Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/05

Free Videos with non-free license

Hello.Sometimes some YouTubers upload videos for free use without using the CC license.Examples:

1. ar:ويكيبيديا:مقاطع فيديو للتعريف بويكيبيديا (Videos and sources on Youtube):They were deleted although they are free as described in YouTube
2. DJ Nobili (A description in Arabic, English and French):Some videos without CC license

What is the proper way to take advantage of these videos?Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: The proper way is to get permission from the copyright holder(s) via OTRS. "free" is not good enough, please read COM:L.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Which tag do I need to use?

Hi everyone. This article of mine is currently undergoing an A-Class review.[1] One of the reviewers has asked me to add a tag to this image. Any idea which tag I should add? Thanks much in advance, - LouisAragon (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: I don't know if a tag is really necessary since it's such an obviously old building, but I guess something like {{Licensed-PD|PD-old-100-expired|CC-BY-3.0|attribution=Abdullah Fayad}} would work. Direct link to request for context: en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701)#Image review. clpo13_(talk) 15:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

EU copyright for simple clothing

Bye bye photos of jeans? https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/05/ag-szpunar-advises-cjeu-to-rule-that.html Nemo 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

copyvio tag - for not copyright holder

Hi, I would like to know which tag to use for photos which are uploaded to Wikimedia by non-copyright holder. The editor has indicated the photos (-1, -2,-3 and -4) were obtained by the subject -w:Howard_Dill' daughter - see HERE. Kindly advise and thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The answer is at Commons:Copyright violations. Nemo 06:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Nemo_bis Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Israel IDF flags

If I could get some more input on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of IDF Chief of Staff.png I would appreciate it. While not actually nominated as part of this DR the precedent set would affect highly used images such as File:Flag of IDF Chief of Staff.svg and by extension File:Flag of the Israel Defense Forces.svg which have clearly incorrect copyright tags on them. Other IDF flags that are used on many many pages would also be affected. Do we know when these images were created? If they fall under {{PD-Israel}} due to their age that would be preferable. --Majora (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Gib FA Logo FINAL RGB.jpg

I don't think this file has been released under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, but it probably is PD based upon Gibraltarian Heraldry and en:Gibraltarian Heraldry given that the primary imagery appears to be too old to be still considered protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Magic of the Bicycle (1965).webm

What should be the proper licence? It's a 1965 film, so according to the Hirtle chart {{PD-US-not renewed}} does not apply. {{PD-US-no notice}} seems to be applicable, but perhaps there is more suitable licence tag – please note that there is a statement at the end Presented as a public service by Arnold, Schwinn & Co, so IMO there is no doubt that the film has been in public domain since the beginning. Pinging the uploader: @Racconish. --jdx ^Re: 22:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It's {{PD-US-no notice}}. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

While {{PD-US-no notice}} is likely the reason the Library of Congress notes no known copyright restrictions, and I do not doubt the film's Public Domain status, I'm not at all sure that a statement like "Presented as a public service" would in itself be sufficient evidence that an author releases all rights to their work. Publicly available does not equal public domain: is there any relevant case study that says public service announcements are (or were) uncopyrighted/uncopyrightable? --Animalparty (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Does the threshold of originality apply to software UI elements?

Does the threshold of originality apply to software user interfaces?

For example, would a simple dialogue box be protected by copyright? Ixfd64 (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why it does not apply. See, for instance, this. I also think that that mentioned dialog window is below the ToO. Ruslik (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Possibly extensive Flickr photo theft / license-washing case

I just discovered that File:Dwerggans-3 (28031069054).jpg (& Flickr here) "by yves hoebeke" is a downsized copy of File:Anser erythropus.jpg (see in particular the original 2005 version of this file) by User:BS Thurner Hof, and with yves hoebeke's watermark added and without credit to BS Thurner Hof.

A google image search of other files by the same proved inconclusive; File:Dwerggans-1 (28615677816).jpg and File:Dwerggans-2 (28615678916).jpg found no other sources, but that included not even finding their Flickr originals, so clearly google search is ineffective for finding stuff on Flickr and perhaps elsewhere. This makes it difficult to determine whether all 1,253 yves hoebeke photos on Commons need to be deleted or not, and whether Yves Hoebeke should be added to the Flickr blocked list.

Thoughts, please! - MPF (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Hi,

EXIF data are faily consistent (Nikon DSLRs), but when there are not (e.g. File:Bronsvleugeleend-1 (28363171130).jpg, File:Gekuifde-hoenderkoet-1 (28363172170).jpg), the source should be researched. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: - thanks! I did image searches for those two; negative results, but the second one, google didn't even find this copy on Commons let alone the flickr copy, so a negative search means nothing. Is there an easy way of finding files with non-Nikon EXIF data, or is it a matter of cold searching every file? - MPF (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard Barrett Talbot Kelly

The artworks on this page are by Richard Barrett Talbot Kelly (1896–1971) and were painted in World War 1, while he was a serving officer in the British army. Am I right in thinking that makes them crown copyright, and that that has expired? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Was painting these a part of his official duties? Otherwise the copyright vested in Kelly and the term of protection is pma. 70, and so they would not enter the public domain before 1971 + 70 = 2041. --Xover (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If they were created under the control of, or published by, the UK government they would be crown copyright (the "official duties" part was not added until their 1988 law). If this was a private sketchbook donated only decades later, they would be a private copyright. The source says "artist's copyright", so that would be the presumption unless other evidence can be found. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

buildings being built or damaged

example

There is no freedom of panorama in some countries, e.g. France, but what about a building that's not completed yet? Something so crude that looks nothing like the architect's design? Or a building that has sustained significant damage? Do photographs of unfinished/damaged buildings violate someone's copyright?--Roy17 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It might depend upon who takes the photo. If you take the photo and there are no FOP issues, then you should be able to release it under a free license of your choosing and upload it to Commons. On the other hand, if the photo was taken by another person, you're probably going to need their permission to upload the file even if there are no FOP concerns. A photo a 3D structure is most likely going to be eligible for its own copyright even if the structure itself is not eligible for copyright.

As for how this pertains to France, it might depend on when a "building" is actually considered to become a "building". On English Wikipedia, the consensus appears to be that a non-free image of a building (such as an architect's rendering or a promotion photo) in the US or countries which grant FOP for buildings can be allowed for primary indentification purposes as en:Template:Non-free architectural work up until the building tops out; after that point, it's deemed reasonable for a free equivalent image to be created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose of any non-free one. Maybe France has some similar brightline where building under construction changes from being seen as a mass of steel girders to an actual identifiable structure. I'm not sure how it would apply in the case of a damaged building, but if the building is damages so severely so that it's unidentifiable or just basically a pile of rubble, then maybe it's no longer classified as a "building" so to speak. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

CC BY-SA 2.1 JP

Hi, I translated the illustration File:Flat_bones_-_anterior_view_-_with_legend.png on Commons, which has the above license. I can't find a way tot add this license so that it shows correctly and the file I translated, File:Flat_bones_-_anterior_view_-_with_legend af.png, is now nominated for deletion. How do I indicate the right license? Thanks. Burgert (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You can use this template https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-2.1-jp, by the way I have added the licence tag. Vulphere 10:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Burgert (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 15:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Helmet drawings/logos

I intend to have a friend draw simple pictures of several college football helmets with logos, and then upload them. In my opinion the logos themselves are uncopyrightable. Same with the simple helmet outlines. But I want this to be discussed prior to requesting my friend to draw the pics. I have a copyrighted picture from a specific source, will it work if I temporarily upload it now with the required source info, so we can discuss the images' status? Thank you, Rybkovich (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I altered the images and uploaded them -

- Can the combination of the white C within the blue ellipse, with yellow color of the helmet and the white stripe be considered as original? My take is no.

- Can the yellow "Cal" written in yellow font be considered as original? My take is no, fonts generally are not being copyrightable and the underline in this case is not enough for originality. Rybkovich (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rybkovich: We already have some images of helmets in Category:California Golden Bears football. Why the dashed line and off-angle crop?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 05:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Jeff G.: , there are no official PD images of the historic versions. Instead of simplifying the helmets in the pic, I'll ask my friend to do 3 basic 2D from the side versions. Rybkovich (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of how the helmet images your friend draws are licensed, there's really no good encyclopedic reason to use such user-created drawings of helmets in an English Wikipedia article about a college football team, and doing seems to be a bit self-serving and a type of image-related original research. If the designs of the logos on the helmets PD, then it would be much better to use something officially released by the team itself instead of something drawn by an editor. Your friend may be an really good artist and the drawings might be of high quality, but they would still basically be fan art and not really suitable for a Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

In this case, I find these drawings useful, specially if no good free picture exists, but they should be uploaded in PNG format. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I undid your undid :) There is not enough originality in the altered image that I posted, so it violates the copyright of the original. Sorry that my alterations in the description are messy. Rybkovich (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Copying image from pdf of a 1938 book

I would like to copy an image from a book published in 1938 for the infobox at en:Matthias Goethe. I have only seen a scan of the book available online at Trove (National Library of Australia). A download icon (fourth up from the bottom, on the left) allows downloading a pdf. The pdf includes a coversheet which asserts:

In Copyright

Reason for copyright status: Until 2051 (Creator Date of Death + 70 Years)

Copyright status was determined using the following information:

Creator Status: Creator(s) Considered Dead

Creator date of death: 1981

Material type: Literary Dramatic Musical

Published status: Published

Publication date: 1938

Page 6 of the pdf has the title page of the book which says it was published in 1938 by the Lutheran Book Depot, North Adelaide [Australia]. Page 345 of the pdf (344 of the book) has a photo of Matthias Goethe that is easily copied. I infer from the claim above that the book's author (or possibly the translator as it was originally in German) died in 1981 and the library believes copyright applies. Does that rule out copying the photo, or does its age allow it to be uploaded to Commons? Goethe lived from 1827 to 1876 and the photo shows a young man probably around 30 yo. The same photo (in worse condition, with different cropping) is here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, This is msot probably out of copyright, seeing that it was taken in the 19th century, and it was published more than 70 years ago. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you might check what I did at File:Matthias Goethe.png. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright URAA question

A film Poonji was released in 1943 in India and its copyrights are expired after 60 years i.e. 2003 as per Indian copyright law. The film poster is here. Does URAA restored its copyrights in US? I checked File:Pather Panchali.jpg and was not sure. I am asking for clarification because URAA is confusing.-Nizil Shah (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, The URAA status depends on the publication in USA. If it was published in USA at the same time as in India, it is probably free of URAA, but this is difficult to prove or disprove. Otherwise it is probably affected by URAA. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at w:Copyright law of India, I would think that the film poster copyright would be life+60, not just a flat 60 like the movie. And the URAA certainly did restore the copyright; I find the likelihood that in 1943 an India movie saw publication in the US within 30 days to be roughly zero.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

If the poster is signed by the artist, then yes, the copyright would be life+60, but it doesn't appear to be so, so the author is anonymous, and the copyright is owned by the producer. In that case, the copyright is publication+60. At least, that is the case for most Indian posters of that time. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Scans from Japan

User:神樂坂秀吉 asked whether scans of old books from Uni Tokyo can be uploaded on Commons. Can they claim copyright or some restrictions on these scans?--Roy17 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag (Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/ja or Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/zh-hant) and Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag say that we will accept them, provided they're in the public domain in Japan and the US (as per COM:L). Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#Japan says that there is no copyright on them in Japan. If the user is in a country other than Japan or the US (as they asked on the Chinese Village Pump) they may need to worry about local laws, though I would be surprised if anyone had trouble in a situation like this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Who does {{PD-USGov-NPS}} apply to?

This is related to Commons:Batch uploading/NPGallery. {{PD-USGov-NPS}} points out that a work must be "created as part of that person's official duties" for the template to apply. This clearly includes photographs by people who are employed by the NPS as photographers, but what about people who are employed by the NPS in other positions? For example, the superintendent, rangers and guides, etc. Additionally, does it matter if they take them during their work hours, or is being assigned to a park enough? Note also that in this specific case, the images are found on the NPS's content server, not a public photo-sharing site. BMacZero (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say that if they take the photos while at work, and they are published somewhere associated with their employer (vs. private Instagram or something), we must presume that the photos were taken as part of their duties (the alternative is to assume that they are playing hooky on the taxpayer's dime, by taking private photos while at work, and misusing public resources by publishing private photos on an NPS server). --Xover (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid criteria for all cases of pictures taken by government employees. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all, that seems reasonable to me. BMacZero (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it part of their duties? Given the ubiquity of cameras and cell phones, anyone could be called upon to take a few photographs as part of their job, or even take a photograph as part of doing something that's explicitly part of their job. But someone taking photographs not as part of their job will keep the copyright. Even on government time, if a ranger is sitting at a station with plenty of downtime and grabs his cellphone to take a picture, it doesn't seem to be a big deal or government copyright. Likewise, if the NPS wants a collection of photos, and some of its employees are willing to upload their own, I don't see the problem.

Looking at NPGallery, the status seems pretty clear; pages like https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/6f49c72a-60a9-4e3d-8996-a1ab096bbaa3 say "Public domain:Full Granting Rights", and https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/d0ffc423-bed1-4d31-8081-de76f22f2143 says "Restrictions apply on use and/or reproduction". (The ones I see marked restricted are also marked "annual photo contest entry", which wouldn't be government copyright.) I think we can trust that, and not worry about the details.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that idea! Unfortunately I e-mailed them about the public domain designations on the site and was told by a staff member that they aren't very reliable. User:Animalparty points out some examples that are sketchy on the Batch Uploading page. So I'm trying to rely on other criteria that are verifiable. BMacZero (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Official guidance is here and more nuance here. As far as I know, with the exception of rare, high profile assignments like Ansel Adams, NPS doesn't generally have a job title of "photographer", rather most photographs are taken by staff rangers, biologists, engineers, recreation officers, etc. during the course of their duties, broadly construed. Staff images that are published in NPS reports or webpages are almost certainly PD, while images taken while off duty are not. Works published on private media sites or apparently unrelated to official duties may or may not be PD depending on context. Works created by Federal contractors may not be PD. Public domain status of previously unpublished images from a ranger's camera or hard drive might in theory be challenged by the creator ("Taken just after my shift ended" or "I'm a soil scientist, so I retain copyright on that squirrel photo"). But in the absence of court rulings, DMCA takedown orders, or strong evidence otherwise, I'd say that a photo clearly identified as the work of a NPS employee can be considered PD. As always, the ultimate responsibility of determining legality of reusing an image falls on the reuser, per COM:REUSE and the General disclaimer. --Animalparty (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I fundamentally don't agree. We can rely on the Public Domain tags except when they're clearly copies of copyrighted works. Otherwise, we simply don't know enough to say they're PD, far from the COM:PCP. It's dependent on the facts of creation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you disagree with. Yes, context of creation matters. COM:PCP concerns significant doubt, although people may disagree on what constitutes "significant". The world is grey, not black and white, and images of unclear provenance should be treated cautiously as maybe, maybe not, as I wrote, but an image on a Federal website clearly identified as " credit: Jane Doe/NPS photo", when it can be confirmed that Jane Doe is a National Park employee, is pretty strong evidence for PD status. Unless explicitly licensed individually or on Flickr, etc., we rarely have a completely unambiguous statement like "this photograph of a chickadee was taken by Jane Doe as a Federal employees while conducting official duties on chickadee biology and is thus in the Public Domain" (but of course most Federal images were created long before Flickr was even a nascent idea). --Animalparty (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

If context of creation matters, and I don't have a clue about the context of creation, then it fails COM:PCP. It's not good enough to say that the work is done by an NPS employee. If we have a federal source that labels it as Public Domain, as these do, or we have strong reason to take them as PD, then that's good enough. We certainly shouldn't be shrugging and saying that it's the reuser's problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Did I do this right?

I'm kind of new to this−did I put the proper attribution / templates on File:WPVIDEOLINK flow chart.svg? It's a recreation (with slight changes) of File:WPVIDEOLINK flow chart.jpg. Eman235 (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I think you need to mention it in "Source" and the original author should be credited in "Author". Regards, Yann (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you! Eman235 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Permission obtained now which copyright do I use?

I'm rather new to this specific subset of trying to update images like this. On Facebook, a fellow ham operator (Brian Frank) was on a Parks On the air group and replied to my request about my interest in wanting images for the article that I'm putting together. In his reply to me, he said on the Facebook reply "Here’s my photo from yesterday. No copyright." giving me full permission to use this photo he took. Can you please tell me how to update this so that it's correctly recorded and stays in Wikimedia commons? Here's the file in question: File:Brian Frank POTA Activation 2019.jpg

Thanks,Zul32 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zul32: , have Brian Frank if he's the photographer contact COM:OTRS using one of the e-mail templates. That way, him releasing the photograph to the public domain can be verified. It might take a while though since OTRS has a long queue. Abzeronow (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Do I need the original uploader's permission to transfer a formerly non-free derivative work to Commons?

Suppose someone uploads a non-free work to a local wiki under fair use rules. If the work's original author decides to allow the derivative work to be released under a free license, do I need the uploader's permission to transfer the file here?

It's my understanding that users agree to release their contributions under Creative Commons when editing Wikimedia wikis. Does this apply to derivative works, or just text? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No, you do not need the uploader's permission. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks! Ixfd64 (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Vlada.mk - using images from there

Hello, website vlada.mk, which is official website for Government of Macedonia use this license "The content of this website can be published with citation of source and without special permission.", but I would like to know it is clear enough for uploading images on Commons or not? --Ehrlich91 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ehrlich91: I think, this applies to unmodified images only. We need a permission for derivative work creation in order to store images in Commons. Ankry (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: I will want to upload photo of our newly elected President, or someone else who has function in order to illustate articles, so I think that I can proceed with uploading, as these images are in original and without any modification. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ehrlich91: It is required for images on Commons that modifications and any use (not only publication) of modified and unmodified images are allowed explicitely. Otherwise, the images cannot be stored here, but only on local wikis that allow Fair Use images. Moreover, if you are not the copyright owner (presumably, the photographer) you cannot use on Commons a license that is different to the one declared on the source site. Otherwise, it is copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

So, in other words, given explanation on the website is not clearly enough for uploading these images on Commons with CC BY-SA 4.0. No, I`m not photographer, I would like just to upload these images. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Starboy (song), Is this cover allowed on the commons ?

Hello there,

I am just curious about the copyright status of File:Starboy Instrumental.flac, it is a cover of the original song by The Weeknd. But the the creator of this cover has marked it with CC BY 3.0 license, see this. I'm not a lawyer or interested in copyright laws but I read on google that you can compel the copyright holder to grant you license, you pay a fixed fee per copy of the cover that you sell but as it is under CC BY 3.0 (claimed by the cover author on soundcloud.com) I guess he/she doesn't need to pay anything. Ok, my final question is Can this be kept on commons, without any legal problem ? Regards, Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It might depend upon whether it's a straight cover version or whether it's new or different enough to be considered a derivative work. A derivative work would mean there are potentially two copyrights to consider: the one for the original song and the one for the cover. An artist who records a cover probably just needs to pay a mechanical license to be able to make the cover and distribute it; a derivative work based upon something still protected by copyright would need the explicit permission tof the original copyright holder to be created and distributed. Look at bullet point five in COM:VIDEO#Videos and copyright and also the information in Commons:Audio#A note about copyright since these might be relevant. Also, en:Cover version#U.S. copyright law might be helpful or even a website like this or this. The thing about Commons is that files uploaded to it cannot have any non-commercial use or other similar types of restrictions placed on their reuse; moreover, Commons won't keep a derivative work based upon a still copyrighted work without the explicit consent of both copyright holders. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on what I'm seeing when I search for this, cover songs aren't exempt from copyright, which gives the owner right to reproduce and distribute. It sounds like a band/artist is ok to perform cover songs, but as soon as it's recorded, a license is required. I don't think whether or not it's a derivative work really matters, since that would just add another copyright to contend with, when we haven't overcome the first yet. A faithful reproduction of a copyrighted painting is not, of course, a way to get around the copyright of that painting, and recreating a song (even without lyrics) is still reproducing a copyrighted work. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

More thoughts please

Would an admin address the copyright status of this file please? The file info says its authored by kndynt2099 the source reads "Photo by Nergene Arquelada". Am I missing something? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I filed a DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Megumi Nakajima performing at Nokia Theater LA Live.jpg since it appears clear that Arguelada is the photographer and this needs OTRS permission. Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Good, I meant to do it. No difference! --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Is permission from a reply in a group in Facebook enough?

If a user in Facebook replies to my query request for needing pictures for an article I'm working on, and they reply with permission to use theirs, regardless of if it's on their own website, or a picture posted in the user's reply, does that provide enough evidence to allow me to upload those/that picture to commons? I know that there's the OTRS, but the people that I've gotten this permission from feel that the lengthy email permission needed is very cumbersome/time consuming. Zul32 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What kind of permission were you given? Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, if the OTRS process is too cumbersome, the photographers can simply add the Creative Commons License (CC-BY-SA) in the description of their photographs, you would then be able to use them on Wikipedia. Skimel (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

So long as the release is public or in some other way independently verifiable, the Commons:License review process can be followed rather than waiting on OTRS. There are example of releases received on Flickrmail, twitter, direct email and every via having a verified telephone call conversation. --Fæ (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Pre-1994 Polish photographs

Have I missed something, or do {{PD-Polish}} and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland#Retroactive changes contradict each other? Specifically,

• [A]ll photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain in Poland.

vs

• [T]he retroactive Polish Copyright Law of February 4, 1994, Article 124, put all those images back under copyright protection for 50 years since the death of the author.

• An amendment passed in late 2002, effective January 1, 2003, retroactively extended terms to 70 years after the death of an author.

--Rrburke (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It's indeed confusing, but no, there's no contradiction: the template attempts to assert that those files were in the public domain in Poland by the URAA date and therefore copyright was never restored in USA even if it was later restored in EU by the (implementation of the) 2001 directive. Judging from Template_talk:PD-Polish/Archive#Discussion and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Polish, there was some controversy on this copyright notice requirement. Nemo 15:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Then it seems that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Agnieszka Duczmal Polish conductor.jpg was wrongly deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it. Opened an UDR. Abzeronow (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nemo bis: , @Yann: and @Abzeronow: for answering. I read those discussions, but they seemed inconclusive. Also, the part of the template I was referring to was the part that addressed the images' Polish copyright status.

Moreover, "Article 124 put all those images back under copyright protection." All what images? Only images that had previously enjoyed copyright protection? Or did it create retroactive copyright protection for all photographs, even those that had never had it before? According to @NickK: 's comments here, it appears to be the former.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my takeaway is that, in order for a pre-1994 Polish photograph to qualify as PD in Poland, there must be positive evidence that it was published before then without a clear copyright notice. So any such photograph lacking such positive evidence, including any whose publication history is unknown, would fail COM:L and fall under COM:Precautionary principle.

And in light of @Stefan2: 's comments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Agnieszka Duczmal Polish conductor.jpg, it would appear that the US copyright for at least some pre-1994 Polish photographs that are PD in Poland is murky. If Stefan2's points are correct, File:Agnieszka Duczmal Polish conductor.jpg was correctly deleted. However, I can't find anything on point to help determine whether they are correct or not. --Rrburke (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

After March 1st, 1989, all works by citizens of all signing parties to the Berne Convention got copyright protection in the US without any need for formalities, irrelevant of the status in the originating state. The URAA was irrelevant for those works, because they were still in copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll ping User:Masur and User:Julo who may have more insight on this. AFAIK, PD-Polish has not been challenged successfully, and is considered still correctly interpreted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pre-1994 Polish copyright law considered photos published without copyright notice as ineligible for copyright. The 1994 law was applicable for all post-1994 works and for pre-1994 works for which copyright has already expired according to earlier law, but that were covered by the new 70 pma period. This means that new 70pma law could not be applied to photos that were not copyrighted at all under earlier law (non existent copyright could not expire). AFAIK, this interpretation was widely shared in Polish court decisions.

This means, that photos that were published initially in Poland till May 1994 and that this publication was without copyright notice are not considered subject to copyright (they are ineligible for copyright), so they are PD in Poland. This exception applies only to photos.

@Rrburke: There is no contradiction here, as retroactivity applies only to works that were ever subject to copyright, while most pre-1994 published photos were never subject to copyright in Poland. The retroactivity applied eg. to literary works, paintings, sculptures or photos that were already published with copyright notice and likely to photos that were not published under earlier law.

According to COM:Hirtle chart Polish photos that were published after 1.3.1989 are copyrighted in USA 70 pma despite of their PD status in Poland (at the URAA date or at any other time):

• "Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978" / "1 March 1989 or later" / "Published without copyright notice, and in the public domain in its source country as of URAA date" -> Use the US publication chart to determine duration
• "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S." / "1 March 1989 through 2002" / "Created after 1977" -> Known author with a known date of death: 70 years after the death of author. Other works[1]: 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first

Ankry (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: Thanks. What about pre-1994 unpublished photographs created in Poland by Polish photographers? --Rrburke (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

If they were unpublished in 2002, they're life+70 in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not absolutely sure here. The 1994 law states, that it applies to works created under this law or those created earlier that would still be copyrighted if the new, 50 years terms apply (the 50->70 extension was in 2000). Theoretically this means, that pre-1994 photos without copyright notice are not copyrighted as they were not "works" under old law. But if they are published post-1994 with copyright notice...? Unsure.

General rules are: 70pma if author is known and 70 years since creation if author is unknown (anonymous) and the work remains unpublished during this period. Plus 25 years first publication right, if published post-2000. It is a bit risky as the first publication right might apply also to upublished pre-1994 photos. Rights belong to the publisher. I don't know if the first publication right was ever tested in a Polish court. Ankry (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

So the file I had in mind is File:Sobibór extermination camp (crop).jpg, which is a crop of File:Sobibór_extermination_camp_(05).JPG. The current license appears bad, since the work is a derivative (even though Poland permits FOP, I assume that displaying a copyrighted photograph, if it be such, in a public place doesn't nullify the rights of the copyright holder), but I'm still confused about both the Polish and US copyright of the underlying image. The photograph was taken in Chełm in 1944. As far as I can tell, the photographer is unknown. I can't find any information about its publication history. The physical photograph is owned by the Ghetto Fighters' House (see [2]). There's a copy at the USHMM[3] given to them by Misha Lev, but the source is the Ghetto Fighters' House. The copyright notice on that latter page states "Agency Agreement". I contacted both the Ghetto Fighters' House and the USHMM to inquire about the photograph: the latter didn't reply and the former told me they had no more information about the photograph beyond what is on the page linked above. The fair-use version I uploaded to EN about ten years ago, w:File:Sobibor Uprising Survivors.jpg, comes from the USHMM, so it was published online before then, but that's all I know. --Rrburke (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If copies were given out to the various participants in the photo, could very easily have been published at the time. There certainly seem to have been prints made a long time ago.[4] Not sure I would worry about it -- seems most likely it was PD per Poland's rules at some point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

2018 copyright term extension in Japan

The Japan government has extended domestic copyright term from 50 years to 70 years, and this change became effective on 30 December 2018.[5][6] Copyright tags ({{PD-Japan}}, {{PD-Japan-organization}}, {{PD-Japan-audio}}) have not been updated yet. My modified suggestion is that I replace "50 years" with "70 years", and append this, "However, if the creator died before 1968, or the pseudonymous work was published before 1968, its copyright expired before the term has been extended in 2018.". I don't think this is the best. Does anyone have a good idea? Darklanlan (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Darklanlan: the public domain in Japan has effectively been frozen for 20 years, no? I suggest replacing the "50 years after the death of the creator" with "the creator died before 1968".

Let someone else worry about how to re-phrase the template in 20 years when new works maybe (assuming no more extensions) start entering the public domain. You hear that, people of the future? This is your problem now! - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I'll just do so. Thank you! Darklanlan (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this new rule retroactively? What happens to the exisiting works in Commons with p.m.a. 1948-1968 ? We might need to have two templates? --Hannolans (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It's nonretroactive. Abzeronow (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"Threshold of originality" in Canadian law?

I noticed an upload of the logo File:Kabooment2013.png under a Creative Commons CC0 license; however, I don't see any indication that the person who owns this logo released it under that license (the file was apparently taken from Wikia). The logo is just text, so my guess is that it would fall in the public domain under American law. However, the logo is for a Canadian company, and I am not sure if the same rules apply under Canadian law, and I couldn't find the answer in a quick search of Commons policy. Does anyone know? Aoi (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aoi: It's very close to the US, please see COM:TOO Canada for details.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thank you for the quick response, it is much appreciated. Aoi (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aoi: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Non-commercial use allowed

Hello. Would images released under these terms of use be allowed on Commons/Wikipedia? The image I want to use is part of a press release on the corporate website of Saab (the aircraft manufacturer). Cheers, Thomas.W ^talk 11:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Commons, sorry no because they don't allow commercial use or derivative works, please see COM:L. Wikipedia, maybe, please see m:nfc.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks for the quick answer. Thomas.W ^talk 13:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright of paintings in Uzbekistan

I just uploaded a bunch of pictures of paintings I took recently in Nukus, Uzbekistan, from artists dead 50 years or more. I assumed Uzbek Public Domain law would apply, but I may be wrong because some of the works I uploaded have been listed for deletion already. Could somebody take a look at Category:Collections of Savitsky Museum of Art (Nukus) in order to determine the correct Public Domain template to apply? Thanks a lot Fabienkhan (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If the painter is Russian, Commons applies Russian copyright terms since Russia would very likely be the country of origin for the work, not Uzbekistan. Always check on the nationality of painters and the copyright terms of where they painted before you upload a file. Abzeronow (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It would matter where the paintings were first published (best guess is where was the artist living at the time they were made, unless there is documentation on exhibits or stuff like that). This one situation has a particular wrinkle in that if USSR is the country of first publication, it would be "simultaneously published" in all successor nations, at which point the country of origin becomes the one of those with the shortest terms, which could arguably well be Uzbekistan (50pma vs Russia at 70pma). We may gravitate towards Russia being the country of origin though on a more common-sense basis, if the author was in fact Russian. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the precisions. I indeed assumed that all works were published in Uzbekistan, which may not be true. Fabienkhan (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on logos from government agencies/bureaus in Japan question

I know that most, if not all, government agencies in Japan subscribe to the Creative Commons to release any images/data from their sites and all. Does this apply to logos that has the insignia/name of agency in English/Japanese? Here's one such example.

I also have the same copyright rules in Japanese from the Japanese MOJ.

（１）本利用ルールは，著作権法上認められている引用などの利用について，制限するものではありません。

（２）本利用ルールは，平成２８年２月３日に定めたものです。本利用ルールは，政府標準利用規約（第2.0版）に準拠しています。 本利用ルールは，今後変更される可能性があります。既に政府標準利用規約の以前の版にしたがってコンテンツを利用している場合は，引き続きその条件が適用されます。

（３）本利用ルールは，クリエイティブ・コモンズ・ライセンスの表示4.0国際（https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.ja） （※外部サイトにリンクします。このリンク先は，平成２８年２月３日現在のものです。）に規定される著作権利用許諾条件。以下「CC BY」といいます。）と互換性があり，本利用ルールが適用されるコンテンツは，CC BYに従うことでも利用できます。

Ominae (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Fredrikke Mørck.jpg, File:Fredrikke_Mørck.png, and File:Fredrikke Mørck - Original.jpg

I did a restoration of the latter image, and while uploading the restoration files, discovered the licensing is... odd. {{Cc-by-4.0}} on files with no known photographer, and without an explicit claim of who to credit. I think they're {{PD-scan}}, but I need to check. The user, Magnunor has some files of... dubious status like File:Trygve Knudsen.jpg, so I'd really appreciate a license check against Norwegian law.

Given Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Norway talks about the old photograph law - "Under the former photo law, protection ended 25 years after creation, provided that more than 15 years had passed since the photographer's death or the photographer is unknown. The image is in the public domain if this older term already had expired as of 29 June 1995." - I think we're almost certainly fine here, probably even for the Trygve Knudsen, but I'd like to be sure.

Please don't worry about my rights as a British restorationist - I'm very happy to release my rights in this case and any other that I haven't explicitly claimed them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we'd be fine with {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-anon-70-EU}} for good measure (Norway is in EEA). Nemo 06:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless these photos have been previously published (which seems unlikely if they are from the uploader's personal collection), and provided the original copyright had expired at that time, the uploader gains (rights equivalent to) copyright for the photos for 25 years from the time of publication (the upload date). They are thus entitled to license the images under any license, such as CC-BY-SA 4.0 as the uploader indicated. In this case the photos do not enter the public domain until 25 years after they were uploaded. Whether their original copyright had indeed expired is a trickier question, particularly for File:Trygve Knudsen.jpg. But absent obvious indications to the contrary, we may perhaps reasonably just presume that the uploader has correctly assessed this issue. If we really feel we need to determine their status in detail, the first step would be to email the uploader (they have email enabled and might be reachable) to get further details about the chain of custody, any previous publications, work for hire status (under the pre-1995 law, a work for hire photo would not vest in the photographer absent a specific instrument to that effect), successors in interest (heirs/estate), and so forth. We would also need to do a legal analysis of the intersection of the rules governing works that are anonymous, and unpublished, and photographic (anonymous and unpublished are separately regulated, and in the context of general copyright rules; while non-artistic photography is governed by separate rules that do not address anonymous or unpublished photos). --Xover (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Here is a similar case: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Florent2B. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Logo Nationaal Archief.png

Hi, I would like to find out what to do with this possibly wrongly licensed logo of the Netherlands National Archives. Currently, the uploaded added self|cc-by-sa-4.0, which in my opinion is not correct. If the uploader is the author of the logo, it would require an OTRS permission to establish that, but there isn't any present or in processing, as far as I can see. Probably a request for speedy deletion would be granted. But since it would be likely that someone else will reupload the logo in the future, I would like to establish if the logo possibly qualifies as PD-textlogo. In that case I can change the license at the file page. Regards, --oSeveno (User talk) 10:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I just discovered there is an other version of this logo on Commons: File:Logo Nationaal Archief 2018.svg, which has an OTRS permission. Is it okay to use speedy delete for File:Logo Nationaal Archief.png? --oSeveno (User talk) 10:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 10:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I created this gif animation based on a YouTube animation that had the right license

I just wanted to double check... do you think that the license is valid? WikiJunkie (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiJunkie: Yes, you used the {{YouTube CC-BY}} and everything looks fine to me. I've marked it as reviewed. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 10:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Trying to add a picture to a page.

I am new to editing on wikipedia and wikicommons. I am only doing it as a favor to an athlete. I have a friend who is an athlete and would like a picture of him uploaded on his page. He has sent me pictures so I can upload them. He is the owner of the picture. The picture was taken with his camera. I am just doing a favor and trying to post it for him because a picture would make his athlete page look more professional. Every time I have posted a pictures i get flagged for copyright and deletion. I need help in how to upload it. Or have someone else do it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerfiend11 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Soccerfiend11: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a smaller (<50KB or <5MP) jpg photo as a new user while leaving the summary intact. The photo you tried to upload is smaller, and you said it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a smaller photo, it is a copyright violation taken from the web. If you took the photo yourself, please upload the full-size original of it, including EXIF metadata. If you did not take the photo, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it, and have the photographer post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work or works on their website or social media presence or send the photo and permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you. If you change the summary or use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 19:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is the "United States public domain tag"?

I found a superb illustration for an English Wikipedia article.

The illustration's page on Commons states, "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."

The linked-to page, Copyright tags, might be an error as the page does not contain information about United States public domain tags. But it does contain enough information for the reader to find COM:TAG United States.

However, I cannot determine which tag to use for the Rothaug illustration. In addition, I don't know where to put the tag within the Wikipedia article that uses the Rothaug illustration.

Thank you for your help! Markworthen (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: , if it was published before 1924, it's automatically public domain in the United States, and you could use {{PD-US-expired}} for that. If it were unpublished, you could use {{PD-US-unpublished}} if it were still unpublished after 2003 since author died more than 70 years ago. COM:Hirtle will help you understand U.S. copyright stuff a little better. Abzeronow (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The Commons page needs a US PD tag. Unless it was published before 1924, I don't see why it is PD in the US. This is not necessarily a problem for using this in the Wikipedia page; it is merely a problem in Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! According to the information accompanying the image, the German artist died in 1946 and he did not publish or register the illustration in the United States. Therefore the "Unpublished works - Life of the author + 70 years" applies. (The preceding is my understanding.) Markworthen (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If it was published anywhere, it wouldn't be unpublished for the purpose of US copyright law. Except, possibly, in the Ninth Circuit, and even there him not publishing it in the US is not good enough; if his heirs ever let it be published in the US before 2003, it would get a copyright still in force.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's be one of the works that would have been public domain in the US, due to publication without compliance with US formalities, followed by restoration by URAA, in which case it would be copyrighted for 95 years from first publication. --ghouston (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: what "publishing" means depends on a number of factors I won't bore you with. The kind of publishing needed for "before 1924" is very flexible and we'll generally assume a work was published when it was created unless there is evidence to the contrary. This being said, there is no known date for this work so we know nothing. This is a typical example for Commons:Village pump/Copyright#URAA revisited in 2019 where we simply cannot know if this work is PD in the US or not. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: One could ask Christie's or the estates of the artist or former owners.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Dang, y'all are wicked smart! (Or, "smaht" if you hail from the Boston area. ;-) Thank you so much for all the insights and meaty info. Markworthen (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 08:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Avril de Sainte-Croix.jpg and derivatives

I think we may be fine here, but let me check. Henri Manuel was the official governmental photographer of the time, and the text rather sounds like it may relate to one of her Legion d'Honneur awards. The URAA doesn't put copyright into governmental bodies. That said, this is an awkward situation, as it's DEFINITELY out of copyright in France, but the lack of a definitive date puts this in a little bit of limbo as regards URAA. Anyone know French copyright well enough to say whether it's definitely one or the other? For example, was the extension of 1993 not retroactive to things that went out of copyright already? I think we can definitely restore this in 9 years at worse, at which point the movement out of American copyright covers the last date it can possibly be from, but it's a very valuable image, so if we can avoid that, it would be nice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi there. I just uploaded an image file which named File:Sajad Gharibi.jpg. I'm not sure that the image is consider as creative commons file or not. It's about a living person and the publisher website is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The image logo belong to main website and in a normal search you will find that the image publisher is the linked website. But, I ask you to help me to find am I right or I made a mistake? Thank you.Forest90 (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The image is covered by the CC-BY license only if Fars News Agency or its employee is the author of the image, which I do not know. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for review: Crown-copyrighted 10 Downing Street images with a permission of PD Mark

Hi, I am transferring some Theresa May's image to Commons. Flickr2commons says yes, but it seems that Public Domain Mark is not allowed here? --笔尖留痕 (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Crown copyright lasts for 50 years. Public Domain Mark is not a valid license, but I don't know if the Prime Minister's Office uses a free license for their photographs or not. Pinging @B dash Abzeronow (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

{{OGL3}} could be applied. See https://www.gov.uk: All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. --B dash (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If you can find the same image on that website? Their Flickr license varies, but is generally restricted, e.g., [7] is by-nc-nd, [8] is all rights reserved. --ghouston (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I just cannot find the same photo on gov.uk, or this discussion should not be raised and I will modify it to OGL. --笔尖留痕 (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

PD-Mexico incomplete

I suspect {{PD-Mexico}} is incomplete. It says:

This work is in the public domain in Mexico because either its author died before 1952 (Mexico had a term of 30 years after the author's death until 1982, and no copyright term extension in 1982 or later restored copyright to expired works), or it is a work of the Mexican government and it was published more than 100 years ago.

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico:

• Copyright extensions were not retroactive and in 1963 (not 1982?) all terms became life+50.
• In 1963 all terms became life+50, so all artistic works from 1932 and scientific works from 1912 and older should be PD.
• In 1994 life+50 became life+75, so works of which the author died before 1944 are PD.
• "On the URAA date (1996-01-01), the Copyright Act of 1982 was still applicable." but what about the 1994 extension?
• Government works created before 1963 should be PD.

But someone should probably check the laws. (preferably in Spanish) Pinging @AlvaroMolina, Howcheng, Discasto. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm only es-1, best to find someone a bit more fluent. —howcheng {chat} 16:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Howcheng: your user page says you're es-2. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It's possible that we missed a law change somewhere. The one reference I have for the 1963 law is here, and it says they extended to 30pma at the time, not 50pma. But it's possible that was not the final law, since I think that link was during the debate stage. However, this link says it was 30pma then. And indeed, that links here to the official diary, which also says 30pma. They did have multiple attempts at passing a new law after they joined Berne in the 1970s, but did not actually pass it until 1982. It's possible they were at 50pma earlier, but I'm not sure we have a good reference which says so. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Looking at the sourced reference on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico, it mentions the 1963 law, but the actual law text excerpts there are taken from a 1983 law compendium, meaning that is the 1982 law, not the 1963 law. Footnote 6 of that references says:Las versions completas de la legislación citada pueden ser leídas en Legislación sobre Derechos de Autor, colección Leyes y Códigos de México, Editorial Porrúa S.A., Ciudad de México, 2a edición, 1983. The 1963 law extended terms to life+30, not life+50. The 1982 law extended to life+50. So Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico is mistaken, and {{PD-Mexico}} would appear to be correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Thanks for looking into it. What about artistic works from before 1933, scientific works before 1913 and government works before 1963? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Registration requirements were not relaxed for pre-1948 works, though you had six months in 1948 to register PD works to get copyright back. So if they were registered by 1948 or were first published 1948 or later they became 20pma, and 30pma in 1963, and 50pma in 1982. If copyright expired at any point for any of those reasons, I think it's still PD today, but otherwise it would be 100pma due to the later extensions. Did not look into government works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Kurzman David.jpg

Am i wrong with adding {{Disputed}} to the page of this file? Is the license {{PD-Polish}} correct? See file talk page there. Thanks! --Migebert (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't have full information on the photo. So the question is whether there is a reasonable doubt that the photo is free (which would rise to COM:PRP), or it's just theoretical. The man sounds like he was fairly well-known, lived his entire life in Poland, and died in a concentration camp in WWII. I think it's more than reasonable to assume the photo was published either in his lifetime or in the 50 years after he died. The odds of it being unpublished for that time are pretty low -- and if it was unpublished, it would have expired 50 years after creation under their 1994 law. So it was virtually certain to be PD by then, published or not. And also free for the U.S., since it would have been PD in 1996. The only chance it is not OK is if we find the name of the original photographer *and* we find that there was a copyright notice on all the authorized publications of it. Or if there was some very fortuitous timing in being first (legally) published long after being taken, but less than fifty years. Those are just theoretical doubts to me, so PD-Polish is (by far) the most likely tag and a reasonable assumption, with no specific information being presented to the contrary. So... I wouldn't spend much time on it, unless you find more specific provenance information, such as the name of the photographer, or evidence it was published in another country first. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Bulova logos

The Category:Bulova contains four logos that are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license:

• File:2014 Bulova logo.png
• 
• 
• File:2014 BU Corp logo.png

I seriously doubt the uploader is the copyright owner. What can we do?--Carnby (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If we think the uploader is associated with the company, which may make the license valid, then nothing. If that's too much of an assumption, change to {{PD-textlogo}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Carnby: We could also ask @IntrigueBulova, but I think those logos are below COM:TOO US.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I decided to change to {{PD-textlogo}} and add {{Trademarked}}. Is it right?--Carnby (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Carnby: Probably.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright ownership transferred as part of an inheritance

I have a question about two photos uploaded locally to Wikipedia under {{Cc-zero}} licenses. The files are en:File:Count Alexander Mohl Second Lieutenant 13th Regiment of Wilno Uhlans.jpeg and en:File:Count Alexander Mohl in Polish Diplomatic uniform 1936.jpeg. The uploader says that the photos were taken during the 1930s and that everyone associated with the taking of the photos is dead. The uploader said the photos were inherited by their mother from her father (i.e. the uploader's grandfather) when he died in 1956, and that he then got the photos from her. The photos are apparently the only remaining copies and all corresponding records of them were destroyed many years ago. Since Wikipedia doesn't have any local equivalents to {{PD-heirs}} or {{Cc-zero-heirs}}, I'm wondering if these files can be either moved or re-uploaded to Commons and then re-licensed as one of these two licenses or perhaps as something else from Category:License tags for transferred copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

* According to Commons:OTRS: “When contacting OTRS is unnecessary: I created the file myself, it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright. Just follow the instructions found on the Commons:Upload page, unless the image/ file is of outstanding or professional quality or there is some other reason your authorship may be doubted.”

The uploader could have chosen CC0 as license, without adding him/herself as copyright owner. Most likely, the copyright was not transferred explicitly in a will or deed by the original copyright owner/the author. So stating you're the source and owner of the images could be enough. Once you claim copyright ownership, other or additional rules start applying. More important, uploader not stated what date (or within what period) the photo's were taken. How can we tell how old they are? Therefor we can not establish if they qualify as public domain. Also, stating "Photo belonging to ..." is not the same as it being the source of the photo. And Wikipedia/Commons require that the source is stated clearly. Ownership doesn't necessarily mean you're the source for the uploader. The best license would probably be PD-anon-70-EU. I would recommend the uploader to change the license as the current being a mistake. And add the period in which the works where created. And add him/herself als source/sole owner of the images. If the owner likes, he/she could add something like 'Collection of family X' or 'Private collection of ...'. --oSeveno (User talk) 09:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

PD-anon-70-EU is wrong; that would only be if they were revealed to the public 70 years ago. If so, it seems much more complex, and we'd need to check if the publication was actually anonymous. If they were private, then anonymous wouldn't apply.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

In that case there is no reason not to apply “speedy delete”, since the uploads lack several basic requirements. --oSeveno (User talk) 10:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

PD-heirs (and other variants of "heirs" licenses) means that the pictures were released by the heirs of the actual copyright owner, that is, the photographer in most cases. So, for example, if my grandfather made a picture, my father inherited it (and the associated copyright), and then I inherited it from my father, I can give a PD-heirs release or other free license (if the image is still protected by copyright). From your description, it doesn't seem to be clear that the images were made (photographed) by the uploader's grandfather, and they rather look like professional studio photos. So it seems to me that any kind of "heirs" license would be wrong and the question is rather whether these images might be in the public domain anyway. It will depend upon the death year of the actual photographer. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@OSeveno, Prosfilaes, and Gestumblindi: Thank you all for taking a look at these files and trying to help sort out the licensing. I asked the uploader once again at en:User talk:Gzegosh#File permission problem with File:Count Alexander Mohl Second Lieutenant 13th Regiment of Wilno Uhlans.jpeg for help in clarifying the original source of the photo, so maybe this time they'll respond. The files were uploaded locally to English Wikipedia, but I thought they might possibly be OK for Commons based upon what the uploader posted on their talk page about the photos being inherited by his mother. I'm not sure if that means just the physical photos were inherited or that the copyright ownership over the photos was inherited. Since the uploader claimed to have copyright ownership over them by releasing them under a {{Cc-zero}} license, I guessed that copyright ownership being inherited might be the case. That cc-zero license, however, could have been applied by mistake and only the physical copies of the photo were what was passed down to the uploader's mother. Anyway, from what the uploader posted, the photos are from 1932 and the records of the photos as well as most of the people associated with the photos was either destroyed or killed during WWII. The "sitter" (which I think means the subject) of the photo died in 1956; the uploader's grandfather also died in 1956, but it's not clear if he is the person shown in the photo.

If the photos are assumed to be "unpublished works" and there's no way to determine who took them, then it seems they would need to be at least 120 years old to use {{PD-US-unpublished}}; so, being from 1932 means they would not be PD for that reason, right? At the same time, if the photographer of the photo can be determined and shown to have died before 1949, then it might be possible for these to be licensed as {{PD-old-70}} unless Poland (assuming that's the country of origin) has a en:post mortem auctoris or pma of more than 70 years. If the grandfather was the photographer and he died in 1956, then only 63 years would've passed since his death and the files would not be PD, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC); [Note:Post edited by me (=Marchjuly) to add a very important word which I left out. -- 22:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)]

1932 is 90 years ago, not 120. Assuming it's unpublished and anonymous, it's still copyright for another 30 years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Thanks for catching that. I intended to post "would not be PD for that reason", but forgot to add the word "not". Sorry about the confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

One more reason why the Commons servers should be moved to a country with more common copyright laws. One that actually adheres to the copyright treaties they have signed. The point-of-view that Wikimedia is American and therefor the servers should be too, is in contradiction to the Wikimedia claim of being a global project, serving the world. If the servers where in the EU, these photo's would most likely be Public Domain. --oSeveno (User talk) 10:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

In what way does the US not adhere to the copyright treaties they have signed? That's what the URAA was about, bringing the US into full agreement with the Berne Convention. The argument is complex and frequently had, but the Commons servers are simply not going to be moved. There are many differences between various national rules, even among the EU, including how anonymous works like these are handled.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

For stuff like this... it's arguable that the photographer giving copies to the subject constituted publication at the time. While some circuits differ, one definition of "limited publication" (the type which does not lose copyright) is distribution to a limited set of people for a limited purpose, with no right of further distribution. If any of those was not met -- such as placing no particular purpose on giving these to the sitter, or not restricting further distribution -- that would be general publication, presumably without notice, which would have lost copyright immediately. If not, then it seems most likely that the common-law copyright was transferred to the sitter, meaning it would still be unpublished but the heirs would own the copyright and can license it. Assuming unpublished status, while also denying copyright to the heirs, seems more like a theoretical possibility rather than a reasonable one. Assuming publication is reasonable, as is heirs owning the copyright (the ownership of commissioned works was messy in the U.S., and I think it really wasn't until the 1950s or 1960s that courts began to rule more consistently that transfers needed to be explicit, codified in the 1978 law). I don't think it makes sense to find reasons to delete these, when there are reasonable assumptions that can be made, given the lack of information. If a family member or photographer can give better information, we could revisit at that point. Really, the odds of problems with stuff like this are a lot less than assume-good-faith regular uploads, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• @OSeveno, Prosfilaes, Gestumblindi, and Clindberg: I appreciate all of the input. I tried to get clarification from the uploader about the "source" of the files, but never got a response. Anyway, the files have been deleted from Wikipedia, but they can most likely be restored per en:WP:REFUND if their licensing can be sorted out. If Commons can somehow host these, the best think might be to get the files restored and then move or re-upload them to Commons. Perhaps a Wikipedia admin can restore and move the files in one step. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any "PD-heirs" or "CC-zero-heirs" licenses, but maybe there's an equivalent that could be used instead if the files cannot be moved to Commons for some reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Questions on Files uploaded by Ton1-bot

I recently seized a batch of files without any sources uploaded by User:Ton1-bot, and filed a deletion request on them. However, some pointed out that at the time the files were uploaded, there is no any templates for the user (who operates the bot) to mark the files, and it is said the user also explained that the files are self-made implicitly (per here). Is such reasons acceptable? Would anyone who is more experienced consult on this? Thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

We do try to assume good faith, so we would accept a self-made claim unless there was evidence to the contrary (e.g. find attributed authorship of the photos elsewhere on the web to multiple different photographers, disproving the claim, that sort of thing). A claim of self-made is a source unless proven otherwise. It appears that most/all of those files predated the OTRS requirements (see COM:GOF), so that is not a concern. From spot-checking a number of files, it appears that the ones with EXIF all seem to have one of two camera types, which would tend to indicate they were done by one person. Given the age of the uploads, I would not delete on any missing formalities which are normally seen on uploads today, but only on concrete evidence of something being wrong (such as EXIF with a different author name, or finding the images on the web which predated the uploads here with a different author, that sort of thing). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 DoneDeletion request withdrawn, pending for administrator closure.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:President.az

The license seems to be wrong. Hanooz 10:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding CC-BY-3.0 and derivative works

Hi everyone, John here. I have a question regarding works derived from Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 images. This file is licensed under cc-by-3.0. If I manipulate the image to look like an actual screencap, would the final result be considered cc-by-3.0, or would it be considered a copyright violation? I'm posting this question here, because I haven't been able to find a definitive answer in FAQ: Copyright questions. On the right, I've posted a series of images to give a general idea of what I'm proposing to do; my apologies to the community if these pictures violate official policy. Any clarification on these issues would be greatly appreciated. Thanks all, John. CrossPlains (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The only license we have is for the photograph itself, with no rights over the animation cell artwork. The animation cell's use in the photo would have to be either fair use (likely) or de minimis (doubtful) to be legal. The more you focus on the cell and get away from its use in the original photo, the more you are a direct derivative of the animation cell, which would be an unlicensed copy, and a copyright violation unless your use itself is fair use. The last three in your series are absolutely not OK, with the last one really having no relation to the copyright in the photo at all, but rather a direct copy of the animation cell which is entirely unlicensed. It may be possible to use it in a fair use manner somewhere, but those are definitely not OK for Commons, and even the original photograph may not be OK either unless that cell is blurred somewhat. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Schools Out (1930)

How can we be sure that the copyright for this wasn't renewed? Searching the copyright office is pretty difficult. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The Lucky Corner states: "It appears that MGM either failed to copyright this film back in 1930, or copyrighted it under a different title. Because of this, it is treated as a public domain film." However, some music used in the film still appears to be copyrighted. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The copyright renewals are online; you can find an index of them at https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ . For a 1930 movie, it would have needed to be renewed in either 1957 or 1958, so you can go through the motion picture renewal sections for those years (there were typically two volumes per year, one for Jan-June and one for July-Dec). If you can find a renewal record, then the images are not OK, and if not they likely are fine. Someone would have to find a valid renewal record somewhere to delete them. As mentioned, video clips can be more problematic due to separate copyright in music etc., but screen capture image should solely be based on the film's copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Provenance of File:Flag_of_the_City_of_Nassau.png

File:Flag of the City of Nassau.png was uploaded with the description "Flag of the Districts and Islands of the Bahamas found on a governmental page of thebahamas.gov", and also claimed as "own work". The site "thebahamas.gov" does not seem to exist, and I have not been able to find anything about flags of districts and islands on the official Bahamaian government site "bahamas.gov.bs". I have also been unable to find any image for a flag for Nassau in a Google search, although I did find a site that stated that, as of 2003, there were no official flags for the districts and islands of the Bahamas. If this image was taken from the Internet, then I think we need an accurate link to the original to determine its authenticity. If this image was created "de novo" by the uploader, that should be made clear in the description. If the image was created by the uploader, and is not based on an official flag, then the image needs to be removed from where it is used in the English Wikipedia article about Nassau. - Donald Albury (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be a squished version of File:Coat of Arms of Nassau, New Providence.jpg placed on a generic British-derived flag. But I don't know the provenance of that either. Agree there should be some kind of reference. Tineye finds nothing and Google Images finds only what looks like to be images copied off of Wikipedia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for checking that. I have left a message for the IP who added the image on enWP, asking for a link supporting the existence of the flag. I'll go to the user who uploaded the image here with the same request. - Donald Albury (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

And now the user has replaced the image of the flag, with an image of the shield of Nassau, which duplicates File:Badge_of_New_Providence.png, with the edit summary, "This is the current flag, previous was the flag until 2010." He also has uploaded a whole bunch of images of flags, such as in Category:Flags of the Districts of the Bahamas. - Donald Albury (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we would need some references. The other crest did appear at least as far back as 2008 on the Bahamas.gov.bs website as the crest of the New Providence island, so there may be some backing for that (though the image was straight copied, so not as sure of the PD status). But that puts a 2010 claim into pretty serious doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Countries with unknown threshold of originality?

What's the procedure when the threshold of originality for a country is not indicated? Are we allowed to make assumptions?

Would I be correct to assume that the precautionary principle would require us to assume a low threshold? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

For former colonies I would assume that the threshold is similar to that of the former colonial power. Also (and this largely overlaps), Commons:Threshold of originality makes a distinction between countries whose legal system is based on civil law and those based on common law, see List of national legal systems. Common law countries typically have a low threshold of originality and civil law countries have higher (more permissive) thresholds. Are you considering a specific country? Verbcatcher (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't looking for information on a particular country, but I did notice many simple logos on Wikipedia are being marked as non-free. I think going by the country's legal system is a good guideline. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 09:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)