Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/08

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

File:Kate Bush Hounds of Love (1985 EMI publicity photo) 02.jpg

I see that this file is listed as public domain, with the copyright holder named as "EMI America", and I am not sure this is accurate. The photographer is known. His name is Guido Harari and he published a book titled The Kate Inside (2016) containing many pictures he took of Kate Bush over the years. Here's an article in The Guardian about the book featuring some of the images, including one from the same photoshoot as the file I am asking about. To me, his use of the images in the book indicates that the photographer, Guido Harari, still owns the copyright and this is why I am unsure it actually falls under public domain. I should specify that I am in Europe and therefore less familiar with US copyright laws, which adds to my confusion. Thank you in advance for your help. Should the status of this file change, there is also a cropped version here: File:Kate Bush Hounds of Love (1985 EMI publicity photo) 02 (cropped).jpg Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 04:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It does not say that EMI America is a "copyright holder". (Indeed, if it is indeed in the public domain there is no copyright holder.) It says that they are the "author". I don't know if that is true (in a legal sense) but let's be accurate in saying what the file page says. - Jmabel ! talk 05:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
If, indeed, this was distributed as a publicity photo in the U.S. on or before 28 February 1989, and if that publicity photo was distributed (which legally constitutes publication) without notice and without subsequent registration within 5 years, it would be in the public domain in the U.S. That would have no bearing on any other photo from that shoot. The images linked in the "source" section of File:Kate Bush Hounds of Love (1985 EMI publicity photo) 02.jpg at least very strongly suggest that there was no notice on either side of the image. In those circumstances, the burden would probably fall on the other side, to show that it was registered within five years (very unusual for a publicity photo, but imaginable). The only other case I can think of is if the photographer still held the copyright and did not authorize such distribution; it seems very unlikely to me that EMI did this without securing appropriate rights.
@Bizarre Bizarre: does that answer your question or do you feel this needs further discussion? - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a quick search in the catalogue reveals only sound recordings to have been registered under "Harari, Guido" since 1978.
EMI did copyright a record sleeve including a photo of Kate Bush (supposedly taken by "Kind Light") in 1983, a Gered Mankowitz registered a series of photographs including one of Kate Bush published in 1984, and a Daniel Root registered a photograph of Kate Bush published in 1985. If we are confident that our image is not any of these, but taken by Guido Harari, then we should be fine. Felix QW (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be the 1983 image copyrighted by EMI. Felix QW (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Definitely update the author field to name the photographer, as that will matter for the copyright term in other countries. In the U.S. before 1989 (when they joined the Berne Convention), a copyright notice was required on all publications, otherwise copyright was lost. File:Kate Bush Hounds of Love (1985 EMI publicity photo) 02.jpg clearly shows that copy was distributed, and even used by newspapers, and there was no copyright notice on it (although, it would be good to have the uncropped front uploaded, to show that -- the back is uploaded, but only a cropped version of the front). So, unless EMI America used the photo without permission, the copyright was lost, regardless of who would have owned the copyright. Whether EMI previously owned the copyright as a work for hire (with the photographer keeping the photos that EMI did not choose), or EMI was using it under license with the copyright retained , is hard to say and would probably be based on the contract the photographer had. It would be safe to assume the photographer kept the copyright on other photos. If the original photo was a wider crop, the photographer may still hold the copyright on that. But in the US, the published portion became (and remains) public domain, as it appears it was first published in the US. The copyright (whoever owns it) would still exist in many/most countries though, including all of the EU. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
First off, my apologies for using the incorrect term. My Wikimedia display language is not set to English and I mistranslated in my brain (it happens). I appreciate you bringing this important point to my attention, as those are indeed very different things. As for whether my question was answered, I think I understand better now. If you or anyone else involved feels that nothing new can be added to the discussion, I have no issue with closing it. Thank you and everyone else for taking the time, I hope this wasn't a bother! Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 02:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Bizarre Bizarre Publicity photos were typically done as a work for hire, EMI would have held the copyright. Record labels sometimes did not credit the photographer. The photograph was later 'published' and distributed sometime around 1985 without appropriate notice or registration and fell into Public Domain, in the USA only. The photograph is an individual work and would require a notice on the print itself, which it lacks. As mentioned above, notice was required for works published in the U.S. on or before 28 February 1989. It is still under copyright in other countries. It can be hosted on the Commons as it was first published in the USA. Now that a name of an author has been presented, the file should be updated. PascalHD (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
For the reason you explained, I have nominated the photo for deletion. George Ho (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@PascalHD: "Publicity photos were typically done as a work for hire": do you have a basis for that? Not what I've typically encountered, though I deal mainly with an earlier era. - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Correct; "work for hire" has a pretty stringent definition under US copyright law -- in this case, it almost certainly was not (the photographer was not an employee). Copyright ownership probably came down to what the contract was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel I meant more like they were commissioned works. Work for hire might not be the correct term? EMI would have hired the photographer to take the photos for them. Record labels wanted the initial control over the works they were distributing, not wanting the photographer to keep the copyright. From what I have seen in regards to these publicity photos over the years. However, we cannot see the agreement to 100% confirm. When notices began being added to press and publicity photos, it is always copyrighted to the companies not the photographers. Example: [1]. A DR about a similar case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Queen A Night At The Opera (1975 Elektra publicity photo 02).jpg. Hope that explains where I was coming from a little better. PascalHD (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Fake PD claim?

File:Coal_Black_and_De_Sebben_Dwarfs_(1943)_by_Bob_Clampett_2.webm has a PD copyright notice, but that appears to be fake (the video is a relatively recent review of a cartoon from 1943); what is the right thing to do about this? 100.36.106.199 13:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delete. @Yann: , you did not upload a copy of the original video -- despite most of the visual parts of file being the original video, the sound portion is a modern work / recording. The original short has a copyright notice in 1942 by Vidaphone and was presumably not renewed, but all the new portions are under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg: Hi, Would it be OK if the audio is removed? Yann (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Are you also going to crop out all the parts of the video that are not the 1943 animation (there are lots of them scattered throughout and superimposed). 100.36.106.199 18:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
OK, no. Yann (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, they interspersed some other stuff every now and then, and jumped around cuts of the original short. Not really something worth trying to save. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
In fact, even the original is still copyrighted, as the copyright has been renewed in 1970: See this scan of the renewals entry. Felix QW (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent uploads of United Kingdom Prime Minister "Number 10" (Downing Street) Flickr account files tagged with "Non-Commercial" licenses.

Recent uploads from the United Kingdom Prime Minister "Number 10" (Downing Street) Flickr.com account (since the new Prime Minister) like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Prime_Minister_Keir_Starmer_holds_first_press_conference_(53838003417).jpg&oldid=893511077 [2] have this apparently "new" type of license (see file link above for how this new license tag displays).

This license tag (below) is placed into the category Category:OGL v3.0 and contains this text -

"Number-10-flickr|{{Cc-non-compliant|Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic|by-nc-nd/2.0/|nowarn=yes"
  1. What date was this license created or first used?
  2. Was there any discussion when it was proposed?
  3. Has this specific license been confirmed to be valid?
  4. Is this Category:OGL v3.0, the correct category?
  5. If, this license is valid, then are all the Prime Ministers (Number 10) Flickr files tagged with "Non-Commercial" licenses from previous years now eligible for uploading to the Commons? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Per "license history" on Flickr, this file was uploaded as CC BY 2.0 before being changed to a non-free license afterwards. The same is true of, it seems, all the other new photos uploaded as well. The older license remains valid, so CC BY 2.0 should be usable for those photos anyway. Whether the indications of a different license mean "otherwise noted" is not entirely unambiguous. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Is it really that straightforward, though? Can't they (a) stop distributing under the license, so that we may keep any images uploaded while the licensing was free but cannot necessarily do so now, and (b) have corrected an error almost immediately, on the same day as the upload, making the original license the sort of unintentional error we usually do not rely on? Felix QW (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The licence change was made at 3:48pm (UK time) on the day of the upload. The account's "except where otherwise stated" clause suggests this is not under OGL. See also my recent Twitter thread on the matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Could you please paste the thread here? It cannot be read without a Twitter account. --Geohakkeri (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
It would make no sense out of context. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prime Minister Keir Starmer holds first press conference (53838003417).jpg; including the template referred to above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

To further complicate matters, the EXIF states "Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Then I think it is simple. It is not noted otherwise. The OGL is valid; even if another license is given in addition (on the Flickr page), this doesn't affect the validity of the OGL indication in the EXIF. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Photograph in Straits Times Article under Copyright?

Hi, I want to upload a photograph from this Straits Times article. However, I'm not sure if it's affected by the Singapore Copyright Act of 2021 and therefore allowed to be distributed publicly. Thanks. Imbluey2 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Per Template:PD-SG-photo, a photo is in the public domain (or "allowed to be distributed publicly" as you put it) if it was taken before 10 April 1987, and 70 years have passed since the end of the calendar year in which the photograph was taken (that is, it was first taken in or before 1953). Since there isn't a date given in the article, I'll assume it's taken in the year of publication (that is 1985). It'll only be PD after 70 years had passed since the end of the calendar year of publication, so in this case the date of PD is 2056/1/1, so nope it's not free yet. S5A-0043Talk 12:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I had tried to tell ヘマ that the PreCure posters were made by a third party company (Toei) but another user who uploaded another (Hirogaru Sky Pretty Cure.png) had removed the copyio templates from the posters.

The rights page linked to https://ondankataisaku.env.go.jp/coolchoice/aboutsite.html clearly states not to infringe on the rights of third parties. The image uploaded is not even the one used in the poster. There is no indication that the sources Toei has released the image on a suitable licence SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Materialscientist as uploader of File:Hirogaru Sky Pretty Cure.png and untagger.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

DIliff is still copyleft trolling

David Iliff is still using the WMF projects to copyleft troll, and we aren't doing anything about it. This time, it looks like he's extorting an elderly couple in London that own a silver shop. David's photograph of London was used in a slideshow on a page encouraging people to visit London. The couple said that they removed the image, but would like to properly attribute David if possible. As usual, David has not responded to them. This behavior is a disgusting exploitation of our project. I'm all for protecting intellectual property against commercial exploitation, but this is just extorting reusers who don't understand how free licensing works. If anyone actually gives a damn about our reusers and the reputation of our project, come to Commons talk:Copyleft trolling and help us figure out a solution. Nosferattus (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

In the discussion most people only considered this a problem if the usage was not commercial. But here this is definitely about commercial license violation. GPSLeo (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There is an old WoRMS logo on Commons, which, according to Marchjuly's answer, is, according to WoRMS, not free, but whose upload may just have been a mistake. There also is a version on the English Wikipedia, where it was stated that it is not free. According to WoRMS, the former has to be deleted due to the CC-BY-NC-SA being not free enough for Commons.

The reason for my question here is just that there are 2 versions, essentially the same, representing the same thing – the old logo of WoRMS. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

While the current terms of use specify that only text is under CC-BY, the terms of use at the time of upload only regulated that

Unless otherwise stated, these web pages and associated information are free to use on condition that they are cited (CC-BY).

This suggests to me that the logo used at that time was indeed covered by this licensing text.
The license text changed with the relaunch under the new logo in November 2017, so while the old logo seems to be covered, the new logo would indeed by available only under a non-free license.
There is a small complication in that the mention of "CC-BY" on the old web pages is not hyperlinked or concretised with any particular version number. Therefore, it might be more appropriate to tag the file {{Attribution}} given the unambiguous intent of the copyright holder to release it under those basic conditions of CC-BY but not pretending that any particular CC-BY license has actually been invoked. Felix QW (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW: We could use the then-current CC-BY license.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Docos 2023.png

File:Docos 2023.png is licensed as {{CC-by-SA-4.0}} which seems incorrect. The logo seems simple enough to be be PD in the US per c:COM:TOO United States, but it's country of first publication might be Australia based on en:Famous (TV channel)#Logo history. Can Commons keep this per COM:TOO Australia? If not, then it probably would be OK to reupload locally to English Wikipedia as en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly.

The same uploader also uploaded quite a number of other logo files as their "own work" and these might also need to be assessed to see whether they're OK for Commons and just need to be relicensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I asked this at the English Wikipedia's Teahouse, but was told it would be better to ask here, so I am just going to copy and paste what I wrote over there:

I am writing a draft article on graffiti characters, and in my research I learnt about the influence of Vaughne Bodē's comics on early modern graffiti and I realised I've seen his characters painted in my local town. I wanted to take a photo for the article, but figured that as Bodē (or his son now) owns the copyright to the character, that wouldn't be appropriate.

However, today while browsing graffiti images on Commons, I've found lots of photos of graffiti works with characters from The Simpsons, Dragon Ball, and Disney, sometimes drawn very much in the original style. Are these works okay because they're "remixed"? In this case, would it be okay for me to upload a work with a character of Bodē's in a graffiti piece? Thank you for any help! -- NotCharizard 🗨 09:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Are these works okay because they're "remixed"? In short: probably not. Unauthorized derivative works of copyrighted content (like cartoon characters) are still derivative works when photographed, even if freedom of panorama would otherwise permit a photograph of public artwork to be reused. (Or, to put it another way: you can't "launder" an unauthorized derivative work through the freedom of panorama.)
Determining whether the use of a character in public art was authorized can be difficult; about the best advice I can give there is to use your best judgement. Omphalographer (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
It also may be further complicated when the work in question is a parody. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

David Low (cartoonist)

Are the pre-1927 works of the eminent cartoonist David Low (died 19 September 1963) protected by copyright ? His earliest works were published in his homeland New Zealand. Between 1900 and 1919 he worked in Australia, producing many caricatures for The Bulletin. From the information given in an earlier version of the upload wizard, I am unable to upload copies of this early work due to his comparatively recent death, but not according to the later upload wizard or from my reading of the Wikipedia article on Copyright law in the United States. Doug butler (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Doug butler. Commmons requires that the content it host be within the public domain in both the US and its country of first publication. If the publication dates you're giving are correct, then these could be {{PD-US-expired}} under US copyright law, but whether they're OK to upload probably depends on whether they were still eligible for copyright protection in their country of first publication per COM:Australia#Non-government works. Since Australian copyright law allows works to retain their copyright status for 70 years en:post mortem auctoris (p.m.a), it would seem that they would still be protected under Australian copyright law until January 1, 2034 (the p.m.a. countdown starts at the begining of the next year following the author's death, i.e. 1963 + 1 + 70). I might be completely wrong here, but it seems that they can't really be uploaded to Commons until that time. Now, having said that, if these are within the public domain under US copyright law, then it might be possible to upload them locally to English Wikipedia under a en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad license because English Wikipedia is only governed by US copyright law. In a sense, they are treated as "US only public domain" files for use on English Wikipedia, and thus aren't required to meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You can find some examples of files licensed as such at en:Category:Images published abroad that are in the public domain in the United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Doug butler (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
@Doug butler: According to COM:New Zealand, there's a 50 year p.m.a.; so, it's possible Low's works are already within the public domain under New Zealand's law copyright law if that's considered the binding law because he was a New Zealander. I'm not exactly sure which law is binding here, but perhaps someone else can clarify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
It has to be out of copyright in both New Zealand and the United States. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
My previous post was perhaps unclear. If it was published prior to 1929 outside of the US, then it would most likely be PD in the US per {{PD-US-expired}}; however, I don't know whether Australian or New Zealand copyright law applies since author was a New Zealander but apparently the works were first published in Australia. Does the en:rule of the shorter term somehow apply here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know; it would have entered the public domain in New Zealand in 2014. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
But not in Australia (the copyright still has ten years left there) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I’d say if it was originally published in New Zealand; then it would be okay to host (but only if it was before 1929); but if it was originally published in Australia, then it still has 10 more years left. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The story is: I have copied and cleaned up over 100 caricatures from a disintegrating folio (or similar) book Caricatures by David Low, published in 1915, endorsed on the cover "Taken from The Bulletin and other sources". Mostly Australian but many NZ, and possibly a valuable source for illustrating WP articles. Many could be used under "fair use", but it's easier (for me) to copy all of them to Commons. A list of subjects is at [3] Doug butler (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
They would likely be in the public domain in the United States; so “fair use” isn’t necessary; but it wouldn’t meet Commons copyright criteria. So it would need to be put on Wikipedia locally. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm starting to understand. Quantum Theory has nothing on Copyright Law. Doug butler (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The New Zealand ones though can stay up in my opinion; the ones that can be proven to be initially published in NZ. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Doug butler: with the further complication that governments and courts can change copyright law, including retrospectively. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
That said: @Doug butler perhaps we should do the uploads while the content is readily available, then list them in Category:Undelete in 2034 and delete them. A decade from now, they could be restored. Would you be open to doing the uploads if this doesn't immediately make this into available content on Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 23:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
In the upload you'd tag with {{PD-old-auto-expired|1963}}; you'd add the list to Category:Undelete in 2034, and then ask at COM:AN to have them deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
In this particular case, since the uploader wants to use them on enwiki in the meantime anyway, it may be easier for the uploader to upload all the Australian ones to enwiki where they are already considered free and tag them with "Transfer to Commons in 2035", rather than having to upload them twice. As a side effect, this also prevents a host of enwiki files suddenly becoming duplicates without being tagged there. Felix QW (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Upload to Wikipedia completed, with the transfer in 2035 tag. A long grind but it's out of the way. There's a neat table in my workspace. No reason to treat NZ pictures differently from Oz. Doug butler (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

GODL or copyvios?

Do these uploads fall into {{GODL-India}}? (ping Lakhan_Singh_Bhargav) --Geohakkeri (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I blocked Lakhan Singh Bhargav for uploading copyvios after warning, and I deleted 2 files. Even if in the unlikely event that the GODL would cover these, the author, source, and license were wrong. Yann (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Help Force banner

https://cphelpforce.com/

I am making a page for the Help Force, a Club Penguin and CPPS gaming team. I have received permission to use the site banner on Discord from one of Help Force's leaders. Which license is it under? Sekundenlang (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The permission you received is the license; that’s what the word means, basically. --Geohakkeri (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but which CC license is it under? (I will take a screenshot of the Discord conversation where I was given permission and upload it as proof I have permission) --Sekundenlang (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
That’s not a very good proof. Please follow the prosedure laid out on COM:VRT. --Geohakkeri (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
None. "You can use this banner on Discord" is not a Creative Commons license. Omphalographer (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, then how am I supposed to use the banner legally? --Sekundenlang (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Disregarding the question of COM:SCOPE, the banner can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons only if the copyright holder gives a free license to it. So there should be a clear indication of the license on the Help Force website. Alternatively, they can contact VRT and give the license that way. --Geohakkeri (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The bottom of the Help Force website says:

© Help Force 2021. All Rights Reserved.

(as you can see at https://cphelpforce.com/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekundenlang (talk • contribs) 12:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Origyn.svg

I had a logo from a website for a foundation how can I make sure it is not deleted what kind of things do I need to do ? Swanosten (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Swanosten: Hi, Please read the message on your talk page, and the linked pages. Yann (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

CC BY note in YouTube shorts

Hi!

YouTube allows to mark own short clips with a CC BY license. The big problem is, that, for example as a reviewer, it is hard to proof the stated license. This can afaik only be done by searching for CC BY licensed videos.

How to handle this issue? (Little example: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=computer+shorts&sp=EgIwAQ%253D%253D)

Thanks and greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@PantheraLeo1359531: not sure I follow what you want here. When you say "reviewer," do you mean as the formal "license reviewer" or just as an arbitrary person looking at this after the fact. I assume "proof" => "prove", but prove what to whom (just validate the claim for yourself? prove it to some unstated third party? etc.)?
I'm afraid the link clarifies nothing, because you don't say anything about what that link is supposed to exemplify. - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
If the uploader has granted a CC license, the YouTube videos typically display a notice in the description. However with Shorts videos, there is no CC notice in the desc, even if it is granted. The only way to find or confirm is by searching with filters. This can cause confusion and uncertainty. PascalHD (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification, this is what I intended to say :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
There's a simple solution to see if a Short has a CC License, for example the link usually goes "shorts/(video url)" the solution is to replace that part with "watch?v=(video URL)" For example: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/71R4dLouc9M we replace it with This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71R4dLouc9M . That way the video opens in the regular YouTube video tab instead of the Short format. Hyperba21 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Wow, that's a marvelous solution, thank you very much! :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
It is even simpler: just replace "shorts" with "watch":
Glrx (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Glrx: Thanks. Has anyone asked YouTube why they do not display the license with the Short format?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I have no information. Glrx (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

URAA cases

I note again deletion requests of images in PD in Europe because a supposed copyright in USA because of URAA, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Torsten Jovinge Kvarteret Bergsund 1931.jpg. Do we have a category of such deletion requests/URAA cases? I would like to obtain some quantative data how often this is occurring. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ellywa: Category:URAA-related deletion requests and children.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Jeff G.! Ellywa (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Ellywa: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey! So, I want to compile some articles here on some Contemporary Christian Music albums from the 80s/90s, using information from different magazines and such. However, I am encountering problems with the cover images for the Wikipedia pages. Every time I upload one, it says it is being taken down due to an incorrect Creative Commons label. Any help here would be greatly appreciated - which CC do album covers fall under? I got the image I want to upload from the media services online for it, from here: https://a5.mzstatic.com/us/r1000/0/Music4/v4/a0/be/0f/a0be0f13-af9b-2988-8991-e511068f3673/00017627108453.jpg.

Please let me know how to upload/format the CC so I can upload it without issue. Adrizacks98 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Album art is almost always copyrighted and thus is not eligible to be uploaded here at Wikimedia Commons per COM:L. However some Wikipedias allow copyrighted images like album art in certain cases under "Fair Use" - the policy on English Wikipedia is at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Specifically it will usually be allowed if it's used to illustrate an article about the album in question, but if there isn't an article about the album, it probably isn't allowed; I don't see any albums by en:Steve Green (singer) which have articles, so this album art wouldn't be allowed. An example of an album with album art is en:At Folsom Prison, and you can see the album art's copyright/Free Use information at en:File:Johnny Cash At Folsom Prison.jpg#Summary. Consigned (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt response! I appreciate the input.
I am trying to publish articles from that singer in particular, but for each article, I need to post an album cover. How can I upload it under Non-Free content? I plan to try and publish at least 2-3 articles this weekend if I can solve this copyright issue with the cover art. Other albums I checked had the same Non-free content so I would like to publish some as well. Adrizacks98 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
NP, happy to help. The album art won't be allowed until the article exists, so first create the article, then upload the photo to Wikipedia (not here at Wikimedia Commons) and include it in the article. Though it's long I do recommend reading the Wikipedia non-free rules at en:WP: Non-free content since copyright is treated quite seriously, and those are Wikipedia-specific rules different than here on Commons (again non-free material simply isn't allowed here on Commons). When uploading the file, you can use a template like en:Template:Non-free use rationale album cover to include the non-free justification, which is used on the Johnny Cash file I linked above. Consigned (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
PS I agree with Marchjuly below that first you should get the album articles published and stable before taking the time to upload the album art. Consigned (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Adrizacks98. English Wikipedia articles about albums aren't required to have an album cover image, and the presence or lack of any such image has nothing to to do with en:Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings. So, if the album articles you say you're going to create are anything like en:Draft:Steve Green (album), it might be much better for you to focus on establishing the Wikipedia notablity of these albums first, and then worry about uploading album covers later. Non-free content can't be used in drafts per English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; moreover, there's not much point in uploading non-free files that either have no valid use or are going to be used in articles that have a good chance of ending up being quickly tagged or nominated for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A correction to Consigned's remarks above: "copyrighted and thus is not eligible to be uploaded here at Wikimedia Commons" should read something like "copyrighted and would require that the holder of the copyright offer a free license in order to be eligible to be uploaded here at Wikimedia Commons" (along with the fact that no one but the copyright-holder can offer that license). - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Up until 1989 you were required to register the album cover for a copyright, separate from the music and small labels may not have gone through the expense, or they may have avoided copyright in the hopes of having the image reproduced as free advertising. You have to search the USCO database. --RAN (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    • To have a properly registered copyright, yes. But as I understand it, you could get 28 years protection (with some caveats) from just notice without registration, and anything from 1964 or later turned out (with the new law) not to need to renew, so just notice without registration got them 95 years. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Have you seen cases of record labels neglecting to post notices/register/renew copyrights on album covers? I would think that would be one of their top priorities. For convenience of other readers, the rules on US copyright notices/registration/renewal are at COM:HIRTLE. Consigned (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Big labels performed all needed paperwork, small labels may not have. --RAN (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • You were not required to register a work -- you just needed to have a copyright notice on it, before 1989. Between 1978 and 1989, if you forgot a copyright notice, you could register it to possibly not lose the copyright. Works published before 1964 did need to be renewed 27/28 years after publication; while you did need to register to do that, you could send in your first registration along with the renewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Consigned and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): even labels as major as Columbia or Capitol were often remarkably careless about maintaining copyrights on album art. For example, they often ran U.S. ads that depicted an album jacket at reasonably high resolution (though usually in black and white) and failed to post a copyright notice. Tons of this to be found in the "underground papers" of the late 1960s and early 1970s. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
* Yes! The lack of symbol was on purpose to maximize free distribution of the publicity images, the product that made the money was the music. I have been trying to figure out the year they started adding the copyright symbol to ads and publicity images, and adding to each category. It appears to have stared for some in the mid 1980s. I have been going through Billboard and eBay looking at the advertisements for both the band and ones with album covers. I think we decided that the low-res magazine image (devoid of copyright symbol) does not mean that the higher-res album cover (with copyright symbol) can be hosted by Commons. We can only host the version devoid of the symbol. It was a compromise on whether all versions are voided of copyright by having some copies devoid of the copyright symbol. The lack of symbol was on purpose to maximize distribution. --RAN (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Correct as to the effects of this, though not a matter of compromise here on Commons, simply of law. - Jmabel ! talk 20:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

File:陝西省鎮巴縣地名志 書影.jpg File:鎮巴縣行政區劃沿革１.jpg File:鎮巴縣行政區劃沿革２.jpg This appears to be (Seemingly) OCLC 865692099. Issued by local government office in China? Potential Copyright Infringement? I believe the pages are from this book. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Ceteris Paribus Overview.png lacks attribution

Stated as own work, but appears to come from here, which states that it is freely available, but requests an attribution link. (That said, it is one of the more inane graphs I have seen for several reasons, and I hope nobody uses it, but I'm really only here for the attribution issue, "inanity" not being a point of policy.) Mathglot (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Ceteris Paribus Overview.png. - Jmabel ! talk 21:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Nothing here that appears to be copyrightable, and it is not literally the same file as that one on wallstreetmojo. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Strange graphic. Does it illustrate that you can write "Ceteris paribus" on a chart? Enhancing999 (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999: well put. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
For info: Was used here, but recently removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's discuss this file

en:File:Sobeys logo.svg

The file is not on Commons under the belief that it may meet the threshold of originality under its source country. I'm no expert at Canadian law especially since I don't even live there, but I do not believe it meets the ToO in its source country under Template:TOO-Canada ("Unlike other common law countries, Canada's threshold of originality veers closer to that of the United States.") as it's just circles and text.

Should I move it here? AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: I moved it here. There are more complex logos than that logo that are hosted here and come from the same country. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Song lyrics/manuscript

Is File:Jesus is my Paradise.png OK as licensed for Commons or does it need to be treated as a COM:DW? en:Emahoy Tsegué-Maryam Guèbrou, the writer of the lyrics, died in 2023 and the date the manuscript was created looks like August 2014. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That is clearly a derivative work. Owning the physical manuscript of a creative work (like these lyrics) doesn't convey rights to that work. Omphalographer (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Compatibility of "ShareAlike" licenses with Commons

I was recently looking through the different "CC BY-SA" licensing options on here to use for personal photographs I'm thinking about uploading. One of the licenses I'm considering using is "CC BY-SA 4." Although I couldn't help notice that one of the conditions of it is that "if you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original." Which just seems counter to the goals of the projects. Since we don't allow for non-commercial licenses and someone obviously can't transform or build a work into a commercial product if they then have to release it under a "CC BY-SA" license. Although the license also seems to say people can "remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." So I'm kind of confused here. Can anyone explain exactly how it works? Adamant1 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: CC-BY-SA is very compatible with Commons, it is stricter than CC-BY in the sense that any derivative works must be licensed as CC-BY-SA where derivative works of CC-BY works could have non-commercial or no derivatives added, so you can't make a DW of a CC-BY-SA that restricts things the original license doesn't so commercial use is always allowed under CC-BY-SA. I hope that helps. (Finishing up my packing for Wikimania 2024 so starting tomorrow, I'll probably be very slow to respond to things for 10 days or so). Abzeronow (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no reason that a commercial work can't be licensed under CC-BY-SA. Sure, that would mean that others could then use your work and perhaps "out-commercialize" (i.e. compete) with you, but that doesn't mean you can't try. Furthermore, if someone were to remix something into a logo, brand mark, or other distinctive "identity" for their business, the fact that it would have to be licensed under CC-BY-SA does not affect their ability to avail themselves of trademark or similar protections.
A similar situation is the existence of personality/likeness rights - images of identifiable people are allowed on Commons even though the subject may very well still maintain a legal right to prevent certain uses of their likeness without their permission. There's a list of some other rights that may still apply without affecting Commons here. Ultimately, Commons' purpose is not to host only images that can be used for any reason by anyone without fail - the purpose is merely to host images that a reuser does not have to "worry" about copyright/licensure for their use. It doesn't guarantee they will be able to successfully use any image commercially - but if they want to try, they do not have to deal with copyright/licensing of the image here to do so. Berchanhimez (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
That type of license was part of the original concept of "free", particularly when used with computer code -- it's called en:Copyleft, and the idea was that the content (or code in their case) was itself "free", in that a derivative work could not make it proprietary again. If you wanted to make use of such code, then give back. Importantly, the share-alike condition only applies to derivative works, not simply any use. For example, including such an illustration in a commercial book should be fine -- the book is a collective work (a selection and arrangement of the contained works) of the text and the illustrations. Use in a collective work does not trigger the condition, so the book's text is one copyright, the collective work is another, and the illustration is still its own copyright. Only the illustration itself remains licensed CC-BY-SA; the book's text and arrangement can have any license they want (or none). That could be considered a commercial use of the illustration, but it's fine per the license. If the book author makes any modifications to the illustration itself, then that result must still be licensed CC-BY-SA, but not the entire book. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I found this post and response an interesting expansion on your point: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8357/in-which-cases-must-i-relicense-my-product-under-the-cc-by-sa-license - Consigned (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I have to agree with the others here; CC-BY-SA is very compatible here. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Flickr images uploaded by Orizan

Orizan has uploaded quite a lot of old print advertisements (e.g. File:1957 Pillsbury Frosting (8267230877).png) and is citing Flickr as the source. It's possible that some of these are either OK to relicense as {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I don't think Flickr can be considered the original source in any way and most likely it's a case of unintentional COM:LL by the Flickr account holder. Orizan hasn't edited Commons since December 2021 and doesn't seem to be active on any other WMF project; so, I don't think they'll be around to try and help sort things out. Orizan has uploaded lots of files and perhaps not all of them are problematic, but they seem to have been just assuming anything uploaded to Flickr is automatically OK for Commons just because the Flickr account holder licensed it as such. Some files, like the aforementioned advertisements and File:Alcatraz Landing at Pier 33, San Francisco (29581678632).jpg, are either a case of COM:2D copying or COM:DW; so, it might take a bit of time and a few people to sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 law review publication for European Union / evolving definition of public space

This recent publication, Shtefan (2024) on freedom of panorama in the European Union, has (I am told) useful case law relevant to the policy recommendations here.[1] Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison some Spanish court ruling mentioned in the paper may affect COM:FOP Spain, in particular, regarding the location of a work. To quote:

In a case in Spain, a dispute arose over the image of a house built on a rock. Part of this house can be seen from the public road, while the photo shows another part that faces the side of the abyss under the rock. The defendant argued that such a picture could have been taken from the sea or air, which are public places, and therefore the rule of freedom of panorama should be applied to this case. The local court of Madrid rejected these arguments and noted that the rock on which the house is built is not by a public road where pedestrians and vehicles can move. Although the building is located near a public road, capturing the image in question from the road would have been impossible. The sea and airspace do not fall under the concept of a public highway, although they are spaces belonging to the public.

— cited source: SAP M 11756/2014 – ECLI:ES:APM:2014:11756 (n 13)
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ Shtefan, Anna (May 2024). "Freedom of panorama in the EU: main features and hidden sides". European journal of legal studies, OnlineFirst: 1–30. DOI:10.2924/EJLS.2024.012. ISSN 1973-2937. Open access.

Likely free-licensed uploads with unclear derivations

Is there a policy or FAQ or noticeboard to alert others about an uploaded file X.svg where some content (about 50kb of the svg) is an exact copy in common with another Commons file, and the rendered version of the image clearly suggests similarity to a set of related Commons files, but the uploader is not able to clearly describe the derivation of the file? I'm thinking of a particular case where the known contributing pieces of X.svg are CC-BY-SA-4.0 and CC0. I'm not motivated to analyse this further, the uploader has not acknowledged the common content (which is straightforward to check), but there's no edit battle going on, and I don't see a deletion proposal being justified.

This seems like a "nobody is likely to be bothered to clean up" situation to me, so my thought is just to put some sort of a tag (category?) so that if the sort of person who is willing to clean up these situations has time, then s/he can easily find this on a list or be notified by a bot and handle it. Boud (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible issues with Template:PD-NWS

Admin note: there is probably a topic here that merits some discussion, but as of this writing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado just south of the Cedar River looking north.jpg still needs to play out to a conclusion, and even then it may not be clear how general that conclusion may be in terms of other images from U.S. National Weather Service sites. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

So, there is a situation which may have developed regarding the Template:PD-NWS (used for thousands of images), and Commons Administrators need to help solve this debate ASAP. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Background

  1. Is that template solid for pre-2008 images, as this is the earliest internet archive record of it existing? – {Original reason for deletion request}
  2. Does it cover all of the National Weather Service (NWS) offices (i.e. National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma, National Weather Service Binghamton, New York, ect...) or does it only apply to specific NWS offices?
  3. When it says "unless otherwise noted", what does that specifically mean?
  • That second question above is what the deletion request evolved into.

Now, there is oddities and weirdness.

  • The NWS headquarters has this disclaimer, "The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public.".

Several of the other NWS field offices have similar statements:

  • NWS Sioux Falls, South Dakota - This is what Template:PD-NWS links to: "By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others"
  • NWS Omaha/Valley, NE "Submitted images will be made available to use by anyone in the NWS and will be in the Public Domain."
  • Others, like NWS Norman, Oklahoma link to the NWS Headquarters disclaimer using a linked up "disclaimer" button at the bottom of webpages.

Some offices do not appear to even have a disclaimer anywhere, or at least none I can easily find.

NWS La Crosse is the specific office for why this discussion is being opened.

  • Mid-Deletion Request, Hurricanehink started an email chain with NWS La Crosse. In that deletion request, NWS La Crosse replied (per Hurricanehink): "The information that has been passed down to me is : An individual who posts a photo on a NOAA website is not placing their photo in the public domain. By posting the image, the copyright owner is giving NOAA permission to use the image on the website" So for your uses, unless the images are already in the public domain (you can find them on other websites or a license allows for it), you will need to check with the owner."
  • NWS La Crosse's email above goes against the disclaimer on the NWS La Crosse "photos" webpage, which states, "Please note that this is a government site and in the public domain, so no copyright privileges will exist."

This is why a Commons Administrator is needed ASAP. We have two major questions, which affect thousands of images (including current Featured Pictures on EN-Wiki), and NWS seems to be disagreeing with itself now. A single deletion request should not be the place for a discussion this large, hence why it is being brought here. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It also goes against two other disclaimers. The general disclaimer and the FAQ on NWS Norman’s website. It also goes against the terms of photo submission on NWS Sioux Falls. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-Administrator Discussion

Back in November 2023, Template:PD-NWS was changed because of a specific deletion request, which determined images produced by Getty Images on NWS webpages are indeed copyrighted. Given NWS La Crosse sent that new notice/email out in 2024, it appears NWS La Crosse has a different guideline from the headquarters. My personal solution would be to have a 2nd exemption rule, similar to the current Getty Image exemption on the template, specific for NWS La Crosse. Thoughts on this proposal? WeatherWriter (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question, does this affect images that were submitted post 2009; or just the ones taken before then? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
 And another question, would the exemption you’re talking about apply retroactively? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
For my proposal, it would be for all NWS La Crosse images, 1970 to 2024, (the years NWS has existed) and it would apply retroactively. Basically, no image from NWS La Crosse webpages, submitted by non-government people, would be allowed on the Commons. That is an easy solution to this whole debacle, since NWS La Crosse appears to not go by the NWS Headquarters statements and is on their own, per se. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
That could also solve the dilemma of having to delete hundreds of files despite multiple things saying that images are in the public domain unless otherwise noted. So I’m going to  Support this proposal. But I don’t entirely know whether or not my opinion is necessarily binding (I don’t know if the votes count for all editors or just administrators only; or if votes are even necessary) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion; the precautionary principle line is only being breached for images coming from NWS LaCrosse; but not the other offices. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I do want to clarify that my support “vote” does not extend to NWS LaCrosse images that were created by that office itself. Only to images submitted to that office. Although just to be safe; you might want to consider asking the uppity uppities at the NWS headquarters to clarify once and for all. Just so we don’t end up having a similar discussion a few years from now. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I would also like to add to the proposal though. I think any image submitted to the NWS from a news site that still has the banners/watermarks/tickers/etc. still on them should also be deleted; even if there isn’t an explicit copyright notice. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that the NWS disclaimers (universally) are legally enforceable to require the submission to be released into the public domain in order to submit it to them. The question here is specific - only regarding non-NWS/government employee images that are submitted to the NWS to be featured on their website. There is no way to confirm what disclaimer the person submitting the image saw when submitting it in most cases, given that submissions are generally through email rather than a form. As such, the precautionary principle should apply, since there is no way to confirm that a photographer actually saw (much less agreed to) a specific disclaimer when doing so. The NWS cannot on their end waive the copyright rights of a photographer, and them marking an image as copyrighted (or failing to do so) does not affect the rights of the photographer. Yes, in an ideal world, we would be able to trust third parties (especially government organizations) to accurately describe the images they host as copyrighted or not. But ultimately this is not a ideal/perfect world. I do not see how an image being hosted on a NWS server should be treated any differently than any other agency/government/organization that "typically" releases their images into the public domain. If the image is not owned by that agency/government/organization, they do not have the authority to decide to release it into the public domain. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Of note, the PRP has already been tested with respect to images that are hosted on NWS servers but are not taken by NWS photographers and have not explicitly been released to the public domain elsewhere - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerial view of homes destroyed in Rolling Fork, Mississippi.jpg. There is zero reason that a private photographer should be treated any differently than a pool photographer or someone who licenses their image to an organization like Getty. The presumption is that every photograph someone takes, they hold the copyright for, and absent an explicit release into the public domain, we should presume they still hold this copyright. I am of the opinion that the NWS disclaimers are not adequately prominent on the submissions to qualify as an explicit release - whether the NWS legal team feels differently is irrelevant. Given this is a question over whether the disclaimers are adequate or not (at least in cases it can be proven that the photographer saw and agreed to those disclaimers when submitting), roping WMF legal in for their official opinion on whether it counts may be a good idea. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
 Request: why don’t we try to contact some of the people who submitted the images and see if they would be willing to release the images themselves under a suitable license? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
That's acceptable for this case just as it is for any other time someone wishes to use an image on Commons (or Wikipedia/another project) without it having an explicit licensure/release. Any editor should feel free to contact the photographer for any image to ask them to release it into the public domain/an acceptable license - with the photographer emailing the VRT to do so. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
To get what Berchanhimez said straight: NWS disclaimers don't mean anything? Why do we use website disclaimers then? We allow Flickr disclaimers to work same with YT disclaimers on video descriptions. If NWS disclaimers are not allowed, I request we remove all disclaimer usage then. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
As much as this would be a burden and a pain on all of us; I am not opposed to that. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Now if it is clear that they DID release it under a license; then the disclaimer shouldn’t matter. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I AM. I find that ridiculous. Just as WeatherWriter said, NOAA has a disclaimer. ChessEric (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Flickr/Youtube disclaimers are "positive affirmation". The site requires someone to explicitly select that they are not uploading it under "all rights reserved", and when they do so they are presented with a clear and universal disclaimer of what their selection means. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not buying that. It is still disclaimers. If one disclaimer cannot work, none can. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
So if I say "by replying to this you agree to give Berchanhimez 1 million USD", that disclaimer (as absurd and legally unenforceable as it is) should be treated as a legitimate disclaimer? Get real. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
(As written below); I don’t think that would be legally enforceable. (In other words your hypothetical idea of getting rich quickly won’t work, no one in their right mind would pay any Commons editor a million dollars, regardless of what currency it was in); but I get the idea. Although I also get ChessEric’s idea too of “sucks to be you if you didn’t read the disclaimer”; so I think that issue might be better suited for an administrator (or better yet WMF legal) to handle. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
May I ask what exactly you mean by that? ChessEric (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Go try to upload an image to Flickr/a video to Youtube and select a creative commons/public domain licensure for it. Tell me that is equivalent to emailing your image to a NWS office. It's not. For one, there is no guarantee by the NWS that any photographer who emailed an image to them that they chose to use actually saw the disclaimer (I can email any NWS office without ever going to the NWS website by any number of means, for example). For two, there is no evidence that the disclaimer of "by submitting this it's in the public domain" is sufficient. Flickr/Youtube both require positive action - i.e. explicitly selecting that you are choosing to release the image. In other words again, they both presume copyright and require the user to take an explicit action to waive that right (either by licensing under a free license or the public domain). The NWS disclaimer is not equivalent to that, since it just states "any image uploaded/emailed to us may be public domain" or similar wording.
Again, if people seriously want to debate whether the disclaimer counts, contact WMF legal and have them issue an official opinion. Failing that, the precautionary principle applies and we cannot assume that a passive disclaimer like that is acceptable. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not our responsibility to check with every person to see if they read a disclaimer. It's like signing a contract. If I sign a contract and later discover that there is something in there that I don't like, I can't come back later and say I didn't see it because I would've seen it had I read the entire contract. Same thing applies here. If they didn't read it, that's on them. It's not our problem. ChessEric (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
And what if they didn't read it because they emailed the office directly saying "hey, I took some images of this recent tornado, hope they may be useful to you" without ever having gone to their website? Berchanhimez (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect, it wasn’t a recent tornado. It was more than half a century ago. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Which makes it impossible that they read this disclaimer, because the NWS website didn't exist half a century ago. Thanks for proving my point for me. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
That wasn’t necessarily my intention but okay. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Regardless if it was your intention or not, it did a very good job, because it shows clearly that this purported license template is being applied to at least one image that it is impossible for it to have applied to. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
But to answer your question the way you put it. I don’t know. If I were to speak for @ChessEric, he’d probably say “sucks to be the copyright holder”; if it were my opinion though, I’d say if they didn’t say anything, then “sucks to be them” if they wanted it copyrighted; unless that is they specifically indicated the intent to copyright (then the weather service would indicate whenever a work is copyrighted, like they always do); as noted in the past; the National Weather Service always indicates whenever a work is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Berchanhimez, with all due respect, you have 125 contributions total on the Commons. Several of which is regarding this issue. The previous deletion request is already over 81,000 bytes in size. Given the implications of this (including that a Commons Administrator has violated copyright rules/laws), we need to let actual administrators handle this. I opened this specifically to get administrators. This goes for everyone honestly, can we stop the debate and let the administrators sort this mess out? They already have now like 90,000 characters of text to sort through. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    Attempting to gatekeep this discussion is inappropriate. Further, attempting to make the claim that I don't understand copyright or Commons rules when I have never had an image deleted here nor have I had any copyright issues in multiple good articles on Wikipedia is inappropriate. Please do not attempt to gatekeep people from commenting here any further, given that multiple enwp editors who weren't admins here are being invited to comment here. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah @Berchanhimez isn’t getting a million dollars. Nice try! WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    @WestVirginiaWX: ...okay. That's a little too far. We may not agree with them, but we should still respect them. ChessEric (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    I was only trying to be funny. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    Now is really not the time for that. ChessEric (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    Well I’m sorry. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Berchanhimez -- It appears you are attempting to gatekeep in fact. You have just directly stated the Commons had violated copyright rules and laws for over a decade, implied that a Commons Administrator violated copyright laws (unintentionally), and that countless deletion discussions regarding this issue, which were closed, mean nothing. You are bludgeoning the process. Please let the administrators figure out what to do. You should read Commons:Deletion requests, as it states: The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of their ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. Only administrators can close this and solve this debate. Right now, none of us, not you, me, ChessEric, any of us, can solve this issue. Only the administrators can. In fact, per Commons:Deletion requests, our thoughts don't really mean much. Sorry to tell you that. This entire thing was opened to try to get an administrator to solve the extremely long debate. My thoughts don't matter in this. Your thoughts don't matter in this. It could be 10 people saying to keep and it could be deleted. It could be 10 people saying to delete and it could be kept. The admin gets the final say while applying copyright laws. The fact you don't know that says you are not experienced enough or familiar enough with this topic, which goes back literal decades. There are at least 10 discussions all linked together regarding this topic. So please, let the admins do their work. That goes for everyone here. Stop the debate and let the admins sort it out. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    Alright everyone: @WeatherWriter is right on this. This was intended to get the attention of administrators (to which none of us are); and everyone here including myself has turned this into the very same forum that accumulated 80 something thousand bytes and veered way off topic very early on. For our sake it might be better to let the admins handle this. Since according to @WeatherWriter, none of our opinions are binding. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    It is in fact you and other "weather editors" (as ChessEric called them on enwp trying to gatekeep) that are bludgeoning this discussion. Further, it is WMF legal that gets the final say on copyright laws, not volunteer admins on Commons. The fact that some "weather editors" are admins on commons, and/or the fact that your collective bludgeoning (which has resulted in multiple ArbCom requests and at least one case in the past) have resulted in admins here not being able to apply the precautionary principle appropriately is irrelevant. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    Alright, can we please stop the back and forth gate keeping accusations? That goes for both of you. @Berchanhimez @WeatherWriter WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    And I’ll further add that I don’t even know what gate keeping is. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Though it probably makes sense to wrap up the DR conversation first, just posting to say that I'm in complete agreement with Berchanhimez's understanding of copyright and its applicability to this scenario, including the need for a "positive action". I also agree with them that there is a lot of bludgeoning by people with "Weather" or "WX" in their usernames in this discussion and in the DR. Consigned (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    I haven’t been trying to bludgeon the process (although I agree that may have been the end result); I’ve only been trying to stop the argument that happened. Yet others on here (not naming no names) seemed to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to it and kept right on arguing and only escalated further. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing note

Some accusations and counter-accusations that probably need not concern most readers

To note for administrators, User:WeatherWriter has canvassed at least a dozen "weather editors" to this discussion on the English Wikipedia (see their contributions). While I am not advocating for any individual editor to be removed from this discussion/have their opinions nullified, it should be noted that the "weather space" has resulted in at least one arbitration case due to inappropriate canvassing/collusion (including off wiki/private communications), and that the topic area has a history of immature (at best) editors who bludgeon discussions to attempt to stifle actual resolution of them. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Berchanhimez is a troll. The supposed canvassing alerts (example of one here) was sent to all editors who actively edit weather-related articles and upload images. Given there are several articles (some featured articles, featured article candidates, Good articles, GANs) and several other highly-viewed articles that use this template, all editors were told to not upload under it until the Commons could figure out what to do. A link to this discussion was not given to editors.
What is actually amazingly funny is how this discussion was started at 00:55, 2 August 2024, and the most recent EN-Wiki notification was sent at 23:54, 1 August 2024. So, Berchanhimez has accused me of canvassing a discussion which had not yet begun. I would really like to see how I can canvas for a discussion that does not exist yet. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
They were sent to specific editors, rather than to a wikiproject. While giving notes to wikiproject talk pages is generally appropriate, cherry picking editors is not. Further, canvassing to an upcoming discussion (in your words "There will be a discussion starting on the Commons Copyright Noticeboard within the next few days") is no different than saying directly "please go comment on this discussion". Berchanhimez (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
May I ask how? This isn't us trying to come to a consensus or agreement about something; it's us attempting to figure out what we should do moving forward. I've checked those edits and many of them don't even link to here. ChessEric (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
A link isn't required for it to be canvassing. The note stated explicitly that there would be a discussion on a specific page, and was all but explicitly inviting the editors to come comment here. That is textbook canvassing. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Warning sign Can we please stop accusing people of stuff?? What happened in the past is in the past. We can’t change it. Many of these supposed canvassing incidents were that of @WeatherWriter pinging recently active editors to remind them of an ongoing discussion. I would have done the same thing. Let’s please stop trying to make @WeatherWriter or anyone else look like the bad guy. Please? This is rapidly veering way off course. Can we please remember that this is about the PD-NWS template; NOT about what WeatherWriter supposedly done in the past. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It's quite funny (to me) that me making this note for administrators' attention has resulted in the same editors continuing to bludgeon and now resorting to personal attacks against me because I called out the canvassing. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It ain’t a personal attack. It’s me politely asking you to please calm down and quit accusing people of things without just cause. It’s just me trying to keep you from getting blocked. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Calling someone a troll is a personal attack. I deliberately did not indent this to you as I was replying in general rather than to you directly. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Now I’m going to be as polite as I can here. If you keep accusing me or anyone else of stuff and you don’t have a good reason to do so; I will start reverting your accusation comments. And furthermore, I didn’t call you a troll, it was WeatherWriter that did so. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
No dude. That will get you blocked. Please take back. ChessEric (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Might I ask what part you want me to take back? @ChessEric. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Can we all stop arguing and stop the needless back and forth accusations please? @Berchanhimez @WeatherWriter @ChessEric. This is rapidly spiraling into a very heated and un-civil argument and to be honest. As @ChessEric mentioned; if it don’t stop, we all will end up getting blocked. I am going to  abstain from making any further comments until this cools down. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@ChessEric, exactly what did you want me to take back? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Everything. Let admins decide stuff like whether comments should be reverted because what you just said could be considered a threat, even if it was in good faith. Trust me; I learned the hard way. ChessEric (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
And as for @Berchanhimez; I am not personally attacking you (even though I did leave you a warning on your talk page politely asking and pleading you to quit the arguing); I am calling out this entire discussion and everyone here. This is a blanket statement for everyone. You all have got to quit arguing. That goes for not only @Berchanhimez, but the rest of us here. Please. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@ChessEric, what do you mean by everything? You know what, don’t answer. Just go in on my behalf and cross out any of my statements that you are referring to please. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
 Comment: Not to criticize or anything; but I just looked at @Berchanhimez‘s contributions and curiously there is a three year gap where that user has a whopping zero edits between 2021 and June of this year. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
But let me be clear, it is far from enough evidence in my opinion to call the editor a “troll” or an equivalent thereof. Again my criticism is not on @Berchanhimez alone. I am not personally attacking anyone. My criticism is to this entire group. Everyone including myself (yes I am criticizing myself) is at fault here. Everyone who participated in the argument is at fault. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

What here is an admin issue?

@WeatherWriter: you are saying this is something for admins to decide. I don't really see what here is an admin issue. At some point, it will presumably be an admin who decides that the discussion has reached a conclusion (or a point of diminishing returns) and decide which side has the stronger arguments, but other than that there is no specific role for admins as such here. We (admins) are presumably all fairly knowledgeable about copyright, but many of the strongest copyright experts on Commons are not admins, and certainly I would listen far more to what they have to say about this matter than what some random admin has to say.

Offhand, this looks pretty thorny. It looks like the NWS does not handle this consistently; like some NWS sites may handle this better than others; and like it is difficult to determine whether any of them are careful enough to meet the standards of Commons' precautionary principle, except where we know that a particular image was made by a federal government employee. This is probably going to involve a lot of separate judgements, with a lot of different people able to bring their respective competences to sorting this out. - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Well in that case, we can basically ignore this entire discussion that got opened here. My hope was that an administrator would decide whether the email trumped the disclaimers and/or how the disclaimers work with that email. That was my original hope for administrator intervention. The deletion request has so many moving parts, that this was sort of opened to try to solve one of those "parts". Looks like it won't and we just have to wait for an administrator to close the deletion request, however long it may take for a clear conclusion to be reached. Also, it is probably for the best we close this. This has now turned into something as long if not longer than the deletion request. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I want to try to solve this, but it seems every part becomes so disorganized so quickly. Like you said, it will probably take several "ruling". I had an optimistic approach, hoping starting something here would solve a chunk of the issue. It just became a disorganized mess. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Jmabel: , since this was opened and has led (and will continue to lead) nowhere, can we close this entire discussion as solved, with the understanding that the deletion request just need to finish normally and will eventually be closed? That seems to be the big takeaway here as that will be the true first step to solving the NWS debacle. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
To all who may concern: since this conversation got heated because one or two editors (not naming no names) started accusing one another of stuff. Here’s my new idea on how to quickly get things on track again. @WeatherWriter, can you please ignore and DON’T reply to any accusations made by anyone else. Everyone else, can we please do the same? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
So long as people don’t make accusations (and more importantly the other party ignores any that are made); this discussion can continue to go on smoothly. The more we just ignore those accusations above; the quicker they will go away and it won’t get back to the heated mess it was earlier. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you whoever closed the above discussion. Can we PLEASE remain civil and focused from this point on? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
And let’s also remember this. The discussion is not a democracy; it is a dictatorship (the dictator being the closing admin) and our opinion won’t really matter a whole lot if it even matters at all. Let’s not post opinion votes because it is going to have little or no impact on the outcome of this. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't an admin issue, it's a community issue, but this is the right place to get community input. Still it makes sense to wait for the DR to play out so that we don't have to have the same debate at two places at one time. Consigned (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Well from what @Sir MemeGod told me on the deletion request; he told me that he was going to contact WMF legal about it and ask them to issue an official opinion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I’m still deciding whether I should or shouldn’t. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 19:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
We probably should on this because no one seems to be able to agree on anything. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I would encourage anyone contacting WMF legal to ask them to opine on whether the fact that a disclaimer is included on some pages about submitting to them covers images they get from, for example, Twitter, or submitted through email directly, or apps like mPING, etc. - I suspect they will say that the disclaimer is sufficient if and only if the image concerned can be shown to have been submitted through a format that the photographer saw the disclaimer - and in that case, since we do not know the provenance of any image on the NWS website that is unmarked/uncredited, we cannot assume that it was submitted with the disclaimer. In other words, simply asking the WMF if the disclaimer is sufficient or not will not provide an answer to the questions raised here. Berchanhimez (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I would think that if they got a picture from Twitter/X or Facebook (which they very rarely if ever do); they would ask the person first. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
This NWS Webpage is a key one to look at. It is on tornadoes from 1979. The "Tornado Photos" tab is clearly marked with the copyright symbol. The "Damage" tab is clearly marked courtesy of without the copyright symbol. NWS always asks. That webpage basically disproves the theory that they do not ask the copyright status, even for historical photos. They clearly mark it as well, as evident here. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Twin tornadoes.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg are two key previous deletion requests regarding this overall topic: one deleted and one kept. The disclaimer is indeed valid and is upheld on the Commons in the past, even when it has been directly assessed. Given NWS La Crosse even has the disclaimer on their own webpages, I would not be surprised if that email was actually some error on the return of whoever that meteorologists asked regarding it. Either way, the Commons has a clear stance on it and honestly, a clear precedent. The disclaimer works and ideas that it doesn't have no proof, while the idea of it existing does have proof (all the disclaimers alerting people when they send in photos). Every email to NWS is also FOIA requestable...i.e. in the public domain to begin with. This includes non-NOAA personnel. When you email the NWS, your email and their responses are open to public record in the public domain. (You can view some already requested emails regarding Hurricane Dorian here). That is why the disclaimers are all very clear on "it is public domain". When they send it to NWS, it is up to the user/photographer to know the terms and conditions of sending an email and/or photograph to the U.S. government. If I was assessing the situation, it seems clear the disclaimers are in place, are understood on several websites, linked to on almost every NWS webpage, and the general knowledge the U.S. government produces public domain info is widely known. So, to me, the disclaimers hold up and ideas to disprove them have no ground and/or no evidence to say they are not upheld...at least no evidence has been presented yet. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The only plausible evidence is that email that @Hurricanehink received. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Again @WeatherWriter, the “sucks to be you” principle (the “you” being whoever the copyright holder was), correct? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
(Elaborating; I’m referring to another comment I made on here about how it was “sucks to be you if you didn’t read the disclaimer”.) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
And also @Berchanhimez, I happen to know from experience that mPING does not allow photo/video submission. I know this because I’ve used mPING before. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
We don't get to assume anything. If the argument is that the disclaimer is sufficient, then it is only sufficient if it is actually presented to and agreed to by the person when they submit. We also do not "trust" (even if we "think") that the NWS has obtained copyright permission to release it into the public domain. Something being FOIA requestable does not impact the copyright rights of the photographer/person writing the email. The fact that something is "public information" does not have any impact on copyright status - as an example, the Library of Congress routinely accepts copies of copyrighted works as part of their mission, but the mere fact they accept them and display them does not impact the copyright of the creator. Likewise, the FBI and other investigators routinely accept imagery during criminal investigations - including notably the January 6th investigation - but the fact that someone submitted an image for use in an investigation (and that the image may be used by the investigators for non-commercial purposes) does not impact their copyright of it. There are many examples of the NWS "accepting" (either for internal use or possibly for publication) photos from locations where there is no disclaimer present - such as [4], etc. Of note, their twitter information page contains no disclaimer that by tweeting an image at them, even if they reply, releases it into the public domain.
It's also important to consider here the fact that the government generally has wide latitude to use copyrighted images under fair use - in some cases even wider latitude than private individuals may have. If the NWS has seen a copyrighted image that they intend to use for an educational purpose, they can post it on their website regardless of whether it's been released or not. This may be part of the reason that they don't seem to "care" about it as much as some people think they do - because while they try to mark if images are copyrighted or not, they themselves are not legally liable for failing to do so. On the other hand, if Commons accepts images that are copyrighted, they are legally liable for representing them under an inaccurate license. Furthermore, Commons requires that any disclaimer/etc be irrevocable - this is contrary to the NWS's policy, which is that a person who did not intend to release their image into the public domain can rectify/revoke their purported release by emailing them. See, for example, the FSD office disclosure: "If we receive complaints of copyright infringement, the image in question will be removed immediately".
So to summarize, the disclaimer is not present nor linked to through all submission mechanisms, but only some of them. Where it is linked to, the wording varies between offices and is not clearly irrevocable as required by Commons. Hence my comment that if people wish to bring WMF legal into this for an opinion, it is not sufficient to ask WMF legal "does this disclaimer count" - we would need an opinion from them that the disclaimer is sufficient, that it is sufficiently displayed on any possible mechanism by which a photographer submits their image to the NWS resulting in it getting posted, and that it is sufficiently irrevocable. Otherwise PRP applies. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I’m no expert; but the “complaints of copyright infringement” clause is mainly for someone who for example tries to submit Reed Timmer’s (and others) storm chasing videos (and the like) to the weather service; or if they didn’t know the policy. And it’s not going to be something you do 5 years later; it’s something that is done in a matter of days or weeks; maybe a month or two at most. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Revocable is revocable. Commons doesn't allow for licenses that allow for it to be revoked 5 seconds later, or a few days later, or a few weeks later. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Let me put that another way: let’s say I’m Reed Timmer (I’m not really; but for the purposes of this analogy, let’s pretend that I am), and I take a picture of a tornado say in Illinois; and someone pretends to be me and uploads it to the weather service; or someone uses my picture and they claim that they “took” it; and they upload it to the Weather Service, again without my knowledge and consent; and I then contact the Weather Service and ask them to remove the picture. That’s what the disclaimer means there. It’s to prevent people from using someone else’s pictures and pretend like they took it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
And it’s to prevent someone from taking a clip out of the movie Twister and claim that they took a picture of a tornado. Make since? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
But generally; unless the uploader themselves were violating someone else’s copyright; the public domain thing is likely irrevocable. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore; the National Weather Service does (and I have a written policy to prove it) indicate whenever something is copyrighted. Go read it. It’s the NWS Norman FAQ. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
First of all, a written policy for one office does not mean every office follows that. Second of all, we do not trust third parties that claim the copyright status of images unless they have proven to be solid and/or follow good practice. As an example, Commons allows Flickr/Youtube licensure to be used, because both of those sites default to copyrighted and require the user to take explicit, affirmative action to release their work under a non-full-copyright license. Berchanhimez (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Listen: we can argue about it until the end of time; but unless you’ve got hard core evidence, I’m going to stand my ground when it comes to my
And not to discount your opinion, but you seem to be somewhat inexperienced compared to some of the other editors when it comes to Commons; I don’t mean that as an attack, I mean that as politely asking you to make sure that you have all the information on the copyright policy.
I’m saying this because I know how rules can be complicated. I am very active on Wikipedia; there are a lot of rules there that I didn’t know about until I ended up violating them by mistake and had a warning posted or had my edit reverted (some of them when I was an IP editor); the point being that I used to (and to a certain extent still am) the new guy who didn’t know what he was doing; and the last thing I (or anyone else) want to see is for you to end up embarrassing yourself if you do end up getting something wrong. Because I know from experience on this discussion that there are certain people (not naming no names) that seem have been heavily scrutinizing everything you say and openly criticizing stuff. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
And also; it’s important to note that the National Weather Service is an agency of the United States government. Anyone submitting a picture to them is very likely doing it for the public interest. If they were wanting to keep it copyrighted; they would submit it somewhere else like to their local newspaper or television station; or onto Facebook or something like that. Someone like that isn’t going to email the NWS with a picture like that. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how many times myself and others have to point out to you that it doesn't matter if the people were "very likely doing it for the public interest". It doesn't change the facts. We don't get to assume things just to include images. You are the one who has repeatedly ignored this principle, and based your arguments over what you believe (you admit your opinions). It doesn't matter what you think the people who submitted them intended to do - commons does not assume it in the absence of specific evidence that they agreed to the license/status in play. Every time you have replied you have attempted to "deduce" or "assume" what the people who own the copyright to those images meant to do - and that's a clear sign that we cannot accept them on commons. You also have further made these vague threats, insinuations, and attacks against me repeatedly now - if you continue to do so I will be asking an administrator to step in and correct it. Berchanhimez (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
 Abstaining from further comment after this: I have not made any threats or attacks. And I certainly do not appreciate the accusation of doing so. I am again merely trying to save you from getting accusations of gatekeeping and etc. from other people (mainly Weather Writer). I am in NO way accusing you of anything. And furthermore, the “assumptions” that I am making are based on written statements by the NWS itself. I think (especially after what you just said) it is probably best for me to just stay out of it henceforth and not reply back anymore. I’ll let the other editors argue their opinions. As I said in a previous deletion discussion; I have said my piece. It’ll go however it’s going to go and there ain’t nothing I can do to change that; I’ve put my two (hundred) cents into it; so I should probably stay out of it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, WestVirginiaWX, MemeGod27, Sir MemeGod, and Berchanhimez: STOP. I opened this section to ask what here is an administrative issue, because, as an admin, I was trying to work out whether there was actually some action an admin might need to take. I did not say "would everyone please [angrily] rehash everything from the sections above and from the DR?" I suppose I'm an involved party, after a fashion, but if anyone continues in this section for any purpose other than to apologize to me, or to each other, I will be reporting them at COM:AN/U and requesting disciplinary action. (Consigned stayed on topic, so I have not pinged them, and I acknowledge that this was cross-posted with WestVirginiaWX's saying they are done discussing here.) - Jmabel ! talk 06:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I guess that I overreacted the to the entire situation. It’s a very large scope of potential deletions, and I got too heated up about the issue. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 15:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Further discussion on the future of the PD-NWS template

Since the above deletion discussion was closed as delete. I am making this section here to facilitate further discussion on the future of the template. Anyone who wants to present their opinions and ideas on what we should do with the template can post the comments here. But please, I know I speak for Jmabel when I ask that we don’t snipe at each other. Thank you. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my comments in the earlier discussion and the deletion request in question that the template should only be used on images that can be confirmed to have been submitted through a source where the person read an explicit disclaimer and agreed to it explicitly. This necessarily means that a significant portion of images tagged with that tag may be deleted - but we can't simply use that as a reason to allow a tag with significant question over whether the image creator/photographer understood the fact that by submitting it to the NWS they give up their rights to it. What NWS lawyers decide about what they host on their servers is also irrelevant to what we do here on Commons - though I do think that it is likely that any photographer who submitted their image has a legal claim against the NWS that the disclaimers are either insufficient or not well publicized. Other website disclaimers that are commonly accepted (ex: Flickr/Youtube) require positive action by the uploader to waive, license freely, or otherwise give up their copyright rights to their image. The NWS does not require this sort of positive action, and in fact they accept image submissions through direct email, social media posts, etc. in places that they do not post a disclaimer at all.
This is not to say that no NWS office image hosting can be used. It needs to be evaluated on an office-by-office basis, however. If an office provides (via email, preferably to VRT so it can be stored and not just based on someone's word here) a statement that they only post images where the submitter has explicitly (in the email/in a tweet reply/etc) released them into a public domain, then that office's images may be "whitelisted" for use of this template until such time as that changes. But absent those confirmations, the mere absence of a copyright notice from the NWS and a disclaimer there is no evidence that the person submitting it to them has seen cannot suffice as evidence that the image is in the public domain.
This may even extend past this tag. License laundering is not permitted, and the mere fact that a person didn't post it online prior doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't take the NWS's "word" at it any more than we should take any other website/organization's word for it. Absent a clear determination by WMF legal that any particular disclaimer is sufficient, I see no reason to require any less for images hosted on NWS servers than we require for images hosted on any other website - clear, explicit, and irrevocable licensure/release to public domain from the photographer. Berchanhimez (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Honestly; despite the number of arguments we’ve been in in the past few days over this. The way you put it makes a whole lot of sense to me and I have to at least somewhat agree with you there. We shouldn’t trust the NWS anymore than Joe down the road. We don’t assume everything on YouTube or X or Facebook is PD do we? Of course not. (YouTube actually contains a massive amount of copyright violations, but that’s besides the point). I think the PD-NWS template should stay; but be modified to only accept images that we know are PD. Similar to the PD-NASA template. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
But I think all of your points actually seen reasonable now that I’ve looked at it. I’m going to  Support @Berchanhimez’s idea. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @WeatherWriter @ChessEric @Hurricanehink @Rlandmann @Consigned @Ks0stm @ChrisWx @HikingHurricane @TornadoLGS @Jmabel; we would really appreciate your comments on the matter. Although everyone else’s response (if they do choose) is also welcomed. Thank you. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Forgot to ping @Sir MemeGod. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
To add thought to my vote. I do think that anything made directly by or on behalf of the survey teams should also be considered PD. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose deletion, the PD-NWS template also falls under employee-created images, which are PD and the entire deletion discussion revolved around non-employee created images. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 18:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose full deletion with proposal — The PD-NWS template has been upheld at dozens of deletion requests. It is clear NWS has disclaimers, including NWS headquarters stating all content is public domain unless otherwise noted. The image / specific deletion request which kicked this discussion off was not deleted on grounds of violating the template. The specific administrator closing remarks deleted it on the precautionary principle, only due to that single NWS email. That email also specifically referred to that image/that specific webpage. Even that NWS office (NWS La Crosse) has their own disclaimer noting images are public domain. In my view, this was a one-off image/webpage. With that being said, my proposal is to have a 2nd “extra” note which states webpages of NWS La Crosse are off-limits for the disclaimer under the precautionary principle like PD-NWS does right now with Getty Images.
However, no other NWS office has questioned the disclaimer or even eluded to it not being the ongoing operational disclaimer. In fact, almost every NWS webpage links to the NWS Headquarters disclaimer. So, I am extremely opposed to anything regarding the entire template being changed/removed. My conceding comment (I oppose now, but would be content if consensus fell that way) is to assess every image individually. The only real issue with that specific image was the NWS email, given NWS La Crosse linked the webpage to the NWS HQ disclaimer. So, there is my thoughts and proposal. TL;DR — Hard opposed to deleting the template and/or making it specific office by office. I propose just NWS La Crosse being excluded as they created their own precautionary principle rational that only affects their office and their webpages. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg — Kept
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:SD Tornado.jpg (Kept)
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020aug-derecho-corn-sunset-Adel-IA.jpg (Kept)
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:2019 Allen, SD tornado.jpg (Kept)
  5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020aug-derecho-damage-Scranton-Iowa.jpg (Kept)
  6. Commons:Deletion requests/File:EF2 tornado near Wrights, IL.jpg (Deleted - Closing administrator reason: "Deleted: per nomination, in particular due to the "watermark in the source for this photograph that says © Tom Stolze"."
  7. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg (Kept)
  8. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado just south of the Cedar River looking north.jpg Deleted — NWS La Crosse email caused precautionary principle deletion.
Adding this so that everyone can reply. We don’t need SineBot. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
That’s alot of keeps. I’m indifferent when it comes to how we should proceed; with the exception of the fact that the template itself shouldn’t be deleted. If you read my proposal, it’s very much in line with @Berchanhimez on what the procedure needs to be. That procedure is to only accept stuff confirmed to be PD. But treat mine as only weakly in favor as that (I still really think they’re all PD and that the person who sent us the email didn’t know what he was talking about, but that’s just me) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
For a few weeks now, I've been poking around the ~1400 images that use this tag. So far, I've been able to identify about 5 6 8 different types
0. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources that explicitly credit the NWS/NOAA or its employees. (Many more recent images do this)
1. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources that the original source does not credit to any third party and which are of a kind which can be presumed to be the work of NWS/NOAA employees and therefore free of copyright. Examples include: weather maps and charts, infographics, radar and satellite images (very many of the images I've seen)
2. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources that the original source credits to third parties but which are covered by an unambiguous disclaimer that either release them into the PD or under a free licence. (there are very few of these)
3. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources (like the one that kicked off this discussion) that the original source credits to a third party but whose copyright and licencing status is ambiguous due to technicalities (there are a few hundred of these, the bulk of the images that are not in category 1.)
4. NWS/NOAA images that are mistagged. As currently worded, the tag is only for use of images sourced from an NWS/NOAA website, but some images have been tagged with this when they're work of the NWS/NOAA but actually hosted elsewhere, usually YouTube or a social media site. There's a small number of these.
5. Other images that are mistagged. Images that do not appear to be connected to the NWS/NOAA at all, but usually from some other US government source. I've only seen a couple of these.
6. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources where the source description on Commons does not allow the copyright and licencing to be verified. This is either because the source data provided is very vague or because the source URL points directly to an image file on a NWS/NOAA website but not the page that includes or included that file, so we can't see what the licence information is.
7. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources that the original source does not credit to any third party and which are of a kind which cannot be presumed to be the work of NWS/NOAA employees and therefore free of copyright. The wide number of different ways in and conditions under which the NWS has accepted third-party content over the years introduce significant doubt about the copyright and license status of these images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlandmann (talk • contribs) 08:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Since our collective understanding of the copyright and licencing issues at play has evolved considerably since this tag was first established (and do appear to have changed substantially on the NWS end too...) I say we deprecate this specific tag and replace it with a pair of tags:
  • a tag that covers only categories 1 and 4 -- work of the NWS/NOAA, regardless of where it's hosted. I would take {{PD-USGov-NASA}} as a starting point.
  • another tag to cover category 2 images on weather.gov specifically. The fact that there certainly are usable third-party images in that category needs to be highlighted, in paticular to avoid future scenarios like this one.
Rlandmann (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
This also calls into question the PD-SPC template too. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, I agree that categories 1 and 2 do not need to be deleted. However, I disagree that we can "presume" that images are a creation of a NWS/NOAA employee in the absence of explicit information that suggests that - Commons:Precautionary principle applies and we should not assume the images were created by a NWS/NOAA employee unless they were images clearly taken as part of the duties of a NWS/NOAA employee (such as images published in a specific tornado damage report, for example). Images in category 3, 5, and 6 should be presumed to be deleted unless evidence of their provenance/licensing is presented. Category 4 should be fine if/when the template (PD-NWS) is updated to reflect that it's images produced by NWS/NOAA employees rather than just hosted on their website. I feel that category 2 can be covered sufficiently by simply a normal PD tag with the source and disclaimer sufficiently noted. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't disagree with Rlandmann necessarily, just with others arguing that images hosted on NWS servers can be presumed to be the work of NWS/NOAA employees or released to the public domain, unless proven otherwise. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
If they were obviously made by a NWS survey team (eg. They’re on the damage assessment toolkit site), then we don’t need to waste time with a senseless DR that’ll do nothing but waste our time. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I don't advocate for images that are obviously created by a NWS survey team (as an example) being submitted. But as Rlandmann points out, there are a significant amount of images that are not clearly part of a NWS employee's official duties yet have this tag. Berchanhimez (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah based on the deletion discussion findings, those need to go. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I shall remain opposed to any significant alterations to the template. As a researcher IRL, I understand the copyright templates and I shall continue to upload images from the webpages. The current disclaimers are true. That was a one-off instance involving a photograph which was taken years before NWS became an organization to begin with. My proposal remains as is and I will not support anything besides what I linked above. Each image needs a deletion request if templates are changed. End of story. My explanation is above, so I probably do not need to comment or reply any further here. I feel consensus will not fall with the truth, so just like how the Tornadoes of 2022 Wikipedia article has confirmed false-fake information on it (community consensus confirmed it should remain even, VNTIA), the ideology of "verifiability, not truth", continues here. Such a shame. Well, Internet Archive will probably grow a couple hundred images shortly. With that, I rest my case. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I don’t consider myself to be in support of major changes either; I consider myself to be more of a neutral. But I agree with the people dishing out the pro-change arguments because they are based on the law. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately @WeatherWriter, this isn’t an argument about how “shameful” or how “difficult” (my original argument) it’s about the law. The law is the law and we can’t change it. End of story. The only question is whether or not the disclaimer is sufficient. The only binding opinion on thus would come if WMF Legal ends up getting involved; but barring that, the “prosecution” as I’m going to call it, has a good case. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
But I do agree with you that sometimes consensus can be wrong. 110% agree there. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter, I hope you realize that the “verifiability not truth” link redirects to an article about an airport in Latvia. Just want to pass that along just in case you didn’t know. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
But just for the others, since I doubt that WeatherWriter was intending to link to an article about a Latvian airport that has nothing to do with this discussion; I’ll fill in here what I believe they were intending to link; it is w:WP:V. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
This is absolutely inane. Wikipedia policies don't apply to Commons - the applicable policies are Commons:Precautionary principle and Commons:Licensing. To be specific: where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted (from PRP) and Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed (from Licensing, emphasis mine). Your personal belief about the disclaimer does not mean that that disclaimer meets those policies, and your comment that "[you] shall continue to upload images from the webpages" just implies your intent to violate Commons policy going forward. It does not matter what you think the truth is. Berchanhimez (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez, if you were referring to me (pinging myself @WestVirginiaWX), that would NEVER be my intention. I have only uploaded PD-NWS files that were directly produced by the NWS (category 1 I think); or by their survey teams (as in the case of a particular tornado damage picture from Wayne County, West Virginia), so you don’t have anything to worry about if you were referring to me. Now obviously if you were NOT referring to me, well I generally can’t speak for other people on what their intentions might be. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I think I see who you’re referring to. (I’m not going to mention so and so’s name just because I don’t want to cause problems or be accused of personal attacks. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I just want to go on the record and say that as much as I used to agree with you @WeatherWriter; I have to very strongly disagree with your statement on how you “shall continue to upload from the webpages”; I have to agree with @Berchanhimez on this, continuing to upload like that could potentially constitute a copyright violation and you can ask @Sir MemeGod, they got blocked for a week over that. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez: , the "presumption" I mean in category 1 is images published on NWS pages that do not have any third-party attribution. I base this on the general NWS disclaimer that "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise"; and I think it is the same presumption that we use for other US Government sources.
Also, how do you feel about this as a way to cover 1 and 2? Rlandmann (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I disagree we can use that general disclaimer. I am unaware of any other website that allows and publishes user submitted content that we accept a "passive disclaimer" like that as proof of, as Commons:Licensing states, explicitly freely licensed. I think that may be able to be handled on a case by case basis (ex: if an office confirms via email to VRT that the images hosted on their sub-site have all been explicitly freely licensed by the copyright holder), but that we cannot presume they are freely licensed based on a passive disclaimer that there is no evidence the submitter saw. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Berchanhimez: . So that I can verify that I understand you correctly, is your position that we can't assume that the two uncredited photos of tornados at the top of this page are works of federal employeees in the course of their duties and therefore in the PD? (These are examples of "category 1" images I'm talking about) Rlandmann (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely not. For one, NWS employees are not out in the "field" during tornado outbreaks - they are in the office issuing watches/warnings. They may very well have been taken by NWS employees - but they were not taken in the course of official duties even if so. Berchanhimez (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks; let me revise the category scheme accordingly. -- Rlandmann (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
That’s exactly right. NWS employees are NEVER out chasing twisters. Just about any tornado picture from the weather service should therefore be assumed to be copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. I agree with the new categories, and will only add that other than things that are obviously the work of NWS/NOAA employees in their official duties (i.e. weather maps, earth imagery, graphs/charts/depictions of damage/etc, and the like), we really can’t act like they “might be” the work of the agency/employees in their official duties. There will need to be a clear line drawn when the next edge cases come up - when an image is highly likely to be NWS “official act” but no proof of it - and that question can be decided then without affecting the many other images that fall into the categories that clearly cannot use this template.
I’ll also note here that this discussion does not change anything about any user’s ability to contact the NWS and ask them to send VRT proof of the image’s origin. If an image may be “NWS official” or public domain confirmed by the NWS, I doubt the NWS would balk at sending an official email to the VRT confirming its status and more importantly how they determined that status (ex: an email saying “the photographer emailed us this image with the statement ‘I release this image into the public domain for NWS or anyone else to use’” for example). Berchanhimez (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree 100% on that. Anything that the NWS can confirm was released into the public domain and they say that to VRT, I’m more than happy to support keeping the file. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez, @Rlandmann, did you ever look at the comment above the “I agree consensus is wrong” part? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I’ll repeat the same comment I’m referring to. It is not about how “shameful” or how “difficult” it is. You two are 1,000% right when you say it’s an issue about the law. No consensus on this discussion will ever change the law. You can have 97% of the people say to keep and if the law says it needs to be deleted; well that file is gonna be gone. See my point? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree only if it’s obviously government produced (eg. weather.gov forecast graphics; and damage survey pictures; among others). WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the template wording. I think that is an excellent idea. Some of the hardliners like WeatherWriter probably won’t like it, but I still think the template proposal is a good idea. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry @WestVirginiaWX: , the discussion is already so tangled up that I don't know what you're pointing me to. Can you give me a phrase to search for? -- Rlandmann (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I already did. I’ll just repeat what I said earlier. I’ll repeat it here. I said “Unfortunately [pinged WeatherWriter], this isn’t an argument about how “shameful” or how “difficult” (my original argument) it’s about the law. The law is the law and we can’t change it. End of story. The only question is whether or not the disclaimer is sufficient. The only binding opinion on thus would come if WMF Legal ends up getting involved; but barring that, the “prosecution” as I’m going to call it [which would be you, @Berchanhimez, and the others who are advocating for the depreciation of the tag as we know it], has a good case.” WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
As for the template wording I was referring to. I was referring to your proposal that you linked here. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I think also I was mainly referring to Berchanhimez about looking at “my comment above that”; because at the time I thought they were referring to me (it seems like they’re referring to someone else). But the messages above still apply to you and anyone else. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok @Rlandmann, hate to further complicate things. But there apparently is already a template specifically for the survey teams titled PD-DAT, though only for if it appears on that website. This issue also calls into question the PD-SPC tag. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
And to further complicate: there is a PD-USGov-NOAA tag for works by NOAA employees in general. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes; the current state of the templates is a tangled, overlapping mess. But we don't need to "boil the ocean" and try to fix everything all at once.
I think a good, short-term goal here is to at least separate the weather.gov content that's provably known to be free, vs stuff that isn't. This is probably a few months' work. I think it's also good to keep the end-goal in focus. This whole situation (and some of the DRs before it, here and on English Wikipedia, arose because of the ambiguous and inconsistent way that the NWS websites have historically handled third-party content. We want uploaders, re-users, and admins to have a high degree of certainty not just about the copyright and licence status of an image, but the evidence and reasoning that is based on.
Right now, I'm seeing the template I proposed as an interim solution to get that initial split. I will also draft and propose a template for the "category 2" images. I don't know if it will be required in the long term. Berchanhimez is right -- anything that template could contain would already be covered by one of our existing licence tags. If it proves un-necessary, then at least the split has been achievde and the interim template could easily be replaced by a bot later. Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, there's a lot above and I didn't read it all, but "stored on the web servers of" in the current template is certainly not a sufficient criterion. Obviously, something like this template should be fine for what was created by federal government employees at NWS. There may be some other specific cases that are also OK. If so, I'd suggest that those cases be enumerated, and that the template be parameterized with a "switch parameter" to indicate which case is met. (If it's unclear what I mean by a "switch parameter", have a look at how parameter "legal" functions in {{Published}}.) If the "switch parameter" is present, then the template when included will display only the text for the relevant case. If not, it will contain a bullet list of all cases it covers, but will also place the file in a maintenance category indicating that the switch parameter value needs to be added. I presume the bulk of existing files using the template are from federal gov't employees, so it should be pretty straightforward to use VFC to do a semi-automated addition of that parameter and value to large numbers of files. Similarly for other valid cases, which I imagine cluster in existing categories. That's about all I have to say here; I know it isn't very spelled out, so feel free to ping me if you need more. - Jmabel ! talk 04:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The more I think about it (and you just reinforced this) the more I think that going by just the NWS disclaimer alone is a really stupid idea. “Stored on the webservers of” is a really stupid idea that is really only a lawsuit waiting to happen. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Another email from the NWS

A few weeks ago, I reached out to the Sioux Falls office. I asked:

"We can see that for many years, NWS has had a policy[1] that when somebody submits an image to you, they release it into the public domain. What we don't know is how far back this policy goes. The earliest archived record of that policy we can find is 2009, but the NWS has been sharing public submissions since long before that!
Is it safe for us to assume that all images on weather.gov that are credited to a member of the general public are all in the public domain, regardless of how far back they were submitted to you?
Many thanks for any light you can shed on this question!
[1] -- https://www.weather.gov/fsd/disclaimer"

Today's reply:

Our apologies for the delay in a response, but we wanted to run your question through our legal team before replying. No, not all images credited to members of the general public are in the public domain on weather.gov. In some cases, the credited image creator has only given permission for the National Weather Service to use the image on NOAA websites.
The disclaimer page that you cited in your email was created specifically for a prior photo submission contest and since has been used occasionally when requesting images from the public taken during specific storm events. It is the opinion of the legal team that they "do not believe a disclaimer, alone, can be used to transfer a copyright holder's ownership interest to NOAA or to abandon the copyright interest to the public domain". Since then, we have removed the questionable language on the disclaimer page.
For images verified to be in the public domain, a collection of weather-related images can be found within the NOAA Digital Library: https://www.noaa.gov/digital-library .
National Weather Service - Sioux Falls, SD

I hope this is of use. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely of use. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone else all of the sudden support these “radical” changes to the template? Because I do. Radical changes or complete removal, one of the two. I am sorry for not believing you earlier. And I’m sorry for the mess it caused. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I strongly suggest a radical change instead of outright deletion of the template. With recent correspondences from the LaCrosse and Sioux Falls offices of NWS, it is becoming clear that not all image files held by NWS in general is automatically in PD. Files, of course, should undergo intense license reviews and a mass nomination of images in a suspected subcategory is not appropriate/not advisable (unless the entire subcategory itself contains 100% unfree files). It seems my creation of Category:National Weather Service-related deletion requests is very timely for this thing. Once this thread is archived, a link to this discussion should be added at the said category page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
We need MAJOR changes to that template and fast. This will be a strong and speedy support for me. Only images that can be verified to be PD; such as ones actually taken by employees; or submissions that are confirmed by the National Weather Service to VRT; otherwise, mass DR. As much as @WeatherWriter is going to hate this (see above); the law is the law and we can’t change that. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I would support significant changes to the template per the above and file specific deletion discussions (over time, not all at once) as to their provenance/licensing. I'm going to try workshopping wording in my sandbox that attempts to reflect recent developments and consensus - please feel free to edit it also User:Berchanhimez/sandbox, especially to properly include links to these email confirmations/deletion discussions. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I wasn’t implying the mass deletions be all at once either. I was referring to it as such because a slew of pictures are now in violation of policy. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed; there's no need for mass deletion; the majority of files in this category are just fine. But I've already kicked off that intense license review. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree too; and let’s summarize my position again: major, sweeping changes are necessary; and they need to be implemented quickly. It doesn’t necessarily matter how we handle the deletion of the copyright-violating images. You can make a thousand AfD’s for all I care. But the template in particular has got to be changed ASAP to prevent unsuspecting editors from accidentally committing a copyright violation (and making our job a lot harder). WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Updating the template

I've started a discussion on the template's talk page at Template talk:PD-NWS#Updating PD-NWS template re: content submitted by third parties to discuss specific changes to {{PD-NWS}}. Consigned (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Mass deletion request

Just a heads-up that I've opened a mass deletion request for seven third-party files here. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I just nominated another file for deletion. The 2020 derecho sunset picture. Conditionally support deletion unless there is proof of PD status. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I’ve also renominated the 1997 Jerrell tornado image. Trying to get the major ones first because those are the ones that have the potential to affect a lot of stuff. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

More new discoveries!

In the course of my review of these third-party images, I came across this image -- File:Niles Park Plaza 1985 tornado.jpg. It's interesting for two reasons:

First, it provides evidence for yet another mechanism by which various NWS offices at various times have accepted third-party images (via email or physical postage!) And, as usual, there is no mention that images so submitted will enter the public domain.

Second, and more interesting, it sheds new light on a question that has come up around how to interpret the words in the weather.gov genera disclaimer that "information" on the site is in the public domain "unless specifically noted otherwise". @WeatherWriter: has claimed in a number of places that a formal copyright notice similar to "This image Copyright © Mary Smith" is the only valid form of such a notation. Such notices are found from time-to-time on various NWS web pages.

I and others reject this interpretation that a notice in such a format is the only valid way that an image under a third party's copyright an be "specifically noted", and the NWS page this image was sourced from provides a great illustration of this.

  • The submission process for the project to document the May 31, 1985 tornado outbreak says nothing about submitted materials entering the public domain; it merely allows the NWS to post the information on the web.
  • The third-party contributions towards this project are posted to this page and their attributions are all in the form "Courtesy submitter's name"

This example connects a specific submission process with a specific set of images. And for these images at least, third-party ownership is "specifically noted" in a format other than a formal copyright notice. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, you’ve got to admit, WeatherWriter also claimed that you “created chaos” too. Even though you didn’t. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
But I get your point loud and clear WestVirginiaWX (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Two more images that came up in my review today are noteworthy because rather than just being credited to private citizens, they're credited to organisations with documented copyright policy. Specifically, this image is credited to the Ohio Department of Transportation, which doesn't allow commercial use of their materials; and this one is credited to the NFL, whose copyright policy is as strict as you'd imagine. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Really spiraling downhill is it? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Here is my idea; we need to majorly scrutinize ALL files that aren’t created by an NWS employee acting in their official duties. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
And as for the NFL image; if it is here on Commons, I want it a DR put on it ASAP; and I’d be just about willing to support putting a speedy delete tag on it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I’d like to go on record and say that the NFL image was speedily deleted by @Yann on F1 and F6 grounds. Now we have a supposedly NWS image that has been speedily deleted for a copyright violation. That PD-NWS template needs to be deprecated. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I closed the discussion (even though I was an involved party) because of that. It’s kinda pointless to have a deletion discussion on an image that has already been deleted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The speedy deletion has been overturned; I have since clarified on the discussion that is has been reopened and that the discussion is no longer “defunct”. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

More evidence against uncritical reliance on the NWS general disclaimer

User:WeatherWriter recently pointed out that a specific image that had been credited to a third party on weather.gov was specifically licenced CC-BY when the NOAA uploaded it to their Flickr stream. The NWS general disclaimer cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean that all images credited to a third party are in the public domain. This one, according to the NOAA, was not. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That said, I would not in general assume that a government agency claiming a CC license on Flickr necessarily means the work is not public domain. I've seen quite a few do just that with PD works, especially PD-expired. - Jmabel ! talk 02:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Certainly a possibility that the Flickr licence is wrong, but in that case, the image is not necessarily in the PD, but could well belong to its creator, Fred Stewart.
The moiré pattern makes me very sure this is a scan from a physical publication rather than a photographic print or negative, but without knowing when and where it was published, we can't assume that copyright did not exist or is expired. And, in common with the rest of these, if it was under copyright at the moment it was uploaded to an NWS web server, we have no evidence that permission was ever given to place it in the public domain.
Of all the possibilities (under copyright, PD, or CC-BY), my personal feeling is that CC-BY is the least likely to be true. But I don't have any actual evidence not to take the NOAA at their word in this instance! --Rlandmann (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Exactly; as much as the NWS has proven not to have a great track record when it comes to updating their copyright policies; our only choice here is to take them at their word here; and if someone claiming to be the owner complains; we can remove it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Policy for Portugal

(this discussion has started first on the unofficial Wikimedia Discord server, under #commons, in the #"Policy on FOP in Portugal" thread. feel free to contact me there!)

as the country where I am based from, I have read the copyright policy for Portugal many times over. however, it is lacks a lot of information on the specifics. the cited paper by Teresa Nobre gives a good starting point (may be directly adapted as CC0).[1]

besides that, there are some copyright questions that I have regarding freedom of panorama in Portugal. the use and distribution of works under FoP in Portugal is allowed under two conditions:

  • the photographed object must be in a "public location", and
  • the photographed object must be "permanently located" in said location

please beware that I am in no way educated about copyright law, these are questions and doubts that I am raising for others to answer.

"Public place"

the definition of a "public location" is given by another paragraph of the text:

A public place is understood as a place to which access is offered, explicitly or

implicitly, for remuneration or without it, even if the right of admission is reserved.

according to Nobre, this includes any public outdoor space, such as streets and squares, as well as public indoor spaces.

to me, the deciding factor seems to be intentionality. an entity decides where access can be given for the people, and so excluding any private property, possibly even if it is outdoors and not otherwise located in a public space.

privately-owned spaces would still qualify under this definition if they grant access to the public, such as stores, malls, stadiums, transportation stations, airports, schools, universities, GLAMs, workspaces, etc.

my question is how does privacy laws apply to this, many of these places have a "no photographs" warnings up front. for Commons, would this interfere with the FoP policy?

"Permanently located"

under Nobre's interpretation, "permanently located" means that a work is intended to be located in a given place for an indefinite amount of time or until the end of its existence, regardless whether it really does remain there.

the law gives the example of architectural works, however, it includes any type of work 3D or 2D. some types of works are made to located indefinitely until they are just discarded, such as posters, billboards and building emergency plants. under the best case interpretation, these would be following the intentionality factor, fall under FoP, despite not actually remaining there forever.

I wish to better understand how to interpret these policies more rigorously. cheers.

References

  1. ↑ Nobre, Teresa (2016). Best Case Scenarios for Copyright: Freedom of Panorama in Portugal (PDF). Communia.

Juwan (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

pinging @DiogoBaptista and GualdimG: and feel free to ping others. Juwan (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
As an expert on the matter, I ask DarwIn to analyse it. Thank you, ̴̴̴̴̴GualdimG (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@JnpoJuwan @GualdimG Hello, my 2 cents: My understanding is that the "no photographs" warnings in Portugal do not interfere with FoP at all, though you still should respect them, of course. They are a kind of general rule for these spaces, though you can get permission to photograph them occasionally - I've been in countless guided visits to museums and monuments where photos are generally not allowed, but were permitted in that specific occasion. As a rule of thumb, you should always ask the staff if you can photograph inside. As for outside photos, they are OK with FoP as long as you stay in the street or another public space. There are special provisions and many court cases related to photos of people in public spaces, but I couldn't find the same for buildings and artworks, at least in a quick search. In the same way, a Google search on "feitas para serem mantidas permanentemente em locais públicos" limited to results from Portugal has not returned a single court case, which makes me think this is not exactly a matter of contention here. As for the character of "permanent", I follow the interpretation that the given work is intended to finish is life there in said public space. This covers anything that is intended to be like that, as you said. It would not cover stuff like public advertisements that were intended to be reproduced in many different contexts, such as magazines, webpages or outdoors. Darwin Ahoy! 22:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(late response as I was travelling) @DarwIn: , thank you for your comments! I will try to add that to the policy with this info. :) Juwan (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
another thing I wonder is if this insight could possibly undelete some of the works on Category:Portuguese FOP cases/deleted. as many of these involve COM:POSTER. Juwan (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@JnpoJuwan From what I've seen, at least some may certainly be restored by blurring the (often small) part of the image which is copyrighted. I've done it for this one which is from my home city, but the same can be applied to others. Darwin Ahoy! 22:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Does this map cross the threshold of originality?

File:Super Outbreak Map.jpg was created in 1974 by meteorologist Ted Fujita (1920-1998). It's been tagged PD USGov because it was sourced from a .gov website, but its creator is identified on the map itself.

As presented on the web (context, direct link), there's also no copyright notice on this pre-1978 file, but we don't know whether there was one on the original medium.

Does it meet the US threshold for originality anyway? Rlandmann (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The source color map is already on Commons: File:1974 Super Outbreak Fujita color map.jpg. Glrx (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! I think this establishes {{PD-US-no notice}} for the original map/poster. -- Rlandmann (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Whether it does or doesn't, it was made by the NWS. Anything made by the NWS is in the public domain unless otherwise noted. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@AuroraANovaUma: What makes you think it was made by the NWS? It looks like it was the work of Ted Fujita at the University of Chicago. -- Rlandmann (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
@Rlandmann:
To address the original question. I do not know much about ToO with graphs and plots, but I would put Super Outbreak Map over the threshold. The tracks are not simple lines but also show intensity.
It is not clear who made the derivative map, but I would guess it was an NWS employee. The map looks like someone modified Fujita's map for an NWS newsletter/article/webpage about the outbreak. That task probably fell to an NWS employee. Glrx (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

iCarly theme song extracted audio

The iCarly (2021 reboot) opening video was originally uploaded to YouTube under CC-BY 3.0. The YouTube page no longer shows that license, but the license is still in force for anyone who obtains a copy of the video and has not violated its terms. Thus we can still have it uploaded here: File:ICarly 2021 theme song.webm.

However, someone extracted the audio from the video (File:ICarly 2021 theme song.wav), and I am not sure if that is permitted by the 3.0 license. It's more clear that it would be permitted by the CC-BY 4.0 license, which refers to "Licensed Rights" which are all of the copyright holder's rights to the "Licensed Material" (the video), including the rights to the audio. By contrast, the 3.0 license only refers to the "Work" being licensed and does not say that the "Work" can be reproduced in whole or in part. It seems like the extracted audio (and the underlying musical work) could be considered an "Adaptation" according to the terms of the 3.0 license, but the song is a pre-existing work (dating back to 2007) that was incorporated by ViacomCBS into the music video. Perhaps, by the contra proferentem principle, the license could be interpreted such that it applies to the audio and not just the video as a whole.

Does the 3.0 license apply to any portion of the work as well as the work itself? Qzekrom (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

While some people have argued that the license is not valid at all for NickRewind uploads, I will not deal with that here.
Yes, the CC 3.0 license applies to any content owned by the licensor to which the license is applied. If some portion of that content had been previously published, that does not make it not part of the licensed work. And the CC BY 3.0 license certainly allows reproduction both in whole and in part. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyleft trolling

I have recently become a victim of copyleft trolling by photographer Thomas Wolf (User:Der Wolf im Wald).

He claims himself that he uses Wikipedia as a way of advertising for his professional photography company. When people use his images without the correct authorship attribution, he asks for a hefty fee and threatens with legal action. He sends misleading emails in which he does not mention that his photos where published under a creative commons license, nor does he mention that the correct attribution is missing, he just asks to pay. His way of working is not in line with the creative commons guidelines for license enforcement (https://creativecommons.org/license-enforcement/enforcement-principles/), which are: - The primary goal of license enforcement should be complying with the license. - Legal action should be taken sparingly. - Enforcement should not be a business model.

As he is publishing under an older version of the CC license and not the recent CC-4.0 license, he is apparently able to threaten with legal action and asking for high financial composition, without asking for a correction first (30 days period).

I am aware that I made a mistake and that I should have put the correct attribution. I am sorry for that. I took the image from a Wikipedia page and I should have clicked to the image page on Wikimedia to read the full requirements. Nevertheless, I want to warn other users for Thomas Wolf. After reading the Wikimedia page on Copyleft trolling, I therefore decided to write this post. I am clearly not the only victim of the scam by Thomas Wolf. Others have extensively reported on this copyleft trolling by Thomas Wolf: - [5]https://kanzleikompa.de/2020/09/21/amtsgericht-wuerzburg-creative-commons-abzocker-thomas-wolf-photomedia-handelt-sittenwidrig/ - [6]https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/1cb2mmv/copyright_infringement_email_from_thomas_wolf/

I personally think that Wikipedia is being misused for marketing purposes of a commercial photographer and copyleft trolling. So I hope that this warning will prevent further victims. 2A02:A45A:7DF6:1:B48B:6D2B:D814:2FEC 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

So you didn't attribute the photographer ? Did you try to pass his work as your own? And now you are accusing him of "copyleft trolling"? This seems more like you are trying to harass one of our contributors. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I would like to rectify may previous posts on photographer Thomas Wolf (User:Der Wolf im Wald).
Thomas Wolf is a professional photographer who sells his pictures via TW Photomedia. Additionally, he makes his images available under a CC3.0 license on Wikimedia. As such, the pictures are available for sharing and the professional agency benefits as well because it will be advertised in all attribution statements. If this attribution requirement is not fulfilled, Thomas Wolf is legally in his right to ask for a monetary compensation. I should, therefore, not have called this a scam and I apologize for that. Nor should I have called myself a victim, as I have not properly attributed Thomas Wolf. I deeply apologize for this.
I would still advise all users to check if they properly attribute Thomas Wolf, when using his images. If you do not properly attribute according to the CC3.0 license, he will ask for monetary compensation and may go to court, as he has done before (see previous post). He has all the legal rights to do so. If you are a good faith user, you properly attribute. I am sorry for any harm that I have caused to Mr. Wolf by my previous post. I did want to warn other users for getting unexpected bills, I did not intent to harm Thomas Wolf. He makes great photographs and contributed majorly to Wikimedia. Unfortunately, Wikimedia does not allow me to adapt the previous message anymore. However, I do hope that this rectification helps to solve the situation. 131.174.244.58 08:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
"Mauerspringer" by Gabriel Heimler, East Side Gallery, Berlin

This question is a continuation of installment 1: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village pump

My question involves the artwork in the thumbnail (which should probably be taken down, see later). But there is a new photograph that I took that is square‑on and that has not been made public yet.

I will have a chance to talk to the artist Gabriel Heimler in the coming weeks and believe that he will agree to the following general proposal.

But first note the East Side Gallery is located in Berlin and has been subject to a 2017 court judgment that the freedom of panorama exemption does not apply.

My photograph is a mere record of that artwork, albeit with the perspective tweaked, barrel distortion removed, and other similar edits. The underlying artwork would remain copyright of the artist. So here is my question.

Should I offer to transfer my copyright in the photograph to the artist, and then get them to issue that one photograph under CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 for just that one photograph. That is why I headed my inquiry "one‑off Creative Commons license".

Is this proposal legally feasible? Or would this one‑time license just leak to all subsequent photographs of that same artwork by others? (And the East Side Gallery is widely photographed by tourists.) The German copyright act would apply I guess? The artist in question is now resident in New Zealand, but I doubt if that is material?

Is there any legal boilerplate that I can use?

Looking forward to a game plan that will, with the help of the original graffiti artist, allow me to get my image on Wikimedia and on to the various Wikipedia's for wider consumption. TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for asking! The VRT procedures certainly allows for the license of just one particular photograph. I would just use the text at Commons:Email_templates, but then rather than

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

more specifically

I agree to the publication of the file at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gabriel_Heimler_-_Mauerspringer.jpg (or wherever it is), photographed by XYZ under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

When you upload the file, you put yourself as author of the photograph and the artist as author of the work, and you can license your contribution directly at the file page. No copyright transfer needed, as far as I can see. Felix QW (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
If the artist grants you permission to license the photograph under CC-BY-SA 4.0, then his rights in the portion of the artwork that appears in the photograph are included in the "Licensed Rights" that are covered by the license. (See the legal code here) The relevant definitions are:
  • Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License.
  • Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license.
By contrast, when you create a photo like File:Gabriel Heimler - Mauerspringer.jpg that is protected by an exception to copyright without authorization from the artist, you are licensing only your rights in the photo under CC-BY-SA. Neither the artwork nor other photos of it would be affected. Qzekrom (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW: @Qzekrom: : Thanks. That looks really good information, which I now need to process. For others reading, "VRT" = Volunteer Response Team. Thanks again, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Why wouldn't FOP apply? Enhancing999 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999: I guess "FOP" = Freedom of Panorama. The following ruling "Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390" apparently protected works of art in the East Side Gallery. I have not delved into the legal details, but I think that the court decided that the graffiti art was not sufficiently permanent to justify section § 59 of the UrhG being applied. I also understand that there are contracts between the individual artists and the gallery operator in some cases too, but know nothing about their content or purpose. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
If you haven't read the details, how do you come up with those "guesses"? Enhancing999 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure where you read that the court denied the applicability of freedom of panorama in this court judgement, which can be read here. In fact, it seems to me as if the court explicitly affirmed the applicability of freedom of panorama provisions, and moreover, that the court affirmed that reproducing a copy of it on an architectural model and using it to promote a real estate development is allowed usage under German freedom of panorama rules. Felix QW (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments. Like many things, my impressions were related to chatter elsewhere and I had not looked at the details — which is why I used italics. The more useful thing is to assess the judgement, understand what it means for Wikimedia, and record any conclusions. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I think I will spare you the conclusion about assumptions you are posting to the multiple threads. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Would someone (not me) like to create a new thread to discuss and document the implications (if any) of the 2017 court ruling? That analysis would certainly help contributors like me to better understand the legal constraints we face. (And just in my defense, my assumptions were legally conservative in the face of incomplete, uncertain, and evolving legal information — and confined entirely to this Village Pump forum.) Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Personal ID document

File:Christina Caldwell Roelfien's Californian driver license 1985.jpg: Legitimate stuff?

There are more here. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Notifying Doug Coldwell. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, IMO these are in scope, but personal details of non notable people should be hidden / blurred. Hitchcock's or OJ Simpson's license can stay as they are. Yann (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
There are also fakes in the batch (see Marty McFly), with potentially derivative works.
No idea if Alfred Hitchcock's driving license is also a prank like McFly or Fire Penguin Disco Panda's (big smiley). Could be damaging for Wikipedia. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question "Californian DMV" authorship of this photo booth? There is no famous "Christina Caldwell Roelfien" on Wikipedia / Wikidata. Speedy DR? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: I seriously doubt "photo booth". Most U.S. driver's license bureaus take a picture on the spot when you go in for your license; all the more so in that era. It's a quick, rather coarse, snap as a rule, but taken by a state employee. Do you have any reason to think California in 1985 used "photo booth" photos? - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new version with a strong Gaussian blur over the picture and with the other identifying information largely removed. I'd suggest that the name also be changed. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Illegitimate Barrister since this was your upload. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Chucky portrait Child's Play.jpg

File:Chucky portrait Child's Play.jpg is sourced to Flickr and the Flickr license is acceptable for Commons, but it would seem that the character imagery of en:Chucky (Child's Play) would be protected by copyright and that the Flickr licensing might be a case of COM:LL; unintentional perhaps, but still possibly LL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Picture of building in themepark in Sweden.

I have taken a picture of a building in a themepark in Sweden. Am I allowed to upload this ? AutoCCD (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama the legal situation there is a bit unclear, but we are proceeding on the basis of assuming that this is OK. Of course, if a court were clearly to determine later that we are wrong, we'd have to delete this (and thousands of other images). - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if it's ok to say thanks, but: thank you ! AutoCCD (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2024 (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) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Medieval manuscript

Hello, I recently uploaded an image (and one derivative) originally from the British Library. I uploaded it under "PD-old" tag, as I noticed it is common for other medieval works from the British Library, and provided the source. It might sound silly, but I wanted to ask if the upload was done correctly, or if I sould've done something differently, so that I wouldn't unintentionally violate any rules. While I do have some experience in editing, I still dont really know how wikimedia commons works, as you can tell. Thank you. Piccco (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! I slightly improved on the tagging, since especially British institutions sometimes claim copyright on digitisations by British law. Felix QW (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW: AIUI, they do not have a legal right to do that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Possibly, but I think the PD-Art tag makes that clearer should someone get confused about Wikimedia Commons' stance on this. Felix QW (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your fast response and help! Piccco (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (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) 07:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Illustration from a historical newspaper, 1897 (United States)

I would like to collect an image from the Manufacturers and Farmers Journal newspaper printed on 3 Jun 1897. The materials are available in the Google News archive. Given the age of the paper, it should be out of copyright. The illustrations, some are signed but many are not, or are illegible, and they are uncredited. As they were done over 100 years ago, it may be rationally expected that the artist is no longer living.

But does copyright refer to the images as well or only the text? Would it be possible to capture some images from this publication, clean and freshen them for Wikimedia? Thank you for your help. Nayyn (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It should all be fine to upload. US copyright is explained at COM:HIRTLE, anything first published in the US before Jan 1 1929 is Public Domain per {{PD-US-expired}}. Consigned (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
thank you so much! Nayyn (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome, happy to help. Consigned (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Consigned (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any

Hi! I would like to change the license but thought I would put a link here because not likely that many monitor the template/page. The issue is it does not include cc v4.0 even if it is called "any". --MGA73 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@MGA73: Please go ahead. This should have happened 10+ years go when we accepted v4.0.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it is quite dangerous to add a license the uploader may not have applied themselves. The template has a bit of a convoluted history, having been mainly applied to cross-wiki-uploads, so one should carefully examine what the original uploader actually agreed to before changing the license around in retrospect. Old Wikivoyage uploads seem to be fine, since Wikivoyage itself seems to have had a template saying "or any later version", but given the language barrier I do not understand the situation of, say, Hebrew Wikipedia files. Felix QW (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW: They should only have gotten that license if approved. "any" is pretty unambiguous. Pinging @Geagea in any case.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the template name has any bearing on its meaning, so I don't think we can just make that inference. A lot of the files have a strange history. File:Vingåkers station sett från plattformen.jpg for instance was licensed CC-BY-SA-1.0 in December 2012 when it passed human license review, then the license was changed to {{Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any}} in 2013 using a "cleanup script", but the license review tag was left in place even though the license reviewer had reviewed a completely different license (which makes the text of the license review template incorrect). Felix QW (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, the foundation changed the Terms of Use policy in June 2023. For all content in Wikipedia's. So in one day it was CC-BY-SA-3.0 and the next day CC-BY-SA-4.0. -- Geagea (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Not for "non-text media". -- Asclepias (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure but still it was made by decision without asking the users. -- Geagea (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Which (as what is now an off-topic aside) I am currently trying to understand. I looked through the old version of the terms of use and I find nothing that allows them to relicense in a similar way as GFDL 1.3 did. I think that offering licenses to reusers of which it has not been made 100% sure that copyright holders agree with them is very perilous, and I don't believe the foundation would take that risk, so I assume there must be some specific justification. Felix QW (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The edit summery says updates from Legal so maybe in a case of changing from CC-BY-SA-3.0 to CC-BY-SA-4.0 we don't need consent from the uploader. -- Geagea (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
For textual content, it's dificult to imagine examples where the change from 3.0 to 4.0 in the ToU would pose a serious problem. Textual content on Wikimedia is typically successive adaptations, with continuously added content. The CC 3.0 license already has a "later versions" clause for adaptations. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure that can change the license of any existing content -- just new content uploaded after that date. The WMF is not the copyright holder of the text (unless done by their employees). I think the licenses allow derivative works under later versions of the license, so the first substantive edit to an article probably changes the article as a whole to be CC-BY-SA-4.0, but not any particular contributions before that date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, if you look into en.wiki in the bottom: "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy...." All the content is under CC-BY-SA-4.0. The new and the old. -- Geagea (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Most articles will very quickly become derivative works of the old versions where the entire thing can only be licensed with 4.0. But any content uploaded earlier technically remains licensed with 3.0. For individual files, you really can't do that. If you make a derivative work, you can license that 4.0, but I don't think the CC licenses automatically allow the terms of any later version to be applied (unlike the GFDL). The only phrase in the CC licenses which allow any "later versions" are specifically related to adaptations (i.e. derivative works). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, We cannot take the initiative to issue or to add a license tag on someone else's work when the copyright owner did not agree to that license. License tags mean what they say in their actual precise text, not in a short vague title. The Commons tag titled "Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any" was initially created in 2012, apparently for files transferred from WTS, in order to be identical with the license tag they had there at that time: [7]. Cf in the history of the Commons template: [8]. That tag included a clause "... and any later versions", which was fine (although with the small caveat described later). Unfortunately, someone changed the Commons template on 11 June 2013 [9] by removing the "later versions" clause and restricting it strictly to licenses 1.0 to 3.0. As a consequence, any file that uses that template on Commons and which, after 10 June 2013, was either originally uploaded to Commons or was transferred to Commons from a place where it was not licensed with version 4.0, and was not at any time explicitly relicensed with version 4.0, is not offered with version 4.0 and cannot be tagged with version 4.0. However, it seems that no file (or not many files, if there are any) transferred from WT still use that tag on Commons. I suppose that it is possible that their license tags were later changed on Commons to other templates, which can be ok if they were indeed initially uploaded to WT after 1 May 2006, with the tag that included the "later versions" clause (the original WT template itself, created on 5 March 2006, was initially restricted to versions 1.0 and 2.0 and did not include the "later versions" clause, which was added on 2 May 2006). Currently (today), most files that use the Commons tag "Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any" seem to be files that were initially uploaded to he.wikipedia and later transferred to Commons circa 2019. When their upload log is visible, it looks like they were not licensed with version 4.0. They could be relicensed with adding version 4.0 if a he.wikipedia administrator checks and confirms that the tag there had a valid "later versions" clause at the time of upload, or if the copyright owner had added a version 4.0 there, or if the copyright owner now agrees to the addition of version 4.0. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. The point is that all the files that licensed with תבנית:דו-רישיוני uploaded firstly to he.wiki so the relevant users agreement should be according to the license template in he.wiki.
Regarding to the date. The relicensing date by WMF back to April 2009 is the only relevant date for us. I working with MAG73 about that so we need to check the upload date if they were before or after that date. another issue is that the name of the template in he.wiki is "dual license" not necessarily GFDL with cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0. it's need to check as well. -- Geagea (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me from fragments of hewiki upload edit summaries reproduced on Commons pages that the hewiki transfers were originally dual-licensed {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}, which allowed 3.0 to be added at the license migration. However, as far as I can see it does not allow for the addition of 4.0.
The remaining Wikivoyage uploads originally seem to have come from [www.wikitravel.org/shared WikiTravel], where they can still be accessed and the "CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 and later versions" note verified. Maybe it would be helpful for a license reviewer to go through those quickly, change them to {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} in lieu of a dedicated "dynamic template" and mark them reviewed.
They are:
Felix QW (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The general migration from the GFDL to the CC? Files that had the GFDL as one of their licenses got the CC version 3.0 added to their list of licenses if they didn't already have it. That is not a problem. The problem would be adding the CC version 4.0 without consent. I understand from your information above that the dual license template on he.wikipedia was a wrapper template and did not include a "later versions" clause. That is consistent with and explains the fact that the upload logs, for example in this file, suggest that the dual license template of he.wikipedia had parameters to specify the license templates, which, in the case of that example file, were "GFDL" and "cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0". Those parameters are also still in the code of the file description page because it comes from he.wikipedia, even if the Commons template does not use such parameters. Such files, because of their GFDL, then had the CC version 3.0 added to their list of CC licenses, in the migration as mentioned above. It can be trusted that when those files were later transferred to Commons, they were correctly tagged with GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0, because that was indeed how they were licensed at that point. That licensing was expressed with the template "Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any", which at that point, since 11 June 2013, listed strictly those licenses. Checking the 2009 migration on he.wikipedia is probably superfluous. It can be assumed that it was done correctly, unless there is a reason to believe that it was not. The important point today is that the CC version 4.0 cannot be added without the explicit consent of the copyright owners. Apparently, that consent was not given for the files transferred from he.wikipedia, unless the template/parameter "cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0" of he.wikipedia itself had a "later versions" clause. That would be a thing to check. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree! Judging from my Google Translate efforts from he:תבנית:Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0, it doesn't seem like there was any later version clause on the template. Felix QW (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have recently uploaded an image (a poster) from the US National Park Service from 1972 and I believe this is safe for copyright but I want to be extra sure. It was published by the US government. What I am having questions about is whether or now what is under "Metadata" and more specifically "Copyright holder" state: "Image may not be reproduced without authorization of the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum". I couldn't previously find the metadata that states this about the "Copyright Holder" in the original place or anywhere whatsoever generating almost out of thin air as it was found at here. If their is a problem with it please let me know and I will delete it or someone else could delete it on my behalf. -- Skim127 Skim127 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay thanks for letting me know that regarding the artist. Is there exceptions regarding who published the poster (I'm assuming there isn't) as it was done by the U.S. Government Printing Office? I'm assuming there isn't plus there's no copyright mark on the image. I could change around why it's in the public domain as their is no clear copyright sign on the image. Am I allowed to change around why it's in the public domain or not? If not, then I'll take this image down somehow or someone else can. Cannot see your reply on this page now apparently but can under history oddly enough. --Skim127 Skim127 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Skim127 On top of being published by the US government, this was published in 1972 with no copyright notice. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller Thanks for adding the commentary. The following response helped me out quite a bit and I was able to sort this out. Case closed. Appreicate your help there @Asclepias! Skim127 (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, If it is in the public domain, it is probably not as "PD-USGov" (or "PD-USGov-NPS"), because it does not seem that Ivan Chermayeff was an employee of the U.S. government. But, as you say, it may be in the public domain as "PD-US-no notice". There is some small writing at the very bottom left, unreadable and almost invisible on this copy. It's seen slighly better on other copies but still too small. It does not look like a copyright notice, but it could be useful to have a very large copy to be sure. The metadata of this reproduction may not be applicable. It also says author:Allison Hale, which is apparently incorrect. It may be related to the digitization or something. Yes, you can change the status tag to correct the information. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Asclepias Thanks for clarifying that about changing status tags. I have changed the status tag under the license section to "PD-US-no notice" which is likely correct. The text at the very bottom which is too small in the version I have uploaded here to Wikimedia Commons does have a more high quality image which can be found here where you can click on the poster and zoom in on it. When you zoom in on the bottom text it does not list any copyright notice or symbol on it. I was suspecting the metadata might not be the most useful anyways too and it doesn't match up too well. --Skim127 Skim127 (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Skim127: I uploaded a larger 1,326 × 2,000 (238 KB) version I found via viewing source at https://www.si.edu/object/north-cascades-state-washington:chndm_1997-19-242 , https://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=CHSDM-1997-19-242MattFlynn , and as nearly as I can tell, the really small text there says "FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20402" and "PRICE 50 CENTS - STOCK NUMBER 2405-0488 * GPO : 1972 0—470-508".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: dezoomify found nothing. :(   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The IIIF link can be used to download the zoomed image, which I've now done. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller: Interesting, I had not fully explored that link. Trying the Mirador Viewer link under it, I was able to right-click and save image as..., resulting in a download.png file that is 1352 × 602 pixels and 258 KB, but blurrier for the text at the bottom left. Do you think that is worth having here?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I already downloaded a larger file (second listed item). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller: Thanks, please adjust the source line with more info on how to get that 4,593 × 6,857 (2.98 MB) version.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Image of Atari console taken at museum

Hello, I have an image of a unique variant of an Atari 2600 Jr. console taken at the National Video Game Museum in Frisco, Texas. The photo is my own, but as the Atari name is copyrighted, is it considered copyright infringement to add this to the Commons? Paper Luigi (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Assuming there isn't something copyrighted showing on the screen, it shouldn't be a problem. Category:Atari 2600 and its subcategories should give you a good sense of what is allowed. - Jmabel ! talk 04:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
This console isn't hooked up to a display, so it should be fine. I see other similar images in that category. I'll go ahead and add it. Thank you! Paper Luigi (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
The name may be a trademarked, but it cannot be copyrighted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Mayors of Dingle, Iloilo

Hi, Could you please help fix some licenses for pictures of the mayors of en:Dingle, Iloilo? These may be OK with {{PD-Philippines}} and {{PD-1996}}, but at least an approximate date is needed. The author mentioned is also probably wrong. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Manuel Alvarez Magaña (poeta salvadoreño).JPG

File:Manuel Alvarez Magaña (poeta salvadoreño).JPG should be deeply reviewed. The description is false; it is unlikely that Alondracafe (talk · contribs) was the original photographer. If correct details of this old photo is found, those must be indicated on the file description page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The photo is obviously not by Alondracafe. However, it's probably in the public domain. The subject lived from 1876 to 1945, and this portrait would seem to be of him as a relatively young man. It's probably at least 100 years old, based on his apparent age in the photo. It seems like a professional portrait, as one might find in a published source, and I would suspect this was contemporaneously published. In that case, it is PD-US (due to publication before 1929). It's also likely PD in El Salvador, either due to it being over 70 years from creation/publication (if considered anonymous) or due to the fairly high likelihood that the author died over 70 years ago.
El Salvador had a 50-year (pma or post-pub for anonymous works) term before 2017, and so even if this was published after 1928, it would be PD-US if in the public domain in El Salvador in 1996 (which is decently likely).
I have no idea of the actual specific source of this image, but I'm pretty sure it's fine.
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Ramanujan stamp image from 1962

File:Srinivasa Ramanujan.jpg is an image of Ramanujan. The page erroneously claims the image is from the 1900s (Ramanujan died in 1920). The image is actually from a 1962 Indian stamp. See an eBay listing. The image is most likely a 1962 redrawing of Ramanujan's passport photo. The image is improved enough that it should have its own copyright. Indian stamps have a copyright term of 60 years, so the image is free in India. However, would a US copyright still be in play? Glrx (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Moved from COM:AN#Overwritten file

File:20180206 UM-NW Benny The Bull 7DM27126.jpg is a photo of the en:Chicago Bulls' mascot en:Benny the Bull. There are two versions of this file: the originally uploaded version showing Benny as part of a much larger scene and a cropped/enlarge version showing just Benny. Are both versions OK for Commons? Team mascots/character images seem, in some cases, to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:CB#Costumes and cosplay and COM:DW#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?.

Would the mascot imagery be considered copyright protected in this case. Is it possible that the originally uploaded version could be considered COM:DM since it shows Benny as part of a larger crowd scene, but the cropped version would be a copyvio because it focuses too much on Benny? FWIW, there are also several other photos of Benny being used in the article (File:Benny the Bull 1a.jpg, File:20180206 UM-NW Benny The Bull 7DM27157.jpg and File:BennyBull.JPG); so, whatever's decided about the first two photos also most likely applies to the other three. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I suppose the issue is whether the character is under a copyright. It is quite possible that it is in the public domain due to lack of notice prior 1989. Yann (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The article about the mascot states it's most recent incarnation/version was introduced in 2004 and all of the photos referred to above were taken after that date except for one taken in 2003 (which might be an error). This wesbite shows a photo of various different versions of the mascot over the years, and they're quite different from each other. This Chicago Tribune article shows the mascot as it looked in 1974, and it's quite different from the current-day version. This The New York Times shows the mascot in 2003, and it's not as different but still different enough. Older versions of the character released prior to March 1, 1989, might be no longer eligible for copyright protection. It seems that the newer versions introduced after that date could be, and these photos might be affected by that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, it is more difficult if each new version has a separate copyright. Yann (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
According to US copyright office records, it looks like the costume was registered for copyright protection in November 1990 and the copyright is owned by Chicago Professional Sports, L. P. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I added {{Costume}} to the file just incase :) AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
These questions are always difficult. Really, the only copyrightable portion is the mask. A single costume would not really be eligible for a character copyright, though there may be enough backstory and variations by this point for one to exist. But, the mask itself would be copyrightable regardless. If there are older versions where copyright expired (no copyright notice), then the newer ones can only copyright the additional expression added to the old ones, which itself could be a difficult subject. But, I would say clearly some aspect is copyrightable. Photos of the mascot would be fair use in almost all (and maybe all) circumstances, unless focusing on the mask itself. The question of postcards and t-shirts is harder -- though since Benny the Bull is also trademarked[10][11], t-shirts would be virtually certain to be a trademark infringement, even if not a copyright infringement. Separating those two concerns can be difficult. Certainly, photo agencies sell photos of mascots, so some level of commercial use of the photo is fine. There may be some limits, but usually trademark is the easier right to enforce when it comes to those harder cases. It really falls under the COM:COSTUME guideline I think, so we'd probably keep it. A photo focusing on the mask itself may be more difficult. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the input Clindberg. Do you think the four images of Benny the Bull referenced above are OK for Commons? What about photos of other mascots such as File:Washington Wizards G-Wiz.jpg, File:Cavs Watch Party (27385398531).jpg, File:Cavs Watch Party NBA Finals (34740061690).jpg, File:Cleveland Innerbelt Bridge Opening (29618354990).jpg and File:Cleveland Innerbelt Bridge Opening (29285484934).jpg that seem to be focusing primarily on the mask? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have been looking at a contributor's uploads and a lot of them were from the Los Angeles Public Library's Los Angeles Herald Examiner Photo Collection. I looked online to see if there were any copyright notices on the newspaper, but I couldn't find any archives to check for both that and if the photos were published. Would someone be able to see how the Los Angeles Herald Examiner copyrighted (or didn't copyright) their newspapers? reppoptalk 04:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I checked the 1979-01-03 issue on microfilm when I uploaded this image, and there was no copyright notice. Which strongly suggests that at least issues before that date had no notice (since it would be very unusual for a newspaper to stop copyrighting their issues after they had started). But it's possible that some individual images in the paper were copyrighted; publishers would sometimes put a copyright notice on a specific image if it were particularly valuable or noteworthy. Also, the LAPL collection could include photos that came from the paper's archives but were never actually published in the paper; those would still be copyrighted since they presumably weren't published until after 1989. So the photos in that collection are quite likely to be public domain, but it can't really be confirmed without finding them in a published issue of the paper. Toohool (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. I wish that there was a way to access them online to check. reppoptalk 01:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Logos simples en países que no contiene ToO

Buenas, es posible publicar Logos simples en países que no contiene Threshold of originality (ToO), pero es posible agregar {{PD-textlogo}}?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Cada país hay algún límite (threshold of originality/ToO). Si es bastante simple, no tiene derechos del autor. Por ejemplo, no tengo derechos de autor para las palabras "Por ejemplo" a la empieza del frase esto. Es posible que existen países donde el límite es menos claro por falto de casos legales. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel:Un ejemplo, Líbano y Venezuela son los paises qué no contiene Threshold of originality (ToO) pero es posible agregar {{PD-textlogo}} a los logos simples que fueron creados en Líbano y Venezuela?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
 Question @Bedivere:Buenas, dime una opinión?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@AbchyZa22: Contiene me parece una extraña elección de verbo. ¿Que quiere decir? ¿Que sus leyes faltan una concepción de un límite del tipo esto? ¿Que no está en alguna lista? - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Guidance Needed on Copyright Submission for Journal Cover Page on Wikimedia Commons

Dear Wikipedians, I would appreciate your guidance on how to properly comply with the Wikimedia Commons rules related to copyright. A learned society publishes a scientific journal, and it appears that the copyright for the journal's cover page is held by the society. The journal's chief editor, who has the managerial authority, has used the Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator - Wikimedia Commons to upload a high-resolution version of the cover page to Wikimedia Commons. He received confirmation via email from Wikimedia Commons acknowledging his permission to use the media file(s) on the platform. As he prepares to upload the image, he is prompted to confirm that it is not a logo. We are uncertain whether this should be selected, as the cover page does feature the publisher's logo, which could technically be considered a logo in that context. However, there doesn't seem to be an option for "submit logo" on Wikimedia. Could you provide any advice on how to proceed in this situation? Thank you for your assistance, Firefly2024 (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a logo.
There has been a lot of discussion of that question (sorry, I'm headed out the door or I'd search for some of it and link). Quite frankly, I find it a pain in the butt.
Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Dear @Jmabel,
Thank you for your response. Please take your time—no rush at all. I truly appreciate any information or a link you can share when it's convenient for you. Your help is greatly valued.
Best, Firefly2024 (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
First, just to emphasize: for your purposes, all you need to know is, no, it is not a logo.
I'm not readily finding the discussion but what it comes down to is that the copyright issues for a logo are not any different than for any other copyrighted image, so it is very unclear why it is singled out for such special treatment. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

University Diploma

Can Commons keep File:NU Diploma.JPG as licensed or is this a case of COM:2D copying? Should Commons keep this per COM:PERSONAL even if it's OK from a copyright standpoint if this is the diploma of a real person? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If the document is real, then the authorship, date and license are fake. If the authorship, date and license are correct, then the document is fake. But it's in use. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Probably nothing copyrightable there. Does anyone see something that would be? - Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • It's obviously a simple copy of a 2D item which is ineligible for copyright.
  • It should be kept (doesn't violate COM:PERSONAL). It's the uploader's own diploma (it would appear), and it has a useful purpose (as an illustration of what a diploma from this university looks like).
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
What license would be used for a diploma such as this? {{PD-text}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Video with song clips

For context, I am an experienced Wikimedian and can handle any Wikimedia copyright and licensing discussion.

I want to CC-license a movie and music clips in that movie, without CC-licensing the full songs from which the clips came. More specifically, I have a 10 minute video which uses multiple 15 second music clips from various songs by various musicians. I know that I can get open copyright licenses from all involved for all the media in the movie file, but do not want to negotiate opening media which is not in the movie file.

Questions:

  1. Does CC licensing 15 seconds of a 3-minute song have the expected effect of opening only that portion of the song, or are there other known, surprising effects?
  2. Can anyone share any precedent of CC licensing music clips without opening an entire song?
  3. Can anyone show a Commons song with good CC licensing? I am aware that for music, there is distinct copyright for the music composition, lyrics, arrangement, performance, and recording. I am able to track and credit these things, but would like to copy an existing model if one exists.
  4. Can anyone show a Commons video upload which includes music clips, and which can be a model for licensing? I am anticipating separate copyright licenses for the video, for each included song clip, and for incidental video inclusions like copyrightable art featured in the video.

If you are experienced with Commons and your answers are 1) I don't know 2)3)4) No, then tell me so. It also would be useful for me to confirm that precedents are unknown, if that is the case.

Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

What you are asking is quite close to an earlier question on this page. To wit, as it is possible for the mural painter to give a CC license for a specific photograph, likewise the composers can give a similar permission for your video. I cannot really come up with any complications the musicians could possibly face – a license for a specific clip does exactly what it says on the tin. For questions #2 to #4 I don’t currently have good answers but overall the movie project looks perfectly viable to me. A bit ambitious, perhaps, but certainly possible for an experienced Wikimedian to handle. --Geohakkeri (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
You can absolutely license an excerpt; this can be done either with a recording or with sheet music. It would probably be wise to be explicit that this is a free-licensed excerpt from a larger, copyrighted work and that no rights are being granted for any other portion of the work. I don't offhand know any models, though, and imagine it would take exactly as much work for me to try to track it down as for you. - Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
@Geohakkeri: Yes, the excerpt of the mural analogy fits this case.
@Jmabel: I will think about how to share the music clip. I do not think it would be useful for Commons to have a 15-second free music clip which links to the broader, copyrighted song, because the same excerpt is unlikely to be valuable for anyone else's reuse. You may be away that major apps including Instagram and TikTok are integrated with global music publishing, and users in those platforms usually make their video posts with reused audio clips. While I do not think that system applies to Wikipedia, I think it does establish the expectation that anyone reusing a music clip will cut their own clip from the full song. I will pilot this, and I will share later as a model.
Thanks both. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

File:HenningHaroldDr.Swimmer.png

This document was given status as Public Domain because I believed it had no stated copyright or author. Issues have been made since it could have been copyrighted on another page, or by the paper's own photographers or whether the paper got it from a wire service or some other third party. I don't know how to determine this. Its from the Chicago Tribune as you can see below.

"Henning Gets International Swim Post", Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, 17 December 1964, pg. 155

Someone with an online newspaper archive might be able to resolve this issue. For now, I've removed the link from the wiki photo file to my wiki article, Hal Henning.

Perhaps someone could open the newspaper via a online newspaper article and scan the photo and previous pages and determine if it should be marked public domain or not. Thank-you!!!! Dcw2003 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune was registered, see its copyright registration for all 1964 issues. According to the Hirtle chart the issues will be copyrighted until 2060. Günther Frager (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The file in question was actually uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:HenningHaroldDr.Swimmer.png and the discussion about it referenced above by Dcw2003 can be found at en:User talk:Dcw2003#File:HenningHaroldDr.Swimmer.png. I'm actually the one who suggested Dcw2003 ask about the file here at VPC because this would be the best place to host such a file if it's really PD. The problem I had is that it seem a bit unlikely that this would be {{PD-US-no notice}} given the source for the photo is a major US newspaper like the en:Chicago Tribune and also because of the date given for the photo pushed it beyond {{PD-US-not renewed}}. If there another license that could apply to this, then great; however, I think more needs to be known about the photo's provenance first. Although en:Hal Henning was from the Chicago area, this could be a wire service story due to its national nature that was just picked up (with photo) by the Tribune. It should say as much in the actual story since wire service stories were usually attributed as such. The photo had to come from somewhere, though, and it would help to know where the uploader got it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I was more or less answering what you already replied on the talk page. The only solution would be to have a copy of the whole newspaper, something that I cannot assist :(. Günther Frager (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I can see the first page using the Wikipedia library subscription on Newspaper Archive, and I can confirm the presence of a copyright notice covering the newspaper. Felix QW (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

PD-US-not renewed or PD-US-no notice?

The uploader of File:Milo Hoffman.tif states they scanned the image from a 1932 yearbook, which probably means the license the uploader chose is incorrect. Perhaps the yearbook either was published without a copyright notice or did have a notice that wasn't renewed? All the file's description states is "YearBook for the graduating DDS Students". The photo is being used in en:Milo Hellman, but there's nothing about a "M Hoffman" (the subject of this photo) in that article. The uploader hasn't edited on Commons since 2016 and on English Wikipedia since May 2024; so, I'm not sure they can help sort this out. If it turns out that the photo is PD, then {{PD-Scan}} could be used for the uploader together with a PD license for the photo, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If there is any reason to keep this (not clear to me) then {{PD-US-not-renewed}} is a very safe bet. Few yearbooks were copyrighted in the first place; I've literally never heard of one having its copyright renewed. - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I removed it from the page now, given that its relation to the subject of the article is rather unclear. Felix QW (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Restaurar logos simples

Buenas, una pregunta que pasaría si el Administrador removiera por error el Logo simple (too simple) es posible restaurar?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: como en cualquier otro caso, hay dos modos de pedir restauración de un archivo borrado: (1) puede contactar el administrador que lo borró y convencirle que era un error o (2) puede solicitar la restauración en Commons:Undeletion requests o Commons:Undeletion requests/es. Si es muy claro que era un error, el primero sería el más fácil; si se puede ser controversial, recomiendo el segundo. - Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Ourang Medan photos

The story of the Ourang Medan was first published in the Italian newspaper Il Piccolo on 16 October 1940, with two photos: one of the (apparently dead, but quite possibly staged) ship's officers, and another of a sinking ship, said to be the Ourang Medan. Full scans of the newspaper are available from the Il Piccolo website. The article was reprinted in the L'Illustrazione Italiana in December 1940, with a higher quality photo of the ship's officer, and a third photo (of the crew, also said to be dead). Full scans of this magazine are available from the Internet Archive.

I'd like to upload them here, for use in Wikipedia articles, but the copyright situation seems very complicated! The photographer was an Italian citizen who died in 1985, but the photos were said to have been taken in international waters in November 1939, according to the newspaper/magazine article. If following Italian law, they might count as "simple photographs", and fall under {{PD-Italy}}, as they were created and published well before the 1970s, and their copyright wasn't registered in the U.S.. Even if they were considered "artistic photographs", they were created before 1940, and so (according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy) became public domain on the URAA date. But I'm uncertain whether the international waters would mean that different copyright rules apply, and whether being public domain in Italy would mean the photos were public domain in the U.S. as well? ‑‑YodinT 15:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If first publication was clearly in Italy, and they weren't published within 30 days in the U.S., then we consider them Italian photos. Doesn't matter that they were shot in international waters. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I'm pretty sure U.S. reprints of the article were later than this and didn't include the photos, but will check before uploading! ‑‑YodinT 15:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove previous revision of a file

File:Joehawley.png

The previous revision of this file is non-free and should be replaced with a "no preview" or something like that idk. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the current version of the file even from? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea. I asked the uploader that in their talk page and they still have yet to respond. That's why there's a disputed template for now. If we can confirm that the current revision is also non-free, the file has to go. The uploader does claim that the current image of Hawley is in the public domain in the file history, but I have suspicions. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@AuroraANovaUma: in principle I'd have no problem doing this, but you provide no information as to why this is non-free, you are just asserting that. I for one don't routinely make edits on someone else's behalf on the basis of unsupported assertions. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
The previous revision came from here.
That revision was taken from one of those wikis that don't license their files. As a result, there is no evidence that this is a freely-licensed file, and I see no reason to believe it is. This appears to be why the uploader replaced it with a presumed actual freely-licensed image of the same guy. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I needed. - Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

File:房業涵.jpg

This file is a screenshot from YouTube (see: https://youtube.com/watch/NTjBTf0tbkM) and the licensing says that the file is published under CC-BY 3.0. However, the license was not reviewed since June 2020. If source link is dead, then it may be impossible to prove that the file is published under CC-BY 3.0. I think we would better take some time to review this file for a moment. Please could someone have a look at it?--125.230.84.40 05:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

2D works on buses in Russia

It is ok to upload file like this to Commons? Russian law doesn't grant FOP for 2D works. Personally I thinks ok because the law allows accidental use of such works. P.S. Depicted 2D works are actually painted buildings which are itself in public domain. Юрий Д.К 08:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would say yes, if the picture doesn't focus only on the artwork, as we have Category:Pokémon Jet. Yann (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: Hi and thanks for your answer. I have a photos of a whole bus on my computer but not of focused 2D artwork Юрий Д.К 09:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Commons has a hundred images which say in their description something like, from File:Bitcoin (38461156880).jpg:

Credit www.quotecatalog.com with an active link required.

Is it within COM:LICENSING to add a requirement like this to a CC licence? It sounds like I wouldn't be able to print such a photo in a book or include it in a TV show because there wouldn't be an "active link". Belbury (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No, that's clearly an impermissible condition on reuse. Do you want to create the deletion nomination or shall I? Omphalographer (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get it. Belbury (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
In fact, that would preclude use in print. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought. Request now open at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "with an active link required". Belbury (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
You are supposed to have an active link if possible, or in a book print the URL, I think, with the CC licenses. I guess the question is if that statement is an addition to the CC-BY requirements, or an alternative license. It's pretty close to a free license but it does leave some questions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The only URI that a Creative Commons license should require is to the source of the work, if possible (per the CC wiki), and there's no requirement that it be an "active link". The links required by these file descriptions aren't sources; they look more like attempts to promote web sites. Omphalographer (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
A URI to the license itself is also required if you don't include the entire text -- If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: [...] C. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.[12]. If a link was given, and that link goes stale later on, and the condition of "active link" becomes void at that point, meaning the license terminates at that point, then it would be a problem I think. But if it's just a requirement to have a link to the source, it's OK, and versions of the CC licenses before 4.0 allowed the author to specify the URI they wanted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Isn't Wikipedia requiring the same? Enhancing999 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Any condition provided for outside of the license is not part of the license and does not constitute an additional restriction. This is explicitly provided for in the license text: "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
In the original upload on Flickr, there's one license (CC-BY 2.0) in the metadata and another completely different and incompatible license ("Image is free for usage on editorial websites if you credit <some web site> with an active link") in the description. I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation of the author's intent which would allow us to ignore the license outlined in the description - they clearly meant that text to have some effect on how their photo could be used. Omphalographer (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
As I read it, that would grant a second, distinct license. That is, they are granting (a) CC-BY 2.0 and (b) use on an editorial web site with that particular link provided. Reuser would be free to choose. - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Is there not any precautionary room for the expectation that the Flickr user believed they were creating a single, handcrafted licence by ticking CC-BY and, in the same form submission to the Flickr servers, writing additional clauses that they wanted applied to that licence?
We had a lot of "CC-BY but you can't upload this image to Facebook" custom templates here on Commons a while ago, and so far as I can see the outcome of that was that people were asked to relicence or remove those images, rather than Commons flatly considering the content to be dual-licenced and marking the files up with "ignore the Facebook bit if you want, your choice" {{Multi-license}} templates (where the secondary template was not a Commons-compatible one). Belbury (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
No, that's not what happened with the NoFacebook templates. First, the templates themselves were not actually supposing to add a restriction to the CC license, but instead arguing that the CC licenses were incompatible with the Facebook terms; the templates were removed because this isn't actually true. Second, nobody was asked to relicense or remove anything. The only thing removed was the misleading "no-FB" template. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, seems I've misunderstood the Facebook outcome, the surviving templates that I'd seen had read more like restrictions.
So should there be any caution exercised in a case where a Flickr or Commons or Instagram user seems to have believed that they were creating a complex custom (and Commons-invalid) licence by adding additional statements in the description, even if they were technically multi-licensing? In both good and bad faith: a "CC-BY but this footage cannot be used by Evil News" or a "CC-BY and by using this image you agree to pay me $500". Belbury (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The reasonable interpretation is to follow the actual text of the CC license, which was written specifically to clarify that any restricted offer made outside of the license is not a condition of the CC license, and instead constitues a separate license. There is also no restriction which prevents a person from offering some item under two separate licenses with different terms. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup of "CC but also" files

As a related case on this, a user was recently found to have uploaded hundreds of files with a disclaimer permission template saying things like For printed publication, you must contact the author via email for approval and YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO UPLOAD THIS FILE TO ALL SOCIAL NETWORKS. They gave no response to talk page concerns or an ANU thread before it went stale (with some suggestion to just delete the images if there was no response), so that needs a next step.

Based on the above discussion, do we thank the user for their submissions and update the files with two license templates (one a regular CC-BY, one a custom "CC-BY but contact for printed publication, no social network use, must use highest resolution") and make it clear with a {{Multi-license}} header that the Commons user can pick either one? --Belbury (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In this situation, given that the user uploaded these images directly on Commons, not another web site, and that they explicitly acknowledge that the images are CC licensed, I think we're on firmer ground treating their "disclaimer" as a set of (unenforceable) requests, not as an custom or alternative license. Omphalographer (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
With what outcome - do we step in and alter the User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer template to remove or rephrase the requests that it's making? Belbury (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
There are even more such templates, and mass-changing them is likely too intrusive - Gabuxae (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gabuxae @Belbury @Omphalographer It is not too intrusive to remove the NoFacebook portions of these templates, and, in fact, it's appropriate, given the consensus at the DR (and the WMF legal advice) on NoFacebook templates. These templates are making inaccurate claims about what the CC licenses allow; that's why they have been removed. These other conditions are clearly not part of the CC license. Any request that the re-user contact if there is use in print, use the highest resolution, etc., is a mere request, not a license condition. Also, while claiming that FB sharing is against the CC terms is clearly not allowed, I suppose it's potentially OK to merely request that users not re-post to Facebook, although I think this goes against the entire spirit of Commons and arguably should be disallowed (though not for being misleading). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Do not alter terms of licenses of contributors other than yourself.
Not sure if Facebook is really in the spirit of Commons, but everybody is entitled to their own view on that. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
@Belbury@D. Benjamin Miller@Enhancing999@Gabuxae@Omphalographer see also both meta:Talk:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media and Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates, the latter resulted to the deletions of all remaining NoFacebook templates custom-made by users, yet not wkthout an intense backlash from several of those users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The legal answer is clear. No CC license prohibits posting on Facebook.
The entire argument is based on the notion that the Facebook terms require anyone who posts on Facebook to grant a license to Facebook for all posted materials, including for content for which the poster isn't the copyright holder. It is obvious, though, that his can only apply insofar as much as the Facebook uploader has the ability to grant such licenses. Even if we reject that interpretation, though, any re-user who provides attribution in an accepted form would not violate the CC license — only the terms and conditions of Facebook.
If this template was intended as a statement of a restriction the CC license imposes, it is wrong. (The social media profiles for CC itself, which post CC content, clearly illustrate that the license was not designed this way.) If it is intended as a warning about Facebook's terms of use, it's also wrong. As @JWilz12345 mentions, the question of altering these templates to remove this misinformation has already been addressed.
The question is not whether Facebook is in the spirit of Commons. You can have any opinion you want about Facebook. The question is whether or not a purported restriction, or even a request, that content not be reposted on Facebook is compatible with the principles of Wikimedia Commons. I think the answer is a clear "no."
One of the core principles of Commons is that files are free content. Part of what makes items free is that they can be used by anyone for any purpose. A "no Facebook posting" restriction or request goes against that very principle.
Putting things as a mere request for content not to be posted on Facebook, without purporting to restrict it, doesn't violate the licensing rules (since it doesn't impact the license at all). But I see it as akin to "Please don't use my file in any page written in French," or "Please don't use my content outside of Wikimedia sites." It is not part of the license, but it is an anti-free content request in spirit.
Is seems clear, indeed, that many users who so vociferously opposed the removal of NoFacebook were motivated not by a sincere interpretation of the CC licenses, but by a dislike of Facebook (for various reasons). That feeling may be justified, but it's irrelevant. Free licenses are not weapons against what is, at worst, sloppy verbiage in Facebook's terms of service. Of course, this drafting ambiguity is not what anti-Facebook people dislike about Facebook, which only highlights the absurdity of the position; someone started from the position of disliking Facebook and searched for some any possible justification to misportray the licenses as an anti-Facebook tool. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. The claim in User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer is specifically that This file uses a license that is not compatible with licensing terms of all social networks - which is factually untrue. This isn't a request; it's an inaccurate statement about the terms of the Creative Commons license, and it's entirely appropriate for us to correct that. Omphalographer (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious, what the uploader intended and their view is probably consistent with Commons' view when they wrote it. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
It was wrong then. It's still wrong now. Any past prevalence of incorrect information doesn't change the need to correct it now. And this discussion was already had. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
To make matters even more complicated, some user templates include other license-like clauses. This example (specifically, last sentence) may even be legal and enforceable: CC includes a right for the licensor to remove his name. But the situation as whole is weird: does it allow me to violate attribution by changing a single pixel and publishing with no names attached? - Gabuxae (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Artikeldestages.tiff

File:Artikeldestages.tiff looks like a mess after I added all licenses of the icons and photos in the screenshot, but from what I understand it seems like that's needed? Anyway, the Geschichte icon in this file has been replaced "to solve problems with copyright". So this would mean that we can't use it in this screenshot? Should we just remove the icon from it or just delete the screenshot? // Kakan spelar (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I would think it is de minimis here, but could certainly be covered with a Gaussian blur if anyone thinks it's really a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Good point, didn't think about that. // Kakan spelar (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Color photograph and advertisement

There's an image here of a photo promo of a band, and a cropped version of the photo was included in an advertisement here that doesn't have a copyright notice. Could the full version of the color photo be uploaded? reppoptalk 00:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If that black and white cropped version had been the only one published, probably not. However, as noted on the site which has the color photo, it is a promotional card for the band. Unless there was a copyright notice on the back, the distribution of that card itself put the full color photo in the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Behind the Door (1919)

I had gotten a request to upload a copy of the 1919 U.S. film Behind the Door since video2commons couldn't process it at full resolution. I haven't done so because in 2019 a copy was uploaded at File:Behind the Door (1919).webm and deleted after a request from the creator/distributor of the restoration at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Behind the Door (1919).webm. They stated that the restoration "contains new, protected, derivative elements consisting of editing, film speed correction, tinting schemes, and most importantly, new music." This year, another copy was uploaded to File:Behind the Door.webm and kept after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Behind the Door.webm.

Neither upload here included the copyrighted soundtrack, which was in the YouTube sources as well one of the two available Internet Archive sources ([13] but not [14]). Are there copyright issues with creating and uploading a (silent) version from one of the IA copies? Should I just do an undeletion request on that first upload to make sure there's agreement around having a copy of this film? The last deletion request only got one reply, so I wanna be appropriately cautious before taking action on this. hinnk (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to see how film speed correction (presumably returning the material closer to the version released in 1919) could warrant a claim of copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@Hinnk: Even without the soundtrack, it sounds like this specific restoration does indeed have new copyrightable elements: "No single, complete, copy of the film is known to survive. This restoration is based [on] an incomplete 35mm print and a separate small roll of shots preserved at the Library of Congress National Audio-Visual Conservation Center, and a 35mm copy of a Russian version, based on an export negative preserved at Gosfilmofond of Russia. In two sequences, still images have been inserted to bridge gaps where motion picture material was not available. Shot continuity and text for re-created intertitles and bridging stills are based on director Irvin Willat's original script and continuity. Color tinting and toning have [been] reproduced based on the laboratory notations in the leaders of the Library of Congress print." It may, however, be possible to host clips of the movie that do not include bridging sections or recreated intertitles (which seem to be labelled with "2016" in the restoration). I'm not sure if the tinting would be creative enough to attract new copyright. Nosferattus (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I've renominated File:Behind the Door.webm for deletion. It would be best if further discussion happened there. Nosferattus (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Doubtful the uploader actually owns this file or that this is actually licensed under a free license.

I did a reverse search on File:Hacker PNG3.png and found this perfect match from 4 years earlier here. I already put the {{Disputed}} template on the file awhile back but now I'm starting to gravely doubt that Teamp0ison89 owns any copyright to the picture or that it is freely-licensed. Upon further examination, I'm also able to confirm that Kaspersky is not a freely-licensed website which makes me even more suspicious about the picture's origin and license. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Right, deleted. Yann (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Little Esther Jones with dog

Can we import en:File:Little Esther Jones with dog-1930.jpg? It is used on en.Wikipedia as "fair use", but the description notes "Published in The Afro-American, Baltimore, Maryland (US), Sunday August 16, 1930, page 8. Publication does not bear a copyright notice and may be PD.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Should be fine for Commons at least as {{PD-US-not-renewed}}; The UPenn database entry confirms that regardless of copyright notice, the Afro-American did not renew contributions to its paper until a decade later. Felix QW (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Now at File:Little Esther Jones with dog-1930.jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What license to use

The commons help desk suggested I post here. I've found an image here [15] I wish to upload, it says it can be used, shared, copied and distributed free of charge, for credit. It was taken in 1886/1887 in Bergen but the photographer is unknown. I'm not sure 100 percent sure what license to use. Here's my original thread at the help desk. Spiderpig662 (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

A photograph taken in the 1880s by an unknown author can be tagged as {{PD-old-assumed}}. There are other more specific PD templates which can be used if more information about the photographer is available, e.g. {{PD-old-100}} if they are known to have died at least 100 years ago. Omphalographer (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! --Spiderpig662 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not necessarily that simple, and I had already discussed this at length with Spiderpig662 at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&oldid=915498602#What_license_to_use, and told them that when bringing the matter to VP/C, "make sure either to copy-paste my analysis or to use a permalink and link this thread as the start of your discussion," which they did not do. They apparently have no knowledge of the publication history of this image, and while {{PD-old-assumed}} is fine for Norway (and, as I told them, {{PD-anon-70}} is better) there are at least two possible cases where it would still be copyrighted in the U.S.:

  • If the image was first published (anywhere) 1929 - 28 February 1989 and conformed to U.S. formalities, that would give it 95 years in the U.S. from publication date.
  • If the image was first published (anywhere) 1 March 1989 through 2002, that would give it 95 years in the U.S. from publication date without even raising the issue of U.S. formalities.

We know nothing about the photographer, who could have been an amateur and might never have published. The linked site says nothing about provenance, or about its own date of posting. If, for example, the photo sat in some family collection and went unpublished for a little over a century, and was first posted to the web in 2000, it would be in copyright in the U.S. through 2095. - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to come from a collection of professional theatrical portraits at the University of Bergen [16], so it seems likely also to be a professional portrait "in costume". In the small chance that it is a family image, it is probably still {{PD-US-unpublished}} since publication needs the agreement of the copyright holder. In fact, if Norway has such a thing as publication right, I suspect that is the most likely right to exist on it. However, as Norway is not in the EU, I have been unable to find out whether Norway does have such a concept. Felix QW (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW: Åndsverkloven, § 13.​ is the Norwegian implementation of Directive 2006/116/EC, Article 4. --Geohakkeri (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I thought I had used a permalink correctly after following en:Help:Permalink, I'm sorry I did that wrong. I had assumed Omphalographer had seen the thread I linked when they suggested using {{PD-old-assumed}} which is my fault for assuming. I uploaded it under that license at File:Rolfine Absalonsen.png. Whilst uploading I thought I'd cropped the image correctly but after upload it seems to be too wide. I've tried to activate the CropTool to fix this but when I tried to load it says there is a "curl error". I've never uploaded to commons before and I'm so sorry if my inexperience has caused undue hassle.
Just to clarify, should I change the license to {{PD-US-unpublished}}? --Spiderpig662 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Spiderpig662: My sincere apology! I skimmed too fast and didn't notice that there was a valid permalink there (you did it very differently than I would have, but in a perfectly OK way). - Jmabel ! talk
@Felix QW: thanks! There had been no mention of that thing about theatrical portraits and, yes, that makes it a pretty safe bet that it was published more or less contemporaneously, so we should be fine in the U.S. I don't think it's that crucial to have the absolutely optimal choice of PD tag as long as we are confident that the image is in the public domain in both Norway & the U.S. Probably we should permalink this discussion from the file talk page in case any of this comes up again for that photo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Files from Texas Army ROTC Flickr stream

About 13K photos have been uploaded from the Texas Army ROTC Flickr stream and have been tagged as {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. It appears to be a school, not actually US army so I doubt the people taking the photos are actually employed by the US federal government. Opinions? Multichill (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The Army ROTC is part of the US Army. It is a program for college students run by the US Army. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, "run by," but I don't think we can always presume that ROTC photos are taken by federal employees. In particular, I don't believe ROTC cadets are considered federal employees, though the instructors are. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

COM:FRANCE

I've proposed a change to COM:FRANCE that editors familiar with French copyright law or the URAA may want to review, the topic is at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/France#Start date of 70-year term. (tl;dr COM:FRANCE has incomplete information about when the copyright term was increased.) hinnk (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

In short, the old duration was 58 years (50 + 8 years for war extension). So documents which were in the public domain with that duration are not affected by URAA: either if the author died before 1937, or if they were published anonymously before that date. Could a native English speaker please write a synthesis? Yann (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

licence

Bonjour une photo heritée d un oncle décédé et sans notation particulière est elle autorisée a la publication sur sa page ou il n y a pas de photo de lui ,MERCI Bemann (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bemann: Bonjour, Il nous faut connaître la date de la photo, et si possible le nom du photographe. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

w:Die shots are commonly used as illustrations in Wikipedia articles about specific microchips. These are generally as-exact-as-possible reproductions of the microchip's 2D surface.

There are two legal questions when making and distributing die shots:

  1. Are you even allowed to publish die shots? I.e. is the reproduced object subject to copyright?

    This can be answered fairly clearly for almost all cases with a clear no, because die "artwork" is functional in nature. For this reason separate w:integrated circuit layout design protection was incorporated into the law. This is entirely separate legal protection. These layout protections only protect the means to reproduce the actual chip, which a die shot is decidedly unfit to achieve.

    Therefore the reproduced work is ineligible for copyright and can be freely reproduced.
  2. Are the die shots / reproduction photographs themselves protected by copyright?

    This is a bit harder to answer. Photographs depicting dies are of course protected if they are not a pure reproduction (e.g. something like File:ADC84KG-12 die.jpg). However, typical die shots like File:Intel-pentium-ii-dixon-die-shot-high-resolution-stitched.jpg, which attempt to be accurate reproductions, are probably not protected by copyright for the same reasons why reproductions of public domain art aren't.

I think this means that most die shots are actually public domain, at least in the US and all the EU states which implemented the DSM directive. Phiarc (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Third-party images published by the National Weather Service

I've now reviewed 1,000 images uploaded under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template and requested deletion of several.

The arguments for deletion, and to keep, are now following repetitive, predictable patterns and it would greatly help all involved if we could centralise discussion and obtain some wider community input.

Therefore, I have opened an RfC to gather opinions. Apologies in advance: it's long and detailed, but is frankly nothing compared to the words and time expended by all parties up to this point. Probably the most crucial issue revolves around how we interpret a general disclaimer published at weather.gov (Q.1 in the RfC).

Your advice is greatly appreciated! --Rlandmann (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the reasonable use of the {{No permission since}} template

I see someone skipped the DR process and just tagged this file with {{No permission since}}. If user don't know enough about the {{No permission since}} template and tagged every file without discussion, it would probably be misused by an inexperienced user. So, I wonder in which situations would it be "reasonable" for us to use the {{No permission since}} template? Can we really skip the DR process? Also, if this edit is unreasonable or inappropriate, then it need to be discussed in the particular at COM:DR.--125.230.85.122 13:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Solomon203 as tagger.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
{{No permission since}} seems very unclear here. Are they questioning the claim of own work? If not, the template is just plain wrong. If so, they ought to be explicit about why they question it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I will add: this file has been on Commons over a decade. -- Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Uploader has no other uploads, so almost certainly will not weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this looks like a video screenshot. But for a picture uploaded more than 10 years ago, a regular DR is much better. Yann (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll turn this into a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyrighted picture

File:K.T. Oslin performing "Do Ya" at the Grand Ole Opry House through a CBS two-hour "Country Music Association" 30th Anniversary Special on Jan. 7, 1988.webp is sourced to an article in The Tennessean and credited to the photographer. I sincerely doubt HereIGoAgain (talk · contribs) is the photographer, so this is very likely a copyright violation. TenPoundHammer (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Distribution Statements

Certain modern military manuals have "distribution statements" on their title page. For example, the 29 March 2002 edition of the AH-64 operator's manual, TM 1-1520-251-10, states:

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D - Distribution authorized to Department of Defense and DoD contractors only due to critical technology. This determination was made on 26 June 2000. Other requests for this document shall be referred to Commander, US Army Aviation and Missile Command, ATTN: SFAE - AV - AAH - ATH, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 - 5000.

and the C-17A flight manual, TO 1C-17A-1, reads:

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT - Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only for administrative and operational use, 16 November 1987. Other requests shall be referred to ASC/YC (AV/FS), Wright Patterson AFB OH 45433-7142.

I suspect that these statements may be an attempt to reserve copyright protection by government contractors, since all U.S. federal government produced documents are public domain, but a private work for hire can, in theory, be published in or as a government document and still be copyrighted. However, I am not sufficiently familiar with distribution statements to say for certain. For example, the phrase "due to critical technology" could indicate it is more for secrecy reasons than copyright.

As background, older manuals include statements such as "published under authority of the Secretary of the Air Force" or "published by Douglas Aircraft Co. with approval of Chief, Engineering Division, Materiel Center" on the title page. I have never seen the public domain status of these examples questioned. However, this may be because even if they weren't considered government produced, they would still be public domain as they were published before 1978 without a copyright notice.

If the distribution statement does constitute a copyright claim, it would seem that the claim would be invalidated by the somewhat recent decision in Georgia v. Public.Resource.org, Inc. that certain works created by contractors in association with the government are uncopyrightable. In addition, a federal court ruled in favor of a lawsuit by AM General against Activision regarding use of the "Humvee" name in video games.[1][2] However, as this involved a trademark, not copyright, it may not be applicable here.

To sum up, the question is: Are military manuals with distribution statements public domain and can therefore be uploaded? –Noha307 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

These distribution statements have nothing to do with copyright. They have to do with status (current or former) of restricted military information. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Since you seem to be familiar with the subject, is there any chance you know where I could find more information about it? I don't doubt your explanation, I just have a distinct personal interested in the subject and would like to read the minutiae. Also, it would be useful to have something to reference should I need to explain it elsewhere. –Noha307 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind, I should have just searched it. It's covered by DOD Instruction 5230.24. There's also a chart laying out distribution statements and their corresponding reasons for use. Of the reasons, the only one that looks like it could involve copyright is for "proprietary information" (aka "proprietary business information" in DoDI 5230.24), which is used to "[t]o protect information not owned by the U.S. Government and marked with a statement of a legal property right". However, this only applies to distribution statements B, E and F, so it shouldn't affect my purposes. –Noha307 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ (1 April 2020). "Call of Duty Games Can Depict Humvees Without a License, Says Judge". The Verge.
  2. ↑ (2 April 2020). "Activision has a First Amendment right to use Humvees in Call of Duty". Ars Technica.

Photographs taken for state licenses - published? copyrighted?

Recently, I've been writing on English Wikipedia about a number of American architects who were active in early-to-mid 20th century. A lot of these folks have photographs from their Washington state architectural licenses, usually dating to the 1930s/1940s. Washington isn't a state that releases its own publications into PD, but these would have fallen out of copyright unless they were registered and renewed. I'm unsure what sort of PD license these would fall under, or even if they count as "published works" for copyright purposes. An example of such a photo is in this Seattle Times article. Generalissima (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You can look at Commons:Hirtle chart. The biggest issue is figuring out if the works are registered (esp. as not all registrations have been digitized yet). And i'm not sure how those licenses came by their photographs. If they were provided by a 3rd party, the 3rd party might have the copyright, irregardless of what state document the photograph was incorporated into. The primary work/copyright is the photograph here, the (scan of the) license is the derivative copyright of that photograph. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Any US photograph that was 'published' in 1963 or earlier, and on which copyright wasn't renewed, is in the public domain.
For a license photo, the question is really whether or not the photo was published before 1989. If architectural license photos were made available to the public, then the answer should be yes. If not, the answer is probably no. I don't know what the status of those papers were at the time.
However, here is your (probably) better route. I checked the Catalog of Copyright Entries, and it seems that no copyright was renewed (or registered) for the Seattle Times before 1978. Assuming the issues had notices, that means anything first published in the Times in 1963 or earlier should be in the public domain. That would include, for instance, the photo included in the 1950 clipping included in the article you reference.
Additionally, any photo of McAdoo created by USAID during his time working for that federal agency is in the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Can other users change the license if own work is considered to be in the PD?

I noticed that the license for File:Teishi-genkai.svg (own work) has changed from CC0 to {{PD-shape}}. Certainly, this is a simple geometric shape so I think it could be considered in the PD. However, I didn't agree to this license change in advance. In such cases, can other users arbitrarily change the license? If so, can this be applied even if the previous license is more restrictive than CC0 such as CC BY 4.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0? Momiji-Penguin (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Momiji-Penguin: To issue a license, you have to hold a copyright. You can no more license a public-domain work than you can sell the Brooklyn Bridge.
Also, if you granted CC0, you gave up all rights, so I'm not sure what you have to complain about. "This thing I said I'm making absolutely no claim to got changed" is kind of an odd complaint.
That said, they should probably have indicated something in the "permissions" area of {{Information}} more like "Momiji-Penguin granted CC-zero licensing for this work, but we believe that to be redundant because it is {{PD-shape}}." - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Jason Myers image

I apologize for making a copyright infringement, however this photo has a "Some rights reserved" on it, however the photo on Flickr.com, it allows redistribution, so can someone tell me what I did wrong? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You uploaded a photo licensed under a CC-BY-NC license.
NC-licensed files are treated as non-free ones and are not suitable for Commons. The same also applies for ND-licensed files. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
NC means "non-commercial", ND means "no derivatives" AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
It has a CC BY-NC 2.0 license, which you misrepresented as cc-by-2.5. COM:L, to which you've been referred thrice ([17][18][19]) not only says "Commercial use of the work must be allowed" (italics in original), but has a whole section on forbidden licenses and does not even really require literacy, as is depicted as " Not OK". Эlcobbola talk 01:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
OK so that means that I cannot upload that file, yes? Or I just put the wrong license? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
No, you can't upload the file here. The source literally shows that it's licensed under a NC license. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
OK I apologize thank you for putting up with me. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
👍 AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion request for some of my images

Hi!

Back then in 2019, I didn't know about the issue of election posters (whether they are FoP or not), so I would like to mark my images with a deletion request here, to close this issue. Some may not meet the TOO, but they can be sorted out in the request. Can someone mark these images with DR for me, please? I don't know how to do that, thanks :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You can use VisualFileChange for that. Enable the gadget in your preferences. --Rosenzweig τ 10:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, it's done :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We Animals Media

The not for profit organisation We Animals Media provides photos and videos under permissive licenses. A potential user can choose a "Non-Commercial License Type" or a "Special Non-Commercial Academic and Editorial Use Only License Type".

One of the differences between the licenses is that the Special Non-Commercial license prohibits works to be "used by nonprofit or charity organisation. Work(s) may only be used by individuals, educators, or for editorial use." Which I presume precludes Wikimedia?

The license is printed in full below, but the section on copyright reads. 

We Animals retains all copyright and moral rights attached to this Work(s) as well as any other rights not expressly granted to You in this agreement. Credit/Acknowledgement must be given in the format [creator name] / We Animals Media when the Work(s) is published, either with a picture credit, caption or a link/acknowledgement in the publication where the Work(s) is used.

Am I right in assuming crediting the photographer in the metadata with the uploaded file is sufficient if a license template with the information in sections 2 and 3 are included in the template and the template is used with the photo?

If the answer is no. Would the same be sufficient for upload to a specific Wikipedia?


I will paste the standard "Non-Commercial License Type" license here:

Non-Commercial Use License

This is a license agreement between you and We Animals Media that explains how you can use the Work(s) that you access from our site for the purposes indicated by you upon download. In consideration of our grant of this License, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Section 1 – Definitions.

  • Work(s) means the image or video clip licensed to you by We Animals.
  • You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this License. Your has a corresponding meaning.
  • Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this License that apply to Your Specified Use of the Work(s).
  • NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. Please be advised fundraising is considered a commercial use, and you are required to use our Commercial License for fundraising purposes.
  • Creator means the photographer / videographer who created the work(s).
  • Specified Usage means the intended use of the Work(s) you specify upon download.


Section 2 – Scope.

Subject to the terms and conditions of this NonCommercial License, the rights granted to you for use of the Work(s) by We Animals are:

  • Worldwide.
  • Perpetual. There is no expiration or end date on your rights to use the content.
  • Non-exclusive. You do not have exclusive rights to use the content.
  • Unlimited. You can use the Work(s) an unlimited number of times for the Specified Usage.


Section 3 – Provisions and Restrictions.

  1. Attribution. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 4 — Copyright in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Work(s).
  2. Adaptations. You are allowed to adapt, alter, arrange, transform, or otherwise modify the Work(s) to suit your purposes for the usage stated upon download, provided the adaptation or alteration complies with the terms of Subsection 3 - Misuse, below.
  3. Misuse. Work(s) cannot be used for any purpose that promotes or advocates for any industry, initiative, person or practice that engages in animal use or mistreatment, in each case as determined in We Animals’ sole discretion. For any breach of this subsection, We Animals may immediately revoke this License and terminate this agreement. We Animals will notify you in writing of such revocation and termination. You agree to cease all use of the Work(s). Continued use of the Work(s) after revocation of this License shall constitute intellectual property infringement, and We Animals reserves all rights and remedies available at law and in equity.
  4. No endorsement. Nothing in this License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, We Animals or others designated to receive attribution.
  5. Redistribution. You cannot sell, sublicense, and/or redistribute the Work(s).


Section 4 – Copyright

We Animals retains all copyright and moral rights attached to this Work(s) as well as any other rights not expressly granted to You in this agreement. Credit/Acknowledgement must be given in the format [creator name] / We Animals Media when the Work(s) is published, either with a picture credit, caption or a link/acknowledgement in the publication where the Work(s) is used.


Section 5 – Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.

You indemnify and holds harmless We Animals against all claims, liability, damages, costs and expenses stemming from Your breach of this agreement, the use of the Work(s), Your failure to abide by any restriction regarding the use of the Work(s), or any claim by a third party related to Your use of the Work(s).

The Work(s) is provided "as is" with no warranty regarding the suitability of the Work(s) for any purpose. We Animals is not liable to You or any person or entity for damages, costs or losses stemming from any usage of this Work(s). Unless delivered to You by We Animals, no model or property release exists for the Work(s) and You use the Works at Your own risk.


Section 6 – General Provisions.

  1. Equitable Relief: You acknowledge that Your breach of this Agreement may cause We Animals irreparable damages, for which an award of damages would not be adequate compensation, and agree that, in the event of such breach or threatened breach, We Animals will be entitled to seek equitable relief, including injunctive relief, specific performance, and any other relief that may be available from any court, in addition to any other remedy to which We Animals may be entitled. Such remedies are not exclusive but are in addition to all other remedies available.
  2. Severability. If any term or provision of this agreement is invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability will not affect the enforceability of any other term or provision of this agreement, or invalidate or render unenforceable such term or provision in any other jurisdiction.
  3. No assignment. You will not assign any of your rights under this agreement without our prior written consent. We Animals may freely assign or otherwise transfer any of our rights or delegate any of our obligations under this Agreement.
  4. Amendment and Modification. No amendment or modification to this agreement is effective unless it is in writing and signed by an authorized representative of We Animals.
  5. Governing law. This agreement shall for all purposes be governed, interpreted, construed, and enforced solely and exclusively in accordance with the law of Ontario, without regard to conflicts of law provisions thereof. You agree that exclusive jurisdiction and venue of any dispute with We Animals or its licensors, or any of their respective affiliates, officers, directors, employees, contractors, agents, representatives or suppliers, arising out of or in any way relating to this agreement federal and state courts serving the city of Toronto, Ontario. You expressly consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by such courts and agree that you will not object to jurisdiction of or venue in such courts on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, or otherwise.

-- Jabbi (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jabbi: No, that does not qualify as a free license. The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations. Wikimedia Commons doesn’t accept {{Noncommercial}}-only licenses, or restrictions against e.g. promotion of “animal use or mistreatment”. --Geohakkeri (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@Geohakkeri Thank you for your answer. Do you know if it would be okay to upload with this license to a specific Wikiepdia. Say the english? -- Jabbi (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
The license is either free or not. That is, all non-free licenses are basically considered as All rights reserved for the purpose of Wikimedia. It should be considered case by case whether the file complies with the non-free content policy of applicable WMF wiki. --Geohakkeri (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Creating new figure based on figures published in scientific papers

Hi all, I would like to draw some maps of what Earth looked like during geological time to illustrate the geological period pages. I can only do this by basing my new maps on figures from papers in scientific journals and/or websites. I plan to use two or three figures as the starting point and combine them into a new map. Is this allowed under copyright rules and if so how do I credit it correctly? Silica Cat (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Indicate those papers as references (see File:CAMP Magmatism in the context of Pangea.jpg for a good example of doing this correctly). Remember, information is not copyrightable, just its expression. There are probably a fair number of free-licensed maps here that you can use as starting points for your actual creation of an image. I'm not sure just what you would need, but we have things like Category:Maps of past tectonic plates and Category:Palaeomaps. - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! That's really helpful :) Silica Cat (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Are images extracted from non-free PDF files from Japan always unuploadable?

For example, extract the political party logo from this press release (I think this is copyrighted), and upload it to Commons is not accepted? The logo itself is the same as File:Logo of Democratic Party For the People.svg and is considered the public domain in Commons. Article 20 (1) of the Japanese Copyright Act stipulated the Right to Integrity. I think extracting the logo from this non-free press release and uploading it violates this right. So, even if the logo itself can be considered the public domain, if the PDF file is unuploadable, the extracted logo is also unuploadable, and I think the PDF file must also be uploadable, what do you think about this? Momiji-Penguin (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No, public domain items that happen to be included in a copyrighted work are not unuploadable when separated from the copyrighted work.
The right to integrity has nothing to do with this. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller: Sure, they do. The copyrighted work is merely the conduit.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
This is presumably in reference to Commons:Deletion requests/Some files in anime television series logos extracted from PDF files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
To be clear. Public domain items that happen to be included in a copyrighted work are uploadable when separated from the copyrighted content. Be careful, that you use the original published captions for the PD items, rather than those in the new work. Broichmore (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Are files licensed under this license acceptable?

The Digital Agency distributes illustrations and icons, which are licensed under this license.

The conditions of this license are that if the user has edited the file for publish, use, or redistribute, the user must cite the source and include a statement expressing that the content has been edited. This license does not require attribution unless the work is a derivative work. But not in any way that making public, using or making available edited information in a format that may be misconstrued as having been created by the Government of Japan (or its ministries and/or agencies). The file may be freely used, copied, publicly transmitted, translated or otherwise modified on condition that the user complies with the conditions, and commercial use of it is also permitted.

{{Zlib}} is acceptable to Commons, so I think that files licensed under this license are also acceptable, is this correct? Also, how should the license information be presented? Momiji-Penguin (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly fine. Much less restrictive than CC-BY, really. It should carefully note what files it pertains to... with Google Translate, the main site copyright policy seems to say that a "Public Data License 1.0" applies to content on the site unless a copyright notice is specified (which one technically is in the site footer), and does not apply to logos etc. That license also appears to be fine, and says it is compatible with CC-BY-4.0, but does appear to be different than the one you mention. It may be good to have some unofficial translations of those licenses, if possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
As stated at the beginning of the main site copyright policy, unless otherwise noted, work by the Digital Agency is licensed under the Public Data License 1.0.
And on 1.4 it states:

2. 具体的かつ合理的な根拠の説明とともに、別の利用ルールの適用を明示しているコンテンツ

This means something like "Content where other terms of use apply with rational and concrete reason" in English. I think イラストレーション・アイコン素材利用規約 falls within this exception. Momiji-Penguin (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if particular files have an explicit license just for them, that would override the site license. It all sounds fine, and we should probably have a copyright tag if we are going to copy many of those icons. The only official license text is in Japanese of course, which should be noted, but having some translation may help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I created {{DAIITU}}. Momiji-Penguin (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

New warning template for copyrighted interior architecture?

In many (most) countries where a Commons-compatible form of freedom of panorama for copyrighted architecture exists, it applies only to exterior views. So, it's for example perfectly fine to upload exterior views of Elbphilharmonie, but we can't host images of the interior such as the concert hall, see Commons:Deletion requests/Interior of Elbphilharmonie. In the case of Elbphilharmonie, a warning was placed manually at the top of the category page. But as this is a recurring issue that applies to all sorts of modern churches, concert halls etc. in countries such as Germany or Switzerland, I wounder whether a dedicated template would be useful, to be placed in the categories for these buildings, something like {{NoFoP-interior-category}}? There's {{NoFoP-category}} but this is for buildings / artistic work in countries that have no Commons-compatible FoP whatsoever (so, also not for exterior views). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure I remember seeing that restriction on most countries with FoP, but it's there for a few for sure. So yeah I could see a template for such cases -- even if just a few countries, that could be many building categories. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Definitely Germany & I believe Austria & Switzerland. That would be enough to merit a template. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Also the following: Türkiye, Spain, Poland, Venezuela, El Salvador, Colombia, Panama, Paraguay, and Chile.
However, is {{NoFoP-interior-category}} encompassing interior architecture only, or only interior public art? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Most countries that don't have freedom of panorama for interiors don't have them for any kind of copyrighted work in interior spaces - that includes architecture as well as other artistic work (sculptures, paintings...). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: The Europe map at COM:FOP has only four countries with FoP for public interiors (dark green): Portugal, Ireland, the UK, and Austria. Additionally in light yellow-green (how do you call that color?) the Netherlands, Algeria, and Tunisia (not in Europe but still on that map) for "some public interiors"; all other countries on the map have either no FoP at all (red), "buildings only" (but not public interiors; yellow), or FoP, but not for interiors (light green, such as Germany etc.) Gestumblindi (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
̼@Gestumblindi: I'm not sure that is what the distinction on the map means, exactly. The UK has FoP for other works (say statues) permanently placed inside buildings, if those buildings are open to the public -- I think that is what is more meant by "interiors", if the interior of a building can be considered a public place. The interior architecture itself, is far less clear -- the interior is part of the same architectural work as the exterior. Germany certainly has explicit language that only the exterior is part of FoP, and also language about where the photographer is located, but that type of wording is rare in laws. It may well be that any part of the architectural work is fine to photograph (and use commercially), including the interior, but any other works inside are not. It's always possible case law could create such a distinction, but not sure there have been many (or any) test cases on that. For countries where building interiors are not public places, photos focusing on works other than the architecture would violate FoP in the first place, and shouldn't be allowed here in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I have to agree that things are more complicated than the map(s) suggest. "Public interiors" can mean different things in different countries, and the definition of a "permanent public display" is also varying - what exactly means "permanent"? What are the boundaries of a "public display"? From where may you take the photograph? And so on... So, the Europe FoP map and the world map are certainly only an approximation, though a valiant attempt and still helpful, I think. - I don't know the status of FoP for interior architecture in the UK. But as you say, e.g. for Germany it's clear, and there are other countries like Switzerland where we know that such photographs don't fall under FoP, so I think such a template - to be applied where we are fairly sure - still would make sense. Just don't apply it to UK photos, for example, until we know more. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what to think of Template:NoFoP-category. Isn't the solution for these to upload photos to Wikipedia instead (at least for France/fr.wikipedia) but not mentioned there?
A similar looking template on categories that should actually have uploads seems like a terrible idea. Will recent US buildings have that too? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against adding something along the lines of "If your images are intended for use in another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia, and your local project allows for fair use, you might consider uploading the pictures there instead, if allowed as per that project's regulations", what do you think? - Regarding, US buildings, COM:FOP US says that FoP for architecture in the US applies to "interior public spaces" as well, so I think I would rather not use the new template for US photos (photos of non-public interior spaces would still not be allowed, but I think that's too specific for a template). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the note for France should be more specific than that. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
French Wikipedia has a "fair use" policy? For, of course, as France doesn't have freedom of panorama at all, you can't upload images there invoking the Lex loci protectionis (which is something German Wikipedia does for exterior views from countries without FoP - it doesn't have a fair use policy, as copyright law in German-speaking countries doesn't allow for "fair use", but it argues that you can show those images as FoP for a German-language target audience). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Reminds me of some user who planted Template:FoP-Switzerland on every street category. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Recordings of live performances

Hello! I have some recordings of parts of live performances such as classical works (opera Attila, ballet of Nutcracker, etc.) and folk concerts. (30-60 seconds in length.) Am I allowed to upload them here? If so, what options do I choose for the license? - Klein Muçi (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's presumably going to vary somewhat with different countries' laws; what country? (Still, my guess is that in most cases it will be a problem, because at least some aspect of the performance will be copyrightable even if the underlying work is not.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
In most countries where performances are copyrightable per se, they are sui generis copyrightable, not copyrightable as works, and the rights in the recording belong to the recording party alone (although there are sometimes requirements for splitting of royalties, where there are royalties, which there wouldn't be here). However, the main purpose of performance copyright laws is similar to 17 USC 1101 (which isn't copyright per se), mentioned by @Toohool - the performers need to have consented to the making of the recording.
So, basically, if you had permission to record, it is probably OK (at the very least the audio would be - video might contain new stuff). If not, it's not OK. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation! But in that case, what does one select in the uploading procedure when asked if it is completely own work or not? Is this considered my own work? Is it considered a mixed work? - Klein Muçi (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It may not technically be a copyright issue, but if you didn't get permission from the performers to make the recording, distribution in the United States (i.e. on Commons) would be forbidden by 17 USC 1101. Toohool (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel, @Toohool, just so I can give a bit more info, they're performances from Albanian singers in Albania, mostly from the w:en:National Theatre of Opera and Ballet of Albania. I noticed that the theatre's activity was almost non-existent here in media terms, be those images, videos or sound recordings, and I already had some media related to those and thought I could help a bit in that direction. - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Most countries these days have "related rights" for performers. The major right is typically one of agreeing to be recorded, without which a recording cannot be distributed, though Albania's law may go quite a bit further (it complies with many EU directives as they are negotiating to join). The current law is here; based on an English translation of a slightly earlier version, you would need to get permission to redistribute such a recording. The portions regarding related rights start at article 103 there, and the main restrictions are in article 109. It may be that the theater company (which may be the government) holds those rights. Secondly, if there is any copyrighted music or dialogue being performed, that may be a separate copyright that needs a license. You would have the copyright to the recording itself but is likely not be the only license we need. If you had permission to record, and there is no copyrighted content in the performance, it may be OK but look over that law. It may also be that commercial reproductions of the performance need royalty payments to somebody, which could also cloud things. I'm not entirely sure which rights would be assumed transferred to the theater, and which of those rights were given permission for.
1. The performers /executors have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit:
a. The registration of their performances and/or executions;
b. The reproduction of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;
c. The distribution of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;
ç. The rental of a phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;
d. The lending of phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;
dh. The import of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions, for commercial purposes in the domestic market;
e. The broadcasting of the interpretations/performances and their transmitting to the public, pursuant to the provisions of Article 29, letter ‘c’, ‘ç’, ‘d’, ‘dh’, ‘ë’ of this law, except when the interpretation/performances has been previously fixed or broadcasted. If the registration/fixation has been fixed on a phonogram or a videogram, the performer/executor has the right to a common and fair remuneration, for the other broadcastings and transmitting to the public of his/her performance/or execution. The common and fair remuneration, referred to in this section of this Article, consists of the remuneration received by the user of phonograms that belongs to the performers/executors and to the phonograms producer.
ë. Cable retransmitting of their performances and/or executions;
f. The availability in interactive way of the fixations of their performances and/or executions
Some of those are just for phonograms, but others sound like they may apply. Not exactly sure who would own those rights for the particular performance in question, or what licenses they may have given. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Klein Muçi: if you can get around the rights issues here, I would recommend that rather than wrestling with trying to describe this complicated case to the Upload Wizard you do one of two things:
  1. If you are comfortable filling out {{Information}} yourself, skip the Upload Wizard entirely and upload with Special:Upload.
  2. "Bluff" your way through the Upload Wizard (give the simple answer that it is your own work), then immediately after upload correct the file page to reflect the situation accurately.
The Wizard is simply not built for complicated cases like this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you all for your answers! They were pretty informative and covered everything related to my case. - Klein Muçi (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Would these qualify as public domain for Commons?

I've found a number of images I feel could be a good fit for articles from the old BC Ferries archive. [20][21][22][23]

From my understanding, all of these images are owned by BC Ferries, and as it was a crown corporation until 2003, these images would fall under section 12 of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) which states:

Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.

So from my understanding, all BC Ferries produced images from 1973 or earlier should be public domain. However, I don't know enough about Commons' proof of ownership standards and how it handles international copyright law to confirm they're suitable for upload. Emma0mb (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The date of the publication is important here. The images need to have been published by 1974. Ruslik (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
So assuming I can get confirmation of publication before 1974, it should be fine? Emma0mb (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it should. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

What's the license for a free image that cannot be used for commercial purposes?

and Is a image like that allowed on WC if it provides infomation about the subject?
Hydrogen astatide (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

To answer the second question: No, it is not allowed here, see Commons:Licensing#Forbidden licenses. [24] lists the CC licenses, among them those with a NC (non-commercial) clause. --Rosenzweig τ 10:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
If an image "cannot be used for commercial purposes", then it is not (in the sense used on this project), by definition, "free". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
@Hydrogen astatide: It is not free enough for Commons.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Per the text of one of the copyright tags, some pictures are uncopyrighted because they were, quote, published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years. In searching the loc.gov files for Ricky Van Shelton, it appears that no photos of him had their copyrights registered. From what sources, if any, could I get a picture of him that meets these qualifications and can be uploaded here? TenPoundHammer (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyrights aren't all that often at the level of individual photos. It is quite likely that he had a fair amount of press during this period, but that entire issues of a magazine or newspaper would have been copyrighted, not single photos. - Jmabel ! talk 04:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: So a back issue of something like Billboard or Radio & Records, if there's no copyright notice within, might work? TenPoundHammer (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer: I'd be astounded if Billboard didn't consistently have a copyright notice, but yes. - Jmabel ! talk 20:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: do you think you could help me find one or recommend other sources? TenPoundHammer (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I would not presume a PD image exists. I would think your best bet would be to try to get a free license from some amateur who might have taken a picture of him. Either that or see of there might have been publicity photos that had no copyright notice. - Jmabel ! talk 22:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer: See also en:Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial and Commons:File requests.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Paises de Ley en Comun

Buenas que significa Paises de Ley Comun en la Commons:Umbral de originalidad#Países de ley común?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: Países de es:Derecho anglosajón.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:Por ejemplo si publico un logo simple (ToO simple) creado en Venezuela es posible agregar {{PD-textlogo}},porque según en COM:Venezuela no dice claramente el "Threshold of Originality" en Venezuela pero es posible publicar a Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

US National Archives and Records Administration

I am wondering about the copyright status of images in Category:US National Archives series: Artworks by Negro Artists, compiled 1922 - 1967. The issue was previously discussed here. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If they are marked PD-USGov, they probably are incorrect, as mentioned in the old discussions. A good percentage are probably PD-US-no_notice or PD-US-not_renewed, but I'm not sure anyone has had the energy to go through them and do the research, and there may be some difficult decisions there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I'm guessing quite a few of these are probably legitimately PD-USGov from the WPA era. If anything, the lack of knowing in many cases whose work it was leans that way: the obvious ones (like Jacob Lawrence) are identified, but someone who never got famous and whose style wouldn't have stood out would have been "Negro artist working for WPA" and it's likely no one would have thought past that. But, yes, it would be very tricky almost a century later to work out who made what and under what circumstances. - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Warren Laity

Warren R. Laity was an American photographer of the early 20th century. He died in 1936, and thus copyright has now expired on all of his works.

His grandson, Colin Talcroft, owns some of Laity's original work — in fact, for some of these, they may be the only remaining copies. Mr. Talcroft scanned these in, digitally restored them, and posted them on his own website. So far, so good.

Then I found them and uploaded them to Commons, because their copyright has expired and because Warren R. Laity was a skilled artistic photographer and also some of his stuff has historic value.

Mr. Talcroft recently discovered this, and is intent on asserting that he still holds the copyright to these images, because he restored them.

Is he right? DS (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he died in 1936 does not mean that copyright has now expired on all his works. COM:US is far more complex than that, and anything first published 1929-2002 may still be in copyright.
Restoration is a complex subject; it's unlikely to create a new copyright, but if whole parts of the photograph needed it replacement or something, it could.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
If they were on public display (in , e.g., galleries or competitions), that would count as being published, yes? DS (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
That again depends on the circumstances. US courts ruled at the time that if precautionary measures had been taken to avoid copying by patrons, then mere exhibition to the public does not count as publication. This is explained in some detail at Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Felix QW (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
One image now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Capitol in the rain (Laity).jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/08&oldid=923169906"