Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07

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

Hi there. I would like to use stills from this trailer on Commons, but after reading all the info I still don't know if it's allowed or not. The film appears to be an English/American production, so I assume the same applies to the trailer. Does that make any difference? Can anyone help? --Judithcomm (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch it, personally. It's too late to need a renewal, I don't trust the source not to have cut off a copyright notice, and it's essential that the trailer was released in the US, which there doesn't seem to be any proof of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

https://digitallibrary.amnh.org/ Copyright?

Hi. I'm planning to start work on an article for Hemipsalodon (an extinct mammal), and I found this paper. Would it be possible to use any of the images? I can't find anything on the AMNH's copyright as of yet. Borophagus (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Borophagus: Because the paper was published before 1978, the lack of any copyright notice in it should mean the images are public domain as {{PD-US-no-notice}}, assuming they weren't previously published elsewhere with a copyright notice. See Commons:Hirtle_chart. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply! I'll get to work on the article, then. Borophagus (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Shape

Hi, Apologies if this is a really stupid question - Back in 2015 I uploaded my images to flickr and a few of those had my face included on windscreen reflections so I used Flickr's built-in editor and added speech bubbles to hide my face (see this and this),

Now my question is Are the speech bubble(s) copyright or are the images in question now copyvios due to the speech bubbles ?, My assumption is that that they're just shapes and therefore not copyrightable but wanted to seek clarification, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

They are uncopyrightable simple geometric shapes. Ruslik (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks Ruslik. I thought that was the case but just wanted to double check, Thanks for your help, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 11:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Usage of screenshots from Blizzard Entertainment games?

Hei alle sammen! My eyes glaze over a little bit when I try to understand if I am able to use user-generated screenshots from the aforementioned company's games on commons (and by extension no.wikipedia), and I've located the snippet of text from their legal team describing the usage rights of these types of things, but I'm having a hard time grasping it. Could anyone help clarify if I would be able to upload these types of derivative works to Commons? Sadly, the only way I've found to ask them directly have been through snail mail to Versailles. --EdoAug (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Usually you can not use screenshots of commercial games. Ruslik (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@EdoAug: To be more specific, this license is not compatible with Commons. Here are some words that will almost always make a license incompatible with Commons: "non-transferable", "noncommercial", "personal use only". – BMacZero (🗩) 23:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! This clears it up for me! :) Have a good day --EdoAug (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The noncommercial and personal use restrictions are an issue, but the non-transferable license is not an issue so long as anyone can automatically get the license. For example, the Creative Commons Zero public domain dedication's public license fallback grants anyone a "non transferable, non sublicensable" license to use the work.  Mysterymanblue  18:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks for the correction. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

CC0 and Public domain

Are they the same? Atomi20 (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Atomi20: In technical legal terms, they are not the same: CC0 is a license that allows an author to place a work in the public domain as nearly as legally possible (additional reading). However, in practical terms for someone looking to re-use a work, they are the same (use the work as you like with no attribution required). – BMacZero (🗩) 21:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I recently added an image to the commons which I included in an article on Wikipedia. The image was flagged for deletion by one of the editors over concerns of copyright violations. After I explained to the editor that I owned the image, the editor unmarked it for deletion but recommended I ask this community how to properly show ownership of an image. Is there instructions available, which shows how to demonstrate ownership of an image? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TI Coconut (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@TI Coconut: It must be on a case by case basis, because the nature of the evidence, if any, that may be required to support claims made about a particular work, depends on the nature of those claims and their plausibility under the circumstances. In the case of File:AB Bourke Image.jpg, your claims are that you are the photographer, more specifically that this photo is a self-portrait [1], and that you took it on 17 June 2021. The question by another user was based on the fact that a (smaller and slightly cropped) version of the photo was found published on a website. Also the version you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is without metadata. If the 1,209 × 1,292 px version you uploaded to Commons, or a larger version, was never published anywhere before, it might be acceptable without more evidence, although in the circumstances and considering the lack of metadata, it would probably be much better if you confirmed your identity and the information about the photo in a communication to Wikimedia through VTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Can these US Government Works be copyrighted?

Hello! I just uploaded File:White_House_Vesak_celebration_2021_group_photo.jpg, because I was under the impression that Template:PD-USGov-POTUS applies. This particular image has been published on Dharma College's website and by en:Buddhist Churches of America in a Facebook post. Other pictures from this album has been published in Tricycle, Buddhistdoor Global, Daily News (a newspaper by en:Associated Newspapers of Ceylon), Lion's Roar, and probably more. However, I noticed now after uploading it, that the picture has metadata (?) attached to it that claims strict copyright ("may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal use only"). But can it really be copyrighted, if it was produced by a White House employee as part of their official duty? The photographer was Cameron Smith, and the photos were taken as part of her official work, as far as I can tell. In the Lion's Roar article, it states "Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith" under each picture. Similar writings are present in all other places in which the images were published.

It would be unfortunate if the copyright claim indeed stands. Many pictures in this album (11 in total) would make it possible to illustrate several articles with these quality photos.

Best wishes, Sigvid (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sigvid: Hello, Please see Commons:White House photostream. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Flickr and PD works

I was uploading an image from Flickr recently using the 'Share images from Flickr' option in the Upload Wizard when I noticed that, rather than automatically assigning release rights as would normally be the case, I was being asked to do this manually.

Upon investigation I discovered that whatever mechanism the Upload Wizard uses to automatically assign release rights to Flickr images only recognises those images that were published as Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 works, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 works, or "Original work[s] of the US Federal Government", while the image I was trying to upload was published as a generic public domain work, or specifically a Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0 work. Likewise, the drop drown menu for manually describing Flickr release rights does not include an option for Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0 works.

Since the image in question ("Getting Familiar with the MP5") originated from the U.S. Army Europe photostream, I was personally happy enough to describe it as a Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army work and leave it at that. But what should happen if a PD image is published to Flickr without it being a work of the US federal government? --Dvaderv2 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That is normal. Commons requires that every file claimed to be public domain be documented with the specific reason for which the file is pd (e.g. pd-us because published before 1926, pd-us because not renewed, pd-us-gov, pd becase the author died n years ago, pd in a specific country, pd because released by the author, etc.). That helps the reusers and it makes much easier the verification of the status by anyone. The pd mark 1.0 is a statement that a work is free but it does not specify a reason. It could be for any one of the many possible reasons. The upload tool cannot judge that. A user who decides to upload a file to Commons must know and indicate the reason for which the file is free. That is why it is the duty of the uploader to assess the situation and to specify that reason. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense. --Dvaderv2 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama photos

File:Navjot Singh Sidhu on the sets of Sony Max in 2012.jpg and File:Navjot Singh Sidhu on the sets of Sony Max in 2012 (cropped).jpg are botboth licensed as {{Cc-by-3.0}} and sourced to en:Bollywood Hungama. I'm not able to find anything on the sourced webspages which shows this to be the case (I might not be looking in the right places), but my understanding is that BH has a blanket license which allows its photos to be uploaded to Commons as {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}. Are these files OK as licensed or should their licensing be tweaked a bit to provide "better" attribution to BH? Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama is devoted to "unverified" BH images, and I don't think, FWIW, these two have been formally verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to correct typo: changed "bot" to "both". -- 03:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)] .

I don't think the file can be said bot licensed. I think the structured data bots merely copy to the structured data whatever status is in the information template. Yes, I suppose the file should have the Template:BollywoodHungama, if it meets its criteria. Unfortunately, some files in the unreviewed category seem to be waiting for over a year, with the associated risks. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly and Asclepias: Please review the latest public information on that template at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/12#Template:BollywoodHungama.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for the links to that discussion; however, these file technically are licensed as {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} so how they would fit into that discussion. They were primary image was uploaded in 2016 ( the crop was made in 2020); so, perhaps they both would be considered OK under the old license, but it isn't clear that's what is going to be done from hereon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@Asclepias: My apologies for the confusion. I meant to type "are both licensed as", but mistakenly left out the "h" in "both" so it became "bot". -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright: illustration from book

Hello, I uploaded to Commons, an illustration from a 1928 book. I understand that the book is probably under copyright unitl about 2024. HOWEVER, I only wanted to upload a single-small-page painting from the book (w/o text). It was drawn by an artist who died in 1932. Is it be permissible to unload, and give as the license tag, "... copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer." (Author of the painting died in 1932; author of the book died in 1986.) PS. The purpose is to support detail on the artist, in a WP article. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@JimPercy: Hello, Please specify which book and its place of publication. If there's a copy online, a link would be useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Asclepias: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BaseballDetective.jpg
So, the book was published in the United States in 1928 and its copyright was renewed in 1955. It seems in copyright until 2024, as you said in your original comment. Unless the illustration was published separately from the book, it shares the publication history of the book. I guess what you are asking specifically is if the renewal of the copyright on the book covers only the work by the author of the text or also the illustrations by the different author. I think it is reasonable to think that it covers both, especially if the renewal was filed by the publisher. But my knowledge of U.S. law is limited. Maybe someone can give you a better answer. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay, that's good enough for now. So the two likely went together, unless the artist retained rights to his drawing, or it appeared somewhere outside of the book. I will look into more later. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Asclepias/@JimPercy: Given renewal R154586 specifies "The baseball detective. With drawings by Paul Martin", I think we can assume the drawings were works for hire, owned by Charles G. Muller (or possibly Harper & Brothers), and covered by the renewal. So far as I can tell this is a US work that observes all the formalities, so the copyright term runs from publication (1928) + 95 years = 2023. There is no pma. 70 term involved so the vital years of the author and artist are irrelevant. Xover (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

he is watermarked it that's not problematic? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Temilake.jpg Baratiiman (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Baratiiman The watermark is just the uploader's user name. That's discouraged per Commons:Watermarks, but not a copyright issue. I'll add {{Watermarked}} to the fie description page. — El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Freedome of panorama question

Photo File:Kościół pw. Świętych Piotra i Pawła w Zakrzewie Kościelnym w 2012 r. 03.jpg was made under "Freedome of panorama". Between gates with fence and church, there is area. In matter of photos made from that area (between gates with fence and church), is that area also treated as under "Freedome of panorama", or not, or "it depends"?VVerka5 (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@VVerka5: If you are writing of standing in that area and photographing, and you were allowed to do that as a member of the public (rather than having to pay a church membership fee), I think you could call that area publicly-accessible. As it contains grass and some landscaping, you could call it a garden.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no pay of Church membership fee.VVerka5 (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I found that freedome of panorama is define with words "na ogólnie dostępnych" and synonym "ogólnodostępny" in [2] means "«dostępny dla wszystkich»". In "Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych z dnia 4 lutego 1994" i not found limitations of time, that could exclude from freedome of panorama "ogólnie dostępne" places, that are limited to acces in some period of time. In simple word, i understand, that "ogólnie dostępne" places also could be places limited to visit because of fence, gates and other situation, when someone close accesibility to them (eg. by closing gate in nightime and opening gate in daytime). "Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych z dnia 4 lutego 1994" have limitation of "ogólnie dostępne" to "na ogólnie dostępnych drogach, ulicach, placach lub w ogrodach" - so "ogólnie dostępne" interior of eg. church isn't covered by freedome of panorama, but what about cemetary? I don't know is it excluded or inluded by term "drogach, ulicach, placach lub w ogrodach". In pl:Wolność panoramy - there are words "Zdaniem niektórych prawników (...) pojęcie placu obejmuje także cmentarze" with annotation that source of that information is in "Stanisławska-Kloc S., Komentarz do art. 33 ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych, [w:] S. Stanisławska-Kloc i inni, Prawo autorskie i prawa pokrewne. Komentarz, Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2015, ISBN 978-83-264-3326-9". Also definition of plac in https://sjp.pwn.pl/slowniki/plac.html is define as (in matter of cemetaries) as "2. «teren wydzielony pod zabudowę oraz teren wokół zabudowy»", so i also interpret, that freedome of panorama in area of cemetaries is covered by term of "plac" where "zabudowa" in term of cemetaries means tombstones, chapel etc. cemetary buildings.VVerka5 (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

"No attribution required"

File:Natural Bridge State Park (31014853292).jpg was uploaded to Flickr by the official account of the Virginia State Parks and properly marked with CC-BY 2.0. There's no question that it's acceptably licensed for Commons.

The description on Flickr, and thus here as well, says "Uploaded by SA. Photos taken by Jean S. for VSP – use as needed, no attribution required." How do we generally handle a statement that waives some elements of the provided license? Do we just ignore it, or do we do something about it? Nyttend backup (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that attribution is always a good thing. So, the license should stay. Ruslik (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyrighted official photos of U.S. coinage

I came across . This coin design is everything you could want for free usability: it was designed and sculpted by employees of the United States Mint. However, the metadata of this particular photograph reads "© Copyrighted The United States MInt.", and the authorship line reads "Burwell and Burwell Photography". Burwell and Burwell is, apparently, a photography company that the U.S. mint contracts out many of its photography jobs to. Are these photographs sufficiently creative to receive copyright protection? If so, a large number of images of coins on Commons which might otherwise be freely usable would actually be non-free.  Mysterymanblue  23:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mysterymanblue: I think that the fact that the re-use policies such as [3] recommend using "high-resolution coin images [...] obtained directly from the United States Mint" suggests that the Mint has obtained the copyrights to such photos (they wouldn't recommend the use of the photos if such use would be a copyright violation). So I think the rights of the photographer are unlikely to be an issue here. However, though the Mint has various non-PD (but free enough) policies posted covering many specific coins, there doesn't seem to be any policy at all covering these commemorative coins. Combined with the presence of the sentence "At this time, the United States Mint is not accepting any new applications for commercial licensees", there might be something to be concerned about, but it's all very unclear as they do not specify when one might need to use this application. I will try e-mailing them for more info. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, sounds good. IMO, these design use policies are not strong enough to be a free license, and they clearly don't apply to this coin anyway. Let's see what they say, though.  Mysterymanblue  18:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: I received an automated-sounding reply that didn't answer most of my questions, but seems to confirm that these commemorative coins are probably problematic. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
If you are seeking permission to use United States coin designs, please review the self-executing policies on our Web site to see if the design you are looking for is listed as a covered coin:  https://www.usmint.gov/news/consumer-alerts/business-guidelines
If the design you’d like to use is not listed as a covered coin in one of the policies, please review and complete the following application, answering all the questions:
https://www.usmint.gov/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Licensing-Application-Form-2017.pdf”
@BMacZero: I agree, this doesn't look too good. I have nominated the file for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/.  Mysterymanblue  20:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Please see User:Mysterymanblue/Burwell and Burwell photographs of U.S. coins for a list of potentially affected files.  Mysterymanblue  18:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I wrote an article here asking about the copyright status of Paraguayan currency.

However, no reply was received, and after I thought that Paraguayan currency is not OK, I opened the following deletion discussion.

I also found deletion requests related to the Paraguayan currency that had previously been concluded as deleted and grouped them into the following categories: Category:Paraguayan currency-related deletion requests

With these in mind, I would appreciate it if you could join the deletion discussion.

--Ox1997cow (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Allowed under FOP?

I came across this image today and I'm having doubts if this is covered by FOP. The main object in the photo is not a building or sculpture, but a map showing the surroundings. According to [[4]], "Dutch FOP doesn't extend to [...], maps, [...]". Any thoughts? -- Spinal83 (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You are right, this is not allowed, per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Netherlands#Freedom_of_panorama, you may nominate the image for deletion or speedy deletion, thanks, Elly (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Spinal83 and Ellywa: I nominated it for regular deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Borger P+R N34 Kaart.JPG, as FOP-related reasons are not eligible for speedy deletion.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Elly and Jeff! -- Spinal83 (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Spinal83: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Elly (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

La Opinión de Murcia

Hi everybody, I have a doubt regarding logos from the "ca:La Opinión de Murcia", a Spanish newspaper. Can this logo or this one or even this one be used to be uploaded into Commons? My concern is about whether they are eligible under COM:TO. Any help would be much appreciated. --Alvaro Vidal-Abarca (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Basically they are just texts. Ruslik (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
So, can they be uploaded into Commons without problems? --Alvaro Vidal-Abarca (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Alvaro Vidal-Abarca: I was unable to view the third image, but the first two should be safe to upload as {{PD-text}}. I see we don't have a section on Spanish TOO but the concept does exist; I will add some info there. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everybody! I've uploaded it into File:La Opinión de Murcia - logo.png. --Alvaro Vidal-Abarca (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Mrs Margaret Desenfans by Moussa Ayoub after Joshua Reynolds

Hi,

I was wondering how this photograph of a painting of Mrs Margaret Desenfans by Moussa Ayoub (after Joshua Reynolds) was in the public domain? Ayoub died in 1955, so does the copyright in this painting subsist with his estate, or if it was a commission, with Dulwich College? I was wondering if Commons was treating this painting by Ayoub as a "faithful reproduction" of the original painting? I am asking because I was interested in uploading a painting of William Ernest Hey Groves by Ayoub, but realised that I could not do that because of Ayoub's date of death (<70 years). Lastly, I do know that the Google Art Project does still have to protect copyright - perhaps Dulwich released this under a different commons licence to them but then I would expect a different licensing template on the file in Wikimedia.

I am sorry for all the questions - I am still finding my way around here. Gricharduk (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that the "faithful reproduction clause" applies to the paintings that reproduce other paintings especially in UK. These are two different works and they may not be completely identical. Ruslik (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your response - I agree and I am glad I asked here. Thanks again, Gricharduk (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I created congressional district specific maps for w:North Carolina's congressional districts, which were redistricted for the 2021-23 House term. Earlier congressional district maps were made available by National Atlas which no longer exists. So, I created requisite maps on Umaps on Open Street Maps, which is freely licensed. I used KML files available at census.gov for the counties, and state boundaries. Again census.gov is a US government institution and its works are freely available. But I also used geojson files available at w:Dave's Redistricting app for the official district maps, which should be free under w:WP:NONCREATIVE, as they don't contain much human creativity and are just bare facts under US copyright laws. Plus, its for educational purposes, i.e., fair use. But I am unaware of exactly what copyright tags I should be using at the time of upload? Can someone help? If you reply please ping me. Thanks. CX Zoom (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: It sounds like {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} is the correct tag, as all the creativity is your own work, assuming that Dave isn't drawing those district boundaries by hand. Nosferattus (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: Thanks you very much. Cheers! CX Zoom (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians Article - Copyrighted Images

Hi the user @lislecowls or @ Jennaiowan (I’m not sure if this is the same person using different accounts) is repeatedly breaking copyright rules for the three following images used in the Saint Thomas Christians article:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Knanaya_Ichappadu_Kodukkal.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Knanaya_Chantham_Charthal.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Knanaya_wedding_(1903).jpg#mw-jump-to-license

He or she is claiming that these are from a private family album from 1903 when in reality they are from the “Syrian Christian Marriage in India” (1985) a documentary film made by scholars Dr. Jacob Vellian, Dr. Jacob Kollaparambil, and Mr. Chummar Choondal. The film and its content are not free to use but copyrighted by the Hadusa institute. The film is even seen on YouTube used with permission by the Christian Musicological Society of India:

“Aramaic Project-77 Syriac Christian Wedding in India” (I cannot post the link because of the spam filter)

I’ve mentioned this several times but the user is quite clearly deceptively making up claims about these images. I do not know if this is on purpose or they simply don’t know where this content is from and that it is copyrighted. I would like to request the images be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

How does ALAMY work?

  • The original public domain Fascist propaganda poster.
    The original public domain Fascist propaganda poster.
  • The version I found at www.alamy.de, it gives the impression that ALAMY owns the copyright ©.
    The version I found at www.alamy.de, it gives the impression that ALAMY owns the copyright ©.

While looking for old Fascist propaganda posters I came across many links to ALAMY, recently I saw a WMF DMCA take-down based on them and another editor pointed out that they often fraudulently claim copyright. How do they do this? And what images do they tend to claim copyright on?

Do educational institutions actually take these claims serious? Note that the only people that would ever want to use old French Fascist propaganda posters would probably be museums, educational websites, history textbooks, Etc. So are they seriously just exploiting these (often public) intuitions for exorbitant amounts of cash through fraud? Is there a way that we can convince these same institutions to use Wikimedia Commons instead and are Wikimedia organisations (already) lobbying for this?

Something just doesn't feel right if this practice is acceptable. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not unlawful. If punching old ladies in the face were not unlawful, someone would be selling tickets for it.
Changing the law needs an organization with a decent amount of cash, lawyers, and a mission for open knowledge. Apparently, based on public actions, the WMF is indifferent to this practice and open knowledge is not why they have so many millions in the bank or so many volunteers work for them for nothing. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ: , But the WMF would benefit if Wikimedia Commons was a respected name amongst textbook publishers, museums, educational websites, Etc. They would see more donations and the groups I just mentioned would see less lawsuits or spend less for fraudulent licenses allowing them to donate more. How can we as volunteers lobby governments to change these laws? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The WMF does not want to touch this, because they are working with GLAM partners that have long histories of trying (and probably not doing a good job) of profiting off blatantly false copyright claims. I could list the organizations, but despite being true, someone always gets upset about actually naming names. The assertion is that we educate and inform and that will encourage them to change, but experience over the last 15 years is that a softly softly approach hardly has any impact, and in some cases these same organizations have doubled down and stuck their copyright claims on even more public domain works.
There is a Wikimedia EU lobbying group that helps MEPs with reports and briefings on copyright and open knowledge, but I have no idea who is really doing anything meaningful with top legislators in the USA.
For me, I was interested for a while in the EU lobbying, but 99% of it ends up feeling like a waste of time so it felt like I could have as much impact on copyright law by weeding my lawn and hoping for the best. --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
IMO, we need a free culture advocacy organization in the United States, say "Shorten Copyright Now!", that vigorously advocates for serious reforms to protect and expand the public domain and the use of freely usable content. There are so many free culture organizations, including WMF, that are uninterested or unwilling to get public policy changed in a meaningful way. The lack of political organization is honestly embarrassing. Did You Know?: the Sonny Bono Copyright Act essentially passed through Congress without any opposition, presumably because the free culture movement (at least at the time) was very poorly organized and had no political clout. Only after the law was passed did a bunch of organizations come out of the woodwork and support a lawsuit against it, but by then it was too late. "We" just sat by as the length of copyright was increased by 20 years, preventing hundreds of thousands of works from entering the public domain. All for what? The pocketbooks of Walt Disney and George Gershwin and the 2% of copyright holders who can make a profit in the 95th year after publication? This is what happens when the so-called leaders of this movement are reactive and not proactive. Well, I'm sick of it.  Mysterymanblue  09:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I am very much aware of all these copyright extensions being passed, what's worse is that almost any international "free" trade agreement requires people to retroactively add more copyright © into their systems, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam went from "Only some works are copyrighted for a short time" and exlcuded "works against the state" (essentially everything from South Vietnam and the Nguyễn Dynasty), to "Life + 50 years PMA" to now "Life + 70 years PMA" because of a large international trade agreement. Copyright laws are constantly being expanded through backdoor policies and the worst part is that most copyrighted works are often either anonymous or orphaned works that are claimed by copywolves like ALAMY. Usually exploiting educational institutions or others with an educational mission as those are the only ones that actually need to use them.
Wikimedia Commons is full of people that want this to change, how do we organise? Perhaps a group that shows monthly or bi-monthly developments in global copyright © laws and how it affects Wikimedia Commons. I see people discuss these changes individually in the many village pumps and on template pages all the time, such a group can also post "How you can help in your region" to allow groups of users to lobby local politicians. My problem is that so many images and other files of high educational value published over half a century ago cannot be on Wikimedia Commons purely because of the greed of an extremely small minority that don't even benefit from let's say a random photograph of a South Vietnamese president as a toddler with his father and brothers being copyrighted. But ALAMY does and I wouldn't be surprised if they and other Copywolves like the British Museum have a strong lobby. Copyright expansion in the West is halting, the 2000's proposed law that would make copyright © last "Life + 90 years PMA" was reduced because of backlash, but the European Union's draconian copyright law did pass and I am beginning to believe that we don't see tech companies rise in most of the EU because they cannot innovate because of strict copyright and patent laws. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
They're not "just exploiting institutions" with old posters. They don't differentiate about one subject or another. They're exploiting the public in general with any subject. See also COM:ALAMY. Somewhat outdated because the main editor of the page was (unfortunately) expelled by Wikimedia (a loss for relevant and critical analysis here), but still a good read. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  My suggestion, we should create a "Commons:Lobby" and/or "Commons:Advocacy" page(s) that address current faults in excessive intellectual property laws and list how they don't actually benefit creators (for example that most people don't actually make a profit from a work 50 or so years after the death of the author and that it prevents preservation or that it will attract copywolves that know that no heirs will sue them if it's orphaned), and explain how these laws can currently negatively affect them, for example the prices public museums, education textbooks, Etc. have to pay for licenses, list some organisations and political parties that agree, Etc. If I didn't upload that Fascist poster to Wikimedia Commons it is highly likely that someone that needs to use it might have paid ALAMY a large sum of cash to get the privilege of using a public domain image to educate people, not because that person wanted to make a profit but because they were afraid of paying ALAMY a large sum of money if they didn't pay them beforehand. Awareness is probably the first step, maybe we can try to pressure local Wikimedia chapters to spread more awareness and make folders, slogans, and campaigns they can use. We as unpaid volunteers that just want to educate people can stand up to these copybullies that literally are trying to steal school's lunch money. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: this may be out of topic, but both proposals (COM:Lobby and COM:Advocacy) may also encompass spreading of awareness and importance of freedom of panorama, a very complicated concept of copyright law with regards to permanent works seen by our eyes in public spaces. Lately, I accessed this Art Law Centre of Australia article which seems to advocate restricting exploitations of visual representations of public art (thereby risk classifying Australia as yellow). Not to mention the restrictions placed on FOP provisions in three Central American countries during 2000s (Costa Rica, Honduras, and Nicaragua) to "for personal use only". While Wikimedia is active in promoting Wikimedia movements like greater representation of Africa, racial equality, and free content access in far-flung parts of the continents, this FOP matter must also be taken into account. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    @JWilz12345: , it is not out of topic, in fact I think that we should just create "general resources" that can let us combat and counterargue these expansions of copyrights. In "Advocacy" we can list arguments for artists and why such laws may actually be detrimental to them, how the laws are currently being abused, Etc. And under "Lobby" what you (as the person reading it) can do about it, which groups to support, how to contact (local) governments, but also GLAM's already on board, Etc. We can also document any change to any copyright laws in an easy to access page and how it will affect Wikimedia Commons, currently such posts are scattered around, often on PD template talk pages, village pumps, and administrators' noticeboards, or just individual country copyright law pages. The information should be easily accessible and easy to spread. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I have been thinking over this for a while, but how to actually proceed? It seems that a lot of people are in agreement that we, as Wikimedia Commons volunteers, should be doing something to get more educational material that is only being exploited ascended into the public domain and try to fight this culture of extortion by providing a good alternative to ALAMY. But should someone be bold and make those red links blue and then proceed to discuss how to forward there (as the "lobby" and "advocacy" ideas are two (2) different topics as one involves political action, while the other involves general awareness and GLAM's). Perhaps it would be better to discuss such things on the talk pages of those project pages and decide on what we, as a community, can actually do to raise awareness and accomplish those goals. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the Black Mirror logo sufficiently complex to meet the threshold of originality (or is it PD-ineligible)? We currently have a recreated approximation on Commons and on en.wiki are using a screenshot under fair use. I'm talking about the title card with the text "BLACK MIRROR" in white on a black background when the crack has appeared but before the letters have begun to fade—it's shown right at the start of the default episode shown on Netflix ("Striking Vipers") if anyone needs to see a bigger copy. Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

If it is really a photograph of a shard of glass on top of some text, it should be copyrightable. The "recreation" should be fine since it below the TOO, just sliced up text. Honestly, I don't like how we have the "recreation" of the Black Mirror logo because it doesn't even really look like the real thing. We shouldn't go around saying that that's the logo if it isn't.  Mysterymanblue  21:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
It's a digital animation of a crack that looks like a glass shard. Bilorv (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The actual Black Mirror logo looks copyrightable. Our approximation should not be called "Black Mirror logo" as that is highly misleading. It needs to be moved to a new title. Nosferattus (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't our approximation be a copyright violation as a COM:DW? -M.nelson (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
IMO, the approximation is only a derivative of the common elements of the logo and is not itself above the threshold of originality, so it should probably be ok.  Mysterymanblue  18:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm agreed that File:Black Mirror logo.svg needs a rename. Any suggestions? Thanks for the other opinions, everyone (looks like the status quo is probably the right outcome). Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps File:Unofficial approximation of the Black Mirror logo.svg? I know that this is a mouthful, but something like File:Unofficial Black Mirror logo.svg or File:Simplified Black Mirror logo.svg still suggests that the depicted image is of the Black Mirror logo, which it isn't.  Mysterymanblue  08:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the poster

Shouldn't File:Harbor Beacon Park Ride- Metro Silver Line.jpg be marked as de mimis due to the poster inside the shed? I'm asking because I don't know if the poster is copyrighted. Unbinilium-322 Dibromide (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

If created by the government of California, it may be in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think the poster is unlikely to be in the public domain considering that Vision Zero and the LAPF are not governmental organizations. (What about SAFE? I couldn't find any information on it despite my best efforts - let this be a lesson to always choose a distinguishing name.) Also, we should be careful about assuming that anything that appears in a government publication—especially high quality, generic photographs—is necessarily in the public domain. Indeed, the background of this particular poster appears to be from "Frightened man after hitting child", a stock photo, and thus the poster is almost certainly non-free.
That being said, this image is meant to depict a bus stop, and I think it is probably de minimis.  Mysterymanblue  09:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree: Copyrighted poster, but the inclusion in the image of the bus stop is incidental, so it is de minimis. A {{De minimis}} warning can be added if you want, but it's not a necessity (as COM:DM says: the vast majority of such files are not identified in this way). Gestumblindi (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Primer belonging to the Nazi Party

I have a question, this document from the psychiatrist Hans Asperger who belonged to the Nazi Party, can it be on Wikimedia Commons?, Because I placed the following license:{{PD-GermanGov}}, And I also have another question, according to this site [1]says that this photo in which Hans appears is in the public domain according to the following: A personal photo from Hans Asperger’s files. This photo was edited for website template sizing, as well as for dust and scratch marks. (Image credit: Hans Asperger, National Socialsm, and "race hygiene" in Nazi-era Vienna / BioMed Central / under CC BY 4.0), Is this true?--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The status of old anonymous photos is rather complicated in Germany. Ruslik (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa

See Commons:Deletion requests/Burj Khalifa-related

The Burj Khalifa, and FOP vs architectural copyright is complicated here. This could use more eyes. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I was searching through old copyright registrations. They often look like this:

Knights of the air; marching song; band pts. © Oct. 10, 1940; E pub. 89252; Frank Frank, Warren, Wy. 37101

I understand everything in this registration text except for that first number, 89252. What does it mean? I thought it might be a registration number, but I was able to find a different work with the same number:

Alone in love; w and melody. © 1 c. June 22, 1934; E unp. 89252; Art E. Beyer. 12379

I suppose that it's still possible that it it is a registration number if it, together with the class and publication status, forms a unique identifier. (i.e. "E pub. 89252" and "E unp. 89252" are two separate registration numbers.)  Mysterymanblue  19:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Why Hammering Man is public domain?

In the past, images of Hammering Man located in the US and South Korea were deleted and then restored.

In the United States, freedom of panorama is applied only to buildings, and in South Korea, freedom of panorama is applied only to non-commercial purpose, so they were deleted.

However, they were restored because Hammering Man is public domain.

Why Hammering Man is public domain?

Ox1997cow (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-10#File:"Hammering Man" art, Seattle, Washington LCCN2011630311.tif and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-10#Category:Hammering Man, Seoul. It sounds like copies were sold or offered for sale, so the work is considered published. And without copyright notice. You could ping users who participated to the discussion. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

UK Open Government Licence

Being a beginning admin, I have some questions regarding the UK Open Government Licence (OGL), sometimes referred to as "Crown copyright". I found this page, Commons:UK Open Government Licence, from which it appears that images licenced with that licence are accepted on Commons. That page, however, is unfinished and a some years outdated. On meta, I found this: m:Open Government Licence, which is more recent and mentions three templates which can be applied, OGL (for OGL1), OGL2, OGL3. OGL3 appears the most recent and relates to the current version of the licence: My questions are:

Thanks, Elly (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  • OGL is not Crown Copyright. Although some content could fall under both.
You're aware (I would hope!) of the difference between "copyright" and "licence"? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I would hope so too, but I am a Dutch native speaker, perhaps my English is confusing. I would love to hear your answers to my questions. Elly (talk)
  • There should be better linking between the Crown Copyright page and the OGL page, but this is the main thing that's needed.
  • The OGL page could use a rewrite. It's outdated (no OGL 2 or 3) but mostly it's much too hard to read and comprehend. I'm not even sure that some of its claims are true (government staff do have some choice of licence). It also phrases OGL as being similar to CC-by, but long-term it reverts to something more like Crown Copyright, in how its eventual drift to PD is handled.
  • Neither the Meta nor the Commons OGL pages are really good examples. We don't give one precedence over the other (because neither are policies, they're simply our explanatory notes to external constraints). Both should be pretty much identical: if one is better than the other, the other should be brought up to that level. Any apparent conflicts should be resolved, as there shouldn't be any: as these are only our explanatory notes, not policies under our projects' control, then any conflict indicates that one of them's wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Andy Dingley: , I will make some changes/updates to the two Commons pages listed as far as I feel confident in this matter. Elly (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking for a go or no-go on uploading a Canadian Government publication that is out of copyright to Wikimedia Commons.

Canadian Copyright Law guidelines (https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr02281.html) stipulate:
"Works of Crown copyright
Crown copyright applies to government publications (thus, created for or published by the Crown). Copyright in these works lasts for the remainder of the calendar year in which the work is first published, and for 50 years after that."

More specifically, would images/maps from: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/themes/defence/caf/militaryhistory/dhh/official/book-1964-expeditionary-en.pdf, which was published in 1962, and thus out of copyright since 2013, be acceptable to upload to WMC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterMacK (talk • contribs) 04:06, 14 July 2021‎ (UTC)

You answered your question yourself. Ruslik (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@MisterMacK: Yes, that should be acceptable.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A file I've been having doubts with for a while.

Please see File: Former Congolese president Laurent-Désiré Kabila (cropped).png and its discussion page. Although I put it on English Wikipedia (when I was under a different account), after searching on Google, I began to have doubts regarding the file. Like I said, please see the talk page. Caehlla2357 (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Small, no meta, cropped and has been on the internet for many years before the upoad to Commons. It sure walks like a copyvio, swims like a copyvio and quacks like a copyvio. Add to that that the uploader is also claiming own work on another file which is a mugshot. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Caehlla2357 and Asclepias: I tagged it as a copyvio. Why is Caehlla2357 "under a different account"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Re: "Under a different account": Caehlla, the account incorporating the photo to English Wikipedia, was a former account I used. However, I had forgotten my password there, and later made this account. I hope this clears up any doubts. Caehlla2357 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, for further clarification, I am not, and do not claim to be, the uploader, and I simply incorporated it into English Wikipedia, as I believed such claims. This does have the side effect of making me have trust issues from now on. Caehlla2357 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
It appears to be a crop of a photo available on this page (not the direct source, but there were earlier versions floating around the web). No credit or provenance there, but since it has definitely been previously published, we would need some evidence the uploader was actually the photographer, which was not provided. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded this flag File:Bandeira_exército_imperial_certo.png but now I want to make it available to public domain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galahad1822 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If you drew all of that yourself, you can always change to a less-restrictive license like {{CC-Zero}}. If you copied copyrightable portions of that flag from other works (i.e. did you actually draw the crown there, or copy it?), you would need to follow the licenses of those works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Haiti Youtube Video Copyrighted

The Youtube Video used for File:Transfer of the body of Jovenel Moïse.png was copyright claimed by Haiti Viral News. Because of this, does the uploader, Leve Kanpe Pou Haiti, have the ability to release this image? --Pithon314 (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. Ruslik (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Pithon314, Ruslik0, LLs, and 廣九直通車: No. I tagged it as such.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for tagging the file for copyright violation. When I reviewed the file I seems to find no relevant hits on both TinEye and Google Reverse search, but this is wrong. I'd also like to ask here if there are any other tools to check the publication status of image files?廣九直通車 (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the copyright violation tag. Yes, any other tools would be interesting because it was cleared by YouTubeReviewBot but this must have been before the copyright claim onto the video. --Pithon314 (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@廣九直通車 and Pithon314: You're welcome. Evidently, Haiti Viral News has one or more tools for searching for videos they created, or was extra vigilant.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Latest treemap of Brazil exports

Hi. I want to upload latest treemap of Brazil exports using this source (https://oec.world/en/profile/country/bra). I can see there are many treemaps which were uploaded before by using this site. If I upload such file, should I use same license as was used before (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brazil_Exports_Treemap_2017.svg) or any other license you people suggest. Thank you. 2804:29B8:5021:327:85BC:9DBE:1885:660A 01:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The Terms of Use are very different from the source of the old map. You probably cannot upload here anything taken from oec.world. Ruslik (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Illustrating known people?

Hey, I'm trying to search around for information about original artwork or illustrations that showcase identifiable people who otherwise don't have photographs available under an acceptable license. Is this something that would be accepted, or would it be in vain? --EdoAug (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@EdoAug: Such illustrations may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as long as they 1. are not a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph and 2. are freely usable or in the public domain. However, the different Wikimedia projects and Wikipedias may take different views on the actual use of such illustrations. On the English Wikipedia, for example, there was an illustration heading the article on Kim Jong Un for some time because a free photograph did not exist. For long dead people, illustrations are often the only option, but for living people, photographs are almost always preferred.  Mysterymanblue  03:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@EdoAug and Mysterymanblue: I am interested in identifying more examples of this and would like to have documentation for it.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

My view on the COM:DW matter is that it is the final product that matters rather than the product/thought behind creating the image (thus putting it more in line with COM:TOO than COM:DM). So if you watched some copyrighted videos of a person and then drew a portrait of them based on your memory of those videos (intentionally trying to avoid mimicking any specific pose or lighting), it would probably be OK, since you did not use any copyrightable aspects of those videos, but merely their likeness. An analogue would be the use of copyrighted sources to provide facts for a Wikipedia article. For a more rigorous thought experiment, let's say there are 10 copyrighted photos of a person all taken in different settings. Randomly sample 5 of them and call them Group A, and put the other 5 into Group B. Have the artist draw a portrait based on Group A, and then ask people to guess whether the portrait was based on A or B. If it's a statistical tie in the end, then we can safely conclude that the portrait is not a DW of A from a copyright perspective. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I largely agree with King of Hearts. I recall an early Kim Jong-Un illustration was deleted as it was clearly copied from a copyrighted image (similar to the Obama HOPE poster); the image which was kept for a few years was deemed to be the artist's creation which, while undoubtedly influenced by copyrighted images, was unique enough to not be a DW. -M.nelson (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Money box based on a 1935 radio - your thoughts?

  • The money box
    The money box
  • The original radio
    The original radio

I just uploaded File:Rex-Medium Sparbuechslein 1935.jpg, but now I'm having second thoughts regarding possible copyright protection of the original object. Background: This is a little money box that was given away in ca. 1935 to advertise the Autophon radio model "Rex-Medium". It is a quite faithful miniature replica of the original radio, of which I also uploaded a picture: File:Autophon Rex-Medium (cropped).jpg. The original radio, as an utilitarian object, will most likely not be protected by copyright per COM:UA and we have many such pictures on Commons. But if you make a money box out of the design of that utilitarian object, does that argument still hold? Gestumblindi (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @Gestumblindi: I asked a similar question at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Statues of useful articles. Very few people seemed interested in this topic, but one, Marchjuly, hypothesized that it is unlikely that a slavish reproduction of a useful article, even at greater size, would be sufficiently original to garner copyright protection. In the absence of better legal evidence, I think that this is a reasonable theory for us to operate under. I am still concerned that these reproductions may be protectable given the established protectability of toys that depict useful articles, but I have not yet seen a scholarly or legal discussion of a case where a non functioning duplicate of a useful article's copyrightability was in question.  Mysterymanblue  06:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: Thanks for your reply - quite funny that your case is about an oversized replica and mine is about a miniature :-). In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'm of course content with Marchjuly's assessment and happy to apply it to this case as well. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue and Gestumblindi: I apologize for not responding sooner. I'm not sure whether what I posted in that other discussion is just as applicable to this particular case. A "money box" might be considered a type of utility object, but that could depend on the design of the box itself or whether the box might be considered a COM:TOY of some kind. When I hear the term "money box", I think of "en:Piggy bank" and as best as I can remember "piggy banks" were usually located in the "Toy" section of most stores when I was young; so, I'm not sure how such an object would be classified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly and Gestumblindi: As I understand your reasoning, it is based off of the idea that a slavish reproduction of a useful object cannot be the subject of copyright, even if that reproduction is not itself useful. The enlarged statue of the Weber grill is just as non-useful as the money box, so I am not sure why there would be a difference here.  Mysterymanblue  22:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
As I posted above, I don't know how such a money-box would be categorized. I'm also not sure that a large statue-like BBQ grill installed outside some manufacturer's offices and minature toy-like version of a radio are necessarily going to be considered equivalent when it comes to their respective copyright status. There might also be a difference due to the country of origin of each. Perhaps someone more familiar with this type of thing will be better able to help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Bill Jaques.jpg

File:Bill Jaques.jpg was uploaded as "own work", which seems to due to a misunderstanding of what "own work" means; however, if the photo is from 1922 as stated in the file's description, then perhaps the photo is too old to still be protected by copyright. Since the photo was intended for use in en:Bill Jaques, the country of origin is likely England; moreover, since the the subject of the photo is supposed to have died in 1925, it seems to have been published prior to 1926. If you do a Google image search for this, you find the same photo for being sold online here (which states the photo was taken in 1921), but that website seems unlikely to be the original copyright holder of the photo. So, it seems almost certain that this was "published" prior to 1926, but the original author is unknown. Would {{PD-US-expired}} be applicable in such a case? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think that it was published before 1926? It may be a private photo published only recently. Ruslik (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Sure looks like a published image, maybe a portion of a team photo or something. Things like timing of publication long after creation are usually theoretical doubts, below the significant doubt level of COM:PCP, unless there are some indications to the contrary. And the image being sold has a caption under it, which was clearly published. Given that the country of origin is the UK though, it would have to qualify for {{PD-UK-unknown}}. It probably does, though seeing the original publication with no author mentioned would be best, but perhaps if that second link (which likely has access to old publications) is not bothering to identify a named photographer, then that is enough to make the assumption that the original publication did not either. Finding a random thumbnail on the internet with no provenance though, often is not enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg and Ruslik0: Same photo can also be seen here and here. FWIW, I doubt this is a the "own work" of the uploader and that most likely they just found the image somewhere online. I was only asking for opinions on whether this might be PD just to see if there was any chance it could be kept if converted to another license. If PD is not a possibility, then I think the image most likely would need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Obviously not "own work", but it's also virtually certain to be from a publication in 1921 or before, given the information here, and the captions in the images. So I'd say {{PD-anon-expired}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The site vintagefootballers states "hard to know but it’s possible this photograph, showing what appears to be quite a young man, was taken prior to the First World War". Not sure what the mention of 1921 means at the top of the page. Maybe that it was found in a 1921 publication. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • {{PD-UK-unknown}} is another option. Also, it would be a very good idea to engage with the uploader, to both ascertain where exactly they found the image, and to instruct them on how to properly denote the source and license/PD-templates for images that they did not personally create. It is quite easy—and perhaps should even be reliably expected—for well-meaning novice Commons users to inadvertently claim ownership and add incorrect license using Upload Wizard, especially since many specialized PD-templates are not provided. --Animalparty (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    I've left a note about this discussion on the uploader's user talk page, and asked them to clarify where they found the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Official emblem of the 4th of August Regime

I have a question about copyright status of the official emblem of the 4th of August Regime. This emblem was used by Metaxas government in 1936–1941. It appeared in books, on streets and stamps. Is it OK to upload this emblem to Commons?

Links:

1) emblem, emblem, emblem

2) information about the emblem with samples of its usage

3) stamp with this emblem صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Good day. Recently, I have recently uploaded File:Jose Rizal - Pakikipagsulatan ni Rizal sa kanyang mga kasambahay, 1876-1896.pdf, a series of letters written by Rizal, compiled by a certain "Pambansang Komisyon ng Ikasandaang Taon ni Rizal" ("Jose Rizal National Centennial Commission", see corresponding law proclaiming said government commission), and tagged it under {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, since it should be classified under public domain as a work of the Government of the Philippines as it is made by a "Commission" created by said government. Would I be correct in saying that? Because I plan to upload several texts made by the Commission preserved by the Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, as well as texts written by the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (Commission of the Filipino Language), such as Patnubay sa Korespondensiya Opisyal to archive and transcribe to Wikisource.
However, I am having some thoughts on uploading the Patnubay, since their fourth page says the following: 

RESERBADO ANG LAHAT NG KARAPATAN. Walang bahagi ng librong ito ang maaaring sipiin o gamitin nang walang nakasulat na pahintulot mula sa may-akda at tagapaglathala.

Mga Editor: Leonida B. Villanueva, Rogelio G. Mangahas

Inilathala ng: Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino

My translation is as follows: 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this book may be copied or used without written permission from the author or publisher.

Editors: Leonida B. Villanueva, Rogelio G. Mangahas

Published by: Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino

The Komisyon is a a government body created by a corresponding law. Because of that, would their work be in the public domain? Note that the works by the Centennial Committee such as the one that I uploaded do not have such a notice. Poppytarts (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

مرحبا ويكيبيديا اريد استرجاع صفحتي والمعلومات الي ضفتها كلها حقيقية عني — Preceding unsigned comment added by الكوافير مصطفى حسام (talk • contribs) 16:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Updates to File:Brazil Product Export Treemap.jpg

A question from @Droogenbroeck: on the Wikipedia Teahouse has led me to this file. I was concerned about its licensing status. The licensing section says it uses CC-BY-SA 3.0; while the "Author" line in the summary says "Creative Commons 3.0 non-commercial license. 2012." And I haven't found anything on oec.world that mentions Creative Commons, though https://oec.world/en/resources/terms seems to have terms similar to CC-NC, though it does not allow derivative works. But I from User talk:Doubleodd2 that when they uploaded some of these in 2012 there was a concern about the licences; and that Doubleodd2 arranged that a mail was sent (to OTRS I presume) to authorise them. The question on Wikipedia is from somebody who would like to replace this diagram by an updated version, from https://oec.world/en/profile/country/bra . Does that permission from 2012 go forward to newer images? --ColinFine (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Hi. Sorry, we have no permissions mentioning that file, oec.world, or Doubleodd2. Do you have any ticket numbers or other filenames?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@ColinFine: It seems a different editor asked about this at en:WP:MCQ#File says non-commercial but also CC-BY-SA, which is correct?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
ColinFine, Marchjuly, Jeff G., Ruslik0 Thanks all.
1. I note there is whole category where such images were uploaded in 2017 by some bot (BMacZeroBot) what are your thoughts? Are they allowed? (Category:Images_from_the_Observatory_of_Economic_Complexity). I want to upload dozens of such files, so thought it is better to clarify before going on a uploading spree.
2. If I ask OEC representative to email OTRS and generate a ticket in which they license such files under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, then will that work?
Please clarify, as I am in contact with them and they may agree to release these files under aforementioned license. Thanks again for help. Droogenbroeck (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: , it was the then administrator @Cambalachero: who stated on User talk:Doubleodd in 2012 that "The files have correct and acceptable licences, and will not be deleted". I took that to mean that a suitable release had been received. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@ColinFine and Doubleodd2: Thank you. I found Ticket:2012030910013692. It discussed a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 License that appeared in 2012 on The Atlas of Economic Complexity website http://macroconnections.media.mit.edu/ or http://atlas.media.mit.edu/ , but that site no longer exists. Nine years later, there is no reference to such a license (or any Creative Commons license) that I can find on new site https://oec.world/ . Please have an official from that site post such permission there which allows commercial use and derivative works, or add to the ticket using address "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" and a subject including "[Ticket#2012030910013692]", without quotes.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Droogenbroeck: , who was the one asking about this. Doubleodd2 hasn't been active since 2012. --ColinFine (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@ColinFine: Doubleodd, who may be the same person, edited enwiki on 6 October 2020.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@ColinFine: I asked at en:User talk:Doubleodd#Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

RE/MAX: starting life in another logo variant

File:REMAX hot air balloon logo.svg was uploaded here today as the US Copyright Office denied registration for it some time ago. To be honest, I read that decision as not speaking to whether this design could be registered as its own thing but rather solely on the logo being too similar to the works it was based off of (which were registered). I don't think it falls below the TOO per se. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Brainulator9: I tagged it with {{Dw no source since}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Hmm... a source was given, it's just that I wanted more thoughts before I look like a fool trying to nominate non-problematic files for deletion. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Brainulator9: The source given is copyrighted by RE/MAX or learninglibrary.com. The USCO wrote that the logo is COM:DW of existing work still copyrighted, thus we can't accept it without permission per COM:L.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
That copyright decision is interesting to read, thank you for posting it. I agree that the denial refers to the changes between the already-copyrighted original logo and this new version; this version is still a derivative work of a copyrighted work and is not in the public domain. -M.nelson (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Brainulator9 and M.nelson: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:REMAX hot air balloon logo.svg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Can an old picture be copyrighted?

I have found very old pictures of trees in black and white a while ago, however, there is a copyright watermark on them.

This is visible: © Humboldi State University Library

I presume the photographs themselves should be in the public domain since they were taken at least 75 years ago and the photographer probably died by then, however, I do not necessarily understand all the intricacies of the U.S copyright system, so I wanted to ask here before doing anything about those pictures.

Here's a link : https://historycollection.com/26-photographs-lumberjacks-conquered-california-redwoods/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioSuperstar77 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi MarioSuperstar77. You'll find more details in COM:HIRTLE, but 75 years isn't really a long time in some types of copyright cases. At least one of the photos used in the article you linked to states it was taken around 1915 which means it would seem to certainly be old enough to be within the public domain (at least under US copyright law), but I'm not sure about the others. FWIW, I'm not quite sure that the library is the original copyright holder of the photos; perhaps the library digitalized the photos and thus thinks that makes it the copyright holder, but I I don't think that's necessarily always the case per COM:2D copying. It is, on the other hand, possible that the photographer(s) who took the photos or their estate(s) at some point donated the photos to the library and this included a transfer of copyright ownership; however, it's hard to say whether anyt copyright claim is still valid or whether the photos have lapsed into the public domain without knowing more about the en:provenance of each photo. Some of the photos are actually attributed to a Swedish photographer named A.W. Ericson and appear to be from a collection the library has of his work. It's quite possible Ericson himself or his estate donated the photos (includng their copyright) to the library, but it's also possible that they just are letting the library use the photos for the clollection. Have you tried contacting someone at the library to ask for clarification? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I did not contact them. That is partly due to the fact that I do not live in the United States and because I do not know whether this library has its own website and whichever domain it is hosted on. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@MarioSuperstar77: The article includes some information that could allow you to find more details about the origin of each photo. Among those photos, Commons has for example this one File:A bucked spruce LCCN2003671152.jpg, from the Library of Congress. As that file is part of massive uploads, its description page could be ameliorated with some details and categorization. You might find some others by exploring categories such as Category:Logging in California, Category:Historical images of trees, etc. The copyright in the United States often depends on the year of publication. The page of the Humbolt State University Library about its collection of photographs by Augustus William Ericson provides useful information. It specifies that the Library does not hold the copyright. The life dates of the photographer are 1848-1927. The photographs in the collection depict "scenes and activities from circa 1880-circa 1925". And "Ericson's work was widely published and appreciated during his lifetime". That is indicative that those photographs are probably in the public domain, but you could possibly find more details. The copyright mark in the article you linked could be an initiative of the website, not a request by the Library. Or if the Library claims a copyright on the digital reproductions, that is not considered a valid claim by Commons. This photo, not attributed and dated c. 1910 in the article, is attributed to Charles Clifford Curtis, dated 1891 and marked no known copyright restrictions at the Library of Congress. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Soyuz patchs

Someone could give a light in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soyuz MS-20 Mission Patch.png? The deletion request alleges that "Roskosmos is not a government agency, so this template and the mentioned Russioan copyright exception do not apply to their works.". If it is right, so the Category:Logos of Soyuz missions could be deleted. What do you all think? Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Bernardo Santoro.jpg

All the metadata info is on the file, and it has a good size, so it matches with an "own work". However, the same picture can be found on this person Twitter account (here). Is it COM:COPYVIO or not? Can we keep this picture or not? Regards.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 02:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The Twitter photo is cropped and of lower resolution, and there are no hits on Tineye. So without further evidence I think we can assume that Commons is the location of first publication of the photo at this quality, so no further verification is required. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, then. Thanks, King of Hearts.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Sky Woman, by Ernest Smith. 1936.

I wrote to a US museum recently to ask for high-res images of a couple of paintings they hold, for use in a WP article. Here are the paintings, which were funded by the WPA project. The paintings are therefore government work/public domain. The nice lady at the museum wrote back and confirmed that the paintings were federal work, but said they license the digital images and I can only have them via their request/authorization process. I can "submit a request, and the committee meets every Thursday". Now, am I going to be OK if I pull a Derek Coetzee and piece together medium-res images on my own, to upload here? It is only the above two images.Possibly (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to do this, but I uploaded one of the images (at right). Would still like to hear if I am on the right track.Possibly (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The fact that a project is funded with government money does not transform the artists into regular employees of the government. However, if you can show that work is in the public domain, possibly for another reason, then you might have a case of PD-Art. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC) Cf. better answers below. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The artists of the WPA program were federal employees. The painting is PD. Most photos are indeed copyrightable separately from the object itself, however there was one ruling (Bridgeman v. Corel) that straight-on, full photos of paintings are basically reproductions and are not original. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. While that is only a binding ruling in a small portion of the country (it was a district-level ruling, not a circuit court nor the Supreme Court), it does appear that has been cited favorably in other cases. Many museums earn revenue through licensing photos of their works, so they will not say that any of their photographs are PD in that way, as if you agree to a contract over such photos, that contract would still be binding. They are not required to provide photos of anything, so can certainly withhold high-resolution photos unless you agree to a contract. Commons policy is to follow the logic of that ruling, so they are fine to upload in the sense that we would not delete them. I don't think a similar court case has been filed since Corel (indeed, other rulings have expanded reproductions-are-PD concept to other types of reproductions). If they are using technological measures to protect high-resolution photos, and you are finding ways to circumvent them, it could get more interesting I guess, as I'm not sure that situation has been directly addressed in a court case. It's unlikely that the technological circumvention parts of copyright law could be applied, but a court might consider that you are bound by the terms of use of the website, so there could be contract law issues separate from copyright. It's up to uploaders to assess any such legal risks, really, as they are ultimately liable. Nobody knows the legal status of every situation in every locality, nor if there are any special personal agreements in place. Deletions here (as site policy) are therefore usually based on copyright alone (unless the act of hosting a work violates some other law, such as privacy rights). And outside of copyright or other types of law, you can damage your own relationship with an institution by going against their wishes, if that is something you value. In the end, it's your judgement call. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: [edit conflict] The "employee"/"contractor" distinction is key. Most WPA works were created by "employees", and would be in the public domain, but some, especially larger murals, were commissioned. The General Services Administration is open to inquiries about specific artworks, but my opinion is that it's fair to assume that a WPA painting is public domain unless there is evidence to the contrary. And if it is public domain, then it's fine to host on Commons. I would encourage you to try working with the museum, however, as it may yield better results in the long term. See File:Vegetation Wants To Be Free at WikiConference USA 2015.webm for a similar situation. Nosferattus (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg and Nosferattus: thank you for the coherent, relevant and detailed answers. I will keep all of this in mind. BTW, there was no copy protection cracking– I just downloaded that image form the given source and cropped the white border. Thanks.Possibly (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: Please be sure to wrap in {{PD-Art}} any reproduction of PD art which is not explicitly free (e.g. photographed by the federal government or yourself), as I've done for you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI

In march Bucerius Verlag, publisher of german weekly paper "Die Zeit", published a magazine "Die Zeit Wissen - Zensur, Geschichte der Meinungsfreiheit" ("Censorship, history of freedom of speech"). It contained one of the photos I published at commons, but with a errornous attribution ("C.Suthorn / Wikipedia"). This has now been corrected. The magazine, that can be lent as an epaper via the "Onleihe" from public libraries or bought from ikiosk.de as epaper (available worldwide), shows now the attribution "C.Suthorn cc-by-sa-4.0 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ralf_K%C3%B6nig_mural_Brussels_(cropped).jpg). --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

So tired of seeing people not respect the terms of CC licenses. Good for you.  Mysterymanblue  02:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Belgium TOO

I'm not sure if the uploader's claim that File:Belgium national football team notext.png is correct here because of rbfa.be/en: simply removing the text from the team logo seems to at least make this a possible derivative work which means the copyright status of the original logo would need to be assessed per COM:Belgium. Moreover, en:File:Royal Belgian FA logo 2019.svg is essentially a modified version of the same logo in svg format that was uploaded as non-free content to locally to English Wikipedia. I'm not sure where the Commons file came from, but it was uploaded after non-free version was uploaded to English Wikipedia. If the licensing on the local file is correct (i.e. the logo is too complex to be PD), then the Commons file is basically also not PD since the text that was removed seems to be the least copyrightable element of the logo.

While it might be argued that this is {{PD-logo}} in the US per COM:TOO United States, there's nothing in COM:Belgium about the country's COM:TOO; so, I'm not sure this would be PD for that reason in both the US and its country of origin. If Belgium follows anything close to en:sweat of the brow or COM:TOO United Kingdom, then I think this probably can't be kept unless there's another reason for it to be PD. I tried Googling this and came across this website which seems to imply the Belgium's TOO is quite low; in other words, it's closer to the UK's TOO than the US's TOO. Anyone have any opinions on this? FWIW, it's quite possible the local svg file uploaded to English Wikipedia is licensed incorrectly; so, I'm not just arguing that the Commons file can't be kept because of that. The local file's licensing can be sorted out later on if it turns out that the Commons file is PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The logo is probably complex enough to be above the Belgian ToO. Ruslik (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

PD-Art

I'm not sure the claim of "own work" is correct for File:Butler.AgnesMartin.2013.jpg unless the uploader means they're not only the person who took the photo but they're also the artist en:Sharon Butler. If they're not the artist, then the question is whether the photographed work could be PD per COM:PD-Art or would need to be treated as being protected by its own copyright. The image doesn't appear to be a 3D work of art per se, but it does have a 3D feel to it; so, COM:2D copying doesn't seem to apply and a license is, therefore, needed for the photo. If the work itself, however, is also deemed to be copyright protected on its own merit, then I don't think Commons can keep this without the consent of the artist. FWIW, the description states that the work is from a private collection which I guess could mean that the owner of the collection would be the copyright holder. Can Commons keep this as licensed or should it be treated as a COM:DW? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the uploader was informed of the problem last year on en.wikipedia. Apparently, it has not been clarified. I'm not sure how PD-Art could come into play even if the pictured thing was 2-D. Is it because it would be uncopyrightable as below the ToO? -- Asclepias (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
It is also treated as a work of art. If it were not one, we would have little reason to upload it. Also a "2D work having a certain 3D feel" sounds like being above the threshold of originality. Thus I see no way to keep it (other than to be undeleted in the distant future). "Private collection" usually means somebody bought the work or got it as gift. Copyright to art is seldom transferred (in contrast to logos, some photography etc.). –LPfi (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Asclepias and LPfi: Thank you for taking a look at this. FWIW, I only mentioned "PD-Art" above because I thought that would be the only way this might be possibly kept if the work might somehow be considered too simple to be eligible for copyright protection on its own. I also wasn't aware that someone else has queried the uploader about this before at en:User talk:UWSBird#possible conflict of interest. From that English Wikipedia discussion it seems fairly clear the that the uploader probably meant well, but that they are also not the artist Sharon Butler. This probably means that the two other photos of Butler's works that the uploader also uploaded as "own work" (File:Butler.deKeyser.2019.jpg and File:Butler.HVAC2012.jpg) as well as File:Painter Sharon Butler.jpg (EXIF data seems to indicate the file comes from Facebook) need to be at least verified by COM:VRT to be kept. Based upon what was being discussed on the uploader's English Wikipedia user talk page, I guess it's possible that uploader might be a representative for Butler and thus was uploading the images on her behalf; so, perhaps getting a COM:CONSENT email isn't completely out of the question. What would be the best thing to do here? Leave a message for the uploader on their user talk pages and see if they respond? Tag the files with {{Npd}} to see if they respond? Start a multiple-file DR to see whether they respond? All three approaches will likely eventually lead to the deletion of the files if the uploader doesn't respond, but the first and third approaches will at least give the uploader a bit more time to try and sort things out. FWIW, the uploader's account hasn't edit Commons since December 2020 and English Wikipedia since February 2021; so, it's not clear whether they're monitoring their user talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding unorthodox, I would say that, in terms of efficiency in this particular situation, a good approach might be to contact Sharon Butler and ask if she can help sort out the situation. That is, if someone is motivated to contact her. By the way, while looking at her webside, I found this. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Asclepias. I don't really have a lot of experience with that kind of thing, but I know there are some editors who do. I've asked about this at COM:OTRSN#Request for VRT assistance on the chance that there's a VRT volunteer out there who wouldn't mind trying to help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Platforms in French metro stations / FOP-France

Handling this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pont Cardinet 14 (1) par Cramos.jpg I do not know - as a beginning admin - what to decide. It is an image inside a rather modern metro station and it shows the architecture. There is No FOP in France. Does that mean this image has to be deleted? If it was only this image..., but there are so many of these, 345 subcategories of Category:Platforms on the Paris Metro alone, and perhaps of other French cities. Thousands of images. I would appreciate your comments. Elly (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The design seems purely functional and not copyright eligible. It is not a work of art. Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I wil close the DR while keeping the image. Elly (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Elly (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Footage taken by Netherlands military pilot, using US equipment, on training in US?

The work is tagged with the standard "US government work" copyright free tag, except it's specifically described as being taken by Royal Netherlands Air Force pilots. Audio from the source video seems to match that claim.

At the very least I suspect it should not be tagged as US government work. I also suspect Netherlands copyright law does not apply because the image was taken while in the US? Hopefully someone knows what to do.Kylesenior (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

If push came to shove, I suspect a US court would uphold the copyright of the Royal Netherlands Air Force. If it was first published in the US, it's probably a US work, though it could arguably be unpublished. I doubt the place of publication really matters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Isn't country of origin in Berne parlance indeed the jurisdiction where the work was first published? –LPfi (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
First lawfully published. Was in fact permission from the RNAF given to publish this? If it was, then the US would be the place first published. In any case, I don't think it matters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but something first published in 2003 (or since) would still be under copyright just about anywhere. It would be 70pma if a personal work in either country. I'm not as sure how a U.S. court would rule on this one, if it could be considered a work for hire or not. It could be considered a work specifically commissioned as part of a collective work, instructional text, or supplementary work, although that would require an agreement beforehand -- no idea what kind of contracts are in place over that sort of thing. They might also be considered "employees" under agency law -- the U.S. government would certainly be directing their activities, and owns the equipment, and controls the schedule and activities, and that sort of thing, which are *some* of the factors considered in evaluating that.[5] Not a normal salaried employee of course, but... kind of a weird situation. A personal photo would be owned by the pilot of course, but this was taken in the course of duties so I presume the copyright is either owned by the U.S. government or the Dutch government. There could also be a question of how much creativity a pilot has over these photos -- they are definitely pointing the camera but there does seem to be very limited control. The source is not a U.S. government site or account, so there is no explicit copyright statement (or lack thereof) from a government source, which would have been better. It simply states that the video was "released" within a couple days of the incident, so presumably that means by the U.S. government. If they own the copyright, then the tag is correct. Not sure this is worth worrying about, unless the Dutch government complains, but it does get into "interesting" theoretical areas. If copyright issues are spelled out in the contracts surrounding such training activities, that would decide things no matter what the law says generally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Munich massacre photo

I need to request for uploading a most-widely used photo of a kidnapper from the Munich massacre, but this image was published by the Associated Press without a US copyright notice. Previously, it was deleted on English Wikipedia for invalid fair use policy. --49.150.98.214 01:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Commissioned photos in India

Under Indian copyright law (especially in the 1970s), are there any provisions that make the commissioner of a photo the copyright holder rather than the photographer, in the absence of a long-term employment relationship? It would appear that s:The Copyright Act, 1957 was the law in effect at that time. (Context: Ticket: 2021061910002895.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

PD-Canada-anon

Currently, {{PD-Canada-anon}} says that anonymous works in Canada are PD 50 years after publication or 75 years after creation. However, I am unable to find evidence of the 50-year rule in the Copyright Act. In fact, 6.1 (1) seems to imply:

  • 75 years after creation, if unpublished while still in copyright; or
  • 75 years after publication or 100 years after creation, whichever is shorter.

Can someone double-check if this is correct? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It's correct. It was 50 and 75 until (I think) July 1, 2020, when Canada's updated copyright law (for the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement) went into effect. They increased the term of a few types of works/situations, with anonymous being one of them (they are still 50pma for usual works though). The increase was non-retroactive, so works expired under the old terms by 2020 remain PD. Wipolex doesn't have the updated law yet, actually -- their latest Canada version is from 2019. So yes, that tag needs updating, though it will be works published before 1970 or created before 1945, until 2046 when anonymous expirations will start again. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Slight correction -- unpublished anonymous works continue to expire after 75 years. So just published anonymous works get their term extended by 25 years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Please take a look at Template:PD-Canada-anon/en and let me know what you think. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
In the discussion last year on this question in /Archive/2020/07, it seems my search of the government websites missed one of the two orders in council issued in connection with the implementation act, number 2020-0215. That made me erroneously suggest to wait before changing the anon template. I'm sorry about that. The effect of this order in council was indeed to make section 24 of the implementation act (the change about anonymous works) come into force on 1 July 2020, a few days before the VP/C discussion, as Clindberg correctly mentions above. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, kind of amusing that it had just come into effect when that discussion happened, but we hadn't located the actual text. On the other hand, it appears that Canada was not forced to go to 70pma after all, since the new law is still 50pma as a general term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: The explanation seems to be in article 20.89(4)(a) of the Agreement, which allows a transition period for the implementation of this particular point, until no later than 1 January 2023. I suppose another implementation act can be expected for this at some time before then. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this YouTube screenshot of a celebrity acceptable?

Dear admin,

Please advice whether this YouTube screenshot is acceptable as an actor profile picture on his Wikipedia page.

If not, please inform on how I should solve this. Thank you...

The current photo on his wiki is also a screenshot from YouTube.

There are a few like this that were approved. For example: Photo for Kim Soo-hyun, Park Si-hoo, Lee Tae-min, and many more.

Picture I want to upload: [deleted]

YouTube source: KBS World TV

Caption: Jang Dong-yoon as MC for 2019 KBS Entertainment Awards

Date: 21 December, 2019.

License: {{YouTube CC-BY|KBS World TV}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunva718 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @M.nelson: Finally... Thank you so much for the information. It's really helpful. 1 more thing, I read that repeated copyright violations can get a user suspended. Please inform me how many times a user can upload pictures with copyright issues until it's deemed necessary to get the user suspended... Thanks again.Chunva718 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Chunva718: You're welcome. There isn't a specific number of allowed uploads with issues before a user is blocked - the blocking policy is at COM:Blocking policy. Generally a user is blocked if they continue to break policies even after having been warned and given a chance to improve. -M.nelson (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
      • @M.nelson: "even after having been warned". Well, I've got auto message like this, 3 times now: "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyright infringement / piracy. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing." Is this the form of warning that you meant about? I'd be very discouraged to upload medias now that I'd received that 3 times... Chunva718 (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
        • @Chunva718: No, if you're at risk of being blocked you will usually get a warning even more direct than that, with a very clear message like "You may be blocked soon". I don't think you'll be blocked if you make an honest mistake in the future. But you should only upload things if you're confident that they are freely-licensed, following the rules at Commons:Licensing, and if you aren't sure then it's much better to ask for advice like you did here. -M.nelson (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

WappenWiki

Should we add WappenWiki.org to the bad sources list, because this site has been licensed as {{Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}}, and it's ineligible on Commons. --49.150.98.214 05:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems like much of the content is old enough to be PD anyways. Commons:Problematic sources may be a better place for it, but as I've never heard of it, it might not be important enough to merit a feature on any of our pages. Just treat it like any other website, which by default is non-free but may contain some PD content. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: It depends COM:COPYVIO, this site is licensed under {{Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}}, but non-commercial Creative Commons license is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. --49.150.98.214 01:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Just because someone puts a {{Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}} on something, doesn't mean that it's not acceptable for Commons. It's as if they chose to not license it at all. It might still be PD, in which case any claims of copyright amount to copyfraud. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a collection of maps published by the South African government over many years but I'm not sure of the copyright status and which would be allowable on Commons. The South African copyright law establishes a term of 50 years from publication for government works - see {{PD-SAGov}} - which means that all maps published up to 1970 are now in the public domain in South Africa. But when it comes to the copyright status in the US I am uncertain as most of the guides involve the death of the author as one of the factors, and that doesn't apply here. I understand that those maps published up to 1945 are definitely in the US public domain as they were already PD in South Africa on the URAA date in 1996. But what of the maps published from 1946 to 1970? Do they really have a US copyright term of 95 years because of URAA? It seems illogical that the SA government could claim longer copyright for its works overseas than it has given its own works by its own laws. But I realise the law is not always logical. - Htonl (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] To get rid of that illogicality, many countries practice the Rule of the shorter term – but the USA does not. The USA gives the same protection to foreign (Berne country) works as to domestic ones, regardless of the law in the country of origin. So for the later maps to be free, you need some statute that makes them free according to the law in the USA. –LPfi (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Canada and Australia have confirmed via OTRS that this is the case for Crown Copyright. I think each country requires case-by-case handling, but it would not be unreasonable to conclude worldwide expiration of government copyright even without an explicit statement from the government if the situation warrants it. Think about why we follow URAA for works by ordinary people in other countries. Even if a government declares its own citizens' work to be public domain, they can still enforce their claim in the United States. On the other hand, when the government does it to its own works it's a bit akin to {{PD-author}}. Individual government employees would not be able to enforce their claim in the United States, because the United States would recognize the work as a "work for hire". As for the government itself, we can reread the law, look for examples in the wild, ask the government, etc. to gather as much evidence as possible and make an informed decision based on the facts. One concern is that a government could reverse policy and start enforcing its copyrights worldwide. But I don't think that's a huge problem: while we require free licenses to be irreversible, we have long carved out an exception to theoretically allow governments to reverse the PD status of works. Otherwise no work (e.g. by private individuals) would be truly PD at all, since a government could always retroactively change the copyright term to 200 pma in theory. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

argentina.gob.ar

The website of the Government of Argentina states that all contents are licensed under {{Cc-by-4.0}} unless otherwise stated. However, Paul_012 found a total of 9 images from Getty Images, with another photographers attributed on Getty's website. Given by the large amount of images copied, should we list argentina.gob.ar on COM:BAD or COM:PRS? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that an image appears on the Getty website does not mean that it is still under copyright. There are a number of images on the Getty website depicting the Boer War (1899-1902). All are out of copyright. Furthermore, Almy make a charge for some Creative Commons images, even if they are available free elsewhere, for example this image is also available here. Martinvl (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The cases in question (2020 Olympics photos) are all commercial images by professional photojournalists unaffiliated with the Argentinian government, and the CC licence clearly is not supposed to cover them. I don't know if the government has licensed the images, or if Argentinian law allows their use, but they should have been "noted otherwise", per their terms. This seems to have been a failure on the part of the employee who created pages such as [6] and [7]. The question is whether such failure is a prominent problem on the site (all ministries appear to be hosted on that domain). There are a lot of images from argentina.gob.ar on Commons (Special:Search/"argentina.gob.ar"); from a brief glance, the majority don't seem to be problematic. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Martinvl concern about media agencies, King of Hearts stated in another discussion that images sold Getty are generally original to their photographers, while Alamy has a history of stealing Commons images. When combined with the comments of User:Paul 012, is listing the website on COM:PRS suitable?廣九直通車 (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Drumont + La Libre Parole

I have a question concerning the copyright status of image File:18990910 Edouard Drumont and Libre Parole.jpg which is possibly an original image created for a 1991 book still under copyright. The image itself is a collage made up of two century-old images, one of which is available at Wikimedia in a slightly different format.

Edouard Drumont (cat) was a French journalist who published the antisemitic newspaper La Libre Parole (cat) at the end of the 19th century and railed against Alfred Dreyfus in the Dreyfus Affair. The image in question appears to be a collage of two images: an oval portrait of Drumont, from some other, more contrasty version of what appears to be the same image as File:Drumont 1903.jpg, and an image of the front page of La Libre Parole from 10 September 1899, announcing Drefyus's (second) conviction, which afaict is not available in Wikimedia Commons.

I'm no expert on copyright of derived works, but the image appears to me to contain a unique, creative, artistic adaptation, in the way that the center of the front page has been torn out, with shards of paper crumpled around the periphery, in order to frame the portrait. So, the question to me would be, who created this artistic adaptation?

Although the two images making up the collage are individually probably not under copyright, as they date to 1899 (newspaper) and 1903 (portrait), I see no indication that the uploader has acquired the two images copyright-free, and then created an original work by themselves and uploaded it. Instead, it appears they have uploaded an image from the book Dreyfus: A Family Affair. 1789-1945 by Michael Burns that they named in the sourcing for the image.[1] I don't currently have access to this book, but I could probably get it through an ILL to see if the book contains this image on page 241, as mentioned in the summary. If it does, should this image be removed from Commons? (P.S. it was difficult to find the right venue to post this question; why isn't there a link in the left sidebar for it?) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ Burns, Michael (1992) Dreyfus: A Family Affair, 1789-1945, Chatto & Windus, pp. 240–241 ISBN: 978-0-7011-3891-2. OCLC: 813249758.
According to view available on Google Books and as previously mentioned on the file talk page, the original caption in the book reads: "Edouard Drumont and the anti-Semite newspaper he founded. "The Traitor Convicted," reads the headline after the verdict at Rennes. "Down with the Jews!" (Roger-Viollet, Paris)". It appears to be a licensed image, which is also used on the cover of a different, later book.[8] The description on the licensor's website isn't very helpful as to establishing the date of first publication.[9] I'll start a deletion request. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks (here). Mathglot (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

PD-logo?

File:Hungamastart.jpg was uploaded by Hungamastart for use in en:User:Hungamastart/sandbox. It's possible that the uploader is somehow connected to the cpyright holder of the logo given the similarity between the username and the website's name, but at the same time people trying to create Wikipedia articles about a company, etc. sometimes mistakenly believe that they need to use the name of the company, etc. as their username. There's no indication on the Hungamastart's official website that it has released the logo as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}; so, it seems that VRT verification would at least be necessary here. That is unless the logo is deemed to simple to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:TOO United States and COM:TOO India. Any opinions on whether this can be converted to {{PD-logo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: This seems like a PR agency acting on behalf of the company as a paid editing effort to establish a Wikipedia article for the corporate brand. In any case, the image would not be eligible for copyright protection in either India or the United States and should have the PD mark instead. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes copyright? (Vietnamese law of 1994)

Quoting Nội dung toàn văn Ordinance No. 38-L/CTN1 of December 02, 1994, on protection of copyright:

"Article 7.- The author or the owner of copyright, as prescribed in Article 24 of this Ordinance, must comply to all provisions of law when he uses his copyright.

The State does not protect the copyright of the works which:

  • 1. Go against the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, damage the bloc of unity of the people;
  • 2. Campaign for violence, aggressive wars, sow hatred among nations, diffuse reactionary ideologies and cultures, depraved and debauched life, criminal behaviors, social evils, superstitions, which sabotage the fine customs and habits;
  • 3. Disclose secrets of the Party, State, military and security secrets related to the economy, foreign policies, private life of citizens, and other secrets which are protected by law;
  • 4. Distort history, negate revolutionary achievements, offend great men and national heroes, slander and hurt the prestige of organizations, and the honor and dignity of citizens."

(Text is in the public domain per "PD-VietnamGov" as an official translation.)

Any works from the Republic of Vietnam's government can be seen as #7 § 1, at least it States that such works are not eligible for copyright protections, not sure if this is the same as base copyright. Or does this assert that copyright © exists for such works but that the Vietnamese government wouldn't enforce it?

Also note that the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam does not recognise the legitimacy of the Republic of Vietnam, instead they claim that South Vietnam was ruled by the Republic of South Vietnam and that the Republic of Vietnam was an illegal occupation of the territory of the Republic of South Vietnam. So I don't think that Socialist Republic Vietnamese law treats Republic of Vietnam works as Vietnamese government works as they assert that the Republic of South Vietnam was the sole legitimate government at the time.

Also, symbols of the Republic of Vietnam are illegal in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, are illegal things copyrightable? (Where the illegality stems from something other than copyright infringement itself). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have another doubt here: what is the country of origin as per Commons policy and per URAA: Vietnam? The non-existent South Vietnam? Countries sometimes stop existing, they sometimes have no legal successors. While their citizens generally get new citizenship, we may have policy-related problem with anonymous/pseudonymous/government works from such countries. I suspect that works first published in South Vietnam do not fall under URAA. But unsure, which local copyright law should we apply per Commns policies: South-Vietnamese? ridiculous. Vietnamese? on what basis? Consider them PD? Ankry (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I think anonymous/pseudonymous works will just be considered to come from (Socialist) Vietnam, which has jurisdiction over authors from all of Vietnam. However, works by the South Vietnamese government, an entity that no longer functionally exists and is considered illegal by the government in charge (certainly prior to 1996, and still to this day), can be considered public domain, as neither the Vietnamese nor US government will protect those copyrights. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't apply elsewhere; it only applies here because of specific law of Vietnam. Biafrian works, by international and local understanding, are Nigerian works and protected (as far as I know) by Nigerian law. Works of the Biafrian government are probably considered to have escheated to ownership of the Nigerian government.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My concept draft for "{{PD-South VietnamGov}}":

Public domain This file is a government work by either the government of the French protectorate of Tonkin, the French protectorate of Annam, the colony of Cochinchina, the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina, the Republic of Southern Vietnam, the Provisional Central Government of Vietnam, the State of Vietnam, the First Republic of Vietnam, or the Second Republic of Vietnam and is therefore intelligible for copyright in modern Vietnamese law. The government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam maintains that between 2 September 1945 and 2 July 1976 only the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of South Vietnam were legitimate governments and that any rival governments were illegal ("reactionary" or "counter-revolutionary") organisations.

This template excludes:

  • Works by private or corporate authors which fall under the jurisdiction of the modern Vietnamese government.
  • Works by the governments of the Nguyễn dynasty, French Cochinchina, and French Indochina prior to 2 September 1945, these are "{{PD-Vietnam}}" on different grounds.

Legal disclaimer:

This image is or may contain a symbol or symbols prohibited by Vietnam's National Assembly, due to (variously) representations of South Vietnam, or similar governmental structures; or of organizations associated with said. Imagery covered may include the Flag of South Vietnam and emblems/insignias.

Template:PD-South VietnamGov/lang
  •  Notes, I use the term "South Vietnam" as a catch-all term to include any Vietnamese government other than the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of South Vietnam between 2 September 1945 and 2 July 1976, as all of these governments were treated the same, but as this includes a lot of different countries it is better to use the name of the longest extend and "most associated" country from this period.
Also note that in English the names "Republic of Southern Vietnam" (Cộng-hòa Nam-phần Việt-Nam) and the "Republic of South Vietnam" (Cộng-hòa Miền-Nam Việt-Nam) sound similar, but only one is considered to have been "a legitimate government" by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam today. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 Update, I have launched the template, anyone is free to improve the text there and I don't think that I've made any errors with the laws. I have brought this topic up numerous times since 2017 but usually didn't receive any input from any other contribitors, I think that "South Vietnam" works as a good short hand here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Are all of the works below subject to {{PD-animal}}?

Works that can be protected by copyright law are human works, and animal works are not subject to copyright law.

If so, are all of the works below subject to {{PD-animal}}?

1. A pattern on the leather caused by a wolf or tiger biting and scratching the leather

2. A paint pattern created by a dog or cat with paint on their paws moving around the paper

And, why no {{PD-plant}}?

Do you think it will be the subject of PD-plant if it is a work made in such a way as to cut rocks or walls as plants grow?

Ox1997cow (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A tree or tiger or a rock itself has no legal right to copyright, but a human-generated photograph or painting of that object is potentially copyrightable, as creative choices are involved in framing, lighting, composition, etc. Bite marks or claw marks are not copyrightable themselves, but a photograph of the marks might surpass the threshold of originality. See Category:PD-animal. A simple scan of a painting made by an animal would probably be ineligible for copyright per {{PD-animal}}, but a photograph of a nest made by a bird is copyrightable. Do you have any particular images in mind? If you can get a plant to paint a picture or operate a camera, maybe then we can discuss {{PD-plant}}. --Animalparty (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This template should be deleted as it has no basis in copyright law.
There are a handful of works - paintings by elephants - for which this is applicable. In all the others, this is relying on sheer invention within Wikimedia, who have no legal authority. In particular, the infamous monkey selfie, for which this template was invented.
This template is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question. It states that the content is PD, as animals cannot hold copyright (indeed they can't, vide the elephant painting case). However it fails to address the very real question of whether anyone else holds it, as Slater claims for the monkey selfie case. Per COM:PCP, it is simply outside Commons' remit to make such judgements. The monkey selfie is the worst case, as it flies so obviously in the face of PCP, but Commons should never be making such an assumption. As a result, there is is no case when this template could legitimately be used. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
As I understand the situation, it is the position of the Wikimedia foundation that works created by non-human animals are in the public domain, as evidenced by the lawsuit over the monkey selfie. For this reason, we act like it is settled law that these works are in the public domain, with the hope that, should anyone sue over the removal of one of these works, the foundation will back us up.
Does this go against the precautionary principle? Perhaps. But I, for one, am partial to the idea that the precautionary principle is for where the facts of a particular case are in question, rather than where a bold legal claim (that is rooted in reality) is being made.  Mysterymanblue  20:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I like to view PCP as the overarching principle on Commons, much as IAR is the overarching principle on Wikipedia. But that doesn't make them super-policies in the constitutional sense which all other policies and guidelines are subservient to. It just means that it's the default mindset to be in when you are unsure what to do. So it's OK for the community to follow aggressive interpretations of the law such as {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-animal}}, especially if implicitly or explicitly endorsed by WMF legal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "works created by non-human animals are in the public domain, as evidenced by the lawsuit over the monkey selfie"
But there is no such case, no such conclusion. It is "settled law" only in the minds of Wikimedia, no-one else.
Perhaps "works created by non-human animals are in the public domain", but that also depends on a conclusion that the sole creator was an animal. The monkey selfie still faces Slater's claim to hold the copyright (David Slater is a human and can indeed hold copyright, at least when Wikimedia permits him to) and that is far from settled law. If the "facts" are so clear, then it would be easy to cite the relevant case law. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: I am aware. I think you took my words out of context. I said "it is the position of the Wikimedia foundation that works created by non-human animals are in the public domain, as evidenced by the lawsuit over the monkey selfie." I am not saying that the lawsuit shows that non-human authorship implies public domain status, but rather that the lawsuit shows that the foundation has taken a particular point of view on this issue. The law is not clear, but I don't think it's an absurd conclusion for us to operate under, especially with the backing of the foundation.  Mysterymanblue  01:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • That is maybe the case, but what that says is that WMF has indeed appointed itself as the arbiter of the law (it has no such power). Also that COM:PCP has been abandoned - surely this is precisely the sort of case for which PCP was intended? The Slater case law might go one way or the other, but one thing we can say for sure about a situation which attracts the lawsuits this one has is that there is significant doubt attached to it. Slater has suffered inexcusable harm from WP's actions here, WP has also suffered harm to its reputation as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Let's be clear; the WMF has appointed itself arbiter of the law in the same way that everyone does and everyone has to. You made your statements having considered libel law, knowing that no court has ruled on your exact case; the WMF did not delete the file having considered copyright law, knowing that no court has ruled on their exact case. If no one is willing to take the case to court, then case law will never be written.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Which is getting it backwards; it is in our best interest to have this settled in the case law, instead of us running away from images we could use. It is expected that the copyright owner could sue the WMF, and the WMF is prepared to deal with that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's probably clearer, maybe even better, to have this settled in law by a clear judgement. But no part of WMF intention should ever say, "Let's force the copyright owner to sue us first and see how a judge decides"! (Nor does it) Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • You're assuming there is a copyright holder, when that's what is under discussion. There was wide consensus that we should do just that in a poll on COM:PD-ART, and on that page, the WMF response is
"WMF has made it clear that in the absence of even a strong legal complaint, we don't think it's a good idea to dignify such claims of copyright on public domain works. And, if we ever were seriously legally challenged, we would have a good internal debate about whether we'd fight such a case, and build publicity around it. This is neither a policy change (at least from WMF's point of view), nor is it a change that has implications for other Commons policies."
So that is WMF intention, as stated on a parallel case 12 years ago.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • You can't take a legal opinion on a different issue and extrapolate it here like that.
"dignify such claims of copyright on public domain" is begging the question. You can't claim "there is no copyright because we've decided there isn't, therefor we won't even address that question". For the case of mechanical reproduction of PD Art (the case you cite), then there is a pre-existing, independent legal basis for believing this to be PD. It's an existing principle, WMF would be right to defend it.
A principle, "We spent Wikimania with the Jimborati waving around posters of the monkey selfie. It would be unusually embarassing to have to admit this was wrong." has no legal basis. Nor have I seen this "We're here because we're here" principle espoused by anyone after the selfie was uploaded, until Wikimania took to gloating over it. This is doubly offensive: it's not merely ignoring Slater's claim (right against COM:PCP), it's revelling in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: It's not just the WMF; the United States Copyright Office explicitly says that they will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants, and give "a photograph taken by a monkey" as an example of this (Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, section 313.2) Vahurzpu (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Several issues: That has absolutely zero relevance to my point. My first comment here was "elephants can't hold copyright", no-one (outside PETA) claims that they do. But the point here is that this is no reason whatsoever that David Slater doesn't, an issue which US courts have not as yet ruled upon.
Secondly, that's the Compendium. It's advisory, explanatory and generally correct - but it doesn't set the law, courts do.
As a third point, it doesn't even matter if the US sees no copyright here, Slater might hold a valid copyright elsewhere, and WMF policy (and PCP) is clear that that would be enough to prevent it being here, whatever the US situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
It's also not settled law that the individual that designed the autofocus and thus had some creative control of the monkey selfie doesn't have copyright. But I think it in our interest, and in everyone's, to minimize extraneous copyright claims, and if it were a bunch of children, I don't think we'd be giving much voice to Slater's copyright claims.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your original question, {{PD-plant}} could certainly exist, much as {{PD-river}} for say photos of the Grand Canyon. But it is so obvious to anyone that a river or other geological process cannot own copyright that we don't need to point out that it's OK to make "derivatives" of "works" created by these inanimate objects, which includes plants. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm seeking feedback on the historic images in this collection, scanned by the University of Iowa. The images were under copyright in 1911, upon the Anderson Publishing Company's publication of the Standard Atlas of Mitchell County, Iowa. That copyright is expired and the images would normally belong in the public domain. However, the University states, here, "No commercial reproduction or distribution of this file is permitted without permission." Can the UofI restrict distribution of these files? The University of Iowa states other scanned images in their collection are in the public domain. Firsfron (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

See w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for copyright claims on reproductions of public domain works which is called w:copyfraud. This webpage The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art is also worth a read. Ww2censor (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. This is what I believed as well. I have reached out to the university library, respectfully asking them to change the copyright notice on these images, as I fear uploading an image from this collection on Commons would result in its deletion when the source link is examined by other editors. Additional advice is appreciated. Firsfron (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
If you clearly state why the image is copyright-free, I see no problem with the source claiming copyright. Photos by White House Staff often seems to include metadata that claim strict copyright. But these claims are invalid since they are by law copyright-free (cf. Commons:White House photostream). It is not difficult for a potential reviewer to confirm that the images are indeed from 1911, and so it is obvious that they are not copyrighted regardless of what the museum says. Sigvid (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both. Based on this feedback, I have uploaded Bailey, Iowa, plat map, 1911. Firsfron (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Firsfron: Your upload looks fine, so no matter what a university, museum or other institutions claims the US law is what matters. I would not even bother asking them anything. Ww2censor (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Own work"

Hi, can someone please have a look at these two images from 1981 and from 1991? Can those really be "own work"? They sure look more like "own scans" to me... --91.34.35.162 14:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • First one - why not? It's 1981, so that would be chemical film and would require scanning later on. That doesn't mean the scanner wasn't also the photographer.
The second one's a bit more of a problem. Looks like a book scan, which is credited, but who's issuing that CC licence? You can't license stuff you don't control yourself. There may be some explanation here, it might even require OTRS, but I'd start a discussion with the uploader on their talk: page. If there's some reasonable explanation, then great. Remember COM:AGF! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

1917 US county sheriff's record as found on Ancestry.com

I've found an image of a "wanted" flyer on ancestry.com from the Butte County, California Sheriff's office, dated September 27, 1917. Ancestry.com materials are (unsurprisingly) marked as copyrighted, but since the image is of a government record originally intended to be freely disseminated, and over a century old, is it usable? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

US works published more than 95 years ago are PD, and this was clearly published by the law at the time. So it is PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The community should be aware of the large number of U.S. coins currently subject to deletion discussions relating to their copyright status. These deletion discussions are primarily based on prior discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/Post 2003 U.S. commemorative coins designed by AIP artists or as part of a competition, Commons:Deletion requests/Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images, and Commons:Deletion requests/US Mint Registered Copyrights. While I thought the underlying issue governing these coins' copyright statuses was largely settled (which is why I filed so many DRs), some who did not have a chance to express opposition to the previous DRs have expressed concern now. As prior deletion discussions on this issue did not garner much community input, I think it's valuable to post such a broad action here to try to settle this once and for all. Central discussion here may be more valuable and less time-consuming than discussions at each of the DR pages.  Mysterymanblue  05:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Mysterymanblue  05:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Mysterymanblue  05:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: There are a large number of deletion requests about the same thing. A centralized discussion makes the most sense and saves time for everyone. This forum should contain a representative sample of the community. If I wanted to forum shop (which is not what I wanted to do), I would have only posted about three of the DRs, since they are the only ones with a significant amount of opposition. As the nominator of these files, it would theoretically be in my best interest to try to force anyone who opposed me to seek out each of these nomination pages individually and spend time making comment at each of them. Of course, I don't want to do that because my goal here is not to get internet victory points.  Mysterymanblue  18:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I purposely kept away from adding to this today because I obviously wrote the above in haste and forgetting "assume good faith", so my apologies. Hopefully internet victory points (collect all 10!) go with allowing articles like the First Spouse Program and American Liberty high relief gold coin to roam free, and not be decimated for really nothing (as nobody involved with the coins or images has complained, officials of the mint and everyone of authority involved have to know that these images are being hosted on Wikipedia pages, and are fine with sharing the images with the public). Others seem to have adequately rebutted the nomination below, and yes, it makes sense to hold this discussion in one spot. When that occurs in the middle of the discussions then that jumbles the various threads-of-thought, and I was reacting from that. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all No indication that the US Mint is claiming copyright on these coins or that these images may not be used here. These must not be deleted without appropriate reuploading first. Reywas92 (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Reywas92. Removing images so valuable to a major coinage article and related pages seems to unnecessarily undermine the purpose of Wikipedia. If someone official was going to complain that these are being used they would have done so a long time ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all - Reywas92 and Randy Kryn make a valid point. I think all of Mysterymanblue's recent deletion nominations of US coins should be reviewed based on this. - ZLEA T\C 03:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@ZLEA: The page was created after several deletion discussions for U.S. coins ended in the decision to delete. It is primarily based off of the precedents created by those discussions. If you think any of the information on that page is wrong, you are free to correct it. I always say "For reasons explained at Commons:Determining if U.S. coins are free to use" instead of "Per Commons:Determining if U.S. coins are free to use" in these discussions. This is because I am not asserting that the page itself has authority, but rather imploring people to go read it and let the reasoning presented therein stand on its own. Commons:Determining if U.S. coins are free to use is written and represented as a help page, not a policy or guideline. Apologies if there was any confusion. I have clarified this in a new hatnote at the top of the page.  Mysterymanblue  18:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikimedia Commons does not allow content that is not freely usable. The utility of a work is not a valid reason to keep it on Wikimedia Commons if it is a copyright violation. The fact that the U.S. mint has not written "COPYRIGHT U.S. MINT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" on its coins does not mean that they are freely usable. Per COM:PRP, "The copyright owner will not mind" is not a valid reason to keep a non-free work on Commons. There is no mechanism in current U.S. law under which a failure to actively claim a copyright will cause a copyright holder to lose copyright in that work.
Under 17 U.S. Code § 105(a), works of the United States government are generally in the public domain; a work of the United States government is defined by 17 U.S. Code § 101 as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". This law is the reason that most works created for the federal government are in the public domain; you can see this clause in action at {{PD-USGov}}, for example. Absent from this law is an automatic mechanism that causes works of federal government contractors to enter the public domain. In fact, "the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (17 U.S. Code § 105(a)). The contract signed by AIP participants describes them as "contractors" and forces each of them to "[assign] all rights, title and interest to the United States Mint in any and all Work Product produced or created under this contract and all drafts thereof, including all worldwide copyright ownership rights in such Work Product." The mint absolutely owns the copyright over these works, and we have no reason to believe that it has released them under a free license.  Mysterymanblue  18:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • That argument would be valid if the coins were 2D art. However, they are by no means 2D art, but rather 3D engravings of the 2D copyrighted art. As Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. only covers undoctored scans of 2D art, the above comment would only apply to the original 2D line drawings of the coins. The actual coins, however, are not protected by Bridgeman v. Corel, and therefore a new copyright is created when a Mint employee photographs the coins. This new copyright is forfeited as works by US Government employees are ineligible for domestic copyright protection per 17 U.S. Code § 105. - ZLEA T\C 19:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    @ZLEA: Although photographs of U.S. coins have separate copyrightability, I think that you are misinterpreting the impact of that ruling. Essentially, there are three layers of potential protection for a photograph of a U.S. coin: the photograph is a derivative work of the 3D sculpture, which is a derivative work of the 2D design. The photograph and 3D sculpture may have been created by employees of the United States government, but if the underlying design was created by a contractor, the photograph is still non-free. This is because derivative works are not just protected by their own copyright, but also by the copyright of the material they are based on. It's for this reason that photographs of non-free statues that are otherwise correctly licensed are forbidden on Commons.  Mysterymanblue  20:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Mysterymanblue's reasoning above.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all - Reywas92, Randy Kryn, and ZLEA T\C all made good points. --Taterian (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • So we have 4 people here agreeing with the argument "No indication that the US Mint is claiming copyright on these coins". However, no one has suggested that the US Mint has claimed copyright, and it would be absurd if they did (as the US Mint is a federal agency). It seems that none of the people participating in the discussion here have even bothered reading the deletion discussions to understand why the files are nominated for deletion, which has nothing to do with the US Mint. I suggest closing this discussion and letting the deletion discussions run their course, as this discussion is not actually shedding any light on the situation. Nosferattus (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: Well, it does have something to do with the United States Mint. As noted above, the contract signed by the designers of the coins transfers the copyright in their designs to the U.S. mint; the U.S. mint is the copyright holder. At least, that is what I am claiming.  Mysterymanblue  11:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Got it. Regardless, we don't accept "Copyright holder isn't enforcing copyright" as a valid free license. Commons:Licensing requires that all files either be public domain or "explicitly freely licensed". Nosferattus (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
How about stopping making disgraceful assumptions about other commoners, as well as muddling the copyright law, and instead bring into this thread a wikimedia foundation lawyer. Just a thought. --Taterian (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Taterian: What "disgraceful assumptions about other commoners"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about licencing

Hi, this image was recently uploaded. The website from which the image came from, uploads all their images under a 3.0 attribution. However, when you check their Flickr account you see that the images are uploaded under an "Attribution-NonCommercial" which is not allowed here. Additionally, this website and Flickr account are "owned" by a Brazilian government agency. So, is this image a copyvio? If it's not, can this Flickr account be used as a source for images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirEdimon (talk • contribs) 06:10, 28 July 2021‎ (UTC)

@SirEdimon: You could flickrmail them to ask about the discrepancy.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Jeff G. Thanks for your answer. I have flickrmailed them, but I'm starting to think that their license is not compatible to Commons. Regards.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 12:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
SirEdimon: While the Flickr source is clearly a non-commercial license, the uploaded image source page http://rededoesporte.gov.br/pt-br/noticias/conto-de-fadas-a-brasileira-rayssa-leal-conquista-prata-no-skate-street has two contradictory licenses at the bottom. Atribuição 3.0 Brasil (CC BY 3.0 BR) and Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Dual licensing is allowed but I think you would want to determine if this is what they intend. 13:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs)
The website is CC BY 3.0 BR. The CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license is related only to its use of the ResponsiveVoice product. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The source website is free licensed. So the image from that website is not a copyvio. The flickr account is not relevant for files not taken from it. The flickr account cannot be used if it doesn't offer a free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: + 1 Yes. In principle, « Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil. » Template:Cc-by-3.0-br. For better certainty, you could do occasional checks on a few images to make sure the website is not making mistakes. Currently, a search on Commons for rededoesporte.gov.br returns some 60 files. Some images are from other sources (example), which should be attributed. I suppose it can be assumed that the original sources released their images under the same license. But it could be a good thing to check. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Magazine cover using PD work

I'm not quite sure about the licensing of File:Nature volume 536 number 7617 cover displaying an artist’s impression of Proxima Centauri b.jpg. The image used on the cover appears to be slightly different from File:Artist’s impression of Proxima Centauri b shown hypothetically as an arid rocky super-earth.jpg which is cited as the PD image the cover is based on; so, there doesn't appear to be a one-to-one correspondence between the two. I guess it could be argued that the cover image is closely based upon the PD image, but the cover could still be considered a COM:DW in such a case, couldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I overlaid them in photoshop and they are identical, with the possible exception of color levelling. The magazine cover has merely rotated the image clockwise so the day/night line is horizontal. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Would such a rotation be considered creative or mechanical? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I can't imagine that rotating an image would be creative enough for a copyright. – BMacZero (🗩) 14:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal permission

Hello, I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask this but I am just going to do it. If I have the explicit personal permission of a photographer to upload his work to Wikipedia am I allowed to upload it? I contacted him through Emails and he was more than happy about the idea of his images being incorporated into Wikipedia and gave me the permission, I can send those messages forward to Admins as well if they want. So does this work or does the photographer has to create his own Wikipedie/media account in order to upload his work? Kind regards --Xerxes1985 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two ways:
  1. You upload the photos and tag them with {{OTRS pending}}. The photographer sends a free license release for each photo to COM:VRT (formerly OTRS), following the instructions given at COM:RELGEN. Note that this will need to be done for each photo where the uploader is not the copyright holder, regardless of prior publication status.
  2. The photographer creates an account and uploads the photos themselves. If the photographer has previously published them elsewhere, then they should email VRT from an email address listed on their own website. A VRT agent will confirm and tag their account with {{Verified account}}. They can now upload their own photos without any further need to contact VRT. If the photos are not previously published, then they do not need to contact VRT.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Xerxes1985: a photographer's "permission to upload his work to Wikipedia" is insufficient. For works to be accepted by Commons they must be available to be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose (see COM:L). The photographer must release the photograph under acceptable license, such as CC BY-SA 4.0. The license may be confirmed in the ways described above. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

'missing SDC copyright status' - how to comply with this requirement

Uploaded the map File:Jezero karte (ESA).jpg with the CC-BY-3.0-IGO license, as inscribed on the picture. However, the automatic hidden category appeared "Creative Commons Attribution missing SDC copyright status". What is required from me at this step? What additional info I must provide, and how? — Thanks, Cherurbino (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything. It's a maintenance category so a bot comes along and adds the information, which is just copying the license information into structured data form. You can click on the category to see a bit more information. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Carl! Cherurbino (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Horse and Rider work by Marini?

Is w:Horse and Rider (Marini) a copyrighted work? The enwiki article seems to indicate it as a pre-1978 sculpture (during the era when U.S. works required registration for copyright protection). Can anyone interpret this SIRIS information which may provide clue/s? Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Works must either be freely licensed or be public domain in their home country and in the US.(COM:L) Marini was an Italian who lived in Italy and in Switzerland, so the home country for his sculpture is either Italy or Switzerland. Marini died in 1980, so his work will become public domain in its home country in 2051.(COM:Italy, COM:Switzerland) This sculpture is located in the US, so freedom of panorama does not apply. This file should not be uploaded to Commons. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
This particular sculpture was first published in what country? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Not "home country"; COM:L says "source country". Let's not add additional imprecision to this discussion.
The Berne Convention says the "source country" is the first country of publication, provided that's a Berne signator. I'm guess that includes the US, which is now Berne signator even if it wasn't then. In US law, this was published; the mere display wouldn't have done it under Berne.
In common parlance, a work made for the US and first displayed in the US certainly could have the US as its source country. Note that no law I know of worries about where a work was written, painted, or filmed for copyright law. COM:L doesn't specify any rules.
I will say that it's frustrating for a US work to be told that Italian law matters, where the statement that a work must be PD in the US is standardly ignored by admins, despite that actually be a requirement the law puts on us.
Also, why does US FOP status matter? US law says it's okay; why would a more limited permission in cases not relevant matter here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The sculpture pictured is one of an edition of four bronze castings.[10] The 'first publication' date would be that for any of the four castings. The sculpture was created in 1952-1953 and this casting was given to the museum in 1966. So it was probably not 'made for the US' and it is not safe to assume that it was published unpublished before its installation at the Hirshhorn museum. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

threshold of originality for non-graphic works

Are there any good example of the threshold of originality for things other than graphics, particularly audio, sculptures and architecture? Ixfd64 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

JWilz12345 has worked extensively with Philippine buildings and might have some opinions there. For sculptures, note that something relatively simple such as Cloud Gate is above the TOO. For audio it gets tricky because the recorder or the subject or both may have a claim to copyright, depending on jurisdiction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I'll try to add some examples. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts and Ixfd64: pardon me if I can't help on TOO, but per Jameslwoodward in one DR copyright registrations exist even in several basic sculptures (one infamous example is the Cloud Gate whose author is agressive, even suing NRA over use of an image of his public work in their video). See also: [11] and [12], both of which I used as references in the enwiki entry of U.S. FOP (w:Freedom of panorama#United States).
(might be out of topic so reduce font size) re: Philippine buildings and TOO, some things have somehow changed since June-September discussions. Bad news is that even mall buildings here are treated as "distinct works", thanks to this Philippine Star article which even treats the SM Supermalls founder w:Henry Sy as the "first architect" (even if he was not a true architect himself), because he was the brainchild of the shoebox concept of his malls. Good news is that through a breakthrough copyright case in 1964 that denied an artist's right to copyright because of his non-registration of his Christmas card design (see my and Howhontanozaz's explanation here), it is acceptable that the 1924 law (did not protect buildings and reliant on formalities) is still in effect up to December 14, 1972, a day before PD 49 took effect, and thus Philippine buildings of pre-Dec. 1972 era are PD (analogous to pre-1990 buildings of the U.S.) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/intel-spiral.pdf is the only example I remember of a sound recording TOO ruling or case law in the US. I'd say it backs up my feeling; don't copy sound recordings. The underlying work may be uncopyrightable, but the sound recording itself is almost never going to be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
There's a lot of other major cases here. It seems the threshold of originality for sound is very low. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Status of images of pages from PD domain books on Internet Archive and Google Books

I originally asked about this at the Wikipedia media copyright page, but I was advised to ask here as well. I've been thinking of adding an image with examples of the individual letters of a script. I thought I could make screenshots of letters from a public domain book on the Internet Archive (or from Google Books, since this particular one is available there as well). However, it occurred to me that while the book itself is PD, its scanning is akin to photographing, and by using the image and not just the content, I would be using the work of the 'photographer' who scanned it (and the organisation that stood behind that activity). User:Marchjuly pointed out that courts in Germany have regarded digitalisation as creating new copyright [[13]] (also here and here). In this case, the original scanner is Google, since the book was first uploaded to Google Books and then re-uploaded to the Internet Archive. Would this be a problem?--Anonymous44 (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Not if you're in the United States. Even in other countries, scans are less likely to be copyrightable than photographs of 2D art. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm in the EU. But perhaps this doesn't matter for Wikimedia, since Wikimedia is in the US? As for me, I don't know what to expect of the laws and courts in my country, but that would only be relevant if Google decided to use them to sue me for this in the first place, and I don't know if that's likely.--Anonymous44 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Anonymous44: You may want to review COM:CRT#Country-specific laws, just in case.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Anonymous44 and King of Hearts: The recently passed EU Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market brings the EU laws about photographs of public domain works into parity with the US standard. In other words, there is no longer a "sweat of the brow" legal doctrine in the EU. (Note that although the deadline for countries to implement the Directive into their national laws has already passed, some countries have not yet done so.) Nosferattus (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
In other words, yes you can upload the scans to Commons! Nosferattus (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everybody, that was a lot of useful information and good news. However, it would seem that I still need to find out whether my country has already implemented the directive, probably per the policy that Jeff G. linked to (the obligation to consider the copyright legislation of 'The place where the work was created; The place where the work is being uploaded from; The place that any web server the work has been downloaded from physically is; The United States'.) and certainly in my own interest. And this doesn't seem trivial - there are few mentions of it in my language, let alone of the specific law changes that are necessary in this particular respect and so on. Anyway, you people have done your best to help me, thank you, and I wish you happy editing.--Anonymous44 (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Anonymous44: For Commons policy purposes it's very simple: the scanning / photographing does not create a new copyright and the resulting image can be uploaded here. The underlying work must be PD in both the country of origin and the US, but the scan as such needs no further consideration. The WMF and Commons does not honour any "sweat of the brow"-based assertions of copyright anywhere in the world.
But for all uploads you need to consider your own legal situation and risk in addition to Commons policy. If whatever jurisdiction you are in would consider something a copyright violation then uploading it here could theoretically get you sued even if the upload is fully compliant with Commons policy. That goes for all uploads, but is mostly relevant for complicated issues like this.
Now, personally, I would not worry overmuch about this unless the jurisdiction I was in had known issues in this area. For example, in the UK 5–10 years ago I would have thought long and hard, simply because some UK GLAMs were then actively asserting copyright on scans and there was at least one relevant legal threat (you've probably heard of the case I'm thinking of). These days most UK GLAMs have stopped this practice and the guidance they follow seem to at best consider the issue "unclear". I can't imagine any of them publicly claiming such a copyright, much less suing anyone to enforce it, today. Xover (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
{{PD-Art}}: The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". --Wcam (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Anonymous44: The German jurisdiction you cited is outdated. Since June 2021, the en:Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market is implemented in Germany with the "de:Gesetz zur Anpassung des Urheberrechts an die Erfordernisse des digitalen Binnenmarktes". The new § 68 of the German Urheberrechtsgesetz reads now (analogous): Reproductions of visual works which are in the public domain are not protected by the "sweat of the brow" principle. Such reproductions weren't protected as original works ("personal intellectual creation") due to lack of originality before June 2021 but as "personal intellectual achievement".--Chianti (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for the additional information.--Anonymous44 (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Videoconferencing

Do we assume by default that the participants provide their image to the [reliable] final publisher under the [free] license designated by the latter? Or should the permission be expressed more explicitly? Should those participants be considered as the co-authors at all? Can't find any policies on this matter.

For example, may I upload the images of Christo Grozev from his conversations with the Bulgarian national TV and with the Bulgarian vlogger? Thanks. --INS Pirat (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@INS Pirat: I am of the opinion that, no, it is not OK to host screenshots/photographs of videoconference participants without copyright releases from them, because video feeds are individually protected by each of the participants.  Mysterymanblue  02:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Mysterymanblue, and what do you think regarding the "fixation" concept addressed in the discussion linked below? --INS Pirat (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@INS Pirat: Apologies for not getting back to you on this sooner. It's very interesting... it's not something I've thought about before, and it definitely complicates things. Here's the relevant section of the law:

A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission. (17 U.S. Code § 101

For fixation to occur, it must be done "by or under the authority of the author". This leads me to wonder what exactly that means. If the host of a meeting asks for consent before recording (as Zoom often does for recorded meetings), does that mean the image has been fixed "by or under the authority of the author"? If it's the case that mere consent by the author allows for fixation to occur, most Zoom recordings will be disallowed on Commons either because 1) consent was not provided and thus violates the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy, or 2) consent was provided and the image was therefore duly fixed and is protected by copyright. Under this reasoning, recordings of one's own video feed and recordings of meetings where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy are among the few cases where such teleconferencing videos will be allowed.
I do not, however, think that a mere grant of consent can really cause a work to be fixed "by or under the authority of the author". The wording in the statute suggests a higher bar for the strength of the relationship between the person recording a stream and the webcam owner. In my mind, "by or under the authority of the author" implies that the recording must be done on behalf of the webcam owner in order for the work to be fixed under statute. Most videoconferencing recordings are being done on behalf of the person who is making the recording; the webcam owner typically does not have access to the video, and—if it is published—it is published under the name of the recorder. This is especially true of streams with many active participants. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so maybe someone with more legal experience can shed some light on what the words "by or under the authority of" legally entail.
Then, there is the issue of the precautionary principle. Even if we accept that there are certain cases where recordings and screenshots of videoconferences may be in the public domain, it is difficult to determine 1) whether a webcam owner has simultaneously recorded their video stream, thus fixing their work and giving it copyright protection, and 2) to what extent a webcam owner has authorized a person recording the stream to act on their behalf. Although my opinion is that it is likely that most recordings of videoconferences do not fulfill the necessary requirements to have been duly fixed under U.S. law, there are many potential exceptions to that rule of thumb that would have to be examined on their individual merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterymanblue (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 August 2021‎ (UTC)
This has been discussed before, with no clear consensus: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/08#Zoom video meetings. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Relevant: meta:Wikilegal/Copyright in Zoom Images — Rhododendrites talk |  01:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: That page shares some interesting and ostensibly correct viewpoints, but it was created by Tbutoiu, an account which was created on December 10, 2020, has 9 edits across all projects, and has no user pages. I can't tell if they have legal experience or are somehow affiliated with the WMF, so the page should probably stand on its own merits with the recognition that it has not been as thoroughly produced as some of the other Wikilegal pages.  Mysterymanblue  04:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
? I would hope that there are enough people watching such a legally sensitive space as meta:wikilegal that a page created by a vandal wouldn't go unnoticed (let alone be edited by another staffer, as this one was). Likewise that the Wikimedia Foundation is not staffing people to write wikilegal pages who have no experience with the law (?). A search for Butoiu and Wikimedia reveals Cristina Butoiu as a lawyer who works for the foundation... — Rhododendrites talk |  04:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Ah, thank you for finding that. I guess it is probably Cristina Butoiu. I still find it a bit odd because many of these WMF account names are the first initial and last name appended together; under this regime, the user name would be Cbutoiu, not Tbutoiu. Not sure where the "T" comes from.  Mysterymanblue  04:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: "T" could be for "Tina", sometimes a shortening of "Christina".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how it explains that the participants don't hold the copyright to their video feed. How is it "a natural phenomenon" if lighting, angle are of their deliberate choice? The very first statement refers to nothing. No mention of the "derivative work" concept (only regarding the backgrounds), nor of the "fixation". --INS Pirat (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Festivalplakat Die Ferien © Steffen Wagener - Hessischer Rundfunk.jpg

I found the named file has been added to w:de:Tatort: Die Ferien des Monsieur Murot. User:Steve Eatfield classified it as his own work but the filename itself says © Steffen Wagener - Hessischer Rundfunk (w:Hessischer Rundfunk is German public broadcast).

Will this file be deleted or is it useful to fix its metadata, e.g. author and missing categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frupa (talk • contribs) 14:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @Frupa: This looks like a copyright violation so will likely be deleted. The 4 files uploaded by the uploader have been tagged with {{No permission since}} and unless evidence of a free license from the actual copyright holder (Steffen Wagener or Hessischer Rundfunk) is provided, they will be deleted in ~7 days. -M.nelson (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure this photo was intended to fall under fair use since based on the page's description it was crossposted from Wikipedia.de. That should warrant a speedy deletion. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulp❯❯❯here! 08:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07&oldid=692915033"