significant importance subjects photographed by an anonymous photographer all whom are long dead past any 70yr threshold.

And now today i had a real question which should have gathered much more consideration rather than shill naysayer shade throwing gatekeeper type behavior from one User:AntiCompositeNumber

Who had the audacity to say that my identifications and work in facial verification is “random”.

Random.

I am upset and hurt. I have been working with discovering the undiscovered since 2019. I have a volume of deeply important discoveries. And for mr. “Not from missouri so show me” to dismiss evidence and hear out my defense or argument or whatever you call it that there is no copyright violation on these antique and vintage photographs which i own the sole artifact. It hurts my feelings it hurts even more upon my intellect. The centralized powers of forces such as wiki will one day be obsolete when A.I. Refereed decentralized block chains replace the shill shade throwers.

I cant upload to your website even though i feel i have the right to. Visit the proof of brain via my blog https://jazzres.in or https://youtube.com/jazzresin scroll down to one of the many photograph transparency comparison videos. Do you also think my discoveries are random?

Smdfh vs free shrugs.

Gatekeepers are there for a damn good reason. But this fella pulling missouri ‘show me’ from missourian damn well willing to show is too much. I would like to file a complaint. Tho really i am not too vested in wiki. I know the kind of abuse you put on people looking for help. You all have a monopoly on the truth when really its just your good intentions are diluted through individuals with too much power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzresin (talk • contribs) 05:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: This appears to be about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jazzresin.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
That's correct. I don't have anything to add here. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering which copyright applies in countries that had images made whilst under Nazi occupation? Specifically in the case of an image taken on Jersey, would it be British or German copyright that would apply to it? The C of E (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter where the image was taken. What matters is where it was published first. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: So if it was published in Nazi-occupied Jersey, would German copyright law apply? The C of E (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@The C of E: We on Commons have kind of created this false reality where we ignore all copyright laws except those in the United States and the country of first publication of each work. The truth is, of course, that every country has its own copyright laws, and that those laws generally apply to everything that happens within their borders. So in a "technically correct" sort of way, German law does apply, along with Uruguayan law and Maldivian law and Sri Lankan law. I have a feeling that the point you're getting at is "What is the country of first publication for the purposes of Wikimedia Commons?". Truthfully, I don't know the answer to that, but I imagine that we would treat a work published first in Nazi Germany as if it were a German work for the purposes of determining if it is eligible for inclusion on Commons. Then the question is what we do with Chinese nationalist works and works from French Indochina and works from pre-South Sudan southern Sudan. The answer is that there is no answer. It's an internal—not a legal—question because we are the ones who impose this "country of origin" restriction on ourselves, and the only laws we really have to be worried about are the laws of the United States.  Mysterymanblue  08:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Many country's laws and the Berne Convention at points refer to country of origin, and many countries, though far from all, have the rule of the shorter term.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't sound like a real question. However, Nazi Germany's occupation of invaded areas was legally void, so any acts there would be under Jersey law, not German law. (It would not be British law; Jersey is an independent Crown Dependency.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many disputed islands in Asia.

(For example, Senkaku Islands(Pinnacle Islands), Spratly Islands)

If so, What country's copyright laws do photos of disputed islands follow?

Do they follow the copyright of the country it effectively controls?

(For example, Photos of Senkaku Islands are applied Japanese copyright laws.)

Ox1997cow (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I don't have an answer to the question as stated, I just wanted to point out that COM:L doesn't care about the copyright in the country where a photo was taken. The two copyrights that matter are the United States copyright and the copyright of the country where the work was first published. Your question still stands in the case that a work was published on (uploaded from etc.) one of those islands, but the copyright should be simple if this was done in a universally-recognized country. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The copyright would also matter to you (but not to Commons) if you wanted to make use of the work in that territory, in that case it would seem most logical to follow the laws of the country in control. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
They're uninhabitated islands; there's no copyright law that matters to any photos you would take there. I can't see where this is an actual issue instead of a hypothetical.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Farrahs Harrogate toffee (10).JPG

The above is my photograph of a 1970 toffee tin, with an embossed decoration which is in direct imitation of a design which was originally created before our current cutoff date of 1926 (See the original 19th-century toffee tin design here: File:Farrahs Harrogate toffee (2).JPG). The other positive aspects are that it's a 3D object, John Farrah's (d.1907) trademark signature was created in 1887, the embossed letters are standard fonts and not in themselves artworks. The cons are that the manufacture of the tin can be dated to about 1970, and that the design includes the word "copyright" in its border, although that word was not in the original design.

If we have to delete the above image of the 1970 tin, then I can re-photograph it to show only partial views of the tin. However, if the photo is safe, I shall upload my other three photos of the same tin (they show no more decoration detail). I am in possession of both tins and I took all the photographs. I have repeated this question at Commons talk:Copyright rules by subject matter. Storye book (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

If this design dates back to 19th century then it is (very likely) in public domain now. Modern reproductions of it does not carry any separate copyright. Ruslik (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall upload my other photos of the same object, then (they show the same detail). Storye book (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Why all categories of buildings or sculptures aren't attached {{NoUploads}}?

For example, Category:Lotte World Tower is attached {{NoUploads}}, but Category:Pingan International Finance Center isn't attached {{NoUploads}}.

(Two skyscrapers were architected by same company.)

And, Category:Spring (van Bruggen), Cheonggyecheon is attached {{NoUploads}}, but Category:Houseball (Oldenburg and van Bruggen) isn't attached {{NoUploads}}.

(Two sculptures were created by same artist.)

Why is there such a difference?

Ox1997cow (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Because there's no FOP in South Korea but in China and Germany (see COM:FOP). --Magnus (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: And, for Buildings in XXX, we do have {{FOP-buildings-category warning}}, if something is absolutely FOP-unavailable just because it's located in NotOK country, feel free to add this template instead. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

review of 1950s American published gay erotica 🏳️‍🌈🌈

Is Physique Pictorial in the public domain for being a 1950s, United States magazine published without copyright notice? Is the correct Wikimedia Commons copyright rationale for content from this magazine {{PD-US-no notice}}? This may be enough information to make an assessment, but the following are optional further details which anyone may consider.

- - -

For those who celebrate in June to commemorate the en:Stonewall riots, happy Pride Month. In English Wikipedia there is an annual en:WP:Wiki Loves Pride editing event where we are discussing sharing this content. Before we do, I wanted to get other opinions on copyright.

We have some issues of Physique Pictorial, a gay erotica magazine. Among other text and images, the magazines publish photos from an American photographer Bob Mizer and drawings from Tom of Finland. It seems that the magazines are published without notice of copyright and that there is no copyright registration found. Consequently, these works seem public domain. I am writing to ask for additional opinions on the copyright. If this is indeed public domain, then we may seek to import more issues of the magazine with higher quality scans.

Here are the magazines.

Here are some representative images from this magazine.

Here is more information about the publication and creators

There could be more complexity. The magazine was published from 1951-1990, and I know copyright status changes over time particularly for works after 1977. Tom of Finland was working in Finland, but is known to have done original publication in this magazine. The color photo above came from contemporary publisher Taschen (Category:Taschen) who deemed it to be public domain from a later magazine, so we may not always have original magazine issues.

There is other discussion of this at

For those last two links, note that there is a Bob Mizer Foundation whose supporters have past engagement in Wikimedia Commons. They tried to do uploads which did not have a copyright rationale which Wikimedia Commons could accept. I think that organization is unrelated to this copyright evaluation because the copyright of the publication of Physique Pictorial seems like a stand-alone factor for determining copyright status.

For anyone new to copyright who wants to follow the Wikimedia Commons copyright assessment process consider

@Verumregium and Garcia1865: thanks for past uploads and starting discussions. @Prosfilaes and Animalparty: thanks for February 2020 comment on copyright and uploading practices. Off-wiki thanks to independent archivist en:JD Doyle for making content available online. Thanks to everyone here who can comment.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • So pleased to see this thread! It would be really great if we could get more issues uploaded. I uploaded three of the Physique Pictorial issues you linked above, so I guess it's not surprising that my opinion is that, yes, these are PD per {{PD-US-no notice}}. They were published in the US and, at least for all the issues I've looked at, there is nothing resembling a copyright notice on the title page or anywhere else (the closest thing is the statement "Published four times each year by Athletic Model Guild", but that definitely doesn't satisfy w:Copyright notice#Form of notice). By the way, just to nitpick, I'm a little dubious that all of the "representative images" you linked above are actually from the magazine. The source field for all of them is given as "Bob Mizer. AMG. 1000 Model Directory (VARIA)", which is a compilation published in 2016. The Tommy Lee photo, for example, is stated as being from 1955, but I quickly thumbed through all the 1955 issues of Physique Pictorial and didn't see it anywhere. However, since these photos are pre-1963, I think it's pretty likely that they're PD for reason of non-renewal (if they were even published with a copyright notice in the first place). If the photos weren't printed in Physique Pictorial or any other physique magazines, they were probably sold by AMG via catalogue, which still counts as publication. But it would still be good to provide some evidence that these photos were for sale (and when). See, for example, File:1950s Russ Warner Neel Bate.jpg (nsfw), which we know was offered for public sale because we have a catalogue that lists it (shown in the linked external source). Colin M (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Bluerasberry, Garcia1865, and Colin M: I see a couple potential problems. First, while the public domain status of the "1000 Model Directory" images seems plausible, it should be verified whether they are {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-not-renewed}}. Second, the Tom of Finland images seem less likely to be public domain. The ones I've seen so far were not originally published in Physique Pictorial and may still have a valid Finnish copyright. It's also plausible that they still have a valid U.S. copyright due to URAA restoration. Nosferattus (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
      • That's a good point re the Tom of Finland drawings. I wasn't aware of this until I looked into it, but it does seem there are some cases where Tom artwork published in Physique Pictorial had previously appeared in another magazine. Still, for any given drawing, it's impossible to prove it never appeared in any earlier publication. I think a good faith search for previous occurrences (perhaps by searching the title of the drawing/comic, if one is given, or descriptive keywords) should satisfy COM:PRP, right? Colin M (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about Picture form Chinese Government

There is a notice at page of 重庆市交通局(Chongqing Transportation Bureau). Now I have uploaded a pic showing the route map of Chongqing Expwy in its pdf document but still have doubts. It would be used in zh_wiki/Template:重庆市高速公路.

Basic Facts

1. In this website's 版权声明(Copyright Statement), it says:"

    本网站上刊载的所有内容，包括文字、图片、音频、视频、图表等的版权均属重庆市交通局或相关权利人所有，受《中华人民共和国著作权法》及其它相关法律法规的保护。

    任何媒体或互联网站转载本网站内容，须注明信息来源。任何组织和个人不得非法复制、抄袭，或为任何未经允许的商业目的使用本网站及其内容。如果本网站所有者确定用户行为违法或有损网站利益，则将保留采取相关法律行为的权利。

    凡本网站所刊载内容的作者或权利人声明不得转载的文章、图片或其他资料，任何单位及个人不得转载。

The copyright of all contents on this website, including text, pictures, audio, video, charts, etc. belong to Chongqing Transportation Bureau or relevant right holders and is protected by "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China" and other relevant laws and regulations.

Any media or Internet sites that reprint the content of this website must indicate the source of the information. No organization or individual may illegally copy, plagiarize, or use this website and its contents for any commercial purpose without permission. The owner of the website reserves the right to take legal action if it determines that the user's actions are illegal or detrimental to the interests of the website.

Any articles, pictures or other information that the author or the right holder of the content published on this website declares shall not be reproduced, shall not be reproduced by any unit or individual."

2. According to the Copyright Statement, although it doesn't point out clearly, its pic may follow the CC-BY-NC-SA license.

3. But 《中华人民共和国著作权法》(Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China) says:"

第五条　本法不适用于：

（一）法律、法规，国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件，及其官方正式译文；

（二）单纯事实消息；

（三）历法、通用数表、通用表格和公式。

Article 5 This Law shall not be applicable to:

(1) laws, regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature; and their official translations;

(2) news on current affairs;

(3) calendars, numerical tables, forms of general use and formulas."

(There is a Template(:PD-PRC-exempt) of this. And Chongqing Transportation Bureau is under Chinese gov.)

4. I also talked in Chinese Wiki Telegram Group, being told that probably I could upload but I still doubtful.

5. Zh_wiki has its own upload channel but doesn't allow non-free pic of 合理使用(Suitable Use) only be used in just a template.

My Doubts

1. Can the pic continue to save in WikiMedia?

2. According to Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, I think the Copyright Statement may be against this law and invalid. Is this pic in the public domain?

3. If the pic can still be on Wikimedia, should I change the license?

I'm a newer and even don't know if I questioning here is suitable but someone advise me to ask here. Thank you.

--Daredemodaisuki_114514※┴┴~(愿风神护佑你)~┴┴Talk on zh_wiki 04:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Daredemodaisuki 114514: Might be {{PRC-StandardMap}}, because its deletion request was closed as no consensus and in use. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What means SemiPD icon?

FoP templates(for example, {{FoP-UK}}) include File:SemiPD-icon.svg, and NoFoP templates(for example, {{NoFoP-SK}}) include File:Red copyright.svg.

I know that File:Red copyright.svg means a work is protected by copyright.

However, I don't know what File:SemiPD-icon.svg means.

What means SemiPD icon?

Ox1997cow (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It means that a work is generally protected by copyright but in this particular case the law allows you to use it anyway. Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
But why the left part is blue? @David23x: was changed from green to blue 6 years ago, where's consensus to do so? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually the right part of the icon is blue and it has been so since the file was uploaded in 2006. See the file history. De728631 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

File:The French Connection movie black logo.png

The logo looks stenciled by seeing the background texture, despite simplistic design. I can't tell whether it's eligible or not for US copyright protection. George Ho (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@George Ho: It should be PD. See Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, Chapter 900, page 13: "[The] mere use of text effects (including chalk, popup papercraft, neon, beer glass, spooky-fog, and weathered-and-worn), while potentially separable, is de minimis and not sufficient to support a registration."  Mysterymanblue  22:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Bolivian 1955 government publication

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bolivia, collective works are copyrighted for 50 years from the date of publication. Does this mean that images from the 1950 Census, published in 1955, can be freely shared on Commons?--Carwil (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Who is the author of those images from the census? Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Evidently the governmental institution, Dirección General de Estadística y Censos.--Carwil (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Silhak Museum

Is this logo simple enough to be on Wikimedia commons? Like this one. Second, can this image on Google Arts and Culture be considered public domain?-JSeb05 (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

In USA - certainly, but I am far less sure about South Korea. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@JSeb05: Please also refer to COM:TOO South Korea for more information.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Book from 1862

Can I upload the Babad Tanah Jawi (one of the primary source of Javanese history) from Library of Congress? It was created or published in 1862. AnsyahF (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@AnsyahF: Excuse me, but who is the author and when did the author die? I'm quite sure we'll quite likely to accept this work (given by its age), but these asked information is needed to complete the corresponding copyright template.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
And if the work is published anonymously, please use {{PD-IDUnknown}} in conjunction with {{PD-US-expired}}, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: Can I also use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}} as the license? I'll figure it out the author. AnsyahF (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@AnsyahF: More specific license template(s) are preferred though, but feel free to use this as an initial copyright template when uploading.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

COM:Singapore: Fix Needed for PD Period

In COM:Singapore, the period for a attributed work to enter the local public domain is listed as 70 p.m.a., while anonymous and posthumous works enter the local public domain 70 years after publication. However, this is only true for works published after 2004 as the protection period is extended by the Intellectual Property (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2004 (with effect from 1st July 2004). Before that, works enter public domain after 50 p.m.a., anonymous and posthumous enter the local public domain 50 years after publication.

As the inserted Part XIV in the Copyright Act provides for a general saving for works created before, such that their periods protected are still 50 years, I think the information listed in COM:Singapore and related copyright tags (like {{PD-SG-photo}} and {{PD-SG-artisticwork}}) should be updated as well. Regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Image

I want to upload an image from flickr. Is this creative commons license suitable for wikimedia comons?-JSeb05 (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@JSeb05: No, it cannot be uploaded here. Licenses that restrict derivatives or commercial use (NonDerivative and NonCommercial) are not compatible. See Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses for which Creative Commons licenses are and are not acceptable. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@JSeb05: See also COM:LJ for why they are not compatible.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Ojārs Ēriks Kalniņš tiekas ar Ziemeļkorejas vēstnieku (8244319100).jpg

Can someone please check the copyright status of this picture? It says something about Flickr licensing, but looking at the very explicit copyright notes in the Exif data, that seems a bit doubtful to me. --2003:C0:8F21:A200:9912:CF03:43E9:A343 10:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks fine, photographer Ernests Dinka took this photo for the State Chancellery of Latvia, part of the en:Saeima Administration. The State Chancellery is basically the office of the chancellor of Finland's unicameral proportionally representative parliament (like the lower house of the US Congress or UK Parliament, without an upper house). You could call him to confirm.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about images taken from Latvian site Raduraksti and periodika.lv

Hello all, I was wondering if somebody here would know, or could find out by visiting the Raduraksti website [13],how downloads or screenshots of entries can be used here on WikiMedia and Data? I'm interested to find out if images confirming birth, marriages and deaths can be used for the creator templates and on the image talk/discussion pages. There is a second website with collections of newspaper articles whose copyright requirements would be of interest as well. I have found their relevant page [14], but not sure what these terms mean in practice? TIA Pisa911 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems that this is not a known topic here. I will go searching for the Latvian wiki ;-) Pisa911 (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
short update: I emailed the web sites, asking specifically if I could show images on Commons and Data,and just received a reply from Raduraksti: a simple "yes, it's possible"! YAY! Off now to create URL pages for the Creator page! Pisa911 (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I work at California Lutheran University and our university is president Lori E. Varlotta. I was asked to put up a picture of her on her Wikipedia page and it has been taken down twice due to a mistaken copyright issue. When I first uploaded the picture, I said that I owned the picture because the university gave it to me to publish on our behalf. When that was taken down due to a copyright issue, I listed California Luteran (who gave me the picture) as the owners. That was taken down as well. There is no issue and I need this picture to be placed up on her Wikipedia page as soon as possible.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexisjones2021 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexisjones2021: , I think you first should determine who is the owner of the copyright of the image. For instance, it can be the university, or the photographer. Then you ask them to send permission to the OTRS-system. On this page you can read more. And please, give the photo a filename which identifies the subject. Before you used Wiki Photo 202102.jpg. Regards, Elly (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Alexisjones2021: Copyright is difficult in general, and it gets even more difficult here on Commons and the other Wikimedia projects because we also require images to be freely reusable for others. "Permission to use" is not enough: we need images to be licensed under a very permissive license such as the Creative Commons Attribution and Share Alike (CC BY SA) license, or the public domain dedication (CC-Zero). Both you and Pres. Varlotta need to be sure you understand what this means legally speaking (talk to a lawyer that understands copyright).
Then, as Elly says above, you need to determine the actual owner of the copyright for the photo. Most likely this will either be the actual photographer (the physical person pressing the shutter button on the camera), or the entity for whom that person was creating the photo as a work for hire (a legal term of art: talk to a lawyer). The exact circumstances will determine who actually owns the copyright and is thus legally able to licence it to others.
And, finally, you need to be aware that Wikipedia has rather strict Conflict of Interest rules, including a policy prohibiting paid editing. As an employee of the entity of whom the subject of the article is president you will definitely be subject to the conflict of interest and paid editing policies, and need to make very sure you are familiar with these before editing (ask for help if you need it; I can help point you in the right direction). There is absolutely no guarantee that they will accept the use of a photo supplied by the subject of an article, over, for example, a photo supplied by a volunteer even if the technical or aesthetic quality is poorer. Subjects of articles have provided very glossy, retouched, and flattering, photos before that have been rejected on the grounds that they do not meet Wikipedia's neutrality policy. And even if it meets the policy, there is no guarantee that other volunteers will prefer this photo for any number of reasons (including subjective personal preference).
Wikipedia is not like a social media site where one may have a "profile" that one manages: it is a collaborative, consensus-based, volunteer project to produce an online encyclopedia. If you do not familiarise yourself with it before trying to interact with it you will run into culture shock, miscommunication, and possibly even create yourself a PR disaster and negative press coverage. Take the time to do it right, and ask for help if you are at all uncertain. Xover (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Alexisjones2021: Further reading: COM:L, en:WP:COI, en:WP:PAID, and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify one point, Wikipedia does not have a "policy prohibiting paid editing", merely that it be disclosed. See WP:PAID for the full policy.  JGHowes  talk 14:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. Indeed, I meant undisclosed paid editing; but paid editing in general is fairly strongly restricted, in particular in situations where the paid editing coincides with a conflict of interest, so I believe my main point stands. Xover (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I kind of understand what you’re trying to say, but PAID editing by definition is a type of COI editing. Neither is explicitly prohibited per se, but they’re both highly discouraged because they often do lead to serious problems. A COI disclosure isn’t required, but encouraged; a PAID disclosure is required by the WMF’s Terms of Use. In either case, it’s generally going to be the quality of the edits made that is going to be assessed as opposed to who’s making them. It’s usually only when problem edits start being made that red flags start being raised and editors start attracting attention. Having posted all that, @Alexisjones2021 please be as transparent as possible about any connection you have to subjects of Wikipedia articles you’re editing and carefully read through the policies/guidelines for further reading linked to above. The more transparent you are, the less likely you’re going find yourself running into problems and the more likely you’re going to find editors willing to help you with any problems you do have. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Tuesdee Testa-Santa Anita 1969.jpg

I'm wondering if I can get some opinions on whether File:Tuesdee Testa-Santa Anita 1969.jpg meets the criteria of {{PD-US-no notice}}. For reference, a non-free version of this file was being discussed on English Wikipedia at W:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 17#File:Tuesdee Testa waves crop to standing ovation.jpg, and I was going to post the following there; however, that file was deleted per the uploader's request after she uploaded the file to Commons as PD.
I don't think the uploader has clearly established that this is a case of "no-notice", at least not enough per COM:PCP, because there's nothing clearly showing that the file was published without a notice by it's original copyright holder. The file's description states that author is unknown but that the file was distributed by the news agency en:UPI; so, it's en:provenance isn't really clear. The uploader also provided several links showing the photo used online without copyright notice, but one of these links is to a Facebook page while the others are to two newspapers which used the photo as part of articles about the race back in 1969. I don't get how someone uploading the image to Facebook more than 30 years after the photo was supposed to have been taken proves anything other than someone uploaded the photo, but the two old newspaper articles might be useful in helping to sort things out.
If the image was distributed by UPI, then there's probably a good chance that it was taken by a UPI photographer and that the copyright over the photo was retained by UPI as part of a en:work for hire arrangement. Since UPI, like many news agencies back around that time, seem to be in the business of providing content (text and images) to various newspapers (most likey as part of some contractural agreement) perhaps there were conditions placed on how such papers could reuse such content. I can't say for certain that if there was a such a contract between UPI and a newspaper that it didn't include language related to a en:copyright transfer agreement, but it does seem a little unlikley that it would given that selling content was one aspect of UPI's business operations. So, in order for this to be really "PD-US-no notice", I think it needs to be established that UPI at least published the photo without a copyright notice for it to be in the public domain or that UPI transferred its copyright ownership other parties (i.e. newspapers) who then published the photo without a notice.
As for the notice itself, I believe that print advertisements at the time were required to have a clearly visible notice and that those which didn't fall within the public domain as {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}. I think this is the reason you'll find some advertisements from that time period uploaded to Commons. I'm also pretty sure that promotional photos or movie stills, etc. from that time period were also required to have a copyright notice (usually on the back) and those that didn't would be "PD-US-no notice"; this is why you'll find photos such as these uploaded to Commons. I'm not sure though whether the same was required of photos appearing in newpapers or other print publication as part of a article/story; perhaps attribution was required under fair use, but not sure about a copyright notice.
I posting about this here to see whether a COM:DR might be needed. If most of those who respond feel the file's licensing is fine, then there's really no reason for a DR; on the other hand, if most feel that my concerns are something which should discussed further, then perhaps it would be best to do so in a DR.
I'm going to ping the uploader (@Atsme) and the four other editors (@Fastily, Whpq, Alexis Jazz, and Clindberg) who were involved in the English Wikipedia discussion as a courtesy, but input from others would also be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't think it's PD. For a composite work like a newspaper, the newspaper's copyright notice would cover any images inside (other than advertisements). There did not need to be a notice with every picture in the newspaper. Secondly, for a photo distributed by UPI, I'm not sure the newspaper's notice is relevant -- copyright was not lost if just a relative few copies had no notice, especially when the entity forgetting the notice was not the copyright owner. So presuming that most newspapers had a copyright notice in 1969, the copyright would likely not have been lost. If we could find a copy physically distributed by UPI without a notice, that would be OK (a wire photo print likely would not count). But I'm guessing it's unlikely, and is under copyright until 2065. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I forgot to add this to my OP, but this and this seem to be press release photos of en:Tuesdee Testa. Perhaps it's possible that these were published with a notice? These photos appear to have been offered for sale, but that doesn't necessarily preclude that they can't be PD, does it? FWIW, you can see the back side of the Amazon photo, and there doesn't appear to be a visible copyright notice even though there's a date, some other numbers and the word "Creased". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
That looks a lot more hopeful -- the Amazon one does show the back, and have a date stamp. But the concern is if that is a wire photo though. In that case, the physical copy would likely have been printed out at a newspaper, and not actually distributed itself but kept in the newspaper's archives. If that actual copy was not distributed, then I'm not sure the lack of notice meant anything. It certainly proves it was published in 1969, if that was an issue. If there was some sort of UPI stamp on the back which showed it originated at UPI itself, it'd be a lot better. Otherwise I'm not quite knowledgeable enough to tell the difference between something printed off the wire, and a photo actually distributed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Marchjuly the clips in the links you provided to Worthopedia and Amazon.uk are obviously clips from newspaper articles such as this one, and this one, none of which have a proper copyright notice. added another link, and there are many at newspapers.com 15:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC) I already explained in detail at the FfD that those images are PD. The links you provided are capitalizing on PD photos. The email correspondence I received from newspapers.com in response to my query to them about their copyright clearly states, and I quote (my bold text): "Our Newspaper.com Basic subscription only covers non-copyrighted content on the site." I don't understand why you followed me here to Commons to beat a dead horse. You are giving far too much weight to the fact that wire services always copyrighted their creative works and the creative works of others whose photographs they distributed back in the day – they did not, and in fact, it was rare for them to register a copyright. If you choose not to believe me, then see this article because it supports what I'm saying. What we have here is clearly a case of "Loss of Copyright From Lack of Copyright Notice". That article explains how PD images can be copyrighted, which I also previously explained. See the article at Cornell under the section "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S." 1926 through 1977 – Published without a copyright notice – Copyright term: None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities. Look at the Commons tag that I used on the uploaded image. There is no proper copyright notice on that photograph. You can search the Library of Congress and will not find it because it was never registered, and has been published in hundreds of newspapers and on the internet without a proper copyright notice attached. Just because it was distributed by UPI does not satisfy proper copyright notice because neither the word "copyright" nor the © symbol was included or attached to the photo, which predates 1978. The reason I chose that particular photo is that it captures the essence of Testa's expression as she rides past a standing ovation from a crowd of 45,000+/- spectators/racing fans after achieving her historic win at Santa Anita. There is no other photo like it, or that can replace it. en.WP is a collaborative project, and you can certainly add more PD photos to the article, and I hope you do. Atsme Talk 📧 14:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
It's clear that this was taken by a news photographer and distributed by UPI, as the Florida Today clipping explicitly credits "UPI telephoto". The Amazon photo, however, is from Testa's first race on February 27, 1969 (she came in last, it notes), not her first win on March 1, 1969, so that doesn't help with this photo. Nor does the lack of a copyright notice on the wirephoto reproduction published in newspapers indicate that the original photo was not copyrighted by UPI. It was customary for newspapers to just say "UPI telephoto", "Reuters", or, in the case of AP, just show the AP watermark. I'd have to say that more evidence is needed to establish that UPI distributed this wirephoto to newspapers without a copyright notice on the original print.  JGHowes  talk 16:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I think maybe some editors are getting tripped-up on wording like published vs unpublished and proper copyright notice on the work vs credit of the work , and the fact that the update was not retroactive. See the following (my bold underline):

Under copyright laws that were in effect before 1978, a work that was published without copyright notice fell into the public domain. If the work did not include the word “Copyright” or a © (a “c” in a circle) and the name of the copyright owner, the work would enter the public domain. This rule was repealed; copyright notice is not required for works first published after March 1, 1989 (although works first published prior to that date must still include notice).

Of equal importance is what The Library of Congress published which supports my argument for why, prior to 1978, the subject image fell into the PD:

Neither VCG nor Getty Images controls the copying of International News Photos images housed in the Library of Congress. However, any copyright held by UPI that is still current would now be owned by VCG, administered by Getty Images. Getty Images can be contacted at: http://www.gettyimages.com/customer-support

If there was no registration or proper copyright notice on the work on those published images prior to 1978, they are PD. The LoC further states (my bold underline) and notice they say few:

In an attempt to determine if International News Photos registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed.

And the following is also very important, (my bold underline):

However, the Library’s legal office has advised the Division that photographs published with proper copyright notices 95 years ago or less up until 1963 may be protected if the copyright was properly renewed, while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office.

That pretty much explains it but the following wraps it up with a big red bow:

Copyright notice is a statement placed on copies or phonorecords of a work to inform the public that a copyright owner is claiming ownership of it.

A notice consists of three elements that generally appear as a single continuous statement:

• The copyright symbol © (or for phonorecords, the symbol ℗ ); the word “copyright”; or the abbreviation “copr.”;

• The year of first publication of the work; and

• The name of the copyright owner. Example: © 2017 John Doe

The use of a copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office.

Copyright notice was required for all works first published before March 1, 1989, subject to some exceptions discussed below. If the notice was omitted or a mistake was made in using copyright notice, the work generally lost copyright protection in the United States. Copyright notice is optional for works published on or after March 1, 1989, unpublished works, and foreign works; however, there are legal benefits for including notice on your work.

The law doesn't care if it's a wire service or an individual, and we can speculate until hell freezes over but it does not change the fact that the published images had no registered copyright and there were no proper copyright notices on the work when it was published. The image I uploaded is unequivocally PD. Atsme Talk 📧 18:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Registration was never required for works from 1964 and up. You could always register up until the day you had to file a renewal, and 1963 was the last year that works needed to be renewed to keep their copyright (law change in mid-1992). For works published earlier than 1964, yes (as the LoC says) photos were very rarely renewed, and those are vastly more likely to be out of copyright. As for copyright notice requirements, you are correct -- but that is only on copies that were *actually distributed*. If UPI kept private copies without notice but never distributed them, that was immaterial when it comes to a question of losing copyright. The problem with wire photos is the mechanism by which they were distributed -- over a telephone wire. There were no physical copies changing hands. That was indeed a moment of publication, but the receiver was expected to print them out using a receiving machine, and likely would keep *those* copies private and not distribute them. If so, the lack of notice on those copies do not necessarily demonstrate that generally-published copies did not have a notice. If those copies were sold off after 1989 (i.e. not distributed until then) then it would not mean anything. And even if before, it would not be an action by the copyright owner themselves, but a mistake by one of the many clients. Judges did allow for works where only a relative few copies were without notice to retain their copyright -- the emphasis was on copies distributed by the copyright owners themselves. Wire photos are difficult there, since they were sent to a large number of customers and you are arguing that the act of a single customer could deprive the original of copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Atsme: I think we have to try and ascertain the copyright status of this image as best as we can, at least to the satisfaction of COM:PCP. For that to be done, I think we have to figure out as much about the en:provenance of the photo as possible. I don't think it matters much how many times the photo might have been used since it was first published unless there was a transfer of copyright and I don't think it matters why you chose this particular photo because that is contextual and has nothing really to do with whether it's PD. I think the questions that need to be answered are as follows:
  1. Who is/was the copyright holder of the image?
  2. When did the file become "PD-US-no notice"? (First publication? Subsequent publications?)
  3. Was there any transfer of copyright status from one party to another? (i.e. Did a transfer of copyright take place when the photo was transferred by wire?)
If we assume that a news agency is partly in business because it provides content to others for a fee, then it seems unlikely that it would give up any future potential revenue by giving away its rights to that content. Moreover, if essentially the same image and same story appears in multiple newspapers across the US on a certain day, then it seems more likely that the content came from a single source (like a news agency) and wasn't the original content created by any one particular newspaper (thus they would seem to have no copyright claim). It might be impossible to figure who the actual photographer who took the photo was, but it seems reasonable to think they either were in the employ of UPI (the distributor of the photo) or sold the photo to UPI; in other words, there might've been a en:work for hire arrangement between photographer and UPI, which most likely means that the copyright is held by UPI. Yes, I know all of this is just my speculation, but I think the same can be said about you claiming this is PD. I was going to post my concerns about whether this is really PD in the Wikipedia discussion about this image, but that file no longer exists and the discussion has been closed. The file is now here on Commons which is why I'm now asking about it here. If all I'm doing is creating a lot of noise about nothing, then other Commons editors will eventually chime in and make that known by supporting your position. FWIW, the part you quoted above from the LOC website about images published after 1963 (i.e. "while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office.") seems to be the most relevant thing here. I'm not sure that means we can automatically assume such works are PD just because they've been reproduced without a copyright notice, which I think basically all a newspaper is doing when it gets content from a news agency. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm also going to something I found here after looking a bit more at the LOC pages mentioned above. It states something that might be relevant to this discussion:

Note about copyright notices: For some pre-1989 works, publication without a copyright notice may mean that the item is in the public domain. The criterion of the copyright notice is easy enough to apply to books, but a bit tricky with images, since the original work may have had a copyright notice that was not reproduced on subsequent copies or the copyright may have been on the work in which the image appeared, rather than on the image itself. Images without a copyright notice may still be under copyright. The U.S. Copyright Office Circular 3 [pdf; 125 kb], "Copyright Notice" explains the notice requirements for works published between January 1, 1978, and February 28, 1989 and provides a reference for locating information on the requirements prior to 1978.

The above seems to imply that a visible copyright notice didn't need to be added to each image each time it was subsequently reproduced; so, resolving this is possibly not as simple saying "there's no visible notice so this is PD". There is also something on that website about work for hire which also might be relevant. The fact that an image without a copyright notice "may still be under copyright" under US copyright law seems to be enough of a concern per COM:PCP to at least warrant further discussion either here or at a COM:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Over the past week, I have been in correspondence with an executive and his assistant at Santa Anita Park, and just today received copies of the original photographs that were taken by the track's staff photographer at the time. The images are digitized versions of the raws which were marked for archiving, and they are the same images that were published in newspapers and distributed by UPI in their capacity as a PR newswire for the track, which explains why they didn't include a copyright notice; i.e., they didn't own the copyright. Santa Anita Park did not register those images for copyright protection nor did they include a proper copyright notice on any of the work. The track's handling of the entire process from start to finish speaks to their intent for the images to be circulated in and shared with the public; thus, the PR wire. It made perfect sense to me from the get-go. With that issue behind us, I will be taking the necessary steps, first as the uploader, and secondly as a VRT member helping to make sure the images are properly documented/tagged/ticketed by OTRS. I hope JGHowes will help oversee the process, considering I created the BLP and uploaded the image that was subject of this discussion. It will probably be next week before I get a response to the questions I've asked because Santa Anita has a full weekend of live racing, then a sale on Monday, so they'll be pretty busy. Atsme Talk 📧 04:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the update and your efforts to help clarify this. If the VRT is able to resolve this to its satisfaction, then that will address my concerns. Maybe adding a {{OTRS pending}} to the file would be helpful or at least a link to this discussion to the file’s talk page will also help let others know things are being resolved. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, that info does start everything over. The private copies owned by the racetrack not having a notice is not necessarily proof, but if the copies they gave UPI had none (probably a fairly common situation), that would probably do it. That does mean that UPI is not the copyright owner, but the racetrack is (or was). They could either give a free license, or declare them PD, or simply state there was no notice on the UPI copies, whatever. Sounds great. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, congratulations for your diligent research into the photo's provenance. I'll be delighted to process a VRT ticket affirming that it's a Santa Anita-created photo released by them without copyright notice.  JGHowes  talk 13:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Your welcome. Atsme Talk 📧 00:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Polydor Records had been German-British company. Its logo (File:POLYDOR LOGO.svg, File:Polydor Logo 1963 001.svg) may be subject to COM:TOO Germany and COM:TOO UK. Is it copyrightable in those countries? George Ho (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The UK has a very low TOO and I don’t this would meet that but it might be close either way. I’m not sure about Germany. If these did end up not OK for Commons, the red logo would certainly be OK to use in en:Polydor Records as non-free and it might even be OK to upload locally to English Wikipedia as en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly, but I’m not sure about German Wikipedia’s image use policies. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Can I attach the following template to the category buildings or sculptures by living authors in Italy?

Per COM:FOP Italy, Buildings and sculptures by deceased authors in Italy are allowed.

Therefore, I will attach the following template to the category buildings or sculptures by living authors in Italy.

{{NoUploads|0}} (For example: Category:Allianz Tower(Arata Isozaki and Andrea Maffei are still living.), Category:Needle, Thread and Knot(Claes Oldenburg is still living.))

The reason I set the copyright protection period variable to 0 in {{NoUploads}} is that Italian buildings and sculptures have freedom of panorama as soon as the author dies.

Can I attach the following template to the category buildings or sculptures by living authors in Italy?

Ox1997cow (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I don't think your interpretation is correct (not your fault, part of COM:FOP Italy is worded misleadingly). Just below the "de facto" exceptions bullets, a paragraph clarifies that Italian copyrights are 70 years PMA. This is also what the cited source says. So I believe you should use 70 here instead of 0. Either way, the files should probably be nominated for deletion. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Permission

I am writing a book, my seventh, in which I would like to publish a photograph of a salt spray rose (rosa rogusa) that I sourced on en.wikipedia.org. However, I need written permission, which I hope will be granted.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Chuck Mansfield chuckmans@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.223.37 (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia. Ruslik (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Packaging

Hello, I've got a picture of this product taken in a supermarket, and I wonder if it's ok to upload it on Commons. Thanks for your help -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Basile Morin. If you took the picture, then you own the copyright on that; the box packaging (i.e. imagery/label), however, is most likely protected under some other copyright as explained in COM:PACKAGING. The photo most likely is a derivative work that can't be uploaded without the permission of the copyright holder of the packaging. I don't think this would be considered one of the exceptions listed in COM:PACAKGING, but perhaps someone else might feel differently. Now, if you want to use your photo on English Wikipedia, then it might be possible to upload it as non-free content, but you might want to ask about that at en:WP:MCQ just to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok, fine. Then I will simply avoid a DR :-) Thank you very much, Marchjuly, for the clear answer with instructive links -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello:

I am trying to submit (upload documents) actual court records concerning business litigation, to use as a citation reference for wikipedia content. The copyright of the court filing has been challenged based on copyright, but it's clearly a public record. Such litigation records are available to the public on the PACER system, which is a government controlled fee-based internet database. It's therefore nearly impossible to provide a perfect link to the actual content. That said, when so many news articles are not properly characterizing the facts of the litigation, it's much better to just provide a copy of the actual publicly recorded litigation complaint. Question: How can I overcome this copyright challenge of a public record, which requires no license? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechMediaEditor (talk • contribs) 21:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@TechMediaEditor: Whether or not a document is publicly available doesn't reflect on its copyright status. Any creative work is copyrighted by default, in the absence of a specific exception. That said, if the particular document you are concerned with was authored by a federal court employee and not by someone else, such as an attorney, it may be public domain and eligible to be uploaded as {{PD-USGov-Judiciary}}. Also, the English Wikipedia at least does permit you to cite sources even if they are behind a paywall (see en:WP:PAYWALL). – BMacZero (🗩) 02:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Doubt about licence for World Values Network ad published in The New York Times in May 2021

This image is currently being used to illustrate the activism work of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in his English Wikipedia article. However, the description states that it is taken from his Instagram account. Moreover, there is a copyright symbol in the bottom left corner that shows the image was downloaded directly from the Daily Mail website and uploaded to Commons. Is the licence CC0 1.0 listed actually correct and should the file even be on Commons? Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 08:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  • The ad is almost certainly copyrighted by its publisher World Values Network; unless the World Values Network has explicitly licensed it under CC0 1.0 then it should be deleted. Instagram is a bit of a red herring, we have to identify the license of the ad itself rather than its reproduction through Instagram/Daily Mail. -M.nelson (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought this might be of interest to some people on Commons, and I also recognize that typically people only post to this board about Commons sharing here is out of place. Here is the ongoing United States government copyright modernization process

Here is an upcoming public forum on July 22, 2021

en:Brewster Kahle of en:Internet Archive is on the committee as is someone from en:Digital Public Library of America. For context, historically, Wikimedia projects have no coordinated for seeking representation in policy development like this, but meetings like this affect how we operate. In my view Brewster is representing our interests in this meeting. I am not asking for a response but I did want to share that the government is making decisions and that the public has a participation option. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

DM for box art

With regards to the uploads of 2Pacalyp (talk · contribs), is the copyrighted box art behind each pair of shoes considered de minimis? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fourthords: I do not believe the box art is de minimis in these images. The box is a significant part of the photograph and not an unimportant, incidental inclusion. Some of them might be below the TOO, though. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
A follow-up, then, if I may: have my crops thereof (e.g. File:Air Jordan XVI (cropped).jpg & File:Air Jordan XII Playoffs (cropped).jpg) been sufficient to mitigate a lack of DM qualification? Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I made COM:CHQ, and this page is where we mark copyright status of cheques by country.

I know copyright status of South Korean cheques.

However, I don't know copyright status of UK cheques, and Sample of UK cheque image is exist.

Is it OK to upload photos of UK cheques?

Ox1997cow (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I found these two pictures (here and here illustrating an article on pt.WP. They seem to be screenshots from a film. They were published on Flickr under a cc-by-sa-2.0 for a account with few images published. My question is: is this ok or is this COM:LL? --SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Now that I've dug deeper, it seems to be that all images on this Flickr account were published on Commons. It looks like that this account was only created to publish images on Commons.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your conclusion about the two images altough I did not see the film. Can you nominate them for speedy deletion? Elly (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Ellywa. I just did it. Thanks.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, the two you mentioned are deleted as requested. Elly (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

UK signature question

See W:WP:MCQ#Books by William Coles Finch, w:File:WCF signature.JPG, COM:SIG UK, and COM:SIG US

I have acquired a 1908 book signed by w:William Coles Finch (1864-1944). An accompanying letter identifies that the signature was appended to the book in October 1934. This means, that if the signature was copyrightable under US law, it would still be in copyright until 2030. COM:SIG US seems to say the the signature is not copyrightable in the US AIUI. In the UK, most signatures are copyright, but we have the 70-year post mortem rule, so any UK copyright would have expired. However, the situation may also be that in the UK, the signature was never subject to copyright as it is too simple in form to have been eligible for said copyright. Either way, in the UK it is now PD.

Question: Can I upload the image to Commons. If I can, what licences do I need to use? Obviously it will need {{PD-UK}}, but what do I use to cover the situation re US copyright? Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: {{PD-ineligible}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Uploaded to Commons with same file name, deleted at en-Wiki. {{PD-UK}} is deprecated and not to be used, so have explained situation re UK copyright in permissions field. Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Burundian FOP for buildings seems "not OK"

Ping @Aymatth2, Clindberg, Jeff G., A1Cafel, and Ox1997cow:

Upon a closer reading and deep comprehension of COM:FOP Burundi, it seems Burundi is a "red country" after all and not "yellow country" (buildings only). The relevant architectural FOP reads:

Similarly, the reproduction of works of architecture through photography, cinematography, television or any other similar process, in addition to the publication of corresponding photographs in the press, periodicals and textbooks, shall be free and may not give rise to copyright payment.

This shows a conditional FOP, that restricts the uses of photographs in media where Wikimedia Commons (a free media repository / archive or a free media stock image repository) cannot be classified in. It is similar to the conditional FOP found at COM:FOP DRC ("The reproduction of an architectural work by means of photography, cinematography, television or any other similar procedure, as well as the publication of the corresponding photographs in newspapers, journals and school textbooks, shall be lawful and may not give rise to payment of copyright.)

I may need additional inputs regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. If the exception is only limited to the press, periodicals and textbooks, that is not enough to be qualify as FOP in Commons. --A1Cafel (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand english well, but doubt that this word are limitating. I understand that word as "+ in press, periodicals and textbooks", not as "limited to press, periodicals and textbooks". VVerka5 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Look at two sentences. COM:FOP DRC includes the phrase "as well as", and COM:FOP Burundi includes the phrase "in addition to". Ox1997cow (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It allows reproduction of works of architecture through photography, cinematography and television, and publication of photographs in newspapers, journals and school textbooks. I would say that there is implied right to publish works reproduced through cinematography and television. I do not see this allowing publication of photographs in advertisements, websites or coffee table books. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Skrzyżowanie dróg z Nowego Przybojewa do Starego Radzikowa i z Chociszewa do Grodźca w SE części Kuchar-Skotnik w 2018 r.jpg

I upload that photo, but few moments later i saw, that there are readable car licence plate. What next?VVerka5 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Anguilla

Hello, I’ve run into a novel-to-me copyright question for one of en-wiki’s homepage features. Another editor nominated File:Coat of arms of Anguilla.svg to be featured, and it is ultimately a derivative of this private website which has no indication of freely licensing its works (rather it’s marked ©). I did make my way to COM:Coat of arms as well as noticing the UK PD-expired notice on one of the intervening derivatives (but the flag is from 1990 so that’s not prior to 1971.) Anyway I think I may be overcomplicating things? If someone can straighten me out about which if any of these factors is controlling in this situation, I would be grateful! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: You are asking about the dolphins on the flag of en:Anguilla. My view is that this can be in Commons because it is simple geometry which is ineligible for copyright protection, and therefore should have template {{PD-shape}} in addition to the coat of arms template which we apply to detail special rules which sometimes come into play for these special symbols. One could ask if the dolphin art is complicated enough to get copyright; I say no, because the shape is simple and because artists routinely draw swimming creatures this way. Simple original abstractions may get copyright, but not anything so frequently drawn as this.
In my view the other copyright claims are mistaken. You link to a private website which makes a copyright claim on this flag, but Commons has some limited circumstances where it recognizes when media is not eligible for copyright, such as simple shapes and text. This is one of those circumstances, so regardless of the private claim, we can host here. Likewise @Froztbyte: is getting some credit here for vectorizing, but typically non-creative transformation does not result in copyright ownership.
Another factor to consider is local copyright law in Anguilla. If that jurisdiction claims copyright for unusual reasons contrary to what I said above, then local law prevails, and we delete from Commons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much Bluerasberry. That all makes sense to me and I’m not aware nor could I find any further restriction particular to Anguilla, only the general warning at COM:Coat of arms. But your shapes explanation makes sense to me. I’ll mark it alright over at en-wiki. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Rights of performers

I have an audio file that I would like to upload. It is a recording of a piece for concert band and chorus called "Lest We Forget", composed by Larry MacTaggart, an Air Force officer whose job it was to compose such music. The piece was performed by the Concert Band of the United States Air Force Heartland of America Band along with the Omaha Symphonic Chorus, a private organization. The recording was made by the United States Air Force, who marked the recording as public domain on its website. However, I am concerned that the performance of the Omaha Symphonic Chorus may somehow limit the public domain status of this piece of music. What are the rights of the private performers in this situation, and is it acceptable for the recording to be uploaded to Commons? Does the fact that they consented to being recorded mean that the audio recording is truly free of copyright and all neighboring rights?  Mysterymanblue  20:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Simarjit singh bains.png

Is VRT (OTRS) verification required for File:Simarjit singh bains.png? Two links are provided in the file's description (1 and 2), but I can't find anything which shows that the file has been released as licensed. The uploader of the file doesn't appear to have been very active on Commons (another of their uploads is File:White Hill Producition Logo.png which also has a questionable license) and they do have a couple of notifications on their user talk page for other uploads that ended up deleted; so, it's quite possible that this is a case of well-meaning person not understanding COM:NETCOPYVIO. Can anyone find out whether this really has been released as licensed. What would be the best thing to do if it hasn't? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The_Last_Suit_poster.jpg

Hello, I'm not sure where to send this question, I would like to understand why the film poster The_Last_Suit_poster.jpg was deleted. All the other film posters published in Wikipedia have the same situation as this file, how come they are not deleted too ?. Thank you.Makers267 (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Makers267: Hi, and welcome. If you want to upload high resolution movie poster images here on Wikimedia Commons, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept movie poster images of others, and have the image designer(s), photographer(s), or producer(s) post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work on their official website or social media presence or send the image and permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you. Low resolution movie posters on English Wikipedia (there called "film posters") were uploaded there for Fair Use subject to en:WP:F. We do not accept Fair Use files here on Wikimedia Commons. en:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard gives four options for uploading directly on that project: Click here to start the Upload Wizard on top in the middle; Files for upload process; Plain form for local uploads; and Old guided form (the latter three in the right column under "Wikipedia"). Spanish Wikipedia does not accept Fair Use files, either.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

United States Department of Defense

I noticed that photos that were created by the United States Department of Defense which were uploaded from Flickr (for example File:Lloyd J. Austin (2021).jpg) are tagged as CC BY 2.0 instead of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. I know this is because it's marked as CC BY 2.0 on Flickr, but isn't this wrong? Should these be changed to public domain? Bait30 (talk) pls ping me when you reply 16:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bait30: These seem like photos that were taken by members of the United States Armed Forces as part of their official duties, so they should be in the public domain. The files should probably be marked with Template:PD-USGov-DoD, but the original licensing terms should be preserved "just in case".  Mysterymanblue  20:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
You can add the PD-USGov tag, but it may still be helpful to keep the CC-BY, since there have been some suggestions that the U.S. could still claim a copyright overseas (unlikely, but... who knows). If that is ever a question, the CC-BY license would not be under question. So both tags could apply, and should probably have both. More commonly, some Flickr accounts do not bother to go through the process that allows them to use the US Government work Flickr tag, so they often just use CC-BY instead. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth and Philip's royal wedding photo

So I already uploaded (File:Princess Elizabeth and Duke of Edinburgh wedding portrait.jpg) this portrait from the German news site, and it was published by the Associated Press, which they published from 1926 through 1963 with notice and not renewed, but clearly stated:

Associated Press images distributed to news organizations in the United States between 1926 and 1963 did not have their copyright renewed and are also in the public domain. All Associated Press images published from January 1, 1964 to the present are under copyright.

--Frontman830 (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Nominated the photo for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Princess Elizabeth and Duke of Edinburgh wedding portrait.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
This one (File:Elizabeth and Philip leaving the royal wedding ceremony.jpg) is more rather than wedding portrait could be used to be uploaded on Commons? --Frontman830 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
No need for that, only this portrait by Baron is uploaded locally on Wikipedia as a fair-use. --Frontman830 (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Niagara publicity portrait

Should we upload and use this publicity portrait of Marilyn Monroe by Eugene Korman in a public domain in the US copyright not renewed to Commons? --Frontman830 (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure seems like it was PD-US-no_notice based on this. I also see no renewals for a Gene Korman or Eugene Korman, so maybe PD-US-not_renewed is safer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Clindberg! But I have to upload these images with a larger ones if necessary. --Frontman830 (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Largest you can find, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

AP images of Queen Elizabeth II

What do I use free images of Queen Elizabeth II were published by the Associated Press, is it partially free? or just not been renewed by copyright in the US before January 1, 1964. This photo shown here (File:Queen_Elizabeth_II - 1953-Dress.JPG) it was published in 1953, does it have permission under {{PD-US-not renewed}}? --Frontman830 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

German newsreels

Should we allow German newsreels before 1925, according to the US copyright rules, could also recopyrighted by the URAA by tagging {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, but I'm not sure with this. --Frontman830 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything published before 1925 is in public domain in USA, URAA be damned. Ruslik (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Even if they're in the PD in the US they might still be copyrighted in Germany. So no. --Rosenzweig τ 19:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Because, some German newsreels by these unknown people may been public domain, after 70 years of publication. --Frontman830 (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Not applicable here. As I wrote elsewhere: Tags like {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} are not applicable to German works before 1995, since German law says that pre-1995 anonymous works are only really anonymous if the author was never publicly disclosed anywhere, not even in a lecture or similar. One cannot prove that, so pre-1995 "anonymous" works from Germany are not suitable for Commons (or de.wp). --Rosenzweig τ 07:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Nazi Germany during WWII

We have a great many images here taken by German soldiers during the course of WWII. Some has passed through archives such as the Bundesarchiv and they are licensed under that archive's own terms. Others have come via the Red Army and are under Soviet era licences, likewise many US Army-sourced images.

But what about the rest? A US Army soldier taking a photo during warfare would be under the US Gov PD licence. A British soldier would come under Crown Copyright. Is there anything similar for members of the Wehrmacht? I'm taking the simpler case here where these are photographs in the line of duty, and are clearly so because of the context. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Many such works are anonymous and therefore are in public domain now as created more than 70 years ago. In addition you can use {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} template. Ruslik (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: No, you cannot use {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} for images taken by German soldiers. § 134 KUG is for a very narrow category of older German works (until 1965) ONLY that must have a legal entity under public law (like one of the German states or some public agency) named as a „Herausgeber“ and at the same time must not name a personal author. And tags like {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} are not applicable to German works before 1995, since German law says that pre-1995 anonymous works are only really anonymous if the author was never publicly disclosed anywhere, not even in a lecture or similar. One cannot prove that, so pre-1995 "anonymous" works from Germany are not suitable for Commons (or de.wp). --Rosenzweig τ 12:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Negative statements are in principle not provable. So, I do not think that the meaning of the law was to require something impossible. Ruslik (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Never underestimate the stupidity of politicians and lawyers. I'm not making this up, this is the official position of the German wikipedia on this topic. And they most likely know a thing or two about German law. --Rosenzweig τ 07:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Slight sidebar, Crown Copyright includes war seized materials. The UK copyright act allows for this and declares this property of the Crown (including IP rights) and one might deduce that some materials are public domain under expired Crown rules. However, this is not recognized in other EU countries, or in the USA. For example, there are many photographs in the IWM collection that are part of 'Crown' collections, but those claims can be challenged or debunked as copyfraud. --Fæ (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Selling additional rights

A cuople of days ago I was contacted by a publisher who wants to use one of my photos as illustration in a book. The photo in question is released under CC-BY-SA, so a commercial derivate of the photo does not comply to the share-alike part of license. But as author I still hold any right not released to the public by the CC-BY-SA license, right? So I should be able to sell the right to produce copyrighted derivates. The question is how the publisher should attribute the photo. Any ideas? I guess that {{Published | legal=acc}} with a suitable comment would be the right way for me to mark the publishing as acceptable by me on Commons. /ℇsquilo 17:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@ℇsquilo: The attribution for use outside the confines of your Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license is whatever you say it is, subject to negotiation with the book's author and/or publisher. It can be as simple as "Esquilo" or "ℇsquilo" or "Johan Fredriksson", or something more complicated, like "Photo by ℇsquilo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Esquilo". Negotiation can also include a quid-pro-quo like a signed first edition of the book or a tiny royalty if the book sells more than n copies. If you have the original digital photo in a higher resolution (or just less cropped) you may offer that, too, and you may want to see COM:HR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
A commercial derivative and, more generally, any commercial reproduction or use, provided that it is correctly attributed and licensed with the same license (and provides the url for the license), would comply with the share-alike clause of a CC BY-SA license. The publisher and other reusers do not need your permission if they keep the attribution and the license. That's the main idea of a free license. You already gave your permission by offering the free license. Of course, even if they don't need to, nothing forbids them to send you money anyway to show you their appreciation. That would be nice from them. (Note that the rest of the book is not a derivative of your photo just because the photo is reproduced somewhere in the book.) However, if they want to use the photo without the attribution or the license already specified, then the CC license does not apply at all and they need to contract a custom license with you. How they will atribute the photo, well, if they comply with the CC license already offered, without any other arragement with you, they should attribute in the manner already specified on the page of the file on Commons. But if you contract a special arrangement with them, they should attribute in whatever manner you (both parties) specify in that special contract. When the book is published, if, to your full satisfaction, the result is that the publisher complied with the CC license or complied with a special contract, then if you add a "published" template on Commons, it would be legal=yes. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The publisher will not comply to the CC-BY-SA license and is offering payment to create a non-complying derivate. That is acceptable to me. The crucial point is to work out an attribution that works for a copyrighted derivate of a free original in such manner that they relation with the original is clear. "Some rights reserved" is the best I have come up with so far, but it is not ideal. /ℇsquilo 19:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I see. So you are asking for suggestions about what you might demand as a credit/status line. It's impossible, and probably unwise, for outsiders like us to answer without knowing very precisely what the publisher wants and what you want. From what you say, the publisher does not want to offer their composite image or substantially creatively modified image (i.e. derivative) under the CC license. Then, the most simple thing for the publisher would be to write no credit/status line at all. The reader would understand that that image is under the same status as the rest of the book, presumably all rights reserved. If the publisher is willing to at least mention your name as one of the authors of their resulting image, it could be just that, e.g. Photo by Johan Fredriksson, or whatever name attribution you wish. Or All rights reserved, which is the status of their image as a whole, if it is truly a creative derivative. However, you sound like you want to impose to them an inclusion of some sort of indication that, even if the copy of your photo used by the publisher is not free (outside of the free license), another copy of your photo is otherwise under the free license somewhere else. Is that really what you want? If so, "some rights reserved" would not do, because for the reader it would be meaningless. It seems better to write nothing. (It means something on flickr because it links to a specific license, but not in the context of the book.) If you want the reader to understand your point, it would have to be explicit, and it would probably sound rather awkward. I tried to imagine a few possible wordings but nothing satisfactory. It seems difficult to reconcile, on one hand, the wish of the publisher to not use the CC license and your wish to sell them this non-free copy of your photo and, on the other hand, your wish to mention in the book something about a free-licensed copy somewhere but which has nothing to do with the image in the book. Ends up confusing for the reader. Probably not going to please the publisher either. In the negociation of a deal, the more demands you make in terms of attribution, lines and other non-monetary clauses, the less money you are likely to get. Are you sure you want to insist on a clause like that? IMHO, it would be more simple to drop this demand. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that out. I'll do as you suggested. /ℇsquilo 09:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
You are the author and copyright holder, so you can give any copyright license you like to whoever you want. CC-BY-SA is just one license. If someone doesn't want to comply with those terms, they can negotiate with you for whatever license you want to give them -- which it sounds like they want to do. The only thing you really can't do is to try and revoke the CC-BY-SA license you have already given, so you can't agree to any terms which would attempt to prevent others from using the uploaded file under the CC-BY-SA rules. Most of the time that should not be a problem. As for the credit (or lack thereof), that is up to you to negotiate as part of the license you give them. The existence of the CC-BY-SA license does not bind you, or them, with a separate agreement. So the only question there is, what credit do you want them to give you. Could be just your name, or none, or whatever. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
It depends on what their concern is. It may really come down to not wanting to worry about SA rules; there's been an atlas publisher sued over an interpretation of CC-BY-SA, and even if the publisher won, the image was not worth the lawsuit. If they're one of those books with a page dedicated to credits already, extensive credits linking to the Commons page may be no big deal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Defeated by the abundance of dodgy files

User:D K K Iraj has very recently uploaded:

  • photographs that they say are by Bandu Gunaratne
  • a photograph that they say is of (portrays) Bandu Gunaratne
  • photographs that they say are by Shantha Gunaratne
  • a photograph that they say is of (portrays) Shantha Gunaratne

-- and that, according to D K K Iraj, are nevertheless all their (D K K Iraj's) own work.

This is, shall we say, problematic.

I know what I should do about this -- my most recent effort in this vein: Commons:Deletion requests/Works attributed to Nora Blanka Vlášková -- but there aren't enough hours in my day to let me do it. I presume, or anyway hope, that there's some tool that, once fed the user ID, would offer to automate the entire process of creating the list of dodgy files, posting a template on each, etc (all under my supervision). Any tips?

(NB I have to absent myself from here for about 20 hours, starting now.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

YouTube licenses

In the past day or so, I've come across a few files which are screenshots from YouTube. These files are apparently released under acceptable CC licenses (which is an option for YouTube users) which means they seem OK for Commons. However, after looking at the YouTube descriptions for the files, I'm not really able to find the specific licenses. The two files are File:Following day film Ini Dima-Okojie.png and File:Claire matt.png and both are sourced to YouTube. If you click on "See more" in each file's description, you'll find something that states "license Creative Commons Copyright Notice Mandatory License (Reuse Allowed)", but that only links to a general information page about CC licenses and YouTube and not a specific license page like this. Is this kind of thing sufficient for Commons purposes or does the specific license have to be actually indicated on the YouTube source for the file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sufficient. The video page links to the info page which links to the specific license. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I saw that link, but it seems to be provided for general information purpose (i.e. this license may be used) and not to state that the file in question has been released under such a license. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the info page is an info page. The statement is on the video page. The info page details and links to the only possible option of a CC license that a copyright owner can make to appear in the official license statement line of a video page, which line links to that info page. And thus the only possible interpretation that a reader can make of such statement appearing in that particular line on a video page. The statement of release is on the video page and the details are on the info page. Given that the statement links to the info page which links to the full text of the specific version of the license, there is no ambiguity about the statement. (Assuming the copyright owner did not include some different copyright statement elsewhere in the description or in the video.) -- Asclepias (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded this image somewhat unsure of the copyright restrictions (my first upload), but as another image from the same source (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orgel_Domkirche_L%C3%BCbeck_Walcker.jpg) was already uploaded to Wikimedia commons under the same licensing as I used, I thought it was okay. When further examining the information about copyright from the source, the owner stated that (translated from German) "We would like to point out that the entire image material is the property of Gerhard Walcker-Mayer and that it is not permitted to be reproduced or published without written permission. A copyright claim is made on both the original image material and the image material brought to the Internet level through reworking.The reuse in organ magazines and on other organ sites on the Internet is expressly not desired. Please only use links after consultation." (https://walcker.com/opus/index.html)

The image was originally published in 1926 and the presumed owner (his name was on the image) died in 1948. Is this image in the public domain and is it possible for the image to remain on Wikimedia Commons?

Thankful for thoughts. Nils Engström (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I have checked the facts as best I can. Copyright in both Sweden and Germany lasts for 70 years after the death of the author and in the case of anonymous works, 70 years after publication. I certainly agree with you that the image concerned appears to have been published in 1925. Since you took the photo from the original document, I believe that that you need only look at the copyright for the photo which expired in 1995 (1925 + 70) (unless the photographer is known). I therefore believe that there is no copyright on the existing image.
The reworking issue needs to be looked at separately - Gerhard Walcker-Mayer needs to clarify why they think that reworking had a sufficient level of intellectual creation to make it copyrightable. Merely transferring the image to a new media falls far short of the threshold to make the new image copyrightable. Martinvl (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The photo owner is irrelevant. What matters is the name of the photographer, which is unknown. So, the image probably slipped into public domain 70 years after its first publication (in 1997). Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a seal of queen Yazdān-Friy-Sābuhr of Persia (c. 4th century) in Cabinet des Médailles, Paris, France. The photos of this seal is available in the official website of the Cabinet in here. Regarding the fact that it's been 17 centuries since the the seal has been created, is there any problem if I upload the photos in Commons? Rizorius (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is an issue. We need a copyright release for the photograph (not the seal itself) because photographs of three dimensional objects are presumed to be above the threshold of originality for copyright protection. This is opposed to exact copies of 2D art, which are not independently protected by copyright (this is the legal position taken on Commons, anyway). Please see COM:ART #Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet for more info.  Mysterymanblue  09:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Museum photo of a copyrighted artwork credited to the museum?

Yesterday's Google Doodle brought me to File:The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis - Alebrije bird sculpture.jpg. I was surprised to see that there's nothing on the file page about the creator of the work releasing the image, and that the attribution in the license is supposed to be for the museum, not the artist. This all speaks to a release of the photo, but not the likeness of the object. I've recently learned that it's common practice here to assume museum's speak on behalf of the artist, but this feels like a case of releasing photos without regard for the depicted work? Other thoughts? — Rhododendrites talk |  18:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Any photo of a 3D object is separately copyrightable. So, the license and attribution are correct. However additional information about the copyright status of the underlying work should be added, of course. Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Mapillary

En Wikipedia has had a couple of screenshots of mapillary uploaded to the article on the surfside building collapse. These are screenshots from a Microsoft version of something a bit like Google street view (File:Champlain Towers South (87th Terrace view, Surfside, Miami, FL).png and File:Champlain Towers South (Surfside, Miami, FL).jpg. We have a template and a whole category (Category:Images from Mapillary) of images from this app but the actual terms are non-free. https://www.mapillary.com/terms. There are restrictions on commercial use. They do say they can be used to develop open street map. Their help page says all images are shared under CC-BY-SA (https://help.mapillary.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001770409-Licenses) but this is over-ruled by their terms? Should we be hosting this stuff? Thanks Secretlondon (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Their "terms" page says "Your use of any User Content provided by other users is subject to the Creative Commons Share Alike (CC BY-SA) license (available here), unless we indicate otherwise." (The "available here" bit links to the CC BY-SA version 4.0.) So, the contents are under CC BY-SA 4.0, unless they are something other than "user content provided by other users" or unless they are "user content provided by other users" specifically excluded by an indication. (Not sure how to interpret their terms relating to Open Street Map. It sounds like contents excluded from their CC BY-SA 4.0 could be released by passing through OSM.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@Secretlondon: What Asclepias said. But also, a good way to think about this is to view the terms of use as governing your relationship with Mapillary and the CC-BY-SA license as governing your relationship with the creators of user generated content. The terms of use limit your distribution, use, etc. of Mapillary's services, but the user content on Mapillary is not a part of those services, it is accessed through their services. For this reason, there is no real conflict in what the terms of use say and what the license says.  Mysterymanblue  20:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

U.S. coins and the mint's design use policies (continued)

Last month, I brought up the issue of the mint's terms of use possibly not being an acceptable free license for some U.S. coinage. You can read my comment here. Since no one had anything to say about it, I went ahead and nominated a file for deletion here. Depending on how this discussion goes, it may have implications for the free usability of the designs of the 50 state quarters and some circulating coins.  Mysterymanblue  21:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie and revocability

File:This Land is Your Land.ogg is maintained on Commons with Template:Copyrighted free use on the basis of Woody Guthrie's comment "This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do." While I might be sympathetic it being kept here on that basis, it is pretty clear that the copyright holders are not respecting Guthrie's wishes and the copyright is being enforced (as you can see here). Guthrie's "license" was revocable and it did not bind his descendents to follow it, so I'm wondering if the file should be deleted.  Mysterymanblue  07:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

So, the decision is "lack of jurisdiction of the court" since the possible copyright claimants promised not to enforce any copyright they might have, if they have any. That doesn't prove anything one way or the other. You say "the copyright is being enforced". But it is the contrary. The theoretical claim of copyright is not enforced. The company Richmond Org managed to avoid a decision on the merits, and to have the case closed without any decision on the existence or inexistence of its claimed copyright, simply because that company promised not to sue nor to take any action of any kind relatively to the other parties to try to enforce the copyright they migth have (if any). And they reimbursed the license fees they had collected. Anyone can interpret that as they wish, but to me it implicitely sounds like those copyright claimants are not on solid legal ground and the risks for them to lose were so high if the case had proceeded, that they preferred to stop the case by saying that they were renouncing any practical attempt to enforce the copyright. This sort of allows them to continue to claim in theory that they might hold a copyright without actually proving it. Text: Saint-Amour v. Richmond Org. Inc.. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the legal matter is not settled. Yes, it is not clear if the copyright over "This Land is Your Land" is actually enforceable. I guess my question is whether we here on Commons should be playing lawyer and taking bold stances on legal issues that have not yet be adjudicated. We've done it before, with the w:en:monkey selfie copyright dispute. Obviously, this case is not as significant and it doesn't raise an interesting legal question, but it is also an area where we were hosting a work that was the subject of active litigation without knowing the eventual outcome of said litigation. The difference here is that we don't have the backing of the foundation's legal counsel. My gut tells me that if this were taken all the way through to judgement, the court would find that the failure to renew in a timely manner would mean that the copyright had expired, but none of us really know that. If we decide to take the bold stance every time there's some area of litigation, we're going to inevitably end up in the legal red a lot of the time.
Also, my original question above was mainly about whether Guthrie's statement could really count as a free license. I think the answer is clearly "no". If we're going to keep "This Land Is Your Land" around, we should really be using {{PD-US-not renewed}}.  Mysterymanblue  18:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the free use license tag should probably be replaced by the PD not renewed status tag. The court case is special in that it was not initiated by someone alledging to hold a copyright on the song and suing someone about it. It was initiated by the music band alledging that the song is in the public domain and seeking from the court a declaration to that effect. In practice, the music band got the certainty that they could freely do whatever they wanted with the song, basically as a public domain song for them, although they did not obtain a declaration that would have clarified if everybody could do the same. For Commons, and for anyone else other than the band, the question is: is there a serious doubt about the song being in the public domain? The argument for the public domain was presented by the band. The copyright was not renewed on the song published in 1945. (The band also listed a couple copyright registrations by Richmond Org. Inc., but only to show that they did not apply to the song published in 1945.) The other party, Richmond Org. Inc., apparently did not present a counter-argument on the substance of the matter (they argued that there was no case because they did not dispute that the band could use the song). Can anyone imagine a counter-argument, a rationale for how a copyright would exist? If yes, let's examine that rationale. If not, there is probably no serious doubt. This is not basically different from other files Commons evaluates everyday. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I went ahead and changed {{Copyrighted free use}} to {{PD-US-not renewed}} for the file.  Mysterymanblue  23:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
In the three recorded versions on Commons, by Makemi, the Sergeants and Lopez, someone familiar with the song could check which version of the song is used. Parts of some later versions might have a different copyright status than the 1945 version. The various versions are discussed in some detail in judge Batt's earlier judgment, not in judge Castel's final judgment. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Under our working assumption that the 1945 publication would be in the public domain, the 1951 lyrics would also be in the public domain with the same reasoning (failure to renew). Most versions sung today only deviate slightly from the 1951 version (lyrically), so I doubt they would be separately protectible.  Mysterymanblue  16:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew

Relevant policy page: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works

Ping for some inputs and confirmation (if possible): @Howhontanozaz, Pandakekok9, Clindberg, Aymatth2, and King of Hearts:

In a court case entitled Santos v McCullough (can be accessed here, at page 169, which was shared to me by Howhontanozaz on Messenger), dated 1964, a local artist was denied "the right to sue for damages for the unauthorized copying of an artistic motif of a Christmas card he designed for his client," simply because "he did not secure a copyright by registering his claim and deposit the work after his client distributed 800 such cards to his friends." Because of this, despite the Philippines having been a Berne member since 1951, the court applied the provisions of the American colonial-era Act No. 3134, and disregarded the no-formality rule being mandated by Berne. This means the formality rules of Berne wasn't in effect here until the passage of Presidential Decree No. 49 on December 15, 1972.

Inferring from this, it is reasonable to assume that buildings that were built here from August 1, 1951 to December 14, 1972 (a day before the Presidential Decree No. 49 took effect) are still not protected, and thus in public domain. This is in addition to the lack of protection accorded to actual architecture byAct No. 3134. Such buildings include ABS-CBN Broadcasting Center, Cultural Center Main Theater, and Antipolo Cathedral. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding more context and information (G.R. No. L-19439 Santos v McCullough):
  • In 1951, the Philippines acceded to the Berne Convention which called for automatic copyright protection (no formalities) and protection of architectural works (which was absent in previous Philippine copyright laws).
  • In 1955, a presidential proclamation was issued that stated "every article and clause" of the Convention "may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof."
  • In 1959, local Filipino artist Mauro Malang Santos designed a Christmas card for the personal use of an ambassador. The ambassador then had 800 copies of the card printed by McCullough Printing Company and distributed to his friends.
  • In 1960, the printing company included the Christmas card to its album of samples displayed to customers. A movie company then ordered 700 copies of the design which they then distributed that same year. All of this happened without the knowledge of and authority from the designer Santos.
  • Santos sued and it reached the Supreme Court which then ruled in 1964 that Santos cannot sue since he released the design into the public domain due to his non-registration of the work within 30 days following publication in 1959. The court was basing its decision on Act 3134 which demanded registration for copyright protection and did not take into consideration the Berne Convention and the Presidential Proclamation.
If the Berne Convention had been in effect in the country, then Santos' design would have been automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation but this was not how the court made its decision. Thus, IMO, if the convention was not in force in the country, then it could be said that works of architecture are not protected until the 1972 law that formally protected them. Howhontanozaz (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Very interesting. The laws the ruling was based on were from after independence, but issued before the 1951 accession to the treaty. Strictly speaking, the treaty would only require such treatment of foreign works. By that law, Articles 721 and 722 of the Civil Code, works were protected from the moment of creation. However, that law also said that at the moment of publication, the enacted copyright laws took effect. Those laws and regulations in turn that gave the author 30 (if in Manila) to 60 days (if located elsewhere) to register the work after publication, if there was no notice, from the looks of it. That was not done in that case, so it was ruled public domain. That is a Supreme Court ruling, upholding an earlier decision by a lower court, so it would seem that question is settled -- the statutory requirements of their copyright law were enforced, at least for Philippine authors, until 1972. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: what about Philippine architecture during this period? Is the question from August/September last year about the status of 1951–72 buildings finally settled through the interpretation of the Court's disregard of the no-formality rules of the Berne? (Additionally the lack of architectural protection in Act No. 3134?) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess that is still a theoretical question, given that none of the laws specifically mention architecture. The civil code did not explicitly say that artists like sculptors were subject to the copyright laws at the moment of publication like it did for literary authors and musical composers, but the ruling seems to say when something had been unambiguously published, it seems that copyright law (as written) did apply (which could be covered by article 724 of the civil code). Publication of things like paintings and sculptures was a tortured question in the U.S. itself at the time, but their rulings (which may have been precedents for the Philippines too) did seem to indicate that works installed in public were effectively published. Given the weight of this ruling which indicates that written copyright law was in effect, and the IOPHL opinion that renewals were still required until 1972, it might make the most sense to assume the same applied to architecture if it was even protected at all. If there is some ruling which can be found which indicates otherwise, that would of course change things, but it seems best to follow the written law at this point. I probably would allow photos of Philippine buildings completed before 1972 unless we find something concrete to the contrary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Ping @Jameslwoodward: for some additional input regarding this, and if the relavant section in the policy page Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works can be changed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Please take my name off of your list.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand the 1964 ruling to mean less than User:JWilz12345 is reading into it. The 1964 person lost copyright protection because he did not register his copyright within 30 or 60 days. The decision implies that if he had registered it, the copyright would have been upheld. So, if you want to apply that decision to Philippine architecture, you will have to prove that the building's copyright was not registered. That might be easy - if registrations from that era are online and searchable -- but my guess is that it would require a trip to the copyright office. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: buildings were not protected at that time. The court ruling implies that Act 3134 was still in effect, and despite the membership to Berne and the Presidential Proclamation, the Court still applied the ruling vis-à-vis the old copyright law (and did not consider the rules of the Berne). Copyright protection on the architecture would only happen upon the effectivity of PD 49 on December 15, 1972 which both: a) gave protection to the architecture, and b) applied the no-formality rules of the Berne here. See also the in-depth comment of Howhontanozaz. And I am certain there are no registrations for Philippine architecture from 1951–72, because the then-prevailing Act No. 3134 did not protect them despite the accession to the Berne in 1951. For example, most of the list of copyrighted works found here are printed materials (books), and there is no protection on architecture (as architecture was not an object of copyright by virtue of Act 3134). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Aha. Thank you for a very clear explanation of a complex situation. I withdraw my objection. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"For any lawful purpose" restrictions in licenses

I recently noticed that several Canadian OGL-based include a requirement that all (re)uses be "for any lawful purpose". This includes {{OGL-C}}, {{OGL-Alberta}}, {{OGL-BC}}, {{OGL-ON}}, {{StatCanOpen}}, and {{OpenMB License}}, but there may be others. I am concerned that this is a non-free restriction that unduly limits the freedom to use a work according to https://freedomdefined.org/Definition and COM:L. I feel that it is similar to the JSON license in this way. I'm moving this here from Commons:Deletion requests/Template:OpenMB License as it affects multiple in-use licenses. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


I tend towards the position that as a restriction on how the content can be used it does make the license non free. The complication is that since in this case the things you would want to do would be illegal anyway its questionable to what extent its a meaningful restriction. That said that still leaves the issue of degrees of illegality. Using the material to drive 1MPH over the speed limit would be a breach of the license even if in most areas that would result in a fairly small fine.Geni (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The case that would most concern me is where such "unlawful purpose" is other copyright infringement. Say, for example, someone creates a documentary about Canadian Residential Schools based on the book A Knock on the Door and uses an OPL-C-licensed map in the film. Because A Knock on the Door is copyrighted, the creation of a derivative film is technically unlawful, and now the creator of the film is in hot water with the Canadian government for their use of the map.  Mysterymanblue  01:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly, this "for any lawful purpose" language was not part of the OGL-C as proposed, as you can see from this archive. Various free culture advocacy groups were invited to comment on the OGL-C during the proposal stage, so this clause presumably never received scrutiny from them.  Mysterymanblue  18:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Since I created the template which brought this discussion here, obviously I think that the license is OK. I suggest you read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions in the light of the words "any lawful purpose". As noted there, we accept far more restrictive provisions if they are not directly related to copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06&oldid=604748798"