Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/04

Mistake about license

Hey- I uploaded a file [1] that should actually be under a different license (if it can be used at all). I originally thought that the map was a US gov product (like many other maps in the series), but it's actually a Survey of Pakistan product. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: That looks pleasantly simple to me. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Pakistan says that Pakistan government works fall out of copyright 50 years from publication. The map claims to be a Pakistan government work and seems to have been published in 1967, so I think {{PD-Pakistan}} applies. I've updated the description accordingly. --bjh21 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, except for [expletive] URAA of course. ISTR we have odd practices for URAA as applies to goverment works, though. --bjh21 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the URAA would have restored government-made works, based on the terms of the Berne Convention, though whether US law permits Pakistani government works is a different story. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Uploaded a new one of these with this license [2] Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bjh21 and Brainulator9: Thanks all, I am learning a lot. Now I want to upload a map printed in March 1957 that has the southernmost point of the Soviet Union as well as the northern part of the Afghanistan-Iran border (right above the map I was discussing above). [3] is a Army Map Service product that has some wording on it about the Survey of India and the words "British Crown copyright reserved".  Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India says 60+ years, and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United_Kingdom says that Crown copyright on everything before June 1957 expires after 50 years. Would I need to add multiple licenses to this page when I upload it? Any recommendations? Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: : I would go for multiple licence tags. The note at the bottom of the map says it's based on a 1941 Indian map. In 1941, Indian Government copyright was 50 years, but this was amended to 60 years on 28 October 1991, just before the copyright in a 1941 map would have expired, so I expect the 1941 map's copyright expired at the start of 2002. The changes made by the Army Map Service would be in the public domain as US federal government works. Based on the logo at the top of the map, it looks like the Army Map Service was part of the Corps of Engineers. I expect that the UK Crown copyright became Indian Government copyright on Indian independence in 1947 or 1950, so I think the reference to HMSO is an anachronism. In summary, I think you want {{PD-India}} and {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE}}. Again this assumes that we don't care about URAA for government works. --bjh21 (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

How to submit album cover properly

I am creating a page for a studio album. I have taken a scan of the album cover since I own a physical copy and made it into a jpeg since most of the images available on the internet are of very questionable quality (the size of my scan is still small so it can't effectively be reproduced). So I created the file, but it doesn't contain my own work, the copyright I believe belongs to the record label. So do I upload it as "this file is not my own work" then credit myself as the file creator? Although there doesn't appear to be the proper copyright license in that form. Or do I upload it as my own work then note that original copyright belongs to the record label? I saw that there is a rationale temaplate called "Non-free media information and use rationale" that applies directly to this album cover file I want to upload. I'm mainly asking what options to choose and what to say when filling out the initial upload form, as to not violate any ToS; or if I'm even allowed to do any of this to begin with.

Would it be better if I found it on the internet then credited the original website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecstaticaaron (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Ecstaticaaron (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the copyright does not belong not to you but to the record label, you may not upload the cover without a permission of the record label. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ecstaticaaron, you would not be allowed to upload this file to Commons unless it is either so simple to be ineligible for copyright (unless it's the White Album, unlikely) or the copyright holder has explicitly released it under a free licence. See Commons:Licensing for more information. You may be able to upload it to Wikipedia as fair use for an album article though. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Permitted licenses for data?

I've been looking at the possibility of uploading some map shapefiles which are licensed under the UK Open Government License - {{OGL3}}. In general, OGL is treated as compatible with CC-BY, and we are happy to treat it as a fully free license for Commons (we host about 30,000 OGL files, plus another 20,000 tagged as {{OS OpenData}}, which seems to be the same thing in a different wrapper).

However, Commons:File_types#Data_files says explicitly that only certain licenses are permitted for data files - versions of CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or ODbL. So my question is - is this a specific technical limitation, or are "CC-BY-like" licenses permitted as well? I don't want to go to all the effort of processing and uploading if they'll have to be deleted again, of course. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

(@Jheald: - I think we chatted about this a few months back but I don't recall what we decided! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC))

According to Commons:Licensing the list of allowed licences is not closed one. All licenses that satisfy the requirements therein may be used. Indeed OGL is used for a lot of files. Ruslik (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Thanks - I've tried to upload one with OGL. Unfortunately there seems to be some kind of data-specific limitation - trying to upload a datafile with eg "license": "OGL-3.0", gives an error message:

Error: Parameter "license" must be one of the valid license codes, for example CC0-1.0, CC-BY-1.0, CC-BY-2.0, CC-BY-2.5, CC-BY-3.0, CC-BY-4.0, CC-BY-4.0+, CC-BY-SA-1.0, CC-BY-SA-2.0, CC-BY-SA-2.5, CC-BY-SA-3.0, CC-BY-SA-4.0, CC-BY-SA-4.0+, ODbL-1.0

So it looks like the restriction to these specific licenses might be hardcoded somewhere. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You should try the old upload form. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Data files aren't uploaded in the same way as image files - they're text pasted straight into a page in the Data: namespace. (I should have said "tried to create one"). The upload form isn't involved anywhere. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to add these licenses filed on Phabricator - phab:T249411. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hitchcock family photo from the 1900s

This image is from enwiki (en:File:William_Hitchcock_with_boy_and_pony,_c._1900.jpg), it shows the photograph of William Hitchcock's grocery store with the boy riding a pony was taken in 1900. In fact, this image had uncertain copyright concerns unlike the public domain in the UK. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/01#William_Hitchcock_photo. Unless the photographer was known, it is likely PD in the UK. It would have expired in 1951 originally, but the restoration in 1996 would have affected it if the photographer was known before 1971, otherwise it likely remained PD in the UK. The question would be the U.S. status -- the earliest known publication was a 1981 U.S. book; if that is the case then it's possible it's under U.S. copyright until 2047 due to a transition rule. But that book supposedly had a credit from the British Film Institute, meaning they would have needed to obtain it somehow earlier, which means it could have been published earlier, and if that happened without notice it became PD then. Or if the BFI never got ownership transferred from an actual copyright holder, it may *still* be unpublished technically, which would mean it would expire in 2021 in the U.S. (again unless the author is known). I'm not sure the tortured definition of "published" in U.S. law should prevent its upload here, though waiting until 2021 would pass one of the possible cases, by being more than 120 years after creation, and also qualify for {{PD-old-assumed}} in case the author was known. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the meaning of Anticopyright notice?

The following video: Trump vs Coronavirus 'Hoax' https://www.transcend.org/tms/2020/03/trump-vs-coronavirus-hoax/ The site says: "website with an Anticopyright notice"

Does it mean it can we can upload it? If so can someone please upload it? I am afraid this video will soon disappear. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Below that is a CC-BY-NC-4.0 license, which is non-free, so no, it can't be uploaded here. Unless they clarify that the video itself is free. pandakekok9 05:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I sent a message to them anyway, asking them to consider releasing the video explicitly or via OTRS under a free license like CC-BY-SA-4.0. pandakekok9 06:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This video is a remix and mixture of copyrighted clips from news media. I can't be sure whether any CC license used for release is valid. George Ho (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Forget about what I said. Forgot about DW... pandakekok9 07:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Attributing credit and a license link

I am new to Wikimedia Commons, and as such I would like to get it right first time before I proceed with further use. Regarding the image that I would like to us:

The license require me to give appropriate credit: If I put 'Courtesy Wikimeda Commons' enough ?

It also require me to provide a link to the license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en Is the link immediately above the right link ?

Thank you for your attention.

Carmelo Galea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carm.galea (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Carm.galea: That credit line is not enough. You have to include the username (or real name if known and preferred) of the copyright holder of the image, which would most likely be the photographer or author. See Commons:Credit line. Also, not all pictures here are licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 (though if it's licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0, your link is correct, though I suggest removing the "deed.en" part). Some are only under the GFDL which is strict, and it's a pain to adhere to the terms of the GFDL if you're going to print the photo. So make sure to read the license of each photo properly. If there are multiple licenses offered, you can choose one of them (like if it's dual-licensed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0, you can choose only CC-BY-SA-3.0, GFDL only, or both). pandakekok9 10:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

There are also public domain images, images whose copyright is expired or waived by the copyright holder. It's optional to attribute the author for such images, though it would still be nice to credit them for courtesy. pandakekok9 10:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. For the CC licences, the licence link and the attribution (usually from the author field) are often enough, but if there is an attribution field or specific attribution (often mentioning a sponsoring entity) is requested, or if there is a title field, those have to be respected too. If you made changes or publish in print you should probably link to the original file, preferably also otherwise. There may be additional subtle points, so reading the full licence is recommended if you are doing something special or the file description is unusual. --LPfi (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response - I do not seem to locate who you are - but as I mentioned I am new to Wikimedia Commons, besides being not that well into computers. Kindest regards - Carmelo Galea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carm.galea (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC) There is a name against 'Author' under File information, so I presume I need to include the name quoted there, besides 'Courtesy Wikimedia Commons'. Is this correct ? Thank you.

File:Anderson-Dam-SantaClaraCounty-CA_2014.jpg and embedded comment metadata

This may be a strange question, but here goes. In 2014, I upload the image File:Anderson-Dam-SantaClaraCounty-CA_2014.jpg that I created, with the image licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported. In 2017, Hydrargyrum edited the information page for the image to have the description refer to Anderson Lake instead of the Anderson Reservoir. Correcting errors can be a good thing.

The JPEG file for the current version of the image contains embedded comment metadata that includes a textual description. The current comment text reads This photo of the Anderson Dam located near the Anderson Reservoir in Santa Clara County, California was taken by the Wikimedia Commons user Gazebo <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gazebo> in 2014 and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information about this license, please visit <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/> on the Web or write to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042 USA.

My plan is to relicense the image under CC BY-SA 4.0 International. As part of this, my plan is to upload a new version of the image for which the appearance is the same but with embedded metadata that refers to CC BY-SA 4.0 International instead of CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported. I also intend to include additional items of metadata (ImageDescription, artist, and Copyright) in the new version of the image.

In uploading a new version of the image, I am inclined to edit the embedded comment metadata description so that it does not inaccurately refer to the Anderson Reservoir. The first question is, if "the Anderson Dam" was changed to "Anderson Lake" in the statement "This photo of the Anderson Dam located near the Anderson Reservoir in Santa Clara County, California was taken by the Wikimedia Commons user Gazebo <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gazebo> in 2014...", would it mean that Hydrargyrum would have a copyright in the metadata comment? My preference is to avoid issues with third-party copyrights in the case of the image's embedded metadata. The second question is whether simply removing "located near the Anderson Reservoir" from the previously specified statment would mean that any third party would have a copyright in the statement? (I am guessing probably not.) --Gazebo (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The small textual change, which Hydrargyrum made, is below the threshold of originality and thus is uncopyrightable. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Thanks for the feedback. My understanding of what you said is that it would be possible for me to upload a new JPEG file with the embedded ImageDescription metadata A photo of the Anderson Dam located near Anderson Lake in Santa Clara County, California. This photo was taken in 2014. and the comment metadata This photo of the Anderson Dam located near Anderson Lake in Santa Clara County, California was taken by the Wikimedia Commons user Gazebo <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gazebo> in 2014 and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. For more information about this license, please visit <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/> on the Web or write to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042 USA. and that there would be no third-party copyrights in the metadata? --Gazebo (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would be possible. Ruslik (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: I have uploaded a new version of the image with updated embedded metadata. And, once again, thank you for your feedback. --Gazebo (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gazebo: Since the image was also licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, it would be good to keep that one also (since obviously other people copied it off of here, under that license, which is valid). You can have both tags, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I have come across the concept where a work is dual-licensed, for example, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported and CC BY-SA 4.0 International licenses. Dual-licensing can be useful, assuming that a reuser has the option to choose the license that works best for them and to disregard the other license. For the image that I recently relicensed, in addition to at least some of the other uploads of mine, I have an interest in using embedded XMP-cc:License metadata to identify the URL for the work's license. Among other things, it would seem that metadata has a chance of traveling with the image in the event that the image is reused and/or redistributed. However, as of this writing, I am not aware of any means whereby it is possible to specify more than one license in the case of the XMP-cc:License metadata. Given this aspect, I changed the image's embedded XMP-cc:License metadata to hold the URL for the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License and I changed the comment metadata to specifically refer to the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License which would make the comment metadata consistent with the XMP-cc:License metadata. (Another possible concern was coming up with suitable wording to explain that the image is dual-licensed.)

Something that I did do on the image's description page was to include a note along with the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License tag mentioning that the work was previously made available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License, that there many be copies of the work that refer to the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License, and that the embedded metadata in the image may have changed over time. This message was intended among other things to address the situation where someone might find a copy of the image that is indicated as being licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License.

On the possibility of displaying the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License tag on the image's description page, a possible issue that comes to mind (though admittedly this many sound excessively fine-detailed) is as follows: though the image itself is licensed under both the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported and CC BY-SA 4.0 International licenses, the new added items of embedded metadata (ImageDescription, Artist, and Copyright) that were not previously present and the modifications to existing items of metadata (comment and XMP-cc:License) in the JPEG file may be licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License but not under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License, which could pose an issue for someone reusing the new version of the image under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. (One possibility might be for a reuser to copy the image and then to remove the items of metadata that pose an issue.) If there are no licensing issues with the image's current embedded metadata as applied to the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License, one possibility that I thought about would be to have the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License tag and then the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License tag, but to have the CC BY-SA 3.0 tag preceded by a message indicating basically that the work was previously made available under this license (CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported) and, as such, that the work can also be used under the terms of that license. --Gazebo (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

PD-EdictGov

There is a file in huwiki (hu:Fájl:BojtosLaszlo-ServiceMedal.jpg) which is from the US. Does {{PD-EdictGov}} apply to this document? I would like to transfer it to Commons if I may. CC license is false, of course. --Regasterios (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably yes, but this exemption covers only the text, but not the image of the medal. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I have transferred the file: File:BojtosLaszlo-ServiceMedal.jpg. The image of the medal is covered. --Regasterios (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion

One of the Files uploaded by me has been tagged for speedy deletion. It is not copyrighted. I don't know where to content this speedy deletion. Kabirisgod (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I contested the speedy deletion with a DR. Please discuss here. pandakekok9 08:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: pandakekok9 08:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright of two Canadian photos

Hi. Could I please also ask a question about PD in the US vs Canada? It's about the following two images that are in PD in Canada:

• https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/exterior-view-of-stanley-theatre-showing-advertising-for-duel-in-sun-2
• https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/exterior-view-of-stanley-theatre-showing-christmas-ticket-booth-and-cartoon-party-display

The first is dated 1948, and the second from 1940 to 1948. I'd like to determine whether they might be PD in the US. How can I know if they satisfy the requirement "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States"? And are there any of the other requirements that they wouldn't satisfy? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You can do this by identifying circumstances under which they were published in USA if they were, of course. Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Could I rephrase my question? I can easily identify that the photos are PD in Canada because they are labeled as "Public Domain" in the linked Canadian database above, and because the rules for being PD in Canada seem very straightforward. But what kind of tools or clues do other editors use for identifying whether Canadian photos such as these may have been published in the US? Also, for the third condition for being PD in the US, what kind of tools or clues do other editors use for determining whether the photos would have been PD in their home country (Canada) before January 1, 1996? Moisejp (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Hi Ruslik0. I maybe should have pinged you when I left this message a couple of days ago. There has been a lot of activity on this page and am pinging you now in case my updated question may have been lost in all the subsequent text. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You can do this only by identifying the actual publication in USA. You can also search the registration database of USA works. Although these image are unlikely to have been published in USA. Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

URAA disallows using foreign works whose US copyrights were restored on January 1, 1996, only if the works were still copyrighted in their own home countries and such works weren't published within thirty days after first non-US publication. There are other conditions to make a foreign work in the PD in the US, like first US publication prior to first non-US publication. If COM:URAA isn't convincing enough, then I should say that the exact date is still unknown. An existing print material should prove the publication no later than 1945, fifty years before 1996; if so, it would prove that the US copyright wouldn't have been restored around that time. Of course, others have trouble enforcing URAA in fears of, I think, losing history or something else. Furthermore, COM:PCP should come in mind. George Ho (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocking editor from editing Tommy Nelson (Actor) Page

Hi, I uploaded an image for the page "Tommy Nelson (Actor)" and the user "Didym" keeps deleting it because, and I quote he "doubts I own it." I've explained numerous times that I do own it and would appreciate if they were to either communicate with me first about whether or not the image is mine, or stop deleting so, but they do not listen. Is there a way to block them from editing the page? It's frustrating having to repeatedly upload an image that I had previously posted for over a month? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.116.201.245 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Didym is an administator of this cite and is doing their job. You should talk to them and solve your problems with them. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If your images keep being deleted due to doubts of ownership, please refer to the Commons:OTRS process. However, one point I should clarify is that we are not interested in the ownership of a physical item (such as a photo, which you could buy from the photographer) but the ownership of the copyright. You would either have to be the creator of the image or have had some form of agreement with the creator in which they transferred their copyright to you. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Help with a flickr image

This File:Foto-Dr.-Sérgio-Redó-2.png was, apparently, taken from Flickr. The images seem pretty much the same with a different background. The image was upload on Commons with a 4.0 license, but on Flickr, it's with a 2.0 license. Do you people think it the same image? Can I simply change the license and identify the Flickr image as the Commons image's source? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a derivative work of the Flickr image. I would suggest that the Flickr image be uploaded as a separate file, with the Flickr source and licensing. You can then edit the description of the existing Commons photo to show that it was derived from the Flickr photo. The license of the Commons photo should not be changed because removing the background is likely sufficiently creative to be copyrightable. The derivative author gets to choose what license to release their contributions under, which in this case is CC-BY-SA-4.0, which is valid and compatible with the 2.0 license. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Zoom (or other videoconference) screenshots/recordings

For the past couple years I've enjoyed going to the filmmaker talks at the Tribeca Film Festival and uploading some photos to Commons. The in-person Festival is canceled, but I just heard that most of the content will happen online. That made me wonder about the copyright (or other) considerations regarding a screenshot and/or recording of a Zoom meeting or similar videoconference.

Our guidance on screenshots seems to imply originality in the display/arrangement of the software, but a Zoom meeting is just a set of live video feeds arranged in a not-particularly-original way.

Is each video feed subject to a separate copyright, assuming no special effects, etc.?

I suspect a screenshot and recording might be handled differently in that a video recording is basically a direct copy of people's individual recordings, whereas a screenshot requires you to select a point in time? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If there aren't significant elements of the application's interface in the recording (other than the video feeds), there would be no COM:Screenshots copyright problems there. Based on some similar discussions recently, I think people will be divided on whether the individual video feeds are copyrightable. I believe they would be the copyrights of each respective user, as that user is the one "operating" the camera, unlike when you take photos in person. This would extend to screenshots of the video feeds, as well. I believe the best approach would be to get a license from each user to use their footage. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see those other discussions you mention. Also bumping this before it's archived -- hoping to get some additional thoughts here. We're going to start seeing a lot more meetings on Zoom, and thus uploads of conference/meeting/event photos will largely be replaced (in part) by these screenshots... — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

User switching from copyright violations to "own work"

User:Gwrthanesh uploaded some copyrighted photos of a couple of famous mountaineers, one picture having a watermark deliberately cropped out. I found the sources they were copied from and marked three such images for deletion. They've now uploaded different photos of the same people, which I can't find copies of online, with a description of "I took this Photo of [person] by my [name of camera in metadata] in [year in metadata]". Should this be taken at face value, or should we be cautious that these may be further crops, or photos taken from obscure Nepalese websites? It seems unlikely that someone would be cropping watermarks out of another photographer's work and uploading it as their own, if they knew they'd met and taken a photo of that person themselves. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be better if they confirmed auhtorship through OTRS. Ruslik (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like it would change anything? If they're happy to claim explicitly they took this photo in person in a description, they'd say the same thing in an OTRS statement. I'm curious about how Commons treats a progression of "here is a photo of a celebrity" (deleted as a direct copy of a copyrighted press shot), "okay here is a different photo of the same celebrity which isn't a copy" (deleted as someone else's work with the watermark cropped out), "okay here is a different photo I took personally when I met him years earlier" (...). Seems a bit naive to give it the thumbs up and approve it for unpaid commercial reuse worldwide at that point. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The system is obviously being gamed. People do not sufficiently realize that lax handling of copyright violations can have severe legal consequences. There will come a point when big copyright owning companies like the Getty Center have enough and start suing Wikimedia. And then nothing will be here as it was before. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

JHU COVID-19 data copyright

Johns-Hopkins University (US) is the most widely-cited aggregator of COVID-19 case data. Their data is provided through a map and a GitHub repository. Automating the process of updating the various COVID-19 pages in various languages would be quite desirable, and the Commons Data namespace would be ideal for the task since it is already connected to Scribunto and the Graph extension and can be used cross-wiki. There is a problem though: JHU have included a statement in their README saying that all data...copyright 2020 Johns Hopkins University, all rights reserved, is provided to the public strictly for educational and academic research purposes. ...use of the Website in commerce is strictly prohibited. There is no basis in US law for this statement, but the fact that JHU aggregates data from various global sources complicates the matter. It is my understanding that this statement would prevent the data from being copied to Commons, but I wanted a second opinion. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that this is copyfraud because they don't know any better. Feist v. Rural held the "sweat of the brow" doctrine has no basis in US copyright law. To quote Wikipedia's article: In regard to collections of facts, Justice O'Connor stated that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange it, it would destroy the copyright owned in the data. "Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement," Justice O'Connor wrote. The court ruled that Rural's directory was nothing more than an alphabetic list of all subscribers to its service, which it was required to compile under law, and that no creative expression was involved. The fact that Rural spent considerable time and money collecting the data was irrelevant to copyright law, and Rural's copyright claim was dismissed. If there's no creative criteria as to what to include, their claim is invalid. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

File:MiS Pomeranian Medical University Stettin Logo.jpg

File:MiS Pomeranian Medical University Stettin Logo.jpg

I'm wondering whether we can salvage this by using {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible}}. I don't know enough about TOO in Poland to have an opinion. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You can find more information in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Poland#Threshold_of_originality. Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That is seriously vague, but certainly means I can't presume this image is OK. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

How to upload a photo under free license

I want to use the photo. The photographer transferred the property rights to me. How should I make a right transfer under a free license? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.131.149.238 (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The photographer must do this in writing. Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

And where should he write it? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.131.149.238 (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The transfer of copyright to you has to happen in writing, I mean. Ruslik (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

But the photographer themselves can follow Commons:OTRS and e-mail the photo with an appropriate license attached. Ruslik (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! And who has the right to upload a photo to Commons - the owner of property rights or the photographer? And how to make the download in the license part? What is the procedure for transferring to Commons?

Anyone can upload. This comes from the fact that only photos that are freely licensed for anyone to use and edit may be uploaded. The recommended procedure is the Upload Wizard, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

To be very clear, by default only the photographer has the right to "license" the photograph in a way that we require to store it here. However, if the photographer has chosen such a license in a way we can verify (for example, by e-mailing OTRS or by posting about it in a public place, like their website), anyone can upload the photo. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not recognize the term "property rights" in this context. It is the copyright owner who may license the work. If the photographer transferred the copyright (except for limited time or other incompatible terms), then it is the new owner who has this power. --LPfi (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@LPfi: In your edit summery, you say: "the copyright owner, not necessarily the photographer". This is correct, but then again: we ask to mention the "author" of the work on the description page, not the rights holder. Don't we need an extra field for this? Ciell (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

One can use "other fields={{credit line|...}}" in the information template, or the permission field if the information is simple. Often, although not formally correct, the sponsoring institution is just mentioned in the author field: "author=John Doe/Some Institution". But the copyright owner needs not to be mentioned unless they request that. The CC licences (or some of them) require retaining copyright statements, but unless they are there at the source, I suppose there is no need adding them (and copyright holders may change over time). Unless the copyright holder asks for attribution, they might only be known to OTRS. --LPfi (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

TOO - US and UK logo list

Hi, It was brought to my intention that TOO-UK logos are still copyright something of which I didn't actually know (I assumed all TOO logos could be freely uploaded here),
Should any of these files not be on here?
FFU is en:WP:Files for Upload, and US/UK are either US logos or UK logos,

The gallery was very kindly made and provided by Alexis Jazz

Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks De728631, Also back story > Went to help desk[4], came here, went back to help desk[5], Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 15:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

As always when it comes to copyright, there is no easy answer. First of all, it should be pointed out though that there is no such thing as a single TOO. The threshold of originality differs from country to country. Please see COM:TOO for a list with examples. As to COM:TOO#United Kingdom, the threshold is very low, and even text-only logos have been ruled to be eligible for copyright (not by any Commons DRs but by British courts of law). So I think most if not all of the logos in the gallery below should be moved to EN.WP as PD-US-only. Pleasure Island is probably even too original for the US. De728631 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Gallery

List of images

Logo UK or US Discussion link Smoke Radio logo.png UK Not FFU - Pleasure Island logo.gif UK Not FFU Harveys Lake Tahoe logo.jpg US (FFU discussion link) DaCast logo.png US (FFU discussion link) Montbleu logo.svg US Not FFU Tropicana Laughlin logo.svg US Not FFU Sands Regency 2017 logo.png US (FFU discussion link) Jacobs Entertainment logo.png US (FFU discussion link) Eldorado Reno 2019 logo.svg US (FFU discussion link) Grand Sierra Resort 2019 logo.svg US (FFU discussion link) Silver Legacy Reno 2019 logo.svg US (FFU discussion link) CircusReno logo.svg US (FFU discussion link) PeoplePlus logo.svg UK Not FFU Resonance FM logo.png UK Not FFU

en:Love sculpture

Since there's no COM:FOP for 3D works of art (even publicly displayed ones) in the US per COM:FOP United States, I'm wondering whether that means the licensing of the various photos of the en:Love sculpture found in Category:Love by Robert Indiana and Category:Love sculpture (Manhattan) might need to be re-assessed. Most of the files have CC licenses for the photos, but there's nothing for the sculpture itself. Some might be OK per COM:DM since they are part of a larger image with the sculpture only as part of the shot, but in others it's seem clear the entire focus is on the photo itself. The original sculpture dates back to 1970, but it appears to have been reproduced a number of times in other places since then. The imagery was even used for a 1973 US postage stamp. It's basically the word "Love" so it might be argued that it's almost like a {{PD-textlogo}} in a sense, but not sure how that would apply to a work of art like a sculpture. If these files are OK for Commons, then the local English Wikipedia file en:File:LOVE (Indiana).jpg might also be OK for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

When was it published first? Was a copyright notice attached to it? Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: There are a number of entries for this statue listed here and the earliest appear to be from 1966. I cannot, however, determine from any of them whether the works are still protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

There do not appear to be any copyright notices on them (per the si.edu link you gave, which mentions them if they existed) so they would be PD-US-no_notice (as they were put up before 1978). And the PD-textlogo argument is also very possible -- it would probably be the arrangement more the objects themselves which could carry a copyright (the letters would not, I'm pretty sure). But it should be moot. Read the section of the U.S. FOP page again about the situation before 1978, and Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. It doesn't matter if copies get put up later, they are just copies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Carl. Do these files need a separate PD license for the statue or are they OK as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Technically once PD you don't need it, but it doesn't hurt either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Drawings from Pixabay

Are these and these pictures OK for upload to Commons? (They look to be original characters made by the artists of the drawings.) --Sasuke88 (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sasuke88: I think these are original works by the Pixabay user. I did a reverse image search for some of them and could not find any earlier versions online than those at Pixabay. So they can be used at Commons if they were uploaded at Pixabay before 9 January 2019.

Pixabay used to have a Creative Commons Zero public domain licence until 9 January 2019. So please check every one of these files when it was uploaded. You can see the upload date in the information on the right edge of the file page. So, if a file was uploaded there before 9 January 2019, please feel free to upload it here, too, and use {{Pixabay}} as a licence at Commons. De728631 (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@De728631: Thank you! :) I will pay attention to the upload dates. --Sasuke88 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible massive violation of copyrights

This user has been recently uploading many images where I strongly suspect he does not hold the copyrights. I can prove that he uploaded two pictures straight from a 1988 issue of a scholarly journal (1 and 2). His other uploads lack the metadata typical for photographs. I am aware that the old two-dimensional works he has uploaded could be public domain in principle but only when he was also their photographer, not when he takes them straight from copyright protected books and that is what I believe is the case here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This one, e.g., was taken from here. This from here or two dozen other websites. Pretty obvious he is stealing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If a two-dimensional work is in public domain, then all 2D copies of it will be in public domain too. So, one does not need to be the photographer in order to upload such photos. Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that. In any case, the four examples I linked are all photographs of three-dimensional objects (three rock carvings and one gun). I noticed that the user has been repeatedly warned by various users about copyright violations. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@User:Ruslik0 I have identified a further 15 copyright violations and that only in a sample. In a number of violations User:Qiushufang has cropped the watermark of the copyright owner away (e.g. 1 2, 3, 4). In others he ignored the copyright holder even though his name was directly to be found below the photograph (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4). This is deliberate intent and not anymore ignorance on Qiushufang's part. The user has already been warned in the past not to violate copyrights (see his talk page). This demands administrative action now. Where can I file an formal complaint against Qiushufang for massive copyright violation? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have identified and reported a couple of copyright violations more and there is no end in sight. Qiushufang has been basically mass copying his uploads from books and the internet. Yet he has only got a warning because the admin is unable to see the scope of the problem. This needs wider discussion. Administrative action has to be taken that is proportional to the dimension of the coypright violation. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Need to upload a logo for my college to update our page. Where do I send permission?

I am authorized to use my college's logo. But I did not create it myself. I understand that I need permission, so who do I give that permission to? Can the Dean of the college give this permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UAFCFOS (talk • contribs) 23:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Somebody authorized buy the copyright holder should license the work under some free licence, e.g. CC-BY-SA 4.0, and confirm that by e-mail to OTRS. That might be the dean, but make sure the one to license the work really knows they have authorization to do so. Permission to use the logo or to to permit usage is not enough. --LPfi (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The college's board of directors are probably the only entity legally authorized to freely license it, and I can't imagine why they would. It's also unnecessary: college logos can be used on college articles on the EN Wikipedia as en:WP:NONFREE, without adding them to COMMONS. -JasonAQuest (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Investigating the copyright status of "Tri-State Chinese Directory of Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee"

"Tri-State Chinese Directory of Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee" was published circa 1952. I'm interested in uploading this but I need to be sure that it's lapsed into the public domain.

According to how to investigate copyright status, works published before 1962 lost their copyright status if it wasn't renewed after the 28th year. I couldn't find it in the post-1978 copyright renewals database as the name of the work doesn't show up. 1952 + 28 years would be about 1980.

• University of Pennsylvania's copyright records would list it if the year was before 1950. I couldn't find the entry in the list of copyright entries for 1952
• I also failed to find the work in the copyright records list here

What further steps should I take to investigate this work's copyright status? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this is in fact out of copyright. You can upload the file and use {{PD-US-not-renewed}} as a licence. De728631 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool! Before I do so, if he doesn't mind, I might ping @Clindberg: to see if he agrees with this WhisperToMe (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Renewal should be online where you searched if it exists. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! File:Tri-stateDirectory single page.pdf is uploaded WhisperToMe (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Can't upload some of my pictures

Hello, here are some exapmples of my works, that I cann't upload. I have all rights to publish it on wikipedia, because works are mine. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1T37U4mkzAnKgpwYAEZLSoDn5dFdEsIRZ https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vIfqtbh12RpnZVVqYoylPMpe5Dqhi8Oh https://drive.google.com/open?id=13Si7DcvaqKpVkqLS4JNcU_03YmPLjuS0 https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XU5ItQl6hcxUhoY0ZNCuzoC4zERUffZS https://drive.google.com/open?id=110tCRnUxNUcNFwmiLPBjwFOovOzA6NtL https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UQ-Y9b493F9CW9XBjvXjWMwykJeZf7C_

Please help me upload it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingertipsandcompany (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "can't upload"? Ruslik (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fingertipsandcompany. @Fingertipsandcompany: Please reply at the deletion discussion to clarify why you think the artist in question is in fact notable and should have some images on Commons. De728631 (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Fingertipsandcompany (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about a picture uploaded by the Swiss embassy in Iran

Resolved

Hi there! Wondering; am I allowed to upload this picture, which was uploaded by the Swiss embassy in Iran on twitter?[6] I would like to use it for an article I'm writing on the English Wiki. Thank you in advance, - LouisAragon (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

By default all photos cannot be published without a permission of their copyright holders. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Then I know enough. Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Public domain work restored: is it ok for new copyright?

A comic strip from public domain (1907)

An old book from 1904 (author died in 1937), was restored and then newly edited in 2009. The commercial description says "This volume features a complete run of the Upside Downs (1903-1905), digitally restored and presented in their original size and colors". Looking at the illustrations, they just look ancient and 100% original. Is there a special kind of "copyright" for technical works like a restoration? I can't see anything like that on Wikipedia, but I can imagine commercial editors using tricks to make free-licence works their own. Is there any law to protect the work of a restorative person, for example? Can we upload safely such works on Commons? I can bring examples with external links if necessary -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This depends on jurisdiction. In the USA work to present something "in their original size and colors" is not creative work that would give a copyright. In the UK there is the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, which gives a new copyright. Some countries have special law on the matter, sometimes as copyright, sometimes as neighbouring rights. --LPfi (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear LPfi, thanks for your clear answer. The publisher is Sunday Press Books (American), then it should be acceptable for Commons, shouldn't it? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sunday Press Books are published in the United States. I do not know if Maresca himself claims a copyright or not on his restorations. I don't find an indication of it on the SPB website. Do you have a copy of the book? Does it say something about the copyright? Commons already hosts some other of his restorations, for example this. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Asclepias, thanks for your help. I don't have a copy of the book, but a few pages here (uploaded by another user, a bit dark and partially blanked). The question is "can we make clean scans or clean photographs of these pages, to upload them on Commons?". (What is the role of Peter Maresca in this book, I don't know, maybe some text added, a preface, restoration? not sure). The fact Commons hosts similar works by the same publisher is like a green light, isn't it? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I have emailed Peter before and he said that he has the copyright on the restaurations. "Hi Alex - As far as I could determine there is no remaining copyright on the original strips. I do hold a copyright on my digital restorations of the strips, so please ask permission and give credit if you post any pages of my book online. Thanks, Peter" and "I normally offer a few low resolution images for educational use online free of charge, and charge a small fee for print and commercial use." I would personally prefer to ask him before taking scans myself. Also a lot of them are hosted here: https://www.gocomics.com/upside-down-world-of-gustave-verbeek/2020/03/26 --Synethos (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Synethos for the link, but there are not the pages we're interested in. "I do hold a copyright on my digital restoration"?? Seems in contradiction with what LPfi says. We could credit him of course for the restorative work, but "copyright"?! Certainly Peter Maresca was paid already, by the publisher: is it not enough? -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

IANAL, and I'm not American. My understanding is that they do not get a copyright, but there may be odd legislation that I am not aware of. --LPfi (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Basile, they are all on there but there is no overview. If one is willing to press next long enough, they should be there. --Synethos (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Claiming copyright and having copyright are two different things. I'm aware of no special legislation for new copyrights on restoration work, and I don't see how this would qualify for general copyright under US law (or even UK law), because it's literally reproducing the work as it was originally published: it isn't re-colored, re-lettered, or creatively changed in any way. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.[7] -JasonAQuest (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Instructive. Thanks! -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Указание лицензии в источнике

Будет ли этого достаточно для публикации, если на сайте-источнике фото будет подписана лицензия, под которой автор её публикует? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. (talk • contribs) 06:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Да, будет достаточно. Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Graphic charts

Hello, i've a question: All of those graphic charts could be uploaded in Commons with author attribution? seems are very simple graphics, but I'm just asking to make sure. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

A couple of them are clearly creative works, and are protected by copyright. The plain bar charts are simple enough that you could create your own (and attribute the sources of the data). -JasonAQuest (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about a Vimeo account

Hi, I was looking some free videos and upload screenshots from them here. I found this Vimeo account, in which all or most of their videos have acceptable Commons licenses. They're a branch of this company (HCF + italian company Dabliu) but in some videos, they use external content. Beyond obvious copyrightable of some images/videos, do we can use screenshots of "normal images" (their ownership) from a same video? --Chrishonduras (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Chrishonduras. If there are no works shown that were obviously created by third parties, you can use screenshots of a such a free video. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

De728631, that's means even with a video mixing both kind of images right? --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say yes, as long as you only show the original material filmed by that account. Where third-party content is so marginally included that it doesn't matter, you may also use a screenshot. See Commons:Deminimis for this principle. De728631 (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, De. It's helpful. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

licensed credit

سلام من یک فایل عکس از ویکی پدیا در وب سایت که در واقع برای مقاصد کسب و کار است استفاده کرده ام. همچنین لینک لایسنس را روی عکس قرار داده ام.در لین زیر می توانید ببینید https://www.fastback.ir/

از توضیحات فرد منتشر کننده چیزی برای روشن نیست لطفا به فارسی بیشتر توضیح دهید.

My images are free to use for any website - If you want to use them outside wiki, please give licensed credit(YouTube included).

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kevauto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samminaeiii (talk • contribs) 14:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Kevauto: @Samminaeiii: In order for Commons to use your work you will need to re-license your works to one of the Commons:Free licenses or public domain, so it would no longer be "all rights reserved". The author's permission is not sufficient. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I assume what it said on my profile was confusing, and I'm not as educated on how this licensing/copyright stuff works. From what I know I upload them under a license that should give you permission to use on any personal or business websites outside wikipedia, as long as proper credits are given (name and a link to the original author, etc). Thanks, --Kevauto (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status of The Western Journal of Education

Hi again! The The Western Journal of Education ran from 1895 to 1948. Several issues are at the Internet Archive.

In regards to the issues from 1924 to 1948 I also checked copyright renewal records but couldn't find the journal's name from simply searching the string "The Western Journal of Education" at the internet archive's copyright records list. Would someone need to check the names of all of the authors of a particular issue, and would I need to ensure any of the authors didn't try to renew copyright? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Usually authors transfer copyright to the journal. If this was indeed the case, then there is no need for any additional checks. Ruslik (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html doesn't mention The Western Journal of Education, which may imply there are no separate renewals. However, part of the point of renewal was that after 28 years, an author who assigned copyright or otherwise had licensed the work had a chance to get the copyright back free of any strings. It's hard to check, but would be better to check. (Also, as a note, works from 1924 are now out of copyright in the US, renewal or not.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I wonder what ways one can check if the author has tried to retain his or her own copyright. Would there be an indication in the individual document, or would there be a separate database that should be consulted. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11800 is a list of all the book and contributions to renewals. To retain their copyright, the author would have to file a renewal in their own name, so it should be in there. Journal would usually be noted, so a search for Western Journal of Education should find any individual renewals.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! From http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11800/11800-8.txt there are no instances of "Western Journal of Education" WhisperToMe (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If the journal was published by the California Department of Education, then {{PD-CAGov}} might apply regardless of date. In general, it would also be a good idea to drop the "The" from search strings (in case an entry is under "Western Journal of Education, The") and also run checks for publisher names which may have associated abbreviated titles. A final visual scan to confirm absence couldn't hurt either, as computer searches on OCR scans can misread or overlook entries. Aside from renewal, were issues of the journal originally published with copyright notice and/or was copyright originally registered? If the post-1924 issues lack initial copyright notices, then {{PD-no notice}} would likely apply. --Animalparty (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! A sample issue is at this place from the 1940s, and that one doesn't seem to have a copyright notice in the initial pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Billboard12-crayola-lecrae.jpg

Alexis Jazz has brought up a concern about File:Billboard12-crayola-lecrae.jpg. The file was uploaded by an account named User:Reach Records Management, which claims the photo as their own work. However, there is no OTRS verification or permission mentioned.--3family6 (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Has this image been published somewhere else? Ruslik (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of.--3family6 (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Only appearance prior to Wikimedia was on Lecrae's timeline. Keep in mind that Lecrae is a co-founder of and an executive for Reach Records.--3family6 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

An OTRS confirmation is desirable but not urgent in this case, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.--3family6 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Licensing of File:Mr Lefires (1904).ogg

As of this writing, the work is licensed as {{PD-old-90-1923}}. Is this correct? Would it be more accurate to use {{PD-old-90}} + {{PD-US-record}}? --Gazebo (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This would mean that it is not in public domain yet? Ruslik (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The recording itself may well be out of copyright in certain countries; indeed, the recording may be out of copyright in many countries. However, I am not sure that the recording is out of copyright in the US, given the Music Modernization Act and US copyright provisions regarding sound recordings that were fixed prior to February 15, 1972. --Gazebo (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

New license needed for updated version of the same map?

There's an interesting argument going on at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official New York City Subway Map vc.jpg. We have one map published with a free license. It has been replaced with an updated version of the same map, for which we do not have evidence of a free license. The argument for keeping, as I understand it, is that there's so little different about the new image that the difference between them doesn't constitute any additional creative work and/or that the license of the original still applies. I don't think I've seen that argued before, but it's an interesting question, and I figured I'd post it here. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That is an interesting argument, but it appears that it is not rooted in a full understanding of copyright law or Commons procedure. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

File:MamtabyChukki.jpg

This file seems to have been uploaded by the subject of the photo. It has EXIF data but it doesn't appear to be a "selfie-type" of photo taken by the subject. Moreover, aA reduced version of it can actually be seen used here in a blog post that predates the file's upoad to Commons by about two weeks. It's possible that whomever wrote that blog requested the photo from the subject/copyright holder, and then the subject uploaded the photo to Commons. The date in the EXIF data, however, does predate the blog so I'm not sure how that affects things., and anotherThisimage found on another website from 2018 seems to have been taken at the same time as the one uploaded by Commons based upon the clothing the subject is wearing and the background of the two photos. I don't think there was any real attempt to deceive anyone here, and the uploader probably just meant well in trying to add content about herself to en:Mamta Sagar; however, I'm not sure whether it's OK for Commons to keep this photo without OTRS verification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out comment about date of blog post. I misread the upload date and for unknown reason assumed the file was uploaded in November 2019.]

File:Corona Extra beer bottle (2019).png

If this is a photo (it looks like a downloaded image to me) and the uploader took it, then they can release the photo as licensed. That, however, doesn't mean they "own" the copyright on the logo, etc. appearing on the label per COM:PACKAGING. Can this be kept as licensed or does the logo need to be blurred out?

There are other images in Category:Corona (beer) and Category:Corona logos which might also need to be assessed for this as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Corona is produced in Mexico by a Mexican company (w:Grupo Modelo), so we must consider Mexican and US copyright law. COM:Mexico doesn't have information on the threshold of originality in Mexico, so I'll do the US analysis first. Under US rules, the wordmark is not protected by copyright. The crown and the supporters, however, are likely above the threshold of originality and are protected by copyright law. This means that most of the label will have to be removed, but leaves open the question of the wordmark. I wasn't able to find a lot of information on the threshold of originality in Mexico while researching. The best source I found was [8], which says that Copyright protection does not depend on any specific requirement that the work reflect a certain level of creativity or the personality of its author. Similar to other countries, whether or not a work is considered original is a factual inquiry which a court will ultimately decide after reviewing the evidence submitted. That says to me that the wordmark is likely non-free in Mexico. tl;dr: DR. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it was probably copied off the internet to me as well, which wouldn't be surprising considering Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Bruce_The_Deus. Notice, for instance, the odd "e" character floating on the edge of the bottle which probably came from some overlapping ad text. Kaldari (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bruce The Deus: Did you take this photograph yourself or copy it from somewhere on the internet? Kaldari (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

At the begining i uploaded photo from internet (especially some expensive bottles) but it's a couple of year that I don't do it anymore. So i cannot remember when I made it but, going to memory, the photo was taken by a friend of mine some years ago and i modified a couple of year ago. If it is not enough you can erase it--Bruce The Deus (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

There are two copyrights which need to be considered here Bruce the Dues: one for the photo and one for the label imagery. If you take an original photo, then you can release it under a free license if you want; however, you cannot really upload and release a photo taken by someone else. So, if you didn't take this photo, then you're going to need to get the person who did to email their COM:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS. That's would be for the licensing of the photo, but the copyright status of the label imagery also most likely needs to be taken into account as explained in COM:PACKAGING. Photos taken of other copyrighted works are often considered to be derivative works, which means not only does their need to be a license for the photo, but also for the copyrighted work being photographed. So, even if you took this photo yourself or the person who did gives their CONSENT, Commons might still need the consent of the whomever (like the manufacturer) holds the copyright on the Corona brand imagery for Commons to keep this photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's derivative of the label or the items on the bottle, per the Ets-Hokin decision, which seems directly on-point. It would have to be a photo focusing on the copyrightable elements of the label. I am however suspicious of the origins of this image, per Kaldari. Also not sure I see that camera (original photo was apparently from 2012) in past uploads from the user, though most are graphic type works. The "e" could possibly just be a mistake with Photoshop though, accidentally putting some text in there while editing the photo and not noticing. The uploader has done a number of similar uploads in the past, and does look rather experienced with Photoshop and similar software. Could not find anywhere it existed on the web prior to upload here, either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I too would normally favor to keep a photo like this, of a whole bottle, but in this particular case the uploader, in the comment above, seems to admit that the photo is not his own work, so it can be deleted essentially for this reason. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The 'e' is an '℮', the EU "estimated" symbol, usually placed on a label next to a quantity. This suggests to me that this photo was itself part of a label or otherwise used in advertising where having the quantity visible without an '℮' would be problematic, so the publisher overlaid an '℮'. Unless User:Bruce The Deus is in the business of taking product shots, they probably didn't take this photo. --bjh21 (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bjh21: Thanks for that, learned something new. I would agree then, and my suspicions would lean to the delete side given that. Plus the issue that Asclepias mentioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Tombstone copyright

What is the copyright status of tombstones such as this one? Are they eligible for protection in the U.S. or Austria? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that they are {{Pd-text}} and {{Pd-shape}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

How old do magazine images need to be to be public domain?

1) I would like to upload a couple of images of components of beam engines. These are actually from nice woodcut drawings in 'the Engineer' magazine from 1867 and 1871. The images came from the digitized PDF versions available from Google for public download. I assume these ought to be in the public domain by now? Is that correct ? Is there any reason why I can't contribute them to the commons?

2) I would also like to subsequently upload some versions of these I have personally modified for clarity etc. I assume if the originals are ok then this is also ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewnut (talk • contribs) 04:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The originals as well as your modifications are certainly ok. You can use {{Pd-old-1923}} tag on them. Ruslik (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, Thanks for the confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewnut (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: pandakekok9 01:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

PD-USGov

Hi. Regarding this image [9] by the "U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development" reportedly under a "publicdomain/mark/1.". Is it in the scope of {{PD-USGov}} (and thus, it may be uploaded here)?--Up and Go (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. If it's from an official US government account and marked with the PD mark then it is public domain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Proper tamplete to use is {{PD-USGov-HUD}}. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.--Up and Go (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding My/Wife Copyright CD cover image

Greetings, I'm new to Wiki content, not the technical part, but the legal part. I'm building a wiki page for my wife(musician) and she has many CD albums, photos, etc. Yesterday i uploaded an image, possible cd cove, and it was deleted with an alerted message - "File:XXX-cover (BMN Records).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation" I don't understand the message and/or how to continue from here. Thanks ahead for your reply; if this is the wrong board, please refer to the correct one - Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.64.112 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@98.208.64.112: The artist or photographer who created the album cover (or possibly the publishing company who contracted that person) is the owner of the copyright for that work. On Commons, we can't accept any work unless the copyright has expired or the copyright owner agrees to permit anyone to use the work freely. So we would need to establish who owns the copyright for that work and get the appropriate permission from them. Please be sure also to read en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks for above explanation; the issue with above process is that the artist who paid good price for the creation of his material has to invest more time to run after unknown to prove ownership.
    "...On Commons, we can't accept..." Commons vs. what? are there many other categories? thanks 

Wikimedia Commons, this website. As people reuse content uploaded here (e.g. in a paper they write on the musician), we cannot afford to have content with unclear copyright status. It is quite possible that you do not own the copyright of the album cover. If you own the copyright you probably have the agreement and just have to scan it and send it to us (Commons:OTRS), no running after an unknown cover artist. If the copyright was not transferred, your uploading it here was probably illegal. Many websites do not care, as they do not have to think about reusers. Oddly enough I do not find the filename in the deletion log (and you did not disclose your user name), so I cannot see anything about what happened. --LPfi (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There may be some points in that page worth considering, but I suppose much of it is misleading, as our view on neutral point of view is very different from that of the Wikipedias. I'd say the main point is that neither Wikipedia nor Commons is a place for advertising, and "building a wiki page for my wife (musician)" sounds some alarms. We do want to have material on musicians, but the setup must match our goals and guidelines. Creating a description (cf {{Creator}}, a category, a gallery and a user page, and uploading media files (with suitable free licences – and there may be copyright issues, as usually several people are involved in creating music) is certainly welcome, but they will not be your pages, but pages of the site and its community (your user page is administered by you, but is still not meant for advertising). --LPfi (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

How exactly do we expect people to provide photographs of themselves without violating copyright?

I recently spent a good deal of time establishing contact with a famous academic (who we'll call Dr. H) that we only had poor-quality photographs of. After carefully explaining the arcane complications of copyright law, free licensing, and Wikimedia project policies, I asked them if they could donate a better quality photograph. First they sent me a photograph that was clearly taken by someone else and used elsewhere on the internet. I then re-explained that the copyright of the photograph had to be owned by them. Dr. H then asked a friend to take a photograph of them using Dr. H's own phone and sent that photograph to me. Although I know the copyright of the resulting photograph technically belongs to Dr. H's friend that pushed the shutter button, for all practical purposes the friend has no interest in the photograph and the photo was created with the expectation that it would be used and controlled by Dr. H. Dr. H was even willing to jump through the hoop of sending an email to OTRS stating that they were the sole copyright owner and were releasing the image under a free license (and thus assuming some degree of legal liability). But of course we rejected the OTRS email since the photograph wasn't actually taken by Dr. H. Is there any practical solution to this problem? I'm not going to ask Dr. H to hire a lawyer to write up a transfer of copyright agreement, nor am I going to ask Dr. H to take a selfie (as it will probably be just as bad as our existing photos). I know I'm not the first person to run into this problem and it seems like there has to be some point at which we say practicality outweighs legal technicalities. Does anyone have any advice for resolving this? Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that members of the public are poorly acquainted with even the basics of copyright law does not allow us to ignore Commons policy or copyright law. When it becomes clear that an image has been uploaded to Commons without the copyright holder's permission, we must remove it as required by the Commons licensing policy, the global licensing policy, and the Terms of Use. This isn't a matter of "legal technicalities". Does anyone have any advice for resolving this? "Please have the copyright holder send a statement to permissions-commonswikimedia.org releasing the work under a free license. More instructions and a reccomended permissions statement are available at COM:ET." --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question but just some relevant pages: Category:Bystander selfie-related deletion requests, Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie. --Wcam (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

And also User:Abd/Bystander photos. --Wcam (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As more and more of these are taken with phones, it might make sense to think about whether we can come up with a relatively easy way for the person who snaps a photograph in these circumstances either to license the photo on the spot, or to convey copyright to the person who is the subject of the photo so that they can do so later. - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really sad that Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie was rejected (albeit narrowly). It seems like a sensible policy for us to adopt. Kaldari (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't think our current policy makes any logical sense, and it's probably legally wrong too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

In this case it is not even a bystander selfie. I do not understand why the friend can not just re-send the e-mail that Dr. H sent? Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Precisely for this problem, we (... some volunteers with support of the Dutch Chapter) created the website https://www.wikiportret.nl/ . It is intended for photographers to upload the photo they made themselves. After an additional check of the validity of the copyright status through the OTRS-mail system, the photo can be uploaded to Commons very easily. The uploads up to now can be found here: Category:Wikiportrait uploads. The software of the website can be translated to other languages. I would be happy to help or give additional information. Please get into touch if you are interested. And.... if you can speak or read Dutch you can try for yourself. Elly (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot 5

I think the proposal at Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot 5 deserves wider input from the community. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Marking this for archive because the request is withdrawn. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: – BMacZero (🗩) 00:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion or Speedy Deletion?

Hi,

I nominated this file for deletion today, and now I am unsure if it shouldn't rather have been a speedy deletion request. The copyvio seems extremely obvious (name and contact information of the photographer in the metadata, definitely not "own work", and definitely not licensed under CC license), so maybe I made a mistake using the "long" process - ? --217.239.14.88 11:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Has been deleted. --217.239.14.88 13:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 217.239.14.88 13:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Ramnami of Chhattisgarh.jpg

The file was uploaded by user:Ruralindiaonline. The user's name is presumably a reference to the domain name of en:People's Archive of Rural India since the image is likely taken from this story on PARI. I'm not sure the user is really who they are claiming to be and I'm also not familiar with the policies of Commons so I don't know what I should do. A relevant discussion is available at en:Talk:Ramnami Samaj. Regards TryKid (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this help: https://ruralindiaonline.org/pages/copyright/ Valereee (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Since there is no response I assume it'll be okay to use this file in the article and on the DYK? Okay then. TryKid (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No, you are not allowed to use this picture because it says it is NonCommercial? Red-back spider (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

PD-USGov-Military-Navy

Hi, there are many veteran's or private websites on the net where former U.S. Navy members posted photos. Are these potos, if they depict military things, generally PD-USGov-Military-Navy? How do we know, when some sailor made a photo e.g. of a military aircraft on an aircraft carrier during carrier operations, if this is a private or generally a photo taken "during official duties"? Do we have a general rule? Thanks and cheers Cobatfor (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

There would have to be evidence that the photograph was actually taken during official duties so there is a credible claim that PD applies. Someone, say, out doing training in the countryside and taking photographs on their mobile phone when taking a break, is probably not at that moment on "official duties". However someone in a battlefield situation where nobody is ever there just "taking a break", would not be casually snapping local wildlife on their mobile phone; similarly someone in a military restricted area of any kind does not take casual personal photographs. There are no easy guidelines or defaults, as far as I'm aware. --Fæ (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. But how about here: File:F2H-3 VF-31 on USS Midway (CVA-41) 1954.jpg? How do we know, if the author was doing this for fun or during "official duties"? Cobatfor (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is any absolute way of being sure that the photo is PD unless it has a clear credit as a US Navy photo - in this case, the source website doesn't state that the photos are official works and it is credible that they could have been taken as private photos (they weren't in combat and the photos weren't taken from the flight deck where access would be more tightly controlled) - certainly in RN carriers flight operations attracted spectators on the Carrier's island. I think that in this case the precautionary principle would apply.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Usually no. "Official duties" means it's your job, or at least the job right then. Same if you take a photo at work -- it's not owned by the company, it's yours. If your boss asked you to take some photos that day for company purposes, then that's different -- it's a work for hire, as that is your job for the day. Random snapshots taken by individuals, regardless if they are on duty or not, would almost certainly not be PD-USGov (which is basically the same thing as work for hire of the government). If something is released through an official military website, it's probably OK; if submitted privately to sites like that, probably not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems that there is no common rule. The photo mentioned was taken 64 years ago, so it would probably be very difficult to determine, if the photo was taken during "official duties". It was certainly not taken by an official U.S. Navy photographer, but the US-licence tags just speak of "during official duties". This would determine, in my opinion, that it was not taken during a leave. E.g. if someone takes a photo from an aircraft during a combat mission, this would be, in my opinion, "during official duties". Probably ... Cobatfor (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

PD-USGov is essentially equivalent to "work for hire" in regular companies. You're right that "official duties" is not limited to official photographers, but it does mean that taking photographs at least were part of their assigned duties that day. If they have a personal camera, and happen to take photos while performing official duties, I don't think they are PD-USGov -- just like photos you take for yourself at your workplace would not belong to your employer (provided taking pictures is not what you are employed for). Companies don't own every single thing an employee does during work hours -- just the stuff they are being employed for. If your company asked you to take pictures at a particular event, well then that is part of what they were paying you for that day, and would be works for hire (and for the government PD-USGov). But personal photos I don't think ever fall under that, whether on leave or not. You quoted "during official duties" but that is not what the law says -- rather a government works is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. So the work itself needs to be part of their official duties, i.e. assigned by someone higher. The legislative notes state: Under this definition a Government official or employee would not be prevented from securing copyright in a work written at that person’s own volition and outside his or her duties, even though the subject matter involves the Government work or professional field of the official or employee. A photo done at the person's own volition, outside of their assigned tasks, would still be their own private copyright by that. The notes also mention: Although the wording of the definition of “work of the United States Government” differs somewhat from that of the definition of “work made for hire,” the concepts are intended to be construed in the same way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! That made it a lot clearer. Cobatfor (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Streamline_dart.png

The file [10] has no licence information. Can it be uploaded here? It says "Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted." at the page bottom. Red-back spider (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikia/Fandom doesn't respect copyright in general and I wouldn't trust anything that comes from there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama for a non-stationary object

So... does place of original "publication" affect which jurisdiction's FoP rules apply to a work? If, for example, a sculpture was first published in a location with robust FoP for artwork, but subsequently moved to one without and photographed there, are those photographs free? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tall Ships Festival (14847729919).jpg Storkk (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

My instinct suggests that the image would be unencumbered in the Netherlands, but not in the US, fwiw. Storkk (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Flag of Other World Kingdom.png

There’s no indication that this file has been released as licensed, but it might be simple enough to be PD. The problem is that it’s the flag of the en:micronation en:Other World Kingdom and I’m not sure how traditional copyright laws apply when it involves micronations. The official website of OWK is claiming copyright ownership over its content here for reference. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The ToO in Czech Republic is not clear. I am not so sure. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent License and Caveat

I have a question about this file: [[11]]. The file is a picture of a Greek vase. The vase is centuries old and hence the vase itself must be out of copyright. I didn’t take the photo or create the page in question but I’m curious about the licensing for the picture which seems inconsistent.

I see this statement: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

That sounds like acceptable licensing but in a previous section I see: Please note: The above museum permits photography of its exhibits for private, educational, scientific, non-commercial purposes. If you intend to use the photo for any commercial aims, please contact the museum and ask for permission.

Are these consistent? Can you release something under CC share alike with a caveat that the photo cannot be used for commercial purposes? Can a museum enforce that restriction? Can a museum impose a condition on visitors that prevents the visitor from granting a license to Commons that covers commercial use? If that's the museum's restriction, does it prevent ANY photo taken in the museum from being uploaded to Commons?

More generally, what should be done about the image? Can there be an image on Wiki commons that is not available for commercial use? I was under the impression that photos on Commons had to be available for commercial use.

MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

These are so called Non-copyright restrictions. They do not affect the ability of a photographer to issue licenses. Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. A museum could theoretically sue the photographer for violating its private terms (i.e. breach of contract), but since the object itself is out of copyright reusers need not worry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You have to ask the museum can you upload the photo on Commons Wikimedia as it said Please note: The above museum permits photography of its exhibits for private, educational, scientific, non-commercial purposes. If you intend to use the photo for any commercial aims, please contact the museum and ask for permission. --Red-back spider (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Old-electric-bug-zapper.jpg, the file description, and embedded JPEG metadata

In 2015, I uploaded this photo that I took. In 2019, I edited the file's description text to mention the Museum of American Heritage. Earlier this month, I uploaded a new version of the JPEG file which contained some additional items of embedded metadata (ImageDescription, Artist, and Copyright.) In addition, in the new JPEG file, the comment and XMP-cc:License metadata were updated to refer the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License instead of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and the comment metadata was also updated to mention the Museum of American Heritage. (On the issue of having the comment and Copyright metadata items specifically mention the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License, as opposed to mentioning both the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported and CC BY-SA 4.0 International licenses, one reason is that it seems useful to include the license URL in the XMP-cc:License metadata, but I am not aware of any means for having the XMP-cc:License metadata reference more than one license or license URL.) Given that the file's description text was written only by me, I am presuming that there is no copyright issue in having a new version of the JPEG file incorporate similar descriptive text in the ImageDescription and comment metadata items. (From what I understand, among other things, it is permissible for the copyright holder of a work to make use of the work in different contexts and under different licenses.)

For the previously-specified file's Copyright metadata item, the statement Licensed to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ may have been inspired by this recommendation from Creative Commons about the xmpRights:UsageTerms property. In the file's comment metadata item, the text For more information about this license, please visit <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/> on the Web or write to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042 USA. may have been inspired by or based on this text from an older version of a license chooser system on the Creative Commons Web site (the text being intended for documents that were not Web-based.) --Gazebo (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gazebo: I don't think there can be any problem with the use of your own text embedded in the image file, nor with the embedded metadata only showing one licence. However, I think that the file description should expressly allow both CC BY-SA 3.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0. This could be accomplished by replacing {{User:Gazebo/CC-license}} with {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Creative Commons licences are irrevocable, so having once licensed this picture under CC BY-SA 3.0, you can't now withdraw it. --bjh21 (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bjh21: Thank you for your feedback. I do understand that Creative Commons licenses cannot be withdrawn, and I have come across the concept of dual-licensing a work. In the case of the image that I uploaded, one concern that comes to mind about displaying the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License tag on the image description page is that though the image itself is licensed under both the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License and the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License, the new and modified items of embedded metadata in the new version of the JPEG file (particularly the ImageDescription metadata item and the edited comment metadata item) might not be licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License though they are licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License. (If that is the case, one option for a user who wanted to reuse the image under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License would be to download the image and to remove the items of metadata that pose an issue.) Something that I did do on the image description page was to include a statement after the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License tag indicating that the image was previously made available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Among other things, this statement was intended to clarify things if someone was to come across an instance of the image that specifically referred only to the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License.

On another note, I assume that there are no copyright issues with the previously-mentioned statements "Licensed to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" and "For more information about this license, please visit <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/> on the Web or write to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042 USA." in embedded metadata when uploading images to Commons. (Information about possible sources for the statements is mentioned in my original post; it may be that the Creative Commons organization intended for similar statements to be used on third-party works.) For that matter, there is the Artist (or author) metadata statement "The Wikimedia Commons user Gazebo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gazebo". --Gazebo (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gazebo: So as far as I can see there are two kinds of text you're concerned about: descriptive text that you've written, and boilerplate text about licensed. Any text that you're the author of, you licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL 1.2+ by posting it on Commons, so that's already multi-licensed whether you like it or not. The remaining text is surely well below the threshold of originality, especially in the US where that threshold is relatively high. If the embedded metadata are not licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 then you violated Commons policy be overwriting the file. Commons:Overwriting files says that you can't overwrite a file in a way that would require a change to copyright tags. (Curiously, it only appears to say this in the summary at the top, but it still says it.) So if you can't license the new file under CC BY-SA 3.0 (for instance if you didn't write the descriptive text yourself), you should revert the file to the original version. --bjh21 (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bjh21: Once again, thanks for giving feedback. I realize that this is not a short reply, but here goes. For the image that I originally mentioned, I have changed the licensing info on the image's description page to indicate that the image can be used under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License or the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License. (More specifically, I made adjustments to the {{User:Gazebo/CC-relicensed}} template which is used in some cases by the custom license template {{User:Gazebo/CC-license}}.) Hopefully, the new licensing information is more useful than the previous display where the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License tag was not was displayed.

Something that seems unclear is the reason why any copyrightable metadata in the new version of that image needs to be licensed, at minimum, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Is it because (a) all text that is posted or imported to Commons must be licensed in a manner that is compatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License or (b) if an image is originally uploaded under a specific license, then all new versions of the image (including any embedded copyrighted metadata) must also be available under the license that was originally used for the image? Or is there another reason?

Another question that comes to mind is whether it would be permissible to import an image from a third-party site to Commons if the image was specifically licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License and the image file contained embedded copyrighted textual metadata. Would it be permissible to upload the image, along with its embedded metadata? Or would it be necessary to remove the embedded metadata from the image file (even if the metadata pertained to copyright/author/licensing details) before uploading it?

There are a number of images which I created and originally uploaded to Commons under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License, and for which I recently uploaded a new version of the image with new and edited metadata referring to the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License, in a similar manner to the image mentioned in my original posting. These images are listed as follows. (Some of these recent uploads were done prior to uploading the new version of the originally mentioned image.)

For each of the listed images, the licensing information on the image description page should be displaying both the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License tag and the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License tag. In addition, for the listed images, each image (including any embedded copyrighted metadata) should be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported and CC BY-SA 4.0 International. However, given the information at COM:OVERWRITE about overwriting files and license changes, I feel unsure as to whether the new versions of the listed images are compliant with Commons policy (not to mention guidelines) and whether I should revert the images to previous versions. The statement "Except where new file license would be more accurate for all file versions" on COM:OVERWRITE regarding license changes feels unclear.

There have been times where I have uploaded a new version of an image for the purpose of improving the metadata, without changing the license. For instance, with this image (in addition to other uploads of mine), I edited the metadata to use HTTPS for a link to a Wikimedia Commons page and to update the contact information for the Creative Commons organization. From what I can tell, as of now, COM:OVERWRITE does not specifically talk about embedded metadata, though there is a discussion topic that relates to metadata on the talk page.

As of now, there are some images on Commons which I created and which I uploaded under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License, such as File:Cold-Cathode-CFL.jpg. I am considering adding the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License to a number of these images. Editing an image's description page to mention both the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License and the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License would be easy enough. I would also like to upload a new version of the image with additional items of metadata (ImageDescription, Artist, and Copyright) and with the ImageDescription, Copyright, XMP-cc:License and comment metadata referring to the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License. The new and previous versions of the image (along with any embedded copyrighted metadata) would be licensed under both CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported and CC BY-SA 4.0 International. However, I am unsure if uploading a new version of the image under that circumstance would be acceptable under Commons policy and guidelines. --Gazebo (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bjh21: A more simple question: For the image File:Cold-Cathode-CFL.jpg, which I created (along with the embedded metadata) and uploaded to Commons under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported, my understanding is that it would be permissible for me to alter the image description page to mention both the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License and the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License as applying to reuse of the image. For that same image, would it be permissible under Commons policy and guidelines for me to upload a new version of the image in which additional items of metadata (ImageDescription, Artist, and Copyright) have been added and in which the XMP-cc:License and comment metadata have been changed to specifically refer to the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License (assuming that the new version of the image, including any embedded copyrighted metadata, would be licensed under both CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported and CC BY-SA 4.0 International)? --Gazebo (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gazebo: : Yes, I think all of that would be acceptable. --bjh21 (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bjh21: Thanks for the feedback. I uploaded a new version of the image and edited the image's description page as described. (Prior to uploading a new version of that image, I had also similarly uploaded new versions of certain other images that I had created and originally uploaded to Commons under CC BY-SA 3.0. For those images, the licensing information on the image description pages is such that both CC BY-SA 3.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0 are now available for reusers.) --Gazebo (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Image of the day appears photo of copyrighted artwork

Perhaps I am missing something. Can somebody explain on what basis this image of the day can be licenced with the CCBYSA licence? It is a photo of a work of a contemporary designer, temporarily placed in a museum. I think this work of art is copyrighted. I do not see permission of the designer on the file page. I was in this museum last year and made several images of modern fashion but I didn't upload these on Commons, because I thought they were copyrighted. Elly (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Needs to be raised in a DR. @Rhododendrites: . --Fæ (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Lol and protected so only admins can start a DR ;-) Anyway is this clothes or art? Good question. --MGA73 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Fæ: and @MGA73: for your comments. As the image is not on the main page any more, and as @Rhododendrites: did not comment yet, I made a DR. The file was not protected for me anyway. Your comments on the DR page are highly appreciated. Elly (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither being in a museum nor a Commons user saying it is a work of art makes clothing anything but a useful article. That these capes were available for anyone to buy online (as anyone who googles before voting to delete a FP would see) further solidifies the point. The only questions are whether there's a separate graphical element (there does not appear to be) and whether the styling on the mannequin is sufficiently copyrightable (would be pushing it to say a few uniform heart shapes are copyrightable, but even so, it's de minimis). (left a slightly longer comment in the DR, but also comment here for posterity) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Are there any examples of Linux distributions or any other software which use images from Commons?

Hi all

I'm speaking to the developers of Gallium OS, a Linux distribution for Chromebooks about using images from Commons in their next release as preinstalled backgrounds. One question they had was how to properly provide attribution (assuming a CC BY-SA 3.0 or 4.0 license), are there any examples they could just copy? I assume they will be able to provide the attribution in a document in the distribution?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I can only remember seeing no-attribution-required images distributed as backgrounds, which is the safest idea. The different versions of CC licenses have slightly different requirements for attribution (see creativecommonswiki:License_Versions#Attribution-specific_elements). Personally, I think that the best way to attribute would be to include metadata in the tool used to switch backgrounds. A CONTRIBUTORS file in the background directory may suffice, but I would say it's not really user-facing enough. It might also be a good idea to reach out to Creative Commons to see if they know of any preferred ways to do it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the suggestions @AntiCompositeNumber: . John Cummings (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Federal Writers Project?

Hi, according to this template: {{PD-USGov-WPA}}, all WPA works, including those employed by the Federal Writers' Project for the project, are in the Public Domain? I couldn't find any specific results for the project itself. For these employees, this also covers unpublished works? I have a set of images labeled as created by the FWP for a guidebook, so all of their images taken on official duty are PD? ɱ (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, with no feedback I assume this is okay? ɱ (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as the works were taken or made as part of that person's official duties as a Federal employee, they are in the public domain. Unpublished works may be harder to ascertain "official status" for: a doodle or poem written in a notebook (on the creator's own time) but never published may be subject to copyright restrictions. But unpublished material and records generated in the process of creating WPA/FWP publications are likely public domain. --Animalparty (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, yeah, all the files are described as created for the purpose of creating the WPA-produced guidebook. ɱ (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing images from a public domain book

Hi, I asked this question at the help desk, here, and was guided to this page for expert advice. We're discussing the same dilemma over here at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

I am expanding an article on Wikipedia about an architect and painter. The article is about Ted Kautzky. There is a book about the subject, titled 'Ted Kautzky, master of pencil and watercolor' by Charles R. Kinghan, which includes a number of pictures I would like to include in the article. As per HathiTrust Digital Library, where the book can be found, it is in the public domain.

Most of the pictures are from the subject's personal collection left with his wife. The subject died in 1953, the book was published in 1959. As per my understanding, the book was not renewed for a copyright license. According to the Hirtle chart, it seems like its contents can be used for the article, but I am unsure about it.

Can you please confirm if the pictures from this book can be used for the article? NawJee (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If there is a copyright notice in the book, i don't know.

If there isn't, then it's public domain --Red-back spider (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Uploading a photo.

Uploading a photo. The person who leads the politician’s Facebook page sent me a photo file to be uploaded to the politician’s page asking me to indicate the name of the photographer. What is needed to uploaded this photo and use it on Wikipedia? All persons mentioned above are Israeli citizens. The photo of the politician is published on his Facebook page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha1506 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The photo must released under a free license by the photographer. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly Red-back spider (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Music videos - Different licenses on YouTube and Vimeo

(DOP) Jessi - Down - MusicVideo

Hi, I uploaded File:(DOP) Jessi - Down - MusicVideo.webm and now I discovered that the same video was on YouTube @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptCYIPQHoGA . The video on vimeo (https://vimeo.com/278974649) was uploaded by the Director of Photography EumKo. //Eatcha (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

In this case, since both are official channels but are not from the same entity (in which case the more permissive license applies), we should figure out who is actually authorized to release it under a free license. I would suggest writing to the Youtube channel and mentioning that the director of photography posted it on Vimeo under CC-BY 3.0 and asking if they were authorized to do so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Which license for privately released photos?

Have 2 photos of a known photo model which were provided to me by herself (her management) for use in Wikipedia - which license to choose? --GWRo0106 (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

None. Please do not upload them before clarifying the license. We accept only media that are freely licensed, and do not accept photos that are licensed just for use on Wikipedia. Once you have clarified the license, please have the copyright holder follow the instructions on OTRS so that our volunteers can confidentially verify the license. Storkk (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, will ask. Thanks for the info. --GWRo0106 (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi! I truly believe that Britney's picture needs to be changed, however I can't seem to find any picture of her that's public domain (commons has very few pictures and none are good). What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsen6000 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Try finding your picture at Flickr. --Red-back spider (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Own work. Really?

Hello. Sorry if I'm not posting in the right place, as I was unable to find an answer on the help pages. What should be done if a file license is not properly assigned by the uploader? For instance if a work is claimed as “own work” but is not likely to be. I am asking the question after having found these painting pictures:

• File:Francois Van der Straeten.jpg which is exactly the same as this external file on this museum website
• File:AnnavanBuerenversusonbekend.jpg → this external file on another website
• File:Pourbus-Vanbelle-Triptiek.jpg → this external file from the same website.

Wouldn't the Public Domain Art tag be more appropriate? Also read Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. The answer should also be useful to Emigré55. Thanks. --Ideawipik (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to go ahead and change the artist/date/license statements if these are factually incorrect. The project has many, many thousands of files with 'own work' statements that are obviously wrong. To avoid any issues, presume good faith by the uploader as it's easy to misunderstand how to use the templates and standard fields. --Fæ (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In as much as I am concerned, by indeed a somewhat biased research and/or comment which highly surprised me, thank you.

Your recommendation well noted by the way.

--Emigré55 (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Templates

Could someone please check the newly created Russian language licensing templates Template:ChMR and Template:Pomisna.info? Thank you. --Achim (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The templates are actually in Ukrainian. Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Claudiopolitan Academy founding document.jpg

The file seems to be public domain, as it's lacking in originality as a simple photograph of the work and is as exact as possible to the initial production. I consulted the editor who tagged it as no permission for their view of it, and they suggested creating a section to discuss it. Regards, Vermont (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

In the current form it is a photo of a 3D object. Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Were it to be a flat scan it would cause damage to it; it's as exact as possible, with no creative input. Vermont (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the photographer's copyright. There was some creativity involved in choice of the lighting or angle at which the photo was made. Ruslik (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Long list of copyvios

Most, if not all, of these files by User talk:پارسا۱۲۳؟. (uploads are copyvios, either of outside-sourced images, or downsized duplicates of photos from Commons uploaded without the necessary source citation. I've deleted a few, but don't have the time to deal with all of them. Would also appreciate an Arabic speaker to explain to him/her what he/she is doing wrong, please. Thanks for assistance! - MPF (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I processed some of their uploads; most of them were duplicates. I'm not sure if they know Arabic, though. I think they are more likely to be familiar with Farsi, based on their username and edits. Ahmad^talk 07:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmad252: - many thanks! And my apologies for mixing up Arabic and Farsi, I fear I don't know how to distinguish them! - MPF (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Disregard

 Done

Resolved

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Cấp giấy phép bản quyền

Xin hãy giúp tôi cấp giấy phép bản quyền vì hình ảnh này là bản quyền do tôi sáng tác , chụp ra https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_photo_of_a_young_man_taken_while_in_a_mental_hospital,_taken_by_Thanh_Xuan_Love.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanh Xuân Love + (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Bản quyền của hình ảnh theo giấy phép Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International để bạn có thể sử dụng nó cho mục đích thương mại. (chắc chắn) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-back spider (talk • contribs) 05:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

How strongly fixed are the legal opinions in the US that toys are not utilitarian objects?

Hello, I came across a discussion on DE-WP about copyrights on toys. We have some stuff here, COM:TOYS with several quotes with footnotes. But from witch heigh of rank of the US courts do those statements come? Are some statements from some lower court or not? I am quite puzzled by that someone could say that object used for playing are not utilitarian, considering that they are used for something, for an activity which seems to be biologically nearly as essential as procreating: “However, in wild Assamese macaques physically active play is performed also during periods of low food availability and even if it is at the expense of growth, which strongly highlights the developmental and evolutionary importance of play.” (Reference given, highlighting by me), in en:Play (activity)#Animals. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To quote from Gay Toys, Inc., Plaintiff-appellee, v. Buddy L Corporation, Defendant-appellant, 703 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1983):

But the statutory definition of "useful article" suggests that toys are copyrightable. To be a "useful article," the item must have "an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article."4 And a toy airplane is merely a model which portrays a real airplane. To be sure, a toy airplane is to be played with and enjoyed, but a painting of an airplane, which is copyrightable, is to be looked at and enjoyed. Other than the portrayal of a real airplane, a toy airplane, like a painting, has no intrinsic utilitarian function.

This actually isn't always true. Not every toy is simply a model to be enjoyed. Toys like en:Lego bricks are utilitarian pieces, tools for people to create their own works, a medium like paint or wood. And people do all the time. ɱ (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't really seem to be any reason to doubt this as a matter of US law. Maybe there's no Supreme Court decision, but they usually don't take up issues that are uncontroversial at the lower level.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting question is whether an airworthy model airplane is copyrightable. COM:TOYS does not address this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed for many years, and many sources and legal cases raised. More references are at the very useful essays User:Elcobbola/Stuffed Animals and User:Elcobbola/Models. --Fæ (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The legal issue is settled as per references above. The initial question's reference to lower courts may suggest an assumption that the US court system is like the German system. It is not. Referenced cases include appellate level decisions (Courts of Appeals) in multiple districts, which is generally as authoritative as it gets. (The Supreme Court hears very, very few cases.) That notwithstanding, the Supreme Court has made explicit reference to the copyright eligibility of "a cardboard model of a car"--understood to be a toy. (""Nor could someone claim a copyright in a useful article merely by creating a replica of that article in some other medium—for example, a cardboard model of a car. Although the replica could itself be copyrightable, it would not give rise to any rights in the useful article that inspired it." (w:Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.)) Эlcobbola _talk 16:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There are no universal rules about toy copyrights, because the concept of "toys" actually encompasses several different classes of objects: models, dolls, games, construction sets, sports equipment, art equipment, puzzles, educational materials, electronics, etc. The copyright questions are probably best dealt with at a more granular level since these different classes of objects occupy a broad spectrum of copyright protection. For example, dolls and action figures are likely to be copyright protected, while things like a toy piano or tea set are more likely to be considered utilitarian items. Kaldari (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Template:Notsure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-back spider (talk • contribs) 10:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The link towards "Courts of Appeals" clarified the abbreviation "(6th Cir. 1983)" which wasn't totally clear to me, thanks! And I am still puzzled by that toys, having the truly utilitarian function of allowing growing up humans to explore the physical world and the behaviors shown by adults around them, are assumed of having a function "much more similar to that of works of art than it is to the 'intrinsic utilitarian function' of industrial products". If a rag with a knot functions the same way for a child as, say, a superhero doll, it simply seems totally illogical to give the latter copyright protection... Toys are used for behaviors that primates (humans, chimps, rhesus macaques, gorillas...), psittacines, corvids, toothed whales and so on show by instinct, even when this usage of toys may be momentarily detrimental to their health, cf. my quote above. Toys are not utilitarian and helping for the survival of any individual using them? Well, that shows at least that law personnel often looses contact with the laws of nature. I'll take this fact about toy copyright for granted but without understanding it... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're focusing on the phrasing and missing the point. Copyright covers books and paintings and statues and movies and music and maps. It doesn't cover functional things like furniture and cars. Many books, especially for children, are very utilitarian, didactically teaching humans how to behave or the facts of a subject, but they are copyrighted. Where do toys fall in there? Well, a lot of times they basically come down to statues in different materials, sometimes slightly articulated. They don't seem like the things previously defined as utilitarian.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)