Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/09

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

File:Hitachi TV 2010-01 4372716858-crop-mod.jpg, addition of licence

Hallo,

ich hoffe, ich kann auf Deutsch fragen.

Nachdem der Bildausschnitt eines Fernsehers kritisch war User_talk:Wikisympathisant#File:Hitachi_TV_2010-01_4372716858-crop.jpg, habe ich heute o.g. file hochgeladen, Lizenz habe ich nachgetragen. Muss ich die Bausteine unten manuell entfernen oder könnt Ihr das anpassen, oder macht das ein Bot? Bitte Info. Vielen Dank vorab! Grüße, --Wikisympathisant (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, correction was meanwhile done by SchlurcherBot . Kind regards, --Wikisympathisant (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wikisympathisant (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I make Template:Uploads?

There is {{NoUploads}} available for category of buildings or sculptures located in countries where there is no freedom of panorama.

For example: Category:Burj Khalifa, Category:Lotte World Tower, Category:Monument to the Motherland, Kyiv, Category:The Motherland Calls

However, when I saw {{UploadsStamps}} and {{NoUploadsStamps}}, I thought a good idea.

It's to make Template:Uploads.

Here's the draft of the template:

These works or works by this artist are in the public domain because the artist has been dead for at least 70 years, or they are allowed on Commons because they meet one of the following exceptions:

  • The work was first published in the United States and one of the United States public domain tags applies;
  • The work is applied freedom of panorama;
  • The work was released by the author or their heirs via E-mail confirmed authorization;
  • The work was released by the author under an open licence on their website, or an official account with a site such as Flickr;
  • The work is known to be in the public domain for some other clear reason.

This template can be used for category of buildings or sculptures located in countries with freedom of panorama.

For example: Category:The Shard, Category:Shanghai Tower, Category:Statue of Unity, Category:Cristo Redentor do Rio de Janeiro

Can I make {{Uploads}}?

Ox1997cow (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I would change the second bullet to "Freedom of panorama applies to the subject;". The third bullet should be unnecessary if a VRT tag is present, and untrue if one is absent. Why not have four separate templates for each situation, each with a link to supporting documentation?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: How do you do it? Tell me, please Ox1997cow (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: We already have {{PD-USGov}}, {{PD-US-expired}}, {{FoP-US}}, {{PD-because}}, and many others in their respective categories, as well as links to sources which show licenses when followed.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: However, such templates are used in the file namespace, not in the category namespace. I'm trying to create new template that is used in the category namespace. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think such a template is necessary. We can just put the license template for the PD reason or the VRT ticket tag, e.g. Category:White Memorial Fountain (Stanford University). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: However, the license templates such as PD and FoP are used in the file namespace and not in the category namespace. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Is there any reason why we can't use them in the category namespace? Worst case, we could make a wrapper similar to {{Self}} or {{PD-Art}}, except that the top text says: "It is believed that the subject of this category may be freely depicted in two-dimensional form by anyone, as its copyright status is as follows." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Or add an automatic switch that changes the wording according to the namespace it’s in?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts and Odysseus1479: Then why is there both {{UploadsStamps}} and {{NoUploadsStamps}} and there is {{NoUploads}} but not {{Uploads}}? Ox1997cow (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Our copyright templates have been cobbled together without any semblance of central planning, so there's going to be gaps and inconsistencies. What I'm suggesting is that there's no need to duplicate the effort for PD works. It makes sense to create a NoUploads template to explain the requirements for subjects in that category to be PD, but Uploads templates do not make sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Oh, I see. I won't make {{Uploads}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

File:ORNL’s Summit Supercomputer Named World’s Fastest (31430045047).jpg

Although this file was posted to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Flickr account under a free license, the description says the picture is credited to Nvidia. I know a major organization like a national lab would usually be careful about copyrights, but humans do make mistakes sometimes. Is it safe to assume that Nvidia actually gave permission to ORNL to release this picture under Creative Commons?

Another concern is that the presentation in the background features five photos that are probably copyrighted. Would they fall under de minimis if we don't know who took them?

I guess I could contact the Flickr account and try to get an answer, but I'd like to hear others' opinions. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bobby Knight & Bear Bryant photos question

There is a sold listing on Heritage Auctions for a couple of photos of coaches Bobby Knight and Bear Bryant: https://sports.ha.com/itm/football/bobby-knight-and-bear-bryant-original-photographs-lot-of-2/a/152111-42299.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515. On the back, they are labeled as being taken by Malcom W. Emmons. They do not have a date on the front or back, and as the photo of Bear Bryant shows, than one was taken and/or published in 1977 (the one with Knight does not have a date on it). Would these photos (at least of Bryant) be OK to upload onto Commons? StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Aside from a "please credit me" notice, there is not a real copyright notice anywhere on these. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The Bryant one is fine if it has been "published" according to the law at the time (which would include distribution/sale of copies as well as posting it in a place where the public could view and make copies of it). For Knight, we can't accept it without a date. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Using Google Images, the only evidence I could find to see that it was published was this reproduction print listed on eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/191664196990. Zero results came back on TinEye. From what I can tell, it seems like this is Public Domain, and that this tag can apply. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I recently found the logo of the former Open University of Hong Kong, featuring calligraphy brush font of "香港公開大學". Per COM:TOO HK, the threshold of originality in Hong Kong is quite low. With the example of the official logo of the Hong Kong Legislative Council featuring a styled "立", is determined to be copyrighted and has to be uploaded as fair use. I therefore fear that the mentioned file may also be copyrightable in Hong Kong as well.

I've found no court cases in determining the threshold of originality for calligraphy in Hong Kong. Can someone comment on whether the mentioned file may be copyrightable in Hong Kong, or is still too simple under the CDPA 1988/Hong Kong Copyright Ordinance (as the Hong Kong Copyright Ordinance itself is heavily CDPA based) standard? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Cunard White Star Line Logo.JPG

Seems unlikely to be "own work" as claimed given that it's the logo for en:Cunard-White Star Line. It also seems to complex to be {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom. Is there any possible other reason that this logo might be PD per COM:United Kingdom? If not, then I don't think it can be kept. It could possibly be uploaded as non-free content locally to English Wikipedia, but its use would be restricted. The file is, however, also being used on a number of non-English Wikipedias and those uses would need to be resolved separately if those Wikipedias allow non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The most fruitful approach to try to save it that I could find is to see if there is any justification for treating it as a US work, in which case {{PD-US no notice}} might apply. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
A similar emblem was apparently on a locomotive -- photo of one here -- but searches don't really see that exact logo. Of course, both White Star and Cunard existed before 1934 separately, and their emblems did as well, so the components in general are older and the composite could well be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Flickr images flagged as being unuploadable with no indication as to why

I wanted to upload photos from this Flickr set, all of which bear CC BY-SA 2.0 licensing, but was informed that the originating account was blacklisted. However, neither Commons:Questionable Flickr images nor the talk page and archives thereof make any mention of this particular account and hence do not state why it is blacklisted. User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors does have the account NSID listed (30591976@N05), but again has no indication of why the account's photos cannot be uploaded here. Please provide some kind of explanation.--Dvaderv2 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dvaderv2 do you happen to have the exact error message given? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber If there is meant to be a more specific error message than "Unfortunately, no images from this Flickr account can be uploaded on this site" (which I've alluded to already), I haven't seen it.--Dvaderv2 (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Dvaderv2 Were you using toolforge:flickr2commons, Special:UploadWizard, or something else? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber Special:UploadWizard's Flickr functionality. Yes, I know about the "save images to your PC and upload them manually with a review tag" workaround, but the question is why such a workaround would be necessary with regards to this specific Flickr account in the first place.--Dvaderv2 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Polarlys: Could you please explain why you added 30591976@N05 to User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors in 2012? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe because that author also has albums like this one, with some (not all) of the files marked CC-BY as well? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg The set I linked is explicitly stated as being the original work of Paul Walker though: "These were taken when I was a young reporter and fit enough to run around".--Dvaderv2 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I have no doubt those are fine. But if several copyvios show up via that account, i.e. they are also in the habit of copying other images and putting a free license on them along with their own stuff, they will often be put on the bad author list to prevent them from being easily upload (i.e. the risk of uploading bad images from that author outweighs the possible good ones, at least with the easy transfer tools). It's odd to blacklist for just one bad image, and even that one bad image really wasn't the Flickr user's fault (though may not have credited the images enough). That was really the only hit searching Wikimedia for that author though, so I think it was just that one DR mentioned below. Probably should be taken off the list. The gallery I linked above is so obviously not his own work that hopefully they would not last here long if transferred, though I guess there could be other copied images elsewhere in his stream. I'm don't think can blacklist by album. You can always upload by hand (download the original, then upload, then credit the source and go through a {{LicenseReview}}). If that gets marked as speedy because of the blacklist, convert it to a regular DR and it should be fine after a human review. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, likely as a direct result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aleister Crowley.png. It looks like the Flickr user used some Wikipedia images (and maybe from other sources) for a video (in this case en:File:Aleister Crowley in Hat.jpg, which was deleted a year later), and someone extracted a video frame for the upload here. Deletion was likely due to failure to identify the licenses of the source images, but was probably using a mistaken license from the Wikipedia image anyways. Not sure that should have been enough to mark them as a bad author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

1913 images, probably unpublished in USA, author death date unknown

Hi all, I have a series of postcard size language learning cards, by w:George Bell & Sons, a UK publisher whose rights are now owned by other publishers. The cards feature an image on the front by JW Williamson. The cards were in print by 1913 (they are advertied in Latin books). The text is by Frank Granger and out of UK copyright as I recall. So I have the following problems:

  1. I cannot trace JW Williamson, although he seems to have ceased to work at the latest by the 1930s. He features in some later editions, for instance a US edition of Robinson Crusoe; but these are reprints.
  2. The rights are likely to have been assigned to G Bell & Sons, that would have been the normal practice at the time for illustrations. As a work for hire it would have expired its copyright a long time ago
  3. I don't understand the US position on what counts as unpublished, and whether this work would fit into that category; and finally
  4. I am unsure what Wikimedia's policy is on such images.
  5. Other images by JW Williamson appear in pre 1925 books which Wikimedia accept as out of copyright and therefore are published.

I am thinking that basically this is trmendously complicated but also the likelihood that these images infringe any copyright is probably extremely low; nevertheless it may be a matter of judgement rather than certainty.--JimKillock (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, If these postcards were published in UK before 1926 (2021-95), they are in the public domain in USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, checking through Cornels page that does seem to be right(Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad; 'Before 1926; In the public domain). Excellent! --JimKillock (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
They were published more than 95 years ago, so they are fine in the United States regardless of the authors. The UK copyright is more complicated though for works less than 120 years old, if we can't find how long the authors lived, since that is what their copyright term would be based on. The right may have been owned by a company, but the duration would still be based on the human author's life. If we know the name, then the works is not anonymous. How early was J W Williamson working, any idea? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Note that the English Wikisource accepts works that are public domain in the US only, and that completely clearing a book for any foreign illustrations or text is complex and not always done correctly. This is a case where I'd be extra careful about assuming previous uploads were correct.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

National Covid Memorial Wall

Impacted: files under Category:National Covid Memorial Wall

This popped up as a post of Wikipedia's FB page here. While the country where this mural is located has very liberal FOP provisions (it is mural according to w:National Covid Memorial Wall), it only encompasses architecture, 3D works like sculptures and monuments, and "works of artistic craftsmanship" like stained glass art, décorative chairs, engravings, and the like. Murals are not considered to fall under the British FOP. However, could this mural fall under either COM:TOO UK (but traditionally British TOO is very low) or COM:GRAFFITI (as according to the article it is unauthorized, meaning to say illegal technically). Though the fact that it was painted with the help of an organization means it may not be a graffiti after all. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a mural painted by a person or even one or two. The heart shape is common, so the only thing copyrightable would be the arrangement. If that is the work of lots and lots of people, then there wasn't really much arrangement on any person's part. I guess if there were some volunteers doing most of the work, there might be a case, but ... would be rather edgy to delete any of it, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Status of 1670 drawing published in 1995

Over at this[1] Featured Article Candidate page, the exact copyright status of this image was raised:[2] It's a drawing made by an unknown artist in 1670 on Dutch Mauritius accompanying a letter sent to the Dutch East India Company, now housed in the Dutch national archives, and apparently first published in a 1995 UK book.[3] Per these guidelines[4][5], since it was published 25 years ago in the EU, it should be in the public domain there, but we have no appropriate Commons tag for this situation. As for its status in the US, the closest I can find is this PD-US-unpublished template[6], which doesn't apply, since the image was published before 2003. So what to do, since we don't seem to have any relevant templates? FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Technically, if the authors of the book actually traced down the descendants of the artist and got their permission to publish the image in the book, then the image would still be copyrighted in the US. However, given that the author is unknown, that almost certainly did not happen. Therefore no authorized publication of the work under US law occurred prior to 2003, so I think {{PD-US-unpublished}} is correct. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
So would that template be applicable, though it specifically says "This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003"? Because it appears the 1995 book was published in the US as well. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Where the work was published is irrelevant to that clause. It should really say "legally" published, because a copyright infringing publication was irrelevant. And to the extent that work was still covered by copyright, it wasn't a legal publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
So which tags would suffice? PD-US-unpublished and perhaps PD old? FunkMonk (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that should be fine. Back before the US harmonized with the rest of the world on a pma-based copyright term, unpublished works were in a grey area where they were neither copyrighted nor not copyrighted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope it'll fly with at FAC, but of course, we can't add more specific tags that don't exist anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 Comment I added PD-Art-two enclosing template. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Polissons et galipettes

The film is considered unpublished work dated between 1905–1930, hadn't yet been discovered until 2002. If these ten films were unpublished and copyrighted in France, after 25 years of publication, except for Eveready Harton in Buried Treasure is in the public domain in the United States, which had unpublished before 2003 (i.e. first published after 2002). --49.150.116.127 23:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What is your question? Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
These are 11 pornographic films were made between 1905–1930 and never released in France, before it was discovered by producer Michel Reilhac in 2002. Unpublished works (including films) are copyrighted in the European Union after 25 years of publication. So these compilations were screened at the Cannes Film Festival, before it was released in 2002. --49.150.116.127 01:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
So not in the public domain in France before December 31st, 2027. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
But in the US, Eveready Harton in Buried Treasure is now public domain without notice and being renewed. --49.150.116.127 07:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
It would be undeleted in Commons on January 1, 2028. --49.150.116.127 09:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I find that the portrait of Sarah Godlewski (File:SarahGodlewski.jpg), the state treasurer of Wisconsin is apparently stated to have the license of CC-BY-SA 4.0. However, in the official source website, I can find no evidence of the licensing of the photo. I also wanted to upload a portrait of another Wisconsin state official, Darrell Williams, from this website that has the same style of image as Sarah Godlewski's and likely from the same photographer, but I can't determine the licensing of either of those two photos. Twotwofourtysix (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Twotwofourtysix: The licensing information is almost certainly incorrect because the uploader has claimed this official portrait as their own work. The photograph is likely non-free and should be deleted.  Mysterymanblue  08:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I nominated the file for speedy deletion as a copyright violation and it has been deleted.  Mysterymanblue  07:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I know from COM:ART that I can upload someone else's photograph of a public domain work of art so long as it's a faithful copy, and from COM:FOP UK that freedom of panorama extends to modern stained-glass windows in the United Kingdom, but can I combine the two and upload someone else's photograph of a modern stained-glass window, or is that a step too far? --Antiquary (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of a photo. If it is made as a faithful reproduction of a stained glass, then COM:ART will apply. But not all photos are exact copies of the underlying art work. Some may include various independently copyrightable elements. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
So I can upload anyone's photograph of a stained-glass window, even if both the photographer and the artist are living or recently dead, providing it's a truly faithful reproduction. Excellent. Thanks. --Antiquary (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sketch of Skerne Bridge, 1825

The Revd John Skinner (1772-1839) made a watercolour sketch of the Skerne Bridge in 1825. It is notable as the only representation of this bridge in its original form. Skinner wrote 146 journals, profusely illustrated. After his death the Journals were passed to the British Museum, whence they were transferred to the British Library. The sketch is catalogued as Add MS 33684 f.89. An edition of Skinner's journals was published in 1930, followed by revised editions in 1971 and 1984:

  • Coombs, Howard and Arthur N. Bax, eds (1930) Journal of a Somerset rector: John Skinner, A.M., antiquary, 1772–1839. Parochial affairs of the parish of Camerton, 1822–1832. British Library mss. nos. 33673-33728. London: John Murray. [Revised and enlarged edn entitled Journal of a Somerset rector, 1803–1834: parochial affairs of the Parish of Camerton British Museum manuscripts no. 33635-33728 & EG 3099F-3123F by Howard and Peter Coombs, Bath: Kingsmead 1971. New edn, same eds, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1984.]

It is not known whether this specific sketch was included in any of these editions.
According to this essay (fn 17) the sketch was reproduced in The Northern Echo of 31 May 2000, though I have yet to confirm this. It was published in the same paper/website on 27 September 2017, and can be seen here. This reproduction, and possibly those before it, was incomplete and in black and white.

Skinner died in 1839. His writings and pictures have passed into the public domain. The BL thinks it has copyright over reproductions that it has made of the sketch. They have, however, sent me a 177Kb, 1280 x 960 pixel colour photograph, with permission to use it that is:

  • perpetual and non-revocable
  • allows redistribution and republication
  • allows publication of derivative works
  • allows commercial use

and in addition specifically permits uploading to Wikipedia.

If it wasn't published in 1930 or 1971 (or somewhere else), then it could be subject to the UK's perpetual copyright for unpublished works (copyright expires 50 years after publication if not published during the author's lifetime or within 20 years after his death). In that case, the UK copyright expires in 2040 because the UK finally got away with the rules for perpetual copyright. If it was published in 1971, then 50 years after publication means PD in UK next year. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Stefan2: the chart at File:UK non-Crown copyright flowchart.pdf has the 2039 rule under “a literary, dramatic or musical work, […] or an engraving”. That does not appear to include drawings (or paintings or sculptures).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It seems that I had missed that the perpetual copyright only was for certain types of works. How confusing. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Here, I am at a loss. Do any of the 'publishings' count, if they were not with Skinner's specific consent? Does the 1930 edition (within 90 years of Skinner's death) influence copyright, if the sketch was included? Do I have enough information to determine US copyright, or must I search further?

In summary: Am I free to upload the reproduction of this sketch to Commons? If so, what copyright or PD tag should I use?--Verbarson (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that the sketch was published in 1930 in UK, it is in public domain in USA now (published without a notice). Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Verbarson: I can only see the (possible) 1930 publication having any relevance if it was registered & renewed in the USA, which seems unlikely for a British publication—but can be checked. If not (or if it did not actually appear there) the sketch would have already been PD in the UK & the USA both by the time the newspaper published it. From your “thinks” wording I guess you know this already, but Commons policy does not oblige us to observe any conditions the BL may set. I expect you should be fine using {{PD-scan}} with {{PD-old-auto-1996}}.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If it was first published in 1930: The work was in the public domain in the UK on the date of restoration (1 January 1996) because the UK copyright expired 50 years after publication (the copyright term for works published at the earliest 20 years after the death of the author). Unless the UK publication had a copyright notice and submitted a copyright renewal to the US, the work is in the public domain.
If the work was first published in 1971: The work enters the public domain in the UK on 1 January 2022 (50 years after publication) due to the stupid perpetual copyright for unpublished works. Because of this, it was copyrighted in the UK on the date of restoration (1 January 1996), so it would be {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. It could also have a subsisting copyright because the UK publication only needed a copyrighted notice for the work to get a full US copyright term of 95 years from publication.
If the work was not published in either publication, and not anywhere else before 2003, then it's {{PD-US-unpublished}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

California DMV

The California DMV claims copyright on its works, for example the website (Copyright © 2021 State of California) and the driver handbook (page ix). However, it is not listed as one of the agencies permitted to claim copyright on Template:PD-CAGov. I see three possible outcomes:

  1. We find the relevant text in California law that allows the DMV to claim copyright, and add it to the template as one of the exceptions.
  2. There is nothing in California law that explicitly allows the DMV to claim copyright, but the DMV is nonetheless allowed to claim copyright, so the statement "California's Constitution and its statutes do not permit any agency to claim copyright for 'public records' unless authorized to do so by law" is false and should be struck.
  3. There is nothing in California law that explicitly allows the DMV to claim copyright, so we should ignore its claims as copyfraud and continue to allow California DMV works.

Thoughts? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It's noteworthy that the DMV's conditions of use state "In general, information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered public domain." I am therefore inclined to think that the inclusion of the copyright notice was an oversight. I'll also note that the California DMV's parent agency, the California State Transportation Agency, has a similar copyright notice on its website https://calsta.ca.gov/, but its conditions of use link to the conditions of use for ca.gov, which also state that the content of the website is generally in the public domain.  Mysterymanblue  07:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyright notices are often part of the standard templates on website creation software, so it seems most likely the DMV simply did not bother to remove it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Yeah, I wouldn't put too much stock in a website boilerplate message, but it is rather interesting that the PDF handbook contains a copyright notice; that seems to be intentionally added. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
You make a good point... this DMV page explicitly calls for copyright notices on DMV forms and states "DMV forms are subject to copyright law protections. Written permission from the DMV Divisional Form Reproduction Administrator must be obtained to reproduce any DMV Form."  Mysterymanblue  02:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
That is rather interesting. On the other hand, the example year given there is 2007, and the court case which clarified the status of California government works did not happen until 2009. This archived page does say that several agencies which formerly claimed copyright continued to do so, but restates that there was a 2015 ruling which says there must be a statute which "affirmatively grants" the ability to claim copyright. There was a 2016 law attempt to undo that and allow the state to copyright their public records, but sounds like it was altered to remove copyright considerations (and limit things to trademark).
Funnily enough, the claim above is that "DMV forms are subject to copyright". However, the Copyright Office says: Blank forms typically contain empty fields or lined spaces as well as words or short phrases that identify the content that should be recorded in each field or space. Blank forms that are designed for recording information and do not themselves convey information are uncopyrightable. So, not sure those would be copyrightable even if the DMV claimed they were. Maybe the forms in question have a lot of text, or something like that.
But, apparently the court rulings say there must be a statute which affirmatively grants the permission to claim copyright, so until there is a law giving the DMV that authority, not sure it would hold up at least per the current court rulings (which our tags are based upon). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: So where is copyfraud actually unlawful, and under what statutes or precedents?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
There isn't really any penalty with any teeth. W:Copyfraud gives the legal prohibitions against doing it -- however it would need to happen with "fraudulent intent" and I think only the government itself can prosecute (and not sure they have ever bothered to try). A copyright notice due to a belief that the works are copyrightable probably won't qualify. So basically, there is no real penalty from claiming it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thanks, what a shame.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The copyright notice on the website appears to have been in continuous use since 2002 (evidence), so it may indeed be the case that the law changed underneath their feet and they just never bothered to change the way they do things.  Mysterymanblue  03:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Are speeches protected in Portugal or not

Ok, now my head hurts.

Art. 7 of the Code of Copyright and Related Rights in Portugal, which covers exemptions from copyright protection, reads (WIPO machine translation):

1 - The following are not protected:
  a) … b) …
  c) Proposed texts and speeches given before assemblies or other collegiate, political and administrative bodies, at a national, regional or local level, or in public debates on matters of common interest;
  d) Political speeches.
2 - The complete reproduction, in reprint, in a collection or other joint use, of speeches, oratory pieces and other texts referred to in subparagraphs c) and d) of paragraph 1 may only be made by the author or with his consent.

This seems to say that a political speech, for example, is not protected by copyright but only the author can reproduce it in full or authorise someone else to do so. If that's correct it seems rather self-defeating and pointless, but maybe I'm missing something? Is it some kind of a special non-copyright right to compilation they're trying to create here? That is, such a speech would be public domain if reproduced alone, but be subject to a non-copyright restriction preventing its inclusion in any kind of collection or compilation (for example in a Commons category with other speeches)? Xover (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"Joint probability distribution"

I upload this file recently and got a "does not have sufficient information on its copyright status" from the AntiCompositeBot. I think I've fixed the problem but would appreciate some advice and comments on whether they're correct or not before removing the AntiCompositeBot template in the file.

I've added the cc by 1.0 template in the Licensing section (not sure if the license holder has endorsed later versions), the text from the license holder, and a link to their license page: is that sufficient? Too much? Adequate?

I tried to use the "[[:File: ..." template in that Licensing section but that didn't seem to work and I'm not even sure if that was appropriate there.

In addition, I see a "|permission=" subsection but I'm not sure if there isn't some additional information required there.

Please advise. Thanks. --TillermanJimW (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@TillermanJimW: you were on the right track. We usually put the licence template in its own section, and the explanation of why it applies in the permission field of the info template, but it doesn’t make any significant difference. Some users put both in both places, for good measure. As long as it can recognize a licence template somewhere on the page, the bot should leave it alone. (I’m not sure about the CC BY version either. Your rationale for 1.0 makes sense, but alternatively a case might be made for {{Cc-by-all}}.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the information - and quick response. :-) I'll go ahead then and remove AntiCompositeBot tag, and look into the "all" option, though probably tomorrow. --TillermanJimW (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion request of December 2020

Sorry for crossposting, but I did not get help on Commons:Village pump from 2 september, so now I'm trying here.

The deletion requests of December 2020 show an enormous backlog. More then 7000 files in Category:Deletion requests December 2020 are still waiting a final decision. As a beginning admin I scanned through all requests from december 2020 the last few weeks, and could close many of them, as well as did other admins. The large number of requests I (and other admins apparently) could not close were uploads by User:Fæ from Internet Achive, considered PD by IA. User:ShakespeareFan00 did a large effort to sort out the copyright situation in detail and started these DR's. User User:TE(æ)A,ea. gave comments on many of these DR's. However, a clear concluding remark is needed, and for myself interpretation is impossible. Still, I would like to do something about the backlog.

My question: Which admin or other expert on this field likes to help me to sort this out? My proposal would be to select a certain general situation (for instance: recent publications originating outside USA) so these can be closed. After that, select another situation, etc.

Thanks, Elly (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

::P.S. perhaps this has been discussed before, I looked around but did not find guidance for closing these DR's.

As nobody answers, this item may be closed. I must say, I'm a bit disappointed for not getting advice or help from September 2. Elly (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Elly (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Garfield comics 1976–1977 (then called Jon) in Pendleton-Post Times, Indiana

I had taken notice to the fact that there were comics published in a local newspaper before 1978. I also noticed that the comics published before 1978 did not have copyright notices on the comics themselves. It also does not appear that they had notices anywhere near them, or on the papers. A video by this YouTuber, by the person who preserved these rare comic strips, showed some of the newspapers themselves briefly, and as I skimmed through the video looking at the newspapers themselves, no copyright notices appear to be anywhere on the pre-1978 papers. However, without scans of the entire papers and not just the comics, I can't prove it to some absolute extent.

I found zero results for a comic strip called "Jon" or of the word "Pendleton" before 1978 in the US copyright database.

I'd like to call this research done and just upload the comics already, as I think it is extremely likely they are in the public domain. Most local newspapers were not published with a copyright notice back then, and the comics themselves certainly had no notices slapped onto them until 1978. Did the comics themselves need a notice, or could the notice have only been for the newspaper? Say for the sake of argument that the newspapers did have a copyright notice, that was something like "Copyright 1976 Pendleton Times Press", in an information box. It does not appear that this is the case and I'm willing to bet it isn't after what I've seen in the video. But, would that make the comic under copyright by proxy?

What do you guys think about me assuming PD and uploading these comics to Category:Garfield? PseudoSkull (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The LostMediaWiki article for context PseudoSkull (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • PseudoSkull: Seeing as how Mr. Davis re-used most of the Jon content in making Garfield, it seems clear to me that he owned the rights to the Jon strip, and did not hand them over to the Times–Post. As such, a general copyright notice in the issue would not cover the strip (see PD-US-no notice advertisement). The work is then PD-US-no notice up to 1977. The rules change in 1978 (see PD-US-1978-89), but assuming no copyright for Jon, the strips should be acceptable under those two licenses. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Be careful of COM:CHARACTER: If first publication of the Garfield character is still in copyright, then comics featuring him are considered derivative works and still subject to copyright. You may also wish to review the It's a Wonderful Life example in COM:US. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Don't worry, this is the original Garfield comic. :) PseudoSkull (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, cool. If the comic has been syndicated in multiple places, then you may also wish to check against the following:
  • If the Office is informed that the great bulk at the published copies of a work bore an appropriate notice, but that the notice was accidentally omitted from a very few of the published copies, registration may be made. In such cases, if the deposit copies do not bear the notice, copies with the notice will be requested.
  • If a considerable number of copies have been pub­lished without notice, registration will be denied.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: On the next page it goes on, "If the entire first edition of a work was published without notice, registration will be denied even if the first edition consisted of a relatively small number of copies." I believe these newspaper editions would count as the first editions. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Unless the comics initially appeared only in the Pendleton-Post Times, this wouldn't be the "entire first edition". That's why I don't think this line is relevant; what we care about is whether "a considerable number of copies have been pub­lished without notice". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Is there any reason to think they didn't? The Lost Media Wiki linked above says it was a local, non-syndicated cartoon published only in that newspaper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice that link. Yes, it appears fine to me then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about artwork The Conquest of Tenochtitlan.jpg

Packaging

Hello, the contributions (files) of Special:Contributions/Oasisllc (like limited liability company ?) do not seem to have their place on Commons, in compliance with COM:PACKAGING.
I'm no specialist, but packages, with the product name, logo and trademark, don't seem "insignificant" or "old enough" or "simple enough" to me. I would like some expert advice ;-) Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Files like File:Bactériophagiques russes staphylo & pyo.jpg are OK. No complex design or logo, just name and content of the product. Nothing which might be under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Nations "United Nations documents issued with a UN document symbol" are in public domain. Does it meam that I can use photos that are within documents with this symbol such as in this doc: [7]? Borysk5 (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Borysk5: Yes, the UNSC document contains the official UN document symbol, and falls under {{PD-UN-doc}}. Please feel free to upload it to Commons, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Not all photos. Use in this document does not have the effet of whitewashing non-free third-party photos. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Asclepias: I know, I was asking about those non-third party (taken by the Panel). Borysk5 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Probable screenshots

This one and this one seem like screenshots of the live telecast of the latest Paralympics. I mean compare the first image with this one. So I guess an admin needs to press the appropriate button. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

M.nelson, thanks for the detailed comment. I have actually got hundreds of files deleted via CSDs or DRs. But the screenshots are a bit tricky matter, especially in the cases like the present one, where the uploaders present them as their "own work". Having said that, Howdy.carabao's approach seems most suitable in this case. Anyway, thanks again to both of you. - NitinMlk (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

UA93 Recordings

The current featured article on the English Wikipedia is United Airlines Flight 93, which includes numerous audio recordings that have been marked with {{PD-USGov}}. These audio recordings are generally cockpit voice recordings or recordings of communications between the aircraft and Air Traffic control:

One audio recording is of a phone message:

I think it would be difficult to classify the cockpit recordings and ATC transmissions as government works because the government did not contribute anything creatively to them. For ATC transmissions, the air traffic controller's audio is possibly a federal government work, but the aircraft's audio—created by United pilots or by terrorists and recorded on United-owned equipment—is not. The cockpit recordings are unambiguously not government works. That being said, the recordings still are likely in the public domain for several reasons. Production-wise, these sorts of recordings, especially the cockpit voice recordings, are made in purely mechanical processes, so {{PD-ineligible}} probably applies. The brief utterances and informational conversation are likely not creative works, so {{PD-ineligible}} probably applies there as well. Additionally, the speech produced by terrorists and passengers on the aircraft was not fixed "by or under the authority of the author" (17 U.S. Code § 101), so it is not copyrightable. Speech made by aircraft controllers was made and fixed by federal employees, so {{PD-USGov}} may still be appropriate for File:Ua93.oga.

As for File:Lyles.ogg, I am far more skeptical that this can be in the public domain. This was a private phone message published but not created by the federal government. It may still be {{PD-ineligible}} or not fixed "by or under the authority of the author", but these arguments hold less water.  Mysterymanblue  22:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

We might want to create a green advisory tag for unfixed works (similar to {{FoP-US}}) because the situation is not quite the same as {{PD-ineligible}} (even if in this case, some of the speech would be simple enough to be ineligible anyways). The same would also apply to COM:ZOOM, where copyright is only created when a livestream is fixed and so a participant who takes a Zoom screenshot is the sole copyright holder of the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I agree... but should it be green? Shouldn't it be the light bluish gray that regular PD tags are? My understanding is that the FOP tag is green because the buildings are protected by copyright, but that copyright protection in a piece of architecture does not give the copyright holder the exclusive right to take photographs of the architecture.  Mysterymanblue  04:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, an unfixed work by definition is not a work which can be directly uploaded to Commons, so it would never be used as the primary copyright tag. Just like how you can never upload a building directly to Commons. `-- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Sound recordings have a copyright entirely separate from the content they are recording. Much like photographers standing side by side will have independent copyrights on the photos they take, two people with sound recorders will have independent copyrights on the recordings they make, even if they sound virtually the same. Not sure there are too many cases on the TOO of sound recordings. But anyways, it is that aspect which is PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: But in this case, the audio signal is being created on an airplane and only the data of that signal is being recorded by the government. Surely the government's role in such a situation is not that of an author.  Mysterymanblue  04:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
If the audio signal is a radio transmission, then yes whoever records it might have their own copyright. If these are from the cockpit voice recorder, I'd tend to agree with you. It's not about the content (the audio signal), it's about the actual process used to record it, and any creativity that might have. If the signal is actually recorded on the aircraft, and the recording is transmitted digitally, it might be different. Either case could be judged PD-ineligible, if there was no real human involvement in the recording, or if that involvement did not exhibit enough of a spark of creativity. While quite likely in this situation, we don't have very many good precedents for that type of thing, and we don't know the details of how this stuff was actually recorded. If PD-USGov can be used to cover it, probably best to use that. The copyright in a photograph is rarely the actual subject in a photograph -- it's the angle and framing of the photo, the timing, etc. The copyright in a sound recording can be in the placement of the recorder, any treatment they do of the sound, or other elements -- the actual content/signal being recorded is not relevant (well, you'd need permission yourself for any copyrighted content of course, but extemporaneous speech would not qualify in this case). The Copyright Office does note, Sound recordings captured by purely mechanical means without originality of any kind also lack a sufficient amount of authorship to warrant copyright protection. But the copyright, if any, would be in the actual capturing of the sound, regardless of what those sounds are. More/better info available from that Copyright Office link. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess it has always been unclear to me what exactly the rules are with sound recordings. I have read the copyright circular you cite, which reads "The author of a sound recording is the performer featured in the recording and the producer who captured and processed the sounds that appear in the final recording." This suggests to me that copyright really does protect the creative contributions of the person making the sound and those of the person making the recording - at least if they are working together. In cases where the recorder and the performer do not work together, 17 U.S. Code § 1101 protects against unauthorized recording of a live music performance, but does not protect against recording other types of sound. In this case, the placement of the microphones within the cockpit is fixed in a situation akin to static CCTV cameras, which seemed to suggest to me a minimum amount of originality in the creation of the recording. I should have also considered the processing done to that audio signal as a potential creative work, but it seems unlikely to me that processes on the plane or ground would have gone beyond purely mechanical changes meant to preserve the quality of the signal.  Mysterymanblue  08:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

DR in need of inputs

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kunwar Brajesh Singh.jpg needs imputs, especially from those who are familiar with the Indian copyrights. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Clearly copyrighted by BBC India, and certainly not in the public domain in USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. :) NitinMlk (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Which tag do I need to add when uploading these files? (Smithsonian)

Hi there, I would like to upload these files from the Smithsonian.[8]-[9] They have added a download button and right next to it it says "usage conditions apply". When you click on that it says:

"All other Content is subject to usage conditions due to copyright and/or other restrictions and may only be used for personal, educational, and other non-commercial uses consistent with the principles of fair use under Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act. All rights not expressly granted herein by the Smithsonian are reserved, unless the Content is marked with the CC0 icon. To use Content with usage conditions, you must:

  1. Cite the author and source of the Content as you would material from any printed work.
  2. Cite and link to, when possible, the Website as the source of the Content.
  3. Not remove any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices including attribution information, credits, and notices, that are placed in or near the text, images, or data.
  4. Comply with all terms or restrictions (such as copyright, trademark, publicity and privacy rights, or contractual restrictions) as may be specified in the metadata or as may otherwise apply to the Content."

It leaves me puzzled vis. which tag I need to add for such files. Does anyone have an idea? Thank you in advance! - LouisAragon (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyone? Maybe you could help me out one more time, Wdwd? :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Their "usage conditions apply" info says that those images are not free. Therefore, there is no tag. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Asclepias: So none of the 2D works from the same site (e.g.[10]) are uploadable either accompanied by "PD-Art-old-100"? Or old photographs such as this one?[11] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The original question was specifically about two images to which PD-Art does not apply. If you find something that meets PD-Art, it's different. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
One of the many portraits

I've found a great resource of potentially thousands of images at the Michael Evans Portrait Project Photograph Collection, archived at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum, but am seeing conflicting information regarding copyright / public domain status. I've uploaded some already to Category:Michael Evans Portrait Project, but want to hold off pending better clarity. The collection's main page states the collection is in the public domain, although this notice does not seem to be found on the over 1,000 negative sheets. Michael Evans was official White House photographer in the Reagan Administration, but it looks like much of the Portrait Project was done on his "off hours" (see here), with copyrights to the portraits and negatives held by a nonprofit set up for the project ("The Portrait Project, Inc.), even though the prints and negatives were planned to be deposited in federal repositories (which doesn't necessarily negate copyright). A collection of documents (here) gives more info on the background and articles of incorporation. The portraits were published in book form in 1985, in People and Power: Portraits from the Federal Village, which states on its copyright page "© The Portrait Project, Inc.... All rights reserved." This conflicts with the Reagan Library's claim of public domain. It is possible that copyright was relinquished upon donation to National Archives/Reagan Library, or that some of the portraits were taken on official time as a federal employee (i.e. the portraits featured on the main page), or that the Reagan Library is in error. Some portraits have apparently been gifted to the Smithsonian (e.g. [12], [13]). Some additional press coverage of the Portrait Project is at Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and American Photographer magazine. Any insight or sleuthing from experts would be greatly appreciated, otherwise the images already uploaded may need to be deleted. Thanks, --Animalparty (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like a question to ask to the Library or other people who might know the facts. The missing piece to your puzzle is not a legal analysis but information about facts. Specifically, what happened of the corp The Portrait Project, Inc.? If it was dissolved, which is likely, to what other organization were its assets (in particular its copyrights) turned over? And then what did that organization do with the copyrights. Given that the Library seems confident to tell the copyright status of the collection, it seems a good organization to which ask factual details. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Company car photo (UK)

I been involved in some FoP copyright issues in Ireland/UK over the past while .... and have recalled when speaking just now about a company in the same service field that I have taken this image of a company car File:Caremark-motor-Chi.jpg a while ago. Is anyone about to confirm it some not fall foul of UK copyright law due to the logo? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not a COM:FOP issue, but a COM:DM issue. Consensus has been relatively mixed regarding cars with paint jobs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Thanks for pointing the relevance of the DM. Faily obviously per caption the the care was snapped due to it representing the company and because it may an impacting image that I used on their website .. I think I worked over 4 care brands(national franchicees) at the same time. My initial reaction was I have fallen foul of DM because of the Logo centre .... but on hard thinking about it the words stand out far more than the logo and the logo it actually incidental. I have decided not to test case it for deletion but not objecting to anyone else doing that. I may or may not tag Template:De minimus. Thinking about modern UK railway locomotives, as I sometimes do, where there might be the occasional similar issue, tagging one of those for deletion on a similar basis might invoke a lynch mob! Its a consideration for me ... I'm also thinking o a lorry I took recently and (may or may not have uploaded) and if that had an issue. Anyway thankyou for the response as it may influence the my choices for further images or sometimes how I compose a shot. Thankyou. 22:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)~

Screenshots of TV shows

This editor has added multiple images of screenshots from TV shows that are covered by copyright. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I warned them, please tag the old ones, final warn them, or report them, as appropriate.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I've nuked all but one of the speedies, but File:Danielle Trotta Larry McReynolds.jpg is giving me an internal database error, if someone else could try it. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: COM:VPC is mostly for discussions on tricky copyright issues, not obvious copyvios. In the future, serial copyright violators may be reported to COM:ANBP or COM:ANU. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If there is a conflict between an EXIF copyright statement (too restrictive for Commons, though not "all rights reserved") and that image's Flickr page (which licences it as CC-BY), which takes precedence? Would it be the Flickr licence (because it was necessarily made later and is not revocable)? Assume there is no suspicion of Flickrwashing. Interested to hear your thoughts. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Those cases must always be evaluated individually, taking into account all the particular facts. There is no single answer to an unspecific context. In many cases, after verification, it turned out that the photos were not free. An approximation to a general advice could be exercise caution unless it's obvious that the copyright owner issued a free license with the intention to supersede anything to the contrary. In doubt, verify. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Assuming that the Flickr account's authorship of the photos is not in question, I actually feel better about an "All Rights Reserved" than a CC-BY-NC. The former might just be something automatically applied by their editing software, and besides, "All Rights Reserved" isn't strictly false even if a CC license has been applied. For the latter we may wish to clarify their intentions with them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the image: File:Jorge Lorenzo, Joan Mir, Hafizh Syahrin and Karel Abraham 2019 Termas de Río Hondo (cropped).jpg. I verified that it is indeed cropped from the source (which is probably why the automatic Flickr licence check didn't work). I am relying on the mechanical translation of the Spanish, but the EXIF statement seems to lean closer to the noncommercial licence. It's definitely not a standard camera setting. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
With corporate entities, I'm more willing to say "you have a team of lawyers who should have looked at this, CC licenses are irrevocable, too bad/suck it up." One thing you'll want to check is whether it is a reasonable assumption that REPSOL is the copyright holder (as opposed to the actual photographer). If you are convinced of that, then I have no qualms accepting the CC license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
IMHO, the image would usually go into the category "not obvious" and not to be uploaded and kept without confirmation. It sure looks like one of those cases where the person who used the flickr account didn't seem to have a clear idea of what they were doing when they tagged the images. The exif notice sounds like you may use this photo but only if you are a press entity and not for publicity. There's a contact email adress. The photographer also has a social media presence through which he could be contacted, for example his twitter account. It should be possible to obtain a clarification. A quick search on Commons shows that there is a large number of files from that flickr account. That may suggest that there's no problem and either that it has already been checked or that nobody bothered. Anyway, it would be good to obtain an official clarification if it has not been done already. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

File:ABC_pict_just_hands.png

Hi, I needed an image of the American Sign Language finger alphabet with no Latin letters, so I snipped the letters out of File:ABC pict.png and re-uploaded it in case anyone else needs the same thing. I'm not sure if I got all the steps right... please let me know if I messed up. None Shall Revert (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Voice of America screenshot

I'm not sure File:Cai Xia.jpg has been uploaded under an acceptable license, but I'd like to get some feedback on that before starting a DR. The photo can be found used in a video (1:27 mark) on the en:Voice of America's Chinese language YouTube channel, but it doesn't appear to be original VOA content. I don't understand Chinese, but it seem that en:Cai Xia (the subject of the photo?) is either being interviewed or discussed by others and a photo was used to represent her likeness. There's no attribution given for the photo and there's no other indication that I can see which indicates where the photo came from; so, there's no way to be sure the VOA just wasn't using a photo it got from somewhere else. There seem to be quite a number of similar photos found online with a different background like this; so, it kind of looks like the VOA took one of these and photoshopped it onto a generic background for use on their channel. Can Commons keep this as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Edward Weston, Armco Steel, Ohio, 1922

Hi, Why this famous photograph from 1922 would still be under a copyright? See [14], [15]. I understand that all US works from before 1926 are in the public domain, isn't? Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

All works published before 1926 are in the public domain in the US. When was this published (not taken)? It seems unlikely for the 1981 copyright claim to be relevant, but there are several recent (post-1977) registrations for bunches of his photographs. Given that it was printed in 1941, it's likely it was published then, and the only renewal listed for Edward Weston before 1942 is "California and the West". Were it first published in another work, it might have been renewed with that work, but that seems unlikely for this photographer given his Wikipedia page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't realize the pages I was checking only had early art renewals, but I've looked at the art and photograph renewals on https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ and Weston's name doesn't appear in any of them up to 1970, so if it was printed and distributed for sale or further distribution in or by 1941, it's now PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done File:Edward Weston, Armco Steel, Ohio, 1922, MoMA.jpg. Thanks for your comments, Yann (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Does it mean most (if not all his works) are in the public domain because of lack of renewal (he died in 1958)? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The work must have been published before 1964, and there must be no renewals from his heirs either. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: OK, but how do you know when a photograph was first published? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
That will have to be found through research. For things like books, postcards, publicity photos, etc. it is reasonable to assume that they have been published absent evidence to the contrary. For artistic works it is a bit harder. Note that per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, any art which has been placed in a public location (including a museum) prior to 1978, unless visitors are forbidden from making copies, counts as published. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Certainly not. I didn't check renewals for works first published after 1941, and any work first published in California and the West (1940) or the 1942 edition of Leaves of Grass illustrated by his photographs or The Photographs of Edward Weston (1946) or The Cats of Wildcat Hill (1947) or Fifty Photographs (1947), just to list the renewals of pre-1950 works easily checkable by me, is still in copyright, as well as quite possibly works first published in other works. There are a number of mass posthumous copyright registrations that didn't need renewal, so proving publication is key.
The Armco Steel photograph that started this discussion is something I would think twice before using personally. Part of that is because of possible lawsuits that don't come into play with Commons, but when push comes to shove, I don't know enough to be certain about the publication status of the work. The three new ones I'm really uncertain about; Plaster Works certainly could have been first published in California and the West, for example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have uploaded more pre-1926 photographs with the generic {{PD-US}} license. I hope that's OK. Yann (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup 2019 Final

I want to know how can I copyright the image in which England is holding the Cricket World Cup? Please write in simple words. RIDHVAN SHARMA (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The image is not allowed on Commons. Getty Images holds the copyright. It will be many years before their copyright expires. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's talk about South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks.

I talked about South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks last time, but I didn't get a clear answer.

I found two cases related to South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks.

First case: Seoul High Court judged the seagull pattern and the figure of Ebisu of EVISU Japan is not copyrighted because they cannot be recognized for originality. (Reference)

Second case: Supreme Court of South Korea judged the logo of Fox Racing is copyrighted. (Reference)

How about South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks?

It would be appreciated if someone who can speak Korean could read the case law and give an answer. (If you don't know Korean, you can use Google Translate.)

Ox1997cow (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid but nobody will give you a clear answer. There is no any clear definition of ToO in Korea or anywhere in the world. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Still, it is possible to make some inferences from precedents. What do you think? Ox1997cow (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Precedents are often contradictory. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure which image public domain template to use

I recently found a document which I plan to use photos from for an article I am working on editing, specifically Flare, specifically photos from Chapter 5. The document which I found the photos in says it is in the public domain (at the bottom of the document), yet it doesn't match up with any of the public domain file copyright tags that I have looked through. The document specifically says the following:

"Publications and training materials produced by NWCG are in the public domain. Use of public domain information, including copying, is permitted. Use of NWCG information within another document is permitted if NWCG information is accurately credited to NWCG. The NWCG logo may not be used except on NWCG authorized information. “National Wildfire Coordinating Group,” “NWCG,” and the NWCG logo are trademarks of NWCG."

I was wondering if anyone knows which copyright tag it matches up with and possibly if the photo is or isn't permitted to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Thank You So Much!

Sincerely,

Rafaelmanman

Rafaelmanman (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rafaelmanman: By NWCG, do you mean the en:National Wildfire Coordinating Group? If so, then since it is a United States government office then the generic Template:PD-USGov should be okay. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Howdy.carabao: Hello, Indeed I do, I also recently asked about this same subject in the Wikipedia Teahouse. They recommended I ask here but also said "Well, for starters, we're told that '[PD-USGov] should not be used if the department or part of the federal government which produced the work is known'." If you believe that I should use Template:PD-USGov, please let me know. Thank You! Rafaelmanman (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
We don't have a more specific template for NWCG in Category:PD-USGov license tags, and it doesn't appear to be under the purview of any other department or agency that we do have a tag for (being made up of representatives from various agencies), so the generic PD-USGov template seems fine, unless someone wants to try their hand at making a specific one. clpo13(talk) 17:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for the answers, I think I will just use Template:PD-USGov. Thanks Again!

Sincerely, Rafaelmanman (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The year is 1970, and Person A is publishing a book in the United States. Person B submits a photo they took and consents for it to appear in the book uncredited. The book is published with the only copyright notice in the entire book being "© 1970 Person A". Which of the following best describes the current copyright status of B's photo?

  1. It is {{PD-US-no notice}}, because each component of a collective work must have its own copyright notice.
  2. It is {{PD-US-defective notice}}, because while the copyright notice covers the entire book, it fails to correctly name B as the copyright holder of the photo.
  3. A is the copyright holder of the entire book, including B's photo, and is authorized to release the rights to B's photo.
  4. B is still the copyright holder of the photo.

P.S. Would the answer change if B is credited but not explicitly listed in any copyright notice? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's a proper collective work, the overall copyright notice covers everything. If it's not, if Person A is the licensor or proprietor of the work, then it's probably still fine. The Jaws Copyright Office ruling would have allowed a lot of covers to be out of copyright, and if a publisher contracted for interior art on a John Doe's work, it looks like that art would need its own notice, but from reading that, if John Doe contracted for art and put © 1970 John Doe, it should be fine, and that's backed up by a good amount of case law. That ruling is basically all I looked at for this answer, but I don't recall anything in US law that would say otherwise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: What do you mean by "proper collective work"? What about a book written by A that uses an illustration by B? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Instead of copying the page, I'll just link it: https://copyright.gov/eco/help-collective-work.html --Prosfilaes (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Carl Lindberg's link below (17 USC 406) makes no mention of collective works, so how do you square the Jaws ruling with that? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Unless there was a written transfer, B still owns the copyright. A collective work's notice covered every component work, other than advertisements. The missing separate notice would create an "error in name" scenario, which did not affect the copyright status. 17 USC 406: With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, where the person named in the copyright notice on copies or phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner is not the owner of copyright, the validity and ownership of the copyright are not affected. It goes on to say that if you ask permission from A, thinking they are the copyright owner and A gives you permission, then you likely have a complete defense against infringement (as long as B did not register the work separately). But B still owns the copyright, and A might be liable in that situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess I should clarify that the above law is only part of the 1976 act; publications prior to 1978 were not explicitly covered by that, and the older law did specify that the name of the "proprietor" should be in the notice. However, there were a couple of court cases along those lines -- such as Goodis v. United Artists (We unanimously conclude that where a magazine has purchased the right of first publication under circumstances which show that the author has no intention to donate his work to the public, copyright notice in the magazine's name is sufficient to obtain a valid copyright on behalf of the beneficial owner, the author or proprietor), and Fantastic Fakes v. Pickwick (courts have generally avoided technical forfeitures for failure to strictly comply with the provision, focusing instead on whether the purpose of the notice requirement was served despite the defect in the notice provided [...] The claim of copyright placed on Fantastic's material, although defective, clearly notified the public of the existence of a claim of copyright.). So, the 1976 law was probably codifying that understanding. (The second decision came after that law actually, and was influenced by it.). As Prosfilaes showed though, items outside the collective work probably could not be covered -- there likely had to be some sort of licensing relationship between the two parties. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Brooklyn Museum and CC BY 3.0

Good evening! I found out that Brooklyn Museum has materials that it's licensed under CC BY 3.0 and I would like to upload some of them (about Javanese culture) to Wikimedia Commons. I need contributor to confirm whether the material is actually safe to upload, as I'm not sure whether the copyright holder is by museum or author that gave the rights to museum or copyright rules are applied to these material so that I can avoid copyright infringement. Thanks. AnsyahF (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That collection should be fine. I wouldn't rely on a boilerplate statement from a museum on anything, so only upload images that have an individual CC statement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Good day everyone, please I want to ask, if I should download a file I posted on another space e.g Google map and post that same file here on commons, am I still the copy right owner of that image? Remember I was the one that posted that same image in that space and maybe for some reasons, I no longer have that same image on my phone, and I decided to download from maps or the website I posted it so as to post the same image here for a purpose, hope I'm not doing anything wrong by posting that image and by putting my name as the original author? And if I can post that image will I post it as my personal stuff or post it as fair use? Please my questions may not be straight forward, but please try and understand and answer them for me. Thanks. --Idoghor Melody (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

In principle, yes you can repost your own copyrighted work to this site. However there are a few problems that you may encounter. First, you will need to check the terms of the site(s) where you posted the image previously; if you granted them an exclusive licence to your work (or transfered the ownership of copyright), you may be in breach of your previous agreement if you repost it elsewhere. In a worst case scenario, the previous site owner may have some legal right to claim damages from you for breaching the agreement. Second, Commons' automated processes may detect the upload as a copyright violation of a file uploaded at the other site and either block upload or list it for immediate deletion (this can be resolved in my third point). Third, whether your image is blocked, deleted or survives upload, it is a good idea to submit a statement to Commons:OTRS to confirm that you are the original copyright owner and that you are re-releasing the image here (this specific situation is covered by the point at "I am the copyright owner but my file has been previously published without a free license on a medium I can't alter"). Submitting an OTRS statement will avoid any mistaken accusations of copyright violation for uploading your own work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore, thank you very much, I'm now clarified.--Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Separability of sex dolls

I came across an interesting DR of a sex doll: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Musée de l'érotisme 011.jpg. It's not clear to me whether it is copyrightable, and I'd appreciate some more opinions at the DR. We can use it as a test case for sex dolls/toys in general and update Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter at the conclusion of the DR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Kandinsky and URAA

Does affect COM:URAA on Kandinsky works were copyrighted in the United States after 1926, when Kandinsky died in 1944, works are still copyrighted in the United States due to URAA and 95 years after it was published. --49.150.116.127 09:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Wassily Kandinsky? Reading his article, he lived in Russia, Germany, and France at different times. The "country of origin" for a work is the country it is first published, so those may be different countries for this artist. Any of his works published before 1926 should be fine ({{PD-old-70-expired}}). Works first published in Russia, at any time, should be fine as either {{PD-Russia-1996}} or {{PD-RusEmpire}}. 1926+ works first published in France and Germany would be OK in those countries now, but the U.S. copyright would have been restored to 95 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Can it be published at Spanish Wikipedia?

Hi everyone! I would probably create Spanish Wikipedia Congressional Quarterly article and I want to know if CQ'S logo (https://www.google.com/search?q=cq+congressional+quarterly+logo&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjE_vuY8YbzAhUGyBQKHY9dBM4Q2-cCegQIABAC&oq=cq+congressional+quarterlylogo&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQARgAMgQIHhAKOgQIABBDOgUIABCABDoGCAAQBxAeOgQIABANOggIABANEAUQHlD_lwNY_-QDYOnyA2gBcAB4AYABlwKIAZsVkgEGMS4xOS4xmAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=d_9EYYTnJYaQU4-7kfAM&bih=720&biw=393&client=ms-android-xiaomi-rvo3&prmd=isnxv#imgrc=7GvMkqPFdD_2AM) can be used at that project. I think it dont meet threshold of originality because is only text but i prefer youe answers because you know much more than I know. Sincerely yours, Fewasser (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fewasser: This doesn't seem to be copyrightable in Spain (see also COM:TOO Spain), so you can upload it here with a {{PD-textlogo}} licence tag. De728631 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The Uzbek government has passed the law to amend the copyright extension for 70 years. Source: [16] --49.150.116.127 01:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@49.150.116.127: Seems legit. Can you provide the official version gazetted for double verification? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Can someone help with updating the content on COM:Uzbekistan and {{PD-Uzbekistan}}? I don't know how to edit complex pages and templates with translation involved.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The outdated 2007/2018 amendment was replaced in 2021 to extend 70 year copyright term for Uzbek works. --49.150.116.127 07:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Is this retroactive, i.e. will works that are already out of copyright due to the old term but have not passed the 70 years threshold get a new protection? De728631 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Same as Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and some former Soviet countries which had protected for 70 years (in Russia, with additional three years during World War II). --49.150.116.127 08:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
But this law amended on July 2021, the Uzbek copyright would extend from 50 to 70 years in Article 2. --49.150.116.127 08:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@49.150.116.127 and De728631: From the Google translated text, it seems that there are no retrospective provisions (i.e. works published before the amendments comes into effect are protected under the new 70-year duration instead of the old 50-year duration). As the source is published on an official governmental website, perhaps we should proceed to update relevant provisions?廣九直通車 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

As I translated of the Article 1065 as they amended: "the word "fifty" shall be replaced by the word "seventy"". --49.150.116.127 22:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to update the information on COM:Uzbekistan and {{PD-Uzbekistan}}. Can someone help with tagging my updates with translation tags?廣九直通車 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

"for Wikipedia only"

Despite the title, File:5873-2 web from Cranbrook for Wikipedia only.jpg seems to have an OTRS ticket that has been verified. Could someone with OTRS access take a look at the ticket and confirm that it isn't just "for Wikipedia only", and if so, change the file title accordingly? Nosferattus (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Ganímedes. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: In the future, please use COM:ON to ask agents to look into permission tickets. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Despite the name of the file, permission has been granted by the copyright holder with the right template naming CCBYSA 4.0, so it's valid, IMHO. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Cordell Affeldt as uploader.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Can we change the title of the file then? Otherwise it is misleading and confusing (and discourages reuse). Nosferattus (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done - I've gone ahead and renamed the file as per the discussion above. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Problematic attitude of the user Houssam BH

Hello All,

I write this message because I would like to bring some attention to the attitude of the user Houssam BH. Not only did he upload a big amount of copyright material, as you can see on his talk page User talk:Houssam BH, he removes the banner from the pictures asked for deletion[17], [18]. Is there a way to open a request to the administrator or is there another action to take to make him understand his attitude is not acceptable ?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

Best regards, --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer: This is the wrong board. Please see COM:ANU. Do not tag simple logos for speedy deletion, especially if there are used. I nevertheless blocked Houssam BH for 3 months (third block). Should be indefinite next time. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thank you for your answer. I will remember using this link if a user will cause some trouble and I will no longer tag logos for speedy deletion. Best regards,--CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Photos from TK KBS

Hi! I need a reflection from someone skilled of you! I would like to upload some photos from this page: https://foto1.tkkbs.sk/. I asked them if they would provide some photos to Wikimedia and I was adressed to this page with words : These are photos for free use, but you have to state the complete copyright string: e.g. in the case of the visit of Pope Frantisek in Slovakia, Man and Faith / TK KBS / Name and Surname of photographer. Is this compatible with the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence [or with Wikimedia Commons licences at all]? Thanks a lot!----ScholastikosSVK (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a CC-BY license. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@ScholastikosSVK and Ruslik0: I disagree; while that statement does suggest that the source is willing to provide a compatible free license for their photos, it certainly cannot be assumed to be a CC license itself. The credit line is missing the name of the license, which is required for CC attribution. I don't think the simple words "for free use" are sufficient as a license because that short phrase could mean something completely different to them as it does to us. I suggest that you have the source confirm explicitly that they would be willing to use a CC license using COM:RELGEN or COM:VRTS. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The name of the license is not required for the CC attribution. Ruslik (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode says "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: ... indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License." 3.a.1.C. If we have an explicit notification that it's under the CC-BY, the fact the upstream website doesn't say it isn't a problem, but if we don't have something explicit, we can't infer that all the minutia, both in what is being offered and what is being required, of a CC license applies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Производное произведение

Здравствуйте,

Я разместил фотографию своего прадедушки из семейного альбома. Вот ссылка на страницу файла: [[19]].

Фотография была загружена для статьи о нем на Википедии: [[20]].

Сегодня я получил уведомление о том что: "Этот файл — производное произведение" и что необходимо: "указать автора и источник использованных произведений, чтобы можно было легко проверить выполнение авторских условий".

Я не могу предоставить какие либо источники и автора, тем более с возможностью проверки. Эта фотография была сделана в 20-х годах 20 века, а тот кто фотографировал давно умер и установить авторство не представляется возможным в принципе.

Что я могу сделать для того чтобы эта фотография не была удалена? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myshelov (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Derivative work

Hello,

I posted a photo of my great-grandfather from the family album. Here is a link to the file page: [[21]].

The photo was uploaded for an article about him on Wikipedia: [[22]].

Today I received a notification that: "This file is a derivative work" and that it is necessary: ​​"indicate the author and source of the works used, so that you can easily check the copyright conditions."

I cannot provide any sources and author, especially with the possibility of verification. This photo was taken in the 20s of the 20th century, and the one who photographed died long ago and it is not possible to establish the authorship in principle.

What can I do to prevent this photo from being deleted?
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Myshelov: Привет и добро пожаловать. Как вы думаете, это фото было сделано одним из ваших предков? У вас есть негатив? Можете ли вы сузить круг, когда оно было снято? Pinging @EugeneZelenko, JuTa в качестве тегеров. См. Также COM:SIGN/ru.
Hi, and welcome. Do you think this photo was taken by one of your ancestors? Do you have the negative? Can you narrow down when it was taken? Pinging @EugeneZelenko, JuTa as taggers. See also COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Прадед был публичным политиком. Думаю фото было сделано в каком-то фотоателье в Варшаве. Негатива нет, только фото на бумаге. Он был депутатом сейма в 1922–1927 г.г., думаю фото было сделано в этот период.
Фотография выглядит отретушированной. Это сделано во время создания или это современные модификации? В какой части довоенной Польши был сделан огригинал? Каковы даты жизни сфотографированного человека? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: The subject lived "(ur. 1891 w Maślennikach, zm. 1944)" per pl:Antoni Szapiel.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Думаю что во время создания. Предположительно фото было сделано в каком-то фотоателье в Варшаве. Годы жизни 1891-1944. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myshelov (talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Lithuania is applicable. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

FOP in France

I'm wondering how what's written in COM:FOP France might apply to en:File:Medici Fountain in 2021 after cleaning.jpg. The file was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as {{PD-self}} and the en:Medici Fountain seems to be more than old enough to be PD. In fact, the same photo (in a sense) has already been uploaded to Commons as File:Paris Jardin Luxembourg Polyphème surprenant A&G 2014.jpg (the 2021 photo shows the fountain after it was cleaned). Can this local file be transferred to Commons as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If the sculpture is free and the photo is free, why could it not be transferred? And why mention FoP? -- Asclepias (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I mentioned FOP because France's concept of FOP seems to be a bit more complex than some other countries and because it states "Not OK" right at the beginning of the section. I also was sure how a refurbishimg of the work might affect its copyright status. So, I just asked to make sure. Anyway, after reading that section again, it seems that there a 70 year pma placed upon publically displayed 3D works of art which almost certainly applies here, which means this should be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not aware of any country which protects architecture more strictly than paintings. So if it's OK for a painting, then it's OK for architecture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

File:CUB-31a-El Banco Espanol de la Habana-25 Centavos (1872).jpg has three contradictory statements about its copyright:

  • "The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page."
  • "This work was created in Cuba and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired."
  • Table cells: "Type of material"→"Corporate and government works" "Copyright has expired in Cuba if ..."→"Never (perpetual copyright)"

So who sent the e-mail, and who is the putative copyright holder on whose behalf they were writing, and what did they say exactly? Jnestorius (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no contradiction at all for a work to have multiple applicable copyright statuses, e.g. a photo of a modern building in the US. The photo could be licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0, while the building is copyrighted & all rights reserved by the architect, but a provision in copyright law (COM:FOP US) makes it so that the architect's copyright is inoperative for the photo. Regarding the reproduction, it is CC-BY-SA 4.0 by Godot13 on behalf of the National Numismatic Collection, but truth be told it more likely falls under COM:ART or COM:SCAN so the terms of the license are not legally necessary.
Since the government this note was issued under is now defunct, we have a few things to consider, such as whether this should be considered a work of the Cuban government at all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, the note was engraved and printed in New York City by the American Banknote Company, before being shipped to Cuba...-Godot13 (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

CC BY version discrepancies?

Definitely the following files are CC BY. The version discrepancies put me in doubt, though, as I don't know which versions apply.
These files say 2.5 but the first one's metadata says 3.0 (though it could be both):

File:A-New-Look-at-Some-Old-Animals-pbio.1000007.sv001.ogv (note that this is featured on tlwiki)
File:Trichoplax_movement.webm

I would also like to clarify many, if not most other PLOS files before the wide adoption of 4.0, but this should be the one I really want to have clarifications for now too:

File:Trichoplax adhaerens photograph.png

I just keep being in doubt about these files. Thanks, Caehlla2357 (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

In fact, both licenses may be valid. Ruslik (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to request a new Icelandic PD license tag template for public arms. Here is the relevant information:
"According to Icelandic law, copyright does not protect work that has no financial purpose. (http://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1972073.html).
According to Icelandic law, design is not protected if it includes a coat of arms that has a special meaning for the public (http://www.althingi.is/lagas/136a/2001046.html)"
Sincerely, VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

North Korean FoP and government works

I found North Korean Copyright Laws in Korea Copyright Commission.

After I read this, I thought something.

First, North Korean Copyright Laws do not protect buildings and non-building structures.

Article 9 of North Korean Copyright Act specifies the types of copyrighted works.

However, it does not include buildings and non-building structures.

Words such as 구조물, 다리, 교량, 건물, 건축물 do not appear.

Therefore, buildings and non-building structures in North Korea are in the public domain, so using {{FoP-North Korea}} for photos of them is wrong and I think it's better to make a template such as {{PD-NK-structure}}.

Second, Documents for state management, current news or information data of North Korea is  Not OK.

Article 12 of the North Korean Copyright Act is as follows.

Documents for state management, current news or information data shall not be the object of copyright unless commercial purpose is pursued.

"Unless commercial purpose is pursued" means non-commercial purpose only, so it does not conform to Commons:Licensing.

Ox1997cow (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It's true that architecture is not listed specifically, so you may be right on that. But, in theory it's possible -- since they agreed to the Berne Convention, and the Berne Convention requires protection of architecture, and if North Korea considers the Berne Convention to be a "self-executing" treaty (where the text of the treaty becomes part of their law without any "implementation" needed by their legislature), that in turn might mean that architecture is protected to some extent. If it is, the FoP clause though renders that mostly moot for Wikimedia's purposes. I probably would just keep the FoP tag, but mabye add a mention that architecture is not explicitly referenced in the law, so it's possible those type of works are not protected at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
As for the second question, yes, not sure that {{PD-KPGov}} is a valid tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I call @JWilz12345: . And I nominated {{PD-KPGov}} for deletion. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: re: NoKor FoP. I think it's better to leave the current text unchanged. But since NoKor FOP is not restricted to one or two types of works (unlike Danish or Moldavian FOP which have restricted works allowable for commercial reuses), I assume it is fine to attach the note on FoP-North Korea which states that buildings are not objects of copyright.
Re: NoKor gov. works, I  Agree that PD (no copyright) status only encompasses non-profit uses. Copyright claim is invoked if someone uses their media commercially. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Kalibo aerial.jpg

The indicated source is http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn41/jeriatrix/kaliboonair.jpg. Is the Photobucket source under a free license or not? Note that it is the sole contribution of Walalangah (talk · contribs) here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The uploader claimed that the author was someone named rmi2. Searching through Google for "rmi2 kalibo" eventually led me to his archived Panoramio user page which states "All rights reserved. No one can make copies or use any photos without my explicit permission." Almost all of his uploads (taken in Kalibo) in that archived page also bear "© All Rights Reserved by RMI2". howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Howdy.carabao: in any case, I've tagged it with "no permission" boilerplate notice. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I wanna know if the YouTube CC license also applies to the thumbnails, for example this video? My question, of course, only relates to the thumbnails that were also made by the channel, not to thumbnails that contained random photos from the internet. LX | Talk 16:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the title card (i.e. the still image shown in the website player interface above the description text before the video starts when autoplay is off) can be used under the specified licence, because YouTube states the licence clearly in the description below it, which can be seen in conjunction with the title card. As I understand it, the title card is chosen by the video's uploader, so it should be considered part of the creative work subject to the licence. If the thumbnail is a reduced-size version of the title card (I'm not sure if this is always the case), then I would also say that it can be reused under the licence, because it is a mechanical reproduction of the title card with no additional creative input.

I doubt it is an issue with the video you linked, but note that in general, YouTube has a lot of videos with implausible Creative Commons licences (as in it is unlikely that the uploader actually had the right to licence it that way). Relying on a falsely-provided licence is a bad idea, so my advice is to do this only with videos uploaded by someone who looks like they own the rights to the content. TheFeds 06:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Tks LX | Talk 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Юсуф Коблев uploads

Please check files of User:Юсуф Коблев for copyright violations. I found 2 of them, may be more: File:200-Bus LiAZ-5292.20.jpg -> File:Bus LiAZ-5292.20.jpeg, File:ТИМАШЕВСКАЯ.jpg -> https://yandex.com/maps/-/CCUm7Jg5hD --Vort (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted or nominated, user warned. Yann (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Another user (User:Himynameselijah) I'd like to check with the community regarding possible copyvios

While we're at it with the users, I'd also like to notify the community regarding Himynameselijah's contributions. I think they are copyvios, one of which is a nonfree program and the other being a logo that passes TOO due to the symbols. I don't like the feeling of naming users here, but copyvios are serious. Caehlla2357 (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, user warned. Yann (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Caehlla2357 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I searched copyright status of non-building structures in some countries.

And I got conclusions:

  • South Korea: Public Domain
  • United States: Public Domain
  • France: Copyrighted

How about copyright status of non-building structures in the Philippines and Italy?

I ping @JWilz12345 and Liuxinyu970226: .

Ox1997cow (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: Re: Philippine non-building structures. While there are no legal casefiles or literature regarding this, we have a de facto classification called infrastructure. Almost all infrastructures are not copyrighted as they are largely utilitarian by nature and have no architects' touches. They were built primarily to be used and not to be visually appreciated. Examples are: w:Angat Dam, w:Binga Dam, all overpasses and viaducts along w:North Luzon Expressway, and w:Skyway (Metro Manila) itself. But I fear one bridge won't be welcome here if FOP is still not yet introduced here: w:Cebu–Cordova Link Expressway, which is already nearing its completion. An architectural firm was involved in its conceptual design (see the infobox informations), and its towers have a cross design inspired by the w:Magellan's Cross. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Then, how about Italy? 2001:2D8:E220:8D3C:0:0:10D7:80AD 09:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

How to proceed (Google's YouTube)

I asked Professor Lê Minh Khải to release this video (context) on a free license compatible with the licensing terms of the Wikimedia Commons. He just informed me that he did (as it saves a lot of time through the slow VTRS). Now I am planning on downloading it and uploading it through Video2Commons (as Google's YouTube directly blocked V2C uploads sometime ago).

Now, where can I find the changed license in the video? (I'm on mobile for context) So I can add it immediately to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: The license is at the bottom of the video's description. It should be very easy to see. It is visible on desktop, on the mobile website, and on the Android app.  Mysterymanblue  07:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: Thank you for the information, I archived it and added it to the "Source" fields.
Video2Commons gave me this stupid error message "An exception occurred: TaskError: pywikibot.Error: UploadWarning: exists-normalized: File exists with different extension as "Đăng_Đàn_-_1941_Annam_Anthem_-_Recreation_by_Prof._Liam_C._Kelley_(Lê_Minh_Khải).mp3", meaning that I should have uploaded the video first. The files are now live at "File:Đăng Đàn - 1941 Annam Anthem - Recreation by Prof. Liam C. Kelley (Lê Minh Khải).mp3" and "File:Đăng Đàn cung - 1941 Annam Anthem - Recreation by Prof. Liam C. Kelley (Lê Minh Khải).webm", I genuinely don't get why a filename for a different file type prevents upload, I wasted so much time, I can't wait for the MediaWiki Upload Wizard to start supporting ".mp4" files, the Video2Commons service is broken (probably by design). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the Open Government Licence symbol. We ought to be able to use the logo itself under the OGL.

It is subject to UK Crown copyright according to this deletion discussion. It is also subject to the Open Government Licence version 3.0 according to the National Archives website. I suspect that there might have been some confusion in the mind of the public information officer contacted in 2013 with regard to the then-relatively-new OGL—but the website is clear that the excluded logos are "the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos". The OGL symbol is not the logo of a department or agency, or of the Crown. The OGL v. 3.0 text itself states this in another way: "This licence does not cover [...] departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset". This supports the proposition that it is not a covered logo. The UK Government Licensing Framework (the most comprehensive document explaining the intent) similarly provides that the OGL does not cover "departmental logos, crests, military insignia and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset" (see §7.2), but equally recommends that the OGL symbol be placed on works that are themselves under the OGL, so that the works may be reused (see §6.1). If it were not the case that the symbol itself could be reused along with the content, the objectives of the Framework would be frustrated by its own text—which is either unlikely or pathetic.

So if it is the case that the OGL logo is available under the OGL, User:2A00:23C6:9908:CD00:808D:5F84:377E:5684's suggestion at Template talk:OGL3#Insignia seems reasonable: shall we use the OGL logo on the Template:OGL, Template:OGL2, Template:OGL3 and related templates, and import it from wikipedia:en:File:UKOpenGovernmentLicence.svg or directly from the National Archives website? (User:Nthep, User:Fry1989, User:Amitie_10g and User:Stefan4 might be interested, as they discussed it in 2015.) TheFeds 06:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Rather than anything unilateral why not check again with the national archives to see if the 2013 position regarding the logo has changed? Nthep (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Nthep, would you be interested in resuming contact (as it appears you had contacted them before, and it looks like you can monitor the commons:CONSENT/VRT queue)? I think if their attention is drawn to §6.1 of the Licensing Framework document, they will be happy to accede. ("The National Archives has also developed...the OGL symbol as a simple way of identifying when information can be used and re-used. The OGL symbol shows users, at a glance, that information is covered by the OGL. Public sector bodies are therefore encouraged to use the symbol on their websites and in publications wherever possible." [emphasis added]) TheFeds 05:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

São Tomé and Príncipe FOP revisited

The relevant page states that FOP there is not OK as it only mentions use and not reproduction. I actually revisited their copyright law and read Article 75(p). The clause states (using the translation at the right):

p) The use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be kept permanently in public places.

IMO, the term "use" encompasses exploitations (like depictions or representations), which IMO may be "OK". There are no restrictions like "for occasion of current reporting purposes", "for personal use", "for non-profit use" or any other restrictions on FOP. Thus IMO, São Tomé and Príncipe FOP is "OK" for Commons.

However, I may need other users' opinions regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging for some inputs @Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, and Clindberg: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. Most of the time that "reproduction" is used, it means a straight copy of the work. Freedom of panorama provisions can never allow straight copies of the work (per the Berne Convention). Sure sounds like a pretty open FoP section to me. @Aymatth2:  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 September 2021‎ (UTC)
I agree, but there's a question. Under American rules of construction, "The use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture" is limited to architecture and sculpture. In order for it to apply to "works" generally, it would have to read "...such as, without limitation, works of architecture or sculpture". However, the rules of construction may well be different under other law, so the question is, is FoP OK for only architecture and sculpture or is it OK for all works? Carl, what do youthink about that? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: , Clindberg the country is apparently a former Portuguese colony. Browsing to COM:FOP Portugal gives a near-identical provision. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
However, because the provision is default and not accompanied by reliable legal literatures or casefiles (unlike Portugal's), we may safely say that outdoors is OK and public indoors, unknown (equivalent to grey cell at COM:Freedom of panorama/table?). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I would assume that the law in São Tomé and Príncipe has the same meaning as in Portugal. However, I see that my question above about construction applies also to Portugal. I note the word "editor" at COM:FOP Portugal which suggests that works other than architecture and sculpture (neither of which have editors) are permitted..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: If it was strictly limited to architecture and sculpture, they would not use the words "such as". But, it could be limited to works along those lines (say applied art too), and not purely any work. In either event, the wording was inherited from Portuguese law, so I would follow whatever {{FoP-Portugal}} says and any legal cases / precedents there, as they would likely be the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree -- we should copy {{FoP-Portugal}} for {{FoP-São Tomé and Príncipe}} with a few changes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure File:2003 NBA Finals logo.png and File:Nba all star logo55.png are OK for Commons. Although there do seem to be some non-copyrightable elements in each file, the main element is the the silhouette player imagery and I'm not sure we can claim that as being too simple for copyright protection per COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Indeed, they are much too complex for PD-textlogo. Files tagged. Thanks for asking, Yann (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Definitely copyrightable. There's a decent chance it was published without notice -- for example, down this page are some 1977 shoe advertisements which used the logo. That was a third party advertisement though -- unsure if that would matter. Also unsure if the logo was registered for copyright; it was created in 1969. It's obviously as thoroughly trademarked as a trademark can be, but copyright might be another story. We'd probably want to have several examples of publication, and go through the registration volumes to make sure it was never registered for copyright though, before declaring that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Yann and Clindberg: It seems a bit unlikely that the NBA wouldn’t have registered its main choice of branding for copyright protection, but I guess anything is possible. Although the NBA in 1969 wasn’t even close to global brand that it is today, most of the owners weren’t novice business people who probably would’ve realized the benefit of copyright protection. Anything is possible though and the fact that the logo itself is claimed to be a derivative work might be a factor in all this. What about the four Sky Sport logos and photo of sandals in Category:National Basketball Association logos? Could those files be OK as licensed or should they be treated as derivative works too? — Marchjuly (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
You not only had to register it, you had to publish with a copyright notice at least most of the time. I'm guessing virtually all sports logos from that era (before 1989) lost their copyright. The trademark is the part that makes money there, anyways. The NBA has had very few registrations total since 1978, doing a search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I changed the license to {{PD-US-no notice}} following Carl's comment above. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg and Yann: If we consider those two particular file's to be {{PD-US-no notice}}, then that would seem to make the primary logo en:File:National Basketball Association logo.svg itself as well as possibly any other any other files using it (assuming these other files have no separate copyrightable elements) also PD for the same reason. That's quite a big assumption to make. I get the distinction Clindberg is making about trademark and copyright, and the primary logo certainly seems to be trademarked per this; however, the NBA also seems to have copyrighted other works incorporating versions of the silhouette logo (i.e. the "logoman logo") in recent years per this. For example, Silhouette Logoman in Star with Maple Leaf Design appears to be this. I guess it's possible that the combination of the maple leaf and the logoman was deemed complex enough for copyright protection even if the individual elements aren't copyrightable on their own, but not sure. I'm also not sure when it comes to even apparently simple NBA logos based upon this and this. In one case, a team logo consisting of a standard shaped basketball is apparently not copyrightable, but in another cases (which might be something like this) it apparently is. Another interesting example of a different sort is en:File:San Antonio Spurs.svg and File:San Antonio Spurs Wordmark Logo 2017-current.png, which seem to be essentially the same logo with some color differences. English Wikipedia is treating the former as non-free while Commons is treating the latter as PD. I'm not saying Wikipedia is always correct when it comes to file licensing, but things can get really confusing when there are discrepancies with Commons when it comes to certain files. So, if the rationale for converting the logoman logo to PD given above is sound, then it should also apply to all versions of essentially the same logo uploaded as non-free locally on all of the various Wikipedia projects, shouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighting a new work which incorporates the old one, only covers the new work. So the maple leaf stuff would have to be copyrightable on its own, regardless if the logoman was there or not (and the copyright office thought was, obviously). If the logo became PD in the 1970s, it stays that way -- it just becomes a non-copyrightable element that can be combined with other things, and as long as the other things are copyrightable on their own, they can do that. And even an original registration would not matter, if they subsequently published it without notice. However, I'm somewhat agreed that I'd rather not put PD-US-no_notice on there without more evidence than what I gave above. That declaration would apply to the main logo, although if the vectorization was copied from an NBA publication, there could be a separate copyright on that even though the result looks the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thank you for the additional information. The reason I brought up maple leaf logo and other subsequent logos is because I'm wondering whether there's a way through them to determine the copyright status of the original logoman logo. I'm not familiar with the process of filing a copyright application. Is there some part of the application process which assesses the copyright status of the individual elements that make up a logo such as this? For example, suppose I want to create a logo incorporating various elements created by others at some other point in time. Do I have to provide some sort of statement related to the copyright status of each of these individual elements as part of my application? Is there anything for copyright registration purposes that is similar to a en:title search that is done when purchasing real estate? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
You are supposed to point out all the previously-existing works that yours uses, either works of others (i.e. yours is a derivative work), or your own stuff that you have previously registered. If the Copyright Office was unaware of part of a work being previously registered (or authored by someone else), they might mistakenly decide on that basis -- but that becomes grounds for overturning in court. Otherwise, the Office just decides yes or no based on the whole thing -- if all the elements are uncopyrightable, but the arrangement is complex enough, they can register on that basis. The letter that the copyright owner gets back might have more detail, but from outside we can only say there was at least one aspect which was copyrightable, and which was new compared to previous registrations. If the Copyright Office knows that a portion has lost its copyright due to lack of notice, they should ignore that and decide on the copyright ability of the rest. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thanks for clarifying that. The "Claim Description" for the Maple Leaf logo registration says "Pre-existing Material 2-D artwork, NBA Logo 2-D Artwork", but there's no way to infer the copyright status of either just from that, right? I guess if it stated "Pre-existing Material 2-D artwork, Copyrighted NBA Logo 2-D Artwork", then that might be an indication, but not sure. Would there be any benefit in emailing the "Rights and permission" holder (their email address is listed on the registration page) and asking for clarification or would this just be pointless for Commons purposes? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Right, any "Pre-existing Material" would not be part of the copyright claim for that item. Whether the earlier work was registered or not is pretty much immaterial -- the logo would be copyrightable, for sure. The only question is whether it lost copyright by being published without notice. So, we'd need some examples of that (ones published by the NBA directly would be best). That could advertisements in magazines, or just about anything. Well, I guess if there was a registration, that could make publications without notice a bit more gray from 1978 to 1989. So best would be examples pre-1978. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

50 years old prison mug shot in UK

Hi, Any chance that File:JoeMcCannMugshot.jpg might in the public domain? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

For {{PD-UKGov}}, it needs to be Crown Copyright and published before 1971. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It is certainly made before 1971. Can we assume it was published when it was made? It was certainly made by the British police. OK? Yann (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have created an article on a musician who passed away in 2008. There are a number of publicity photographs of this musician which were taken in 1996 by a professional photographer. I have contacted the photographer and he has assigned ownership of copyright of these photographs to me in a signed document. I would now like to post at least one of the photographs as part the musician's Wikipedia article. I would like to publish it under CC BY-SA 4.0. (I wish to let others share, copy and distrtibute the work, but want to make sure that the photographer is given credit if the photograph is used by others.)

My question is: How should I list the Source and Author of the work in the "Summary" on the Commons page? I assume I am the "Source" and that the photographer is the "Author." (Note: The photographer does not have a Wikipedia User name.) I'd like to make sure that this is the correct way to identify us. Also, do I need to upload the document from the photographer assigning the copyright to me, and if so, where would I do this? And is there anything else I need to do to make sure that everything has been done correctly? I very much want to get this all right.

Many thanks for your help. Scribia4178 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

When uploading, please select "not own work" and put {{subst:OP}} in the "source" field, and forward a scan of the copyright transfer agreement to COM:VRT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That's what I'll do.Scribia4178 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Addy Raj in 2020.jpg

Hello. Could anyone check this file. It is the only upload of its uploader, yet I can't bother to question its status, since it has strange metadata. There are no results in reverse Google Images and TinEye searches. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, this one and the map on p.25. I am not sure whether the whole report is commissioned by the US government and thus falls under PD-USGov, or whether they are reprinting a private association's document and thus the copyright belongs to the private association and/or its members. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The copyright belongs to the authors of each contribution included in this report. I do not see any reason why they should fall under PD-USGov. Ruslik (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

File:K d jadhav.jpg

Could someone please check the copyright status of this file?

The provided source only contains a deep link to the image. I was able to find it on this Scroll.in article, but the website says the image is a screenshot from YouTube. Although it does show up in some YouTube videos like this one, they all appear to be cropped. It's more than likely that this file is a scan of a historic photograph and not from a YouTube video. And this is where I'm hitting a dead end. I could not locate the original photo, let alone its copyright status. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that the current image was uploaded by a different user. Pinging @Pratishkhedekar as they uploaded the more recent version. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. The photograph is indeed cropped. The original is in portrait orientation and shows him in full sleeve sports jacket with the word 'INDIA' on the front. The photograph was taken in 1952 at the Helsinki Olympics where he won the bronze medal. As far as copyright tag is concerned "PD-India" or "PD-India-photo-1958" should work equally fine. Pratish Khedekar 18:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like there are no copyright issues, then. :-) Ixfd64 (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ixfd64, Sv1xv, and Pratishkhedekar: Taking the example of File:Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952.jpg from COM:TOO Finland at the same games, and contemplating the same tags {{PD-Finland50}} and {{PD-US-1996}}, who is the actual photographer? When and where was it first published, and when and where was it published within 30 days after that?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Is YouTube's "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" adequate for WM Commons?

I'm concerned that YouTube's recitation of "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" is too vague to meet Wikimedia's specific standards for CC licensing. Examples are here and here, which I discuss on my talk page here as apparently being original videos. And more specifically: can screenshots (derivative works) of such videos be uploaded to Commons? Thanks. RCraig09 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Yes, YouTube's Creative Commons licensing is okay for Commons. According to [23], the specific license is CC BY 3.0. We even have a template for it: {{YouTube CC-BY}}. Make sure to also tag the upload with a license review template so the license can be verified. Derivatives of such videos, like screenshots, are also okay on Commons so long as they specify the original source and use the same license or a compatible one. clpo13(talk) 15:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
But note that Category:YouTube review needed has an enormous backlog. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

As I understand, corporate works from Canada are copyrighted for 50 years from publication. However, the United States does not use the rule of the shorter term for foreign works. Does this mean that some works will still be copyrighted in the United States even after entering public domain in Canada?

For example, en:File:Laurasecord brand logo.svg seems to have been published in 2010. Am I correct to assume that it will enter the public domain in the U.S. in 2106 even though the copyright will expire in Canada in 2061? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Yes, works in the United States can be protected long after the copyright has expired in the country of origin. This causes many headaches on Wikimedia Commons. I believe you are correctly calculating the U.S. expiration date of a corporate work published in 2010 as January 1, 2106 - copyright really will expire in the United States on that date, and not an earlier date because the U.S. does not apply the rule of the shorter term.  Mysterymanblue  20:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
That's what I figured. Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

asking others to take your picture

Our policy is to not accept photos where the uploader is the subject unless there is evidence of a rights release. However, this article suggests that a person who takes a picture wouldn't have copyright if all they did was press the shutter. So my questions are:

  1. Are there any good ways to tell how much input a photographer had when they took a picture?
  2. People who ask someone to take their picture don't often exchange contact information. It's probably extremely difficult to track down the photographer in most cases. Even if the photographer doesn't mind releasing the rights, there is usually no evidence as most people don't go around carrying rights release forms. Does this mean those pictures are essentially orphan works?
  3. If the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer, then does this mean that a copyright troll could go to a popular tourist destination, offer to take pictures for people, and then sue them when they share the photo on social media?

Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ixfd64:
  1. When you just hand your cell phone to someone and ask them to take a picture, they generally control the positioning, framing, and timing of the shot so they are probably the copyright holder. On the other hand, if you set up a tripod and direct someone to simply press the trigger, you are the only person who has contributed original authorship to the work and it was fixed under your authority, so the copyright would vest in you. The former scenario is, by far, the most common for most photos, so we should probably assume that the subject is not the copyright holder unless we have compelling reason to believe otherwise. Such "compelling reason" could just be a statement from the uploader of a work describing how they took the photograph; see, for example, File:Mark Rober 2020.jpg.
  2. Yes, most of these photos are orphan works because the copyright holder cannot be found.
  3. Yes, someone could do that and they would be the copyright holder, but they would have a hard time suing people over using the photos. As the website you linked to states, "you as the owner of the equipment and the creative author are likely to have an implied license to use the photograph for personal use". At best, they could probably ask the subject of the photograph to take the photos down. The issue is that on Commons, "the copyright holder will not bother to sue" is not a valid reason for keeping a non-free work around, so we would have to delete such an image because it would not be validly licensed, even if the copyright holder would almost certainly never sue.
 Mysterymanblue  20:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
This answers my questions perfectly. Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ixfd64: A more thorough analysis of this question, which doesn't entirely agree with Mysterymanblue's answer above, can be found at meta:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership. Nosferattus (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
And please, defer to the foundation's judgement instead of mine. Wikilegal pages are written by lawyers.  Mysterymanblue  01:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on Seychellois FOP

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Seychelles#Freedom of panorama, their now-repealed copyright law contained an FOP provision, but their current copyright law doesn't contain as such (seems removed). What is the proper status for Seychelles: FOP is OK for photos made in the past or no FOP at all? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: In general, if a provision of a law is deleted, the provision will apply to the applicable subject before the date of deletion and will not apply thereafter. Conversely, if a provision of a law is added, the provision will not be applied to the applicable subject before the date of addition, and will be applied thereafter. For example, buildings in the United States completed before 1 December 1990 are public domain because a provision of copyright of buildings was added 1 December 1990. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: (edit conflict occurred) I think your understanding on US architectural FOP is wrong you used a wrong comparison. The reason why the exception doesn't apply to pre-1990 buildings is that all old buildings are PD by default (because the old US copyright law didn't protect them, similar to pre-1972 Philippine buildings). However, this is the case when Seychelles had FOP in their old copyright law, but FOP ceased to exist in their new (and current) law. And it appears all recent public artworks are copyrighted. Perhaps, like Syria's (in which FOP ceased to exist and all affected images are No FOP violations)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I think there is no freedom of panorama in Seychelles. Because FOP clause was deleted, it is no longer valid. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
For added inputs, ping @Clindberg, Jameslwoodward, and Aymatth2: . Note that we still have {{FoP-Seychelles}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems to me there was FoP under Schedule 1 of the 1991 Act, but there is no FoP under the 2014 Act. However, as is typical, "38(2)(b) the licences or authorisation granted under the repealed Act shall continue to operate as licences or authorisation, as the case may be, for the purposes of this Act, until the expiration or revocation of such licence or authorisation;". I would say that probably means pictures of works in public places, including buildings, sculptures and other artistic works, are PD if made before 1 April 2014, but more recent pictures are not allowed. That is, copies authorized by 1991 Schedule 1 remain authorized. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: By the way, How about copyright status of commissioned works in South Korea? The provision of copyright of commissioned works from South Korean Copyright Act was deleted on 31 December 1986. Prior to deletion, it is said that the person who commissioned it owns the copyright. (This question is related to the deleted copyright clause.) Related References 1, Related References 2 Ox1997cow (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Please address that in a new thread (use new section/topic). It is not connected in any way about the Seychellois FOP status. In other words, not releted. I cannot comment about COM:COMM works right now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see Carl's reading on this. Mine is that uses of photographs of copyrighted works that were covered by the old FoP while it was in force are still OK, but any uses post the effective date of the new law are not. This means that we must either delete all photos covered by {{FoP-Seychelles}} or change it to warn people that any new use of such images is invalid. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Generally, the transitional / savings clauses at the end of the law would be the place to look, if this issue was addressed. It's sort of like when you extend a copyright term -- you could leave existing works' terms alone, you could extend works which have existing copyright but leave PD works PD, or you could restore copyright to expired works. Normally for the latter, there would be provisions on existing exploitations and stuff like that, to give a bit of a grace period (or allow existing exploitations to continue indefinitely). I don't see anything like that which would address situations where existing uses of works are no longer OK. Aymatth2 found one of those transitional clauses, and his interpretation could well be the case, unless the repeal of the law counts as revocation of the license (unlikely, as a license is something different). The very next paragraph states any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act shall continue to subsist. So, that seems to further enforce his interpretation -- that the right/privilege of older photographs to not be derivative works continues to subsist. Also to note, the new law became effective on August 1, 2014. So, allowing photos taken before that date seems reasonable to me -- it could be considered a right acquired upon the taking of the photograph, which still subsists.
A couple of other notes on side topics -- the U.S. treatment of buildings completed before 1990 is that way precisely because there was a clause of that law which specified that treatment. When it comes to validity of copyright transfers (such as the South Korea situation mentioned above), virtually all of the time those transfers continue to hold (again, subject to any law clauses which address it specifically -- a law could say that any extended rights revert back to the original copyright owner). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I have touched up the wording. "Public works" suggests a government building in US English and "buildings and sculptures" is too limited. The law called out "artistic works", which includes 2D works as well as architecture and sculpture, so that's what I put in. I agree with Carl that it's best to assume that only those photos uploaded before August 1, 2014 are OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: It would be nice to have something similar to {{FoP-Seychelles}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

NPG portrait

What's the likely copyright status of this image? The National Portrait Gallery claims copyright but this claim is dubious at best. The photographer died in 1958 so we're not quite at 70 years yet. But could it be crown copyright expired? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the NPG is officially part of the government. The NPG did commission works from Stoneman, which by the rules of the time meant they probably do own the copyright on the photograph (and not just the reproduction). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

A user has uploaded several images claiming they are the copyright holder. Claims which I find dubious. The pictures are of three separate tornadoes that struck different US cities in different states, all in the space of two hours or so on April 3, 1974. It seems highly improbably that the uploader was in all of these locations at once. I was tempted to nominate them for deletion, but I wanted to bring the discussion here. The images are:

File:Brandenburg 1974.jpg

File:Cincinnati 1974.jpg

File:Madison 1974.jpg

The Madison tornado appears to be colorized from a photo from the National Weather Service (which would be Public Domain) based on this page where I found a match. The source link provided in that article goes to a part of the NWS website that was taken down around 2013 or 2014. That portion of the website may have held the other two pictures as well, as it held many others.

A match for the Cincinnati tornado was found here and on other sites through a reverse image search. The Brandenberg tornado image also appears to be colorized based on matches from a reverse image search.

I don't know if the uploader was the one who colorized these images, but that would not be enough to constitute ownership. Again, these may have come from the NWS, which would make them public domain, but I was only able to find supporting evidence of that for the Madison tornado photo. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. The Cincinnati one is credited to a Don Ohmer, of a local fire station, here. It's possible they were published without notice, but we'd need some evidence of that. The one marked "Madison" is from here, a NWS site, saying it was taken on the Purdue campus and "Photos courtesy Dr. Ernest Agee". (Archived version of the photo here.). Many NWS photo donations are explicitly put into the public domain, but I don't think those are -- that was a special article page, not a photo gallery of uploaded photos. Some people think "own work" means the work of copying it off the web and uploading it, not that they were the photographer themselves (or otherwise own the copyright). Or, as you say, maybe the colorization was theirs. These were clearly taken off the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This person is continuing to upload images under these dubious claims:

File:Guin 1974.jpg

File:Lousiville 1974.jpg

File:Monticello 1974.jpg

Reverse image search turns up matches for the Louisville tornado. But I think it's pretty clear that this person was not in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Alabama on the same day. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble, i was just trying to help and i didnt think much of the sources. i did color these on https://playback.fm/colorize-photo Flopbean (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright is generally owned by the photographers (or their company, if they were an employee). To upload them here, or create a derivative work, we need permission from the copyright holders (or show that copyright has expired). This is part of COM:Licensing. There were some ways which photos could have expired in the U.S., if they were published without notice, but we would need to see the actual publication from that era to see if there was no copyright notice associated with it. From 1978, that part gets harder, and from 1989 and on, it's not possible. Copyright lasts for an extremely long time (often 95 years from publication in the U.S., if published before 1978, otherwise typically 70 years after the original author dies, or 50 in some countries). So it's very rare that photos from that era are public domain.
It's not much different than Wikipedia article text, really -- you can't copy article text from elsewhere, it must be written by the editors -- and similarly, it's difficult to use someone else's photos without copyright problems (unless they are very old, as mentioned). It can be really frustrating, but them's the rules. (BTW, using that tool means you did not add any human-created authorship, so it's not really a derivative work but a copy of the original, so you really can't add your own license to it at all. Whether hand-coloring something amounts to copyrightable authorship, probably differs by country, and may not count in the U.S. Also, that site has a "terms of use" which states: You may only upload images for which you are the exclusive copyright holder. I doubt they really care, but that is protecting themselves if you use their tool for other people's images.) Either way, we need to either prove public domain status (unlikely), or obtain a free license from the copyright owner, to upload these. Otherwise, we will have to delete them, unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@Flopbean: I understand the intent, but,as Carl Lindberg said, colorizing the photos (especially using an automated tool rather than doing it yourself) does not make you the owner. You do mention sources for those pictures, though. Do you happen to have the links for those? Providing your sources could help determine if the photos are public domain, which is the only circumstance that would allow them to stay. It may be unlikely, but tornado photos such as this are sometimes published by the National Weather Service, which usually involves the owner releasing them to the public domain.TornadoLGS (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Very well, I have nominated them for deletion. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Flopbean (talk · contribs) has unfortunately been blocked, so you probably won't get an answer from them. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/09&oldid=598859662"