Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/08

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Public Domain

Just wondering: How do we know that this image is public domain? The person depicted has long been dead, o.k., but as far as I can tell, we have no clue when or by whom this picture was drawn. It might have been drawn in this century by a modern-day artist, for all we know. Or can anyone find a clue to the artist in the source (Italian language, archived link)? --87.150.13.118 13:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

As the subject died in 1723, based on free public information I think the sketch artist is long dead and the sketch is PD. Further information may be behind the paywall at https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-5000006179 . — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Alamy has a copy which looks like it was taken from Commons, so I guess they were comfortable with the PD declaration. They don't give a date or a source either, though the text was copied from here. Have to admit, it looks more like an 1800s drawing, and not contemporary with the composer, but not something modern either. Would definitely prefer to know the source (was it actually meant to be of the composer -- wouldn't be the first time an image was misidentified -- and was it meant to be more of a caricature, etc.). Not sure I'd worry about deleting it. But yes, we don't know for sure it is public domain, but it certainly looks to me as though it would qualify for PD-old-assumed. Better resolution might confirm if it was a 19th-centry style engraving, and that sort of thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Welche Copyrightangaben fehlen?

Hallo zusammen, ich habe einige Dateien in Wikimedia hochgeladen. Auf meiner Seite hier bekomme ich jetzt die Rückmeldung, dass die Copyrightangaben nicht ausreichend sind. Ich verstehe aber nicht, was konkret ich anders hätte machen müssen. Vielleicht kann mir jemand von den erfahrenen User*innen helfen? Vielen Dank schon einmal. James von Hassell (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@James von Hassell: Nehmen wir als Beispiel File:Poppelreuter.jpg: Das deutsche Urheberrecht währt für 70 Jahre nach dem Tode des Urhebers, in diesem Falle des/der Fotografen/Fotografin. Wir bräuchten hier folgende Angaben: Wer war der Fotograf? Wenn er und seine Lebensdaten bekannt sind und er vor mehr als 70 Jahren verstorben ist, kann das Foto mit einem geeigneten Baustein wie {{PD-old-auto}} bleiben. Der Name des Fotografen und die Lebensdaten wären dabei anzugeben. Ist er vor nicht mehr als 70 Jahren verstorben, haben seine Erben oder die Person oder Körperschaft, an die die Rechte übertragen wurden, immer noch die Rechte am Bild und müssten eine Freigabe erteilen. Wenn der "BDH Bundesverband Rehabilitation" davon überzeugt ist, die Rechte am Foto zu haben (das ist ja nicht automatisch so, nur weil es in seinem Archiv ist) und die von dir eingetragene Lizenz {{FAL}} dafür vergeben möchte, wäre das per Freigabe-Erklärung ans Support-Team zu dokumentieren. Das Foto könnte dann später auch wiederhergestellt werden, falls es zwischenzeitlich wegen ungenügender Lizenzierung schon gelöscht wurde, wobei die Abarbeitung manchmal lange dauern kann. Ist der Fotograf allerdings komplett unbekannt, jedoch nachweisbar, dass das Foto bereits vor über 70 Jahren veröffentlicht wurde, käme eventuell {{PD-anon-70-EU}} für anonyme Werke in Frage, was allerdings gerade in Deutschland keine einfache Frage ist. Solltest du dich darauf berufen wollen, kannst du auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite File:Poppelreuter.jpg den Knopf Einspruch Schnelllöschen (du findest ihn unterhalb des Löschbausteins) drücken, um den Antrag in einen regulären Löschantrag umzuwandeln, so dass mehr Zeit für die Diskussion bleibt. Diese Möglichkeit hast du auch bei deinen anderen Uploads. Falls du das englische Interface hast, heisst der Knopf Challenge speedy deletion. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

PD-Malta

Hi, I recently revised the copyright legislation for Malta (I also asked the MT Parliament to email me the 1970 Copyright Act and uploaded that in Commons) and have ascertained that photographs published in 1912-1948 and 1970-1973 have entered public domain. I would like therefore to add a PD-Malta template (along the lines of Template:PD-Montenegro). I prepared the page Template:PD-Malta/en, but Template:PD-Malta is blocked. Can someone help me create such a template? Many thanks, --Dans (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Images from magazine under CC

Hello there, straightforward question: There is a british video game magazine Wireframe by Raspberry Pi Foundation. The magazine is published printed and digitally and states “Except where otherwise noted, content in this magazine is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0).” in its imprint of every issue.

Does that mean, that I can take any image (except where otherwise noted) from it and upload it under the same license to commons, as I did with my recent upload of a Mario Kart artwork? Thanks Emberwit (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Two issues here: 1) The CC BY-NC-SA is not an acceptable license. See COM:LJ for why we don't accept non-commercial licenses. 2) Even if it has an "except when otherwise noted" statement, people do make mistakes and forget things. Always be skeptical and look for solid evidence whenever a well-known copyrighted work (such as Mario) is concerned. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

My mistake then, I guess I just missed the NC-part when selecting the license. Thank you! Emberwit (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Emberwit (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyright correction - a request for help

Hi - I am trying to find a solution to a problem around copyright content for Wikimedia images and could do with a gentle nudge in the right direction. Wikimedia appears to allow original content but there are grey areas where ownership is concerned, which is where I am getting into a tangle. For instance, I own a portrait of a notable person who is described in a Wikipedia biography - so I took a photograph of the portrait (the artist died 200 years ago - so no legacy copyright laws apply) and submitted the photograph to bring the biography to life with a real image. I am now told that the license I applied (as my own work because I took the photograph) is bogus and will be taken down. My entry is clearly in error but how do I fix it? I understand that the photograph can not be reasonably characterised as "my own work" but how do I change the licensing entry removing any claim to copyright and declaring the work as Free and in the public domain?

Can anyone advise?

I have 17 similar entries which are being threatened with imminent mass extinction!

Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This depends on the date of death of the artist. If you are unsure of the date of death of the artist and the portrait was created before 1901, you can add the template {{PD-old-assumed}}. If you are aware of the date of death of the photographer, other templates would apply. Zoozaz1 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If the photo amounts to a copy of the painting, i.e. it is straight-on and cropped to the painting, it is generally considered a copy rather than a new work. If not, the photo would be your own work, but would be derivative of the copyright in the painting, so either way the authorship and copyright of the painting should be documented. You did document that, so the file probably should not have been nominated for deletion, given its age, but I'm guessing they saw an "own work" of an old painting, with a modern license, and did not look enough to fix it to put the artist's name in the author field, and fix the license a bit. If the painting has technically been unpublished all these years, the EU might have a 25-year publication right which the publisher would own, so there may be some rights on there. Anyways, I think you just need to make clear it is your own photo of an old painting, and document the painting's age and authorship as well in the author field, and the main license should be that of the painting. There is a specialized tag for this situation -- {{Licensed-PD-Art}} -- where you can document the license of the painting, and the license of your photo if that happens to apply anywhere (which it may not). PD-Art is for that particular type of photograph which is a copy of a painting; in those specific cases there is likely no copyright on the photo itself. I updated the page to use that tag, and remove the speedy deletion, since the painting's copyright is obviously expired if it is that old. I also added the Samuel Lane category. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

As for other works, claiming "own work" on copies of old photographs is generally a red flag, as "own work" indicates that you are the photographer and own the copyright. The copyright of the older works must be explained. We do have a {{PD-old-assumed}} tag for works more than 120 years old if you have no photographer or publication information. For the UK, there is also a {{PD-UK-unknown}} tag for works published more than 70 years ago, with no author / photographer being credited, but you'd need to supply at least some evidence for that situation. Many of your other uploads don't have that information, but rather a CC license instead. You would need to find the public domain reason for the underlying work, and use the appropriate license tags. If these are computer screenshots, then you own no copyright, so all "own work" claims are incorrect, and someone may have just marked all your uploads en-masse, as most of the rest do not look well documented. For example File:Blytheswood NSW.png is a photo of a painting, with the artist not documented at all nor the age, and what looks to be a computer icon in the top right so would not seem to be your photo, either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Carl Lindberg for your constructive response - it is easy to say "No" to anything that is non-compliant but it takes effort to convert barriers in to something that adds value to the public interest. You have given me a pathway to appropriate attribution, which I can now work with (chipping away at my ignorance in the process). Thankyou. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statuary copyright check?

I don't want to toss it straight into the RfD pool, but File:Bess Streeter Aldrich bust.jpg is a US photograph of a statue. Can someone check to see if it's old enough that a lack of copyright notice would matter?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This bust of Bess Streeter Aldrich by Herman Albert Becker (1909-?) is a public sculpture at the Nebraska Hall of Fame. Bess Streeter Aldrich was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1971-72. The Smithsonian's SIRIS database has a record for this sculpture (Control Number IAS 76001282). The Smithsonian does not provide a date for when this sculpture went on display, but it lists two references, the earliest of which is from 1976. So I think it is a safe assumption that it was put on display sometime between 1971 and 1976. Per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US a copyrighted work on public display before 1978 is considered to be published, and if the work does not have a copyright notice on it, it has lost its copyright protection and has entered the public domain. The researchers who maintain SIRIS are usually very good about noting inscriptions and other notations on the works in their database, and they make no mention of such. So I think it would be reasonable to call this {{PD-US-no notice}}. I've updated its license and the license of the extracted image. —RP88 (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

2009 BBC Proms image that was freely given out after the concert

I wrote o the bands manager to obtain a better image of the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain She gave me stating "The BBC put the image on their website for anyone to download and I believe it falls under Free Use"

[[File:The Audience facing the UOGB at the BBC Proms performance in 2009.jpg|thumb|The Audience facing the UOGB at the BBC Proms performance in 2009]]

I found the original web address and original file name

www.bbc.co.uk

proms/2009/gallery/ - First found on Nov 24, 2009

proms/2009/takepart/iwasthere/0818/ - First found on Nov 26, 2009

Filename: i1250688220_t.jpg (106 x 60, 5.4 KB)

Many other people have used the image

Unfortunately the BBC page is no longer available to show that the image is free to use. Not sure how to proceed. Bodney (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: Hi, and welcome. "Free Use" is another name for "Fair Use". If you can't get a compliant license, a file may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Many thanks for the advice, i will try uploading the file to English Wikipedia tomorrow, plus I have written to the BBC regards the status of the image & for permission. Bodney (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: You're welcome. They should send their permission, if any, directly via VRT with a carbon copy to you to keep all in the loop. Good luck! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bodney: Sorry to jump into this discussion late, but it's doubtful that the image qualifies as fair use on Wikipedia either, because the photograph depicts a musical group that performs in public, and photographs of living people are generally considered "replaceable" and not accepted. I can point you to the Wikipedia non-free content policy, though it's pretty complex so I can't promise that it'd be helpful or clarifying. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm also going to add that "free use" is actually not another name for "fair use", particularly when it's used on Wikipedia in reference to "non-free content". -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The "iwasthere" page is archived at [1] - but there is nothing to indicate a free licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

NZ FOP and indoor museum exhibits

According to c:COM:FOP New Zealand, there is freedom of panorama for publically displayed 3D works of art in New Zealand; however, I'm not sure if that would apply to File:Pisupo lua afe (Corned beef 2000).jpg which appears to be more of a museum exhibit and thus it's not clear whether it would be considered "a copyrighted work". The NZ FOP states that 3D works "permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public" can be freely photographed and I guess that would also include works displayed in public museums; however, there doesn't seem to be any distinction made between indoor and outdoor photography. If such a thing doesn't matter and the file is OK as licensed, then I'm wondering whether a separate license should be added to the file's page for the work itself or whether a license for only the photograph is sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Freedom_of_panorama public museums are OK (The law of NZ usually closely follow the UK law). And no, no separate license is required. (not clear which one?) Ruslik (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly and Ruslik0: I think there is a license for artworks of countries with sufficient FOP for Commons. That is {{FoP-New Zealand}}, which is accompanied by the users' licensing through the use of {{Licensed-FOP}}. It is optional to add such FOP license tags though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ruslik and JWilz12345. If there's no need for a separate license, then I guess the file is fine as is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Fundación Ambulancia del Deseo

Hola. Pretendo subir la imagen de la mascota de la Fundación Ambulancia del Deseo "osito Mario". https://ambulanciadeldeseo.es/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/osito-mario-ambulancia-del-deseo.png .Aunque ya solicité autorización a la Fundación, estoy pendiente de su respuesta. J. Manolo G. P. (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ambulance of Desire Foundation

Hello. I intend to upload the image of the mascot of the Ambulancia del Desire Foundation "bear Mario". https://ambulanciadeldeseo.es/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/osito-mario-ambulancia-del-deseo.png Although I have already requested authorization from the Foundation, I am awaiting your response.

translator: Google Translate via — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 09:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@J. Manolo G. P.: Hola y bienvenido. Cuando reciba dicha autorización, pídale a su correo correspondiente Commons: Licensing que cumpla con el permiso para dicho trabajo en su sitio web oficial o presencia en las redes sociales o envíe el permiso a través de VRT/es con una copia al carbón. Además, esa foto se verá borrosa cuando se reduzca (debido a las decisiones de diseño discutidas en phab: T192744), por lo que es posible que desee cargar una versión jpg que también se verá más nítida. Si no puede obtener una licencia compatible, la foto aún se puede cargar en Wikipedia en inglés de acuerdo con en: WP:F porque no permitimos el uso legítimo aquí. Desafortunadamente, no puede usar esa imagen (o cualquier contenido que no sea libre) como está directamente en Wikipedia en español; por favor vea los detalles en español en es: WP:FU.

Hi, and welcome. When you receive such authorization, please have your correspondent post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work on their official website or social media presence or send permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. Also, that photo will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744), so you may want to upload a jpg version which will look sharper, too. If you can't get a compliant license, the photo may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. Unfortunately, you may not use that image (or any nonfree content) as-is directly on Spanish Wikipedia; please see the details in Spanish at es:WP:FU. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 09:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A file which I have doubts about.

I found no evidence of permission (neither explicit permission on the website nor VRT/OTRS) for File:Bonifacio Global City 2.jpg to be released as public domain. There appears to be no copyright notices or any other notice that says that it is free to use or not. I have found none, even going through Wayback Machine. Caehlla2357 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Caehlla2357: I have tagged it as a candidate for speedy deletion (as having no evidence of permission via COM:VRT. The file will be deleted immediately if a week (7 days) has passed without a correspondence from the true copyright holder of the image. It seems that image is the only contribution of a certain RobertJonathanRizal (talk · contribs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you. Caehlla2357 (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Dubious file

Can anyone knowledgeable about EXIF data have a look at this file? It seems like a screenshot and the uploader is a prolific copyright violator. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the file. It was obviously taken from a TV report, see also this copyvio at YouTube for reference. De728631 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! - NitinMlk (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Gamer Network logo

A logo has been uploaded locally to the English Wikipedia as File:Gamer Network.png, tagged as public domain in the United States but not in its country of origin, the United Kingdom. However, I contest this logo's eligibility for copyright even in the United Kingdom. Using the copyrighted EDGE logo and others as my frame of reference, I found that the Gamer Network logo is not only entirely a flat text logo, save for a line drawn between the words, but I could not find any indicators of attempts of originality that would make it copyrighted there. The EDGE logo goes far enough as to be stretched and have an oblique line drawn at the E's, but here I see standard, uniform letters with consistent stroke width. I doubt that the logo could qualify as original in that country, unless it uses a typeface that I was previously unaware is actually novel. Free Media Kid! 20:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it does not seem copyrightable anywhere. Ruslik (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Images derived from Commons files

What is the best way to upload an image that one has derived from a Commons file, e.g. File:Citigroup Center (1977) (A. Moore) with frame - agr ink2.png? The problem I had was that the Commons file came from Flickr. If I give the source as File:Citigroup_Center_at_601_Lexington_Avenue_(1977)_(A._Moore)_-_Flickr.jpg, I am only presented with CC licenses starting with 2.5. But because that Commons file came from flickr, it has a CC-BY 2.0 license. If I give the original flickr file as the source, I get into filckr license review, which should not be necessary again. Ideally there should be a separate upload section for images derived from Commons file that handles the primary license properly but also asks for a license for the modifications that the uploader has made. --agr (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Upload it without a licence, then edit the page to add one. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Unknown publication date

For many of the paintings and other artworks we host on the basis of it being created <1924 and/or its author being dead for 70 years, we don't actually know the date of first publication. The date of publication is tricky for a painting (I don't think I fully understand it -- something about being "distributed to the public" whereby putting it on display or selling it doesn't necessarily qualify?). It is, of course, possible that a work was first published some 20 years after the death of the author. How do we handle those scenarios (and/or not knowing)? More specifically, where is this guidance documented? My assumption has been that if the author has been dead for 70 years or it was created <1924, we're safe to err on the side of inclusion, but that publication date is slippery. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If the author is known and dead for more than 70 years, the date of publication usually does not matter. The problem is usually with anonymous unpublished works. Ruslik (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: but "usually" based on what -- and how do you determine what to do if publication date is unknown? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It usually doesn't matter only because of a consistent pattern of ignoring the rules about "must be free in the US". Even then, it certainly matters for US works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

For all recent publications (since 2003) this will be true even in USA. Ruslik (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Since 1978, actually. If paintings are unpublished as of 2003, then yes the U.S. term is a straight 70pma, but published anytime before that than publication date can matter (or even control it completely). In the EU, not likely to matter, other than that 25-year publication right, if first published after 70pma expires. The U.S. definition of "publication" was extremely tortured back then, as it was not defined in law, so there is no easy definition or criteria. For the most part, unless there is some indication that work did remain unpublished (like it remained in the artist's family for a long time), we usually assume publication around the time it was created. COM:PRP is about significant doubts, not theoretical doubts, and to me the possibility that something remained unpublished for decades is relatively rare, and not something that rises to a theoretical doubt. If you can show that a work did in fact remain unpublished for a long time, then that would of course change the situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Using an image made by government of japan

Hello, I am wanting to create an article about a specific Japanese politician. There is a picture of him here:

https://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/joho1/kousei/eng/members/profile/7013054.htm

I don't know if I can use itBwmdjeff (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bwmdjeff: I don't think you may. Photos by employees of the government of Japan do not appear to be exempt from copyright like photos by employees of the government of the US. If you can't get a compliant license, a photo may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bwmdjeff: While a number of Japanese central and local authorities uses {{GJSTU-2.0}} as a free license, apparently the Japanese Diet don't license their images under it. Perhaps you can look for the website of Japan's Prime Minister, in which it's licensed under {{GJSTU-2.0}}, and PM Mr. Suga do publish some images taken during meetings with MPs, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

How about South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks?

When I was researching South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks, I found the following article.

See article. This article uses Korean language.

To summarize this article:

In a copyright lawsuit between EVISU Japan and EVISU Korea, Seoul High Court ruled in favor of EVISU Korea.

The court judged, "The seagull pattern is a figure made of a single line, and there is no standardized ratio in the height difference between the protrusions, and it is difficult to see that it contains a meaning that distinguishes it from other figures, so it cannot be recognized for originality."

The court also judged, "The figure of Ebisu is the same as the figure of Ebisu, widely used at the Imamiya Ebisu Shrine Festival in Osaka, Japan, so it cannot be regarded as a creation worthy of copyright protection."

And, I also found the following article.

See article. This article uses Korean language.

To summarize this article:

In a copyright lawsuit between Fox Racing and Fox Korea, South Korean Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fox Racing.

South Korean Supreme Court ruled that the logo of Fox Racing was copyrighted because it was distinguishable from other works.

(The logo of Fox Racing is also protected by copyright in the United States. Therefore, The logo of Fox Racing is not allowed in Commons, it is uploaded to Wikipedia for fair use.)

With both judgments, what about South Korean TOO for logos and trademarks?

Also, I would like someone to add the above two articles as examples of South Korean TOO.

Ox1997cow (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: Excuse me, but could you find the original Korean texts (with proper citation) of the two judgments? Also you've mentioned that The figure of Ebisu is the same as the figure of Ebisu, widely used at the Imamiya Ebisu Shrine Festival in Osaka, Japan, so it cannot be regarded as a creation worthy of copyright protection and logo of Fox Racing was copyrighted because it was distinguishable from other works, in which it seems that both are mentioned on COM:TOO South Korea. Though, you're always feel free to add more authoritative court cases to the page, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: Here they are.

Anyway, do you think South Korean TOO for logos and trademarks is high? Do you think it is low? I couldn't find any other case law. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Uploading a modified file where 1) the original has an OTRS ticket and 2) the modification was done by another Commons user

I'm currently looking to upload a file which has been modified from the original by another user (namely cropping) in order to then restore the original uncropped upload. While the original file does have CC-by-SA-3.0 licensing (which presumably extends to the cropped version as well), I've noticed that it also has an OTRS ticket. Can OTRS tickets be shared between various versions of the same file, particularly where I am not the originator of any modified version? If not, then how should I proceed with what I intend to do?--Dvaderv2 (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You should refer to the same ticket together with the CC-by-SA-3.0 license. Ruslik (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

UK copyright for anonymous works

The Great Western Railway existed from 1835 to 31 December 1947; it was succeeded by the Western Region of British Railways which lasted until 31 December 1992.

In 1935 (its Centenary year) the GWR published a booklet Swindon Works and its place in Great Western Railway History. This was published by the railway from Paddington Station, London, and the General Manager, James Milne, was listed with the publishers name. No authorship is given. The book includes text and photographs, none of it credited.

What term of copyright applies to such a publication? In particular, may I scan and upload the images to Commons? --Verbarson (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

On further investigation: according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

12 Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works.

...

(3)If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires—

(a)at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or

(b)if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,...

(subject to certain conditions, none of which apply in this case)

Therefore there is no corporate equivalent of the 'death of the author', and the 70 year copyright period begins immediately. I deduce that this specific publication is out of copyright, and may be reproduced and uploaded to Commons. --Verbarson (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Ick. For the UK, the original anonymous work would have lasted 50 years from publication, so would have expired on January 1, 1986. The EU directive, which the UK applied effective January 1, 1996, would have restored the work to 70 years from publication. So, it was under copyright again from 1996 until it re-expired on January 1, 2006. (If a human author was named, then the copyright term would be based on their lifetime, even though the company would actually own the copyright. Companies cannot be "authors", they can only be "first copyright owners".) The work is public domain in the UK, and by this point the rest of the EU (some of which may have protected it for the full 70 years without break, and likely 80 years in Spain).

The reason I say "ick", is because that meant it was copyrighted in the UK on January 1, 1996, which is the URAA date for U.S. copyright. That in turn means the U.S. copyright was restored, and that lasts 95 years from publication, so would not expire there until 2031. Commons policy is public domain in both the country of origin (the UK in this case) and the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Using images from public library database

Hi, I would like to double check that it is acceptable to upload the following images to commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joan_Irvine_Smith_in_a_wheat_field,_ca._1937.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wedding_of_Joan_Irvine_Smith_and_Charles_L_Swinden,_with_Linda,_Gloria,_and_Myford_Irvine_1952.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Athalie_Richardson_Irvine_Clarke_with_daughter_Joan_as_a_toddler_at_Irvine_Cove,_ca._1935.jpg

I found them on a database called "OC Stories - Historical Images & Videos" of the Orange County Public Library. There is no specific license information but I found this statement about usage: "Use of images from OC Stories is granted free of any restriction. If these images are published or displayed in any format, credit must be given to OC Stories in a credit line." https://cdm16838.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/about

Thanks, --Alan Islas (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The general "Use" terms further up that page state that "Owners give OC Public Libraries permission to post images online for educational, non-commercial purposes for viewing, downloading, printing, or reproduction for historical research." That non-commercial disclaimer is incompatible with our requirements and we do need to know the copyright status for every upload, whereas OC Stories writes that copyright status is unknown. So, I don't think we should use their images. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks De728631 for looking into this and your response. I'll contact the library and ask about the copyright status of each one. If I don't get an answer or if it's taking a while I'll request deletion for the time being.

By the way, I don't understand why Commons cannot use non-commercial licenses/permissions, since the usage for Wikipedia is non-commercial. I keep finding this restriction to be frustrating and to greatly limit options of images that can be used. Anyway, I'm sure there is a good reason, I just don't know it. --Alan Islas (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Alan Islas: COM:LJ answers your exact question. --Wcam (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

"Published" vs "made available to the public"

Copyright is confusing enough as it is, without the hair-splitting distinction between "published" and "made available to the public", as found, for example, in the Commons:Anonymous works#UK section, where a work can be made available to the public while remaining unpublished. This is presumably an important distinction in UK law, but I would normally assume that the two mean exactly the same thing. Can someone explain the difference between them (preferably with examples)? My current concern is with literary and photographic items. I thank you. --Verbarson (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, things like public display or exhibition or a TV broadcast do not technically constitute "publication", however they do constitute "communication to the public". And "publication" may imply some sort of distribution or receipt of copies, where "making available" does not -- no copies would necessarily have to change hands. The UK copyright law, in section 20, says:

(2)References in this Part to communication to the public are to communication to the public by electronic transmission, and in relation to a work include—

(a)the broadcasting of the work;

(b)the making available to the public of the work by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them

Publishing a work would also be making it available, but there are ways to "make available" a work without publishing it. "Making available" has been a larger part of laws since the 1990s I think. Older UK copyright laws started certain terms based on publication, with unpublished works (other than photos) having an infinite copyright, but their 1988 law (effective starting 1989) removed the infinite term, but gave a maximum of 50 years from 1989 for works still unpublished (i.e. through 2039). Later on, the EU directives started the 70-year anonymous term on the "making available to the public" instead of "publication", which could extend the term of existing works, but could not shorten the older 50-year-from-first-publication terms that UK law had given them, so there are a tangle of possibilities there -- that section is basically stating for works unpublished as of 1989, the term is either 50 years from 1989, or 70 years from the making available to the public, whichever is longer. UK photos are different; photos taken before June 1957 had a term of 50 years from creation, so have expired by the old law, so their only protection now is the restored copyright based on the EU directive terms alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely relevant, but I'll chip in here to add another quirk of British information terminology where "public domain" is often used to refer to information that is publicly accessible regardless of its actual copyright status as much as (and probably far more than) it is used to refer to information that is properly in the public domain from a copyright perspective.--Dvaderv2 (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

True, the sense of "public domain" in regards to copyright is more specifically a Commons usage. The U.S. Copyright Office avoids it too, seeming to prefer the term "no known copyright restrictions", since "public domain" can imply more than just copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Space imagery in Category:Files from Justin Cowart Flickr stream

This category contains images from this Flickr account under the name Justin Cowart, which hosts re-processed space imagery from NASA, ESA, CNSA, etc. These derivative works themselves are licensed under an acceptable CC BY license on Flickr but fail to identify the (copyright statuses of) original works, therefore they need to be tagged as {{Dw no source since}}. I am concerned that many of these are made from bona fide freely licensed original works such as File:AS09-20-3069 - 47768617451.png and can be kept. Is there a better way to address this than batch {{Dw no source since}}-ing them? --Wcam (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

They do describe the satellite or space program it was from, so unless there are non-pd uploads, they can be kept.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Transit Smart Cards

There are some files (File:CHCH Metrocard.JPG and File:CHCH Mobile Phone Metrocard.JPG) which are currently listed as in the public domain. Could someone clarify whether transit smart cards would be considered as “public domain”? Shouldn’t it be copyrighted and therefore be deleted from Commons and uploaded on Wikipedia instead? The other problem is that the original user who uploaded these files has vanished, so obviously they won’t be able to reupload these images on Wikipedia anyway. Just the main thing is whether it belongs on Commons or not. I’ve noticed that other smart card images on Wikipedia such as the Opal card are NOT on Commons and are solely on Wikipedia, which is why I’m asking. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The designs of the cards you gave examples of look too simple for copyright, so Template:PD-shape or Template:PD-text would apply. Not sure about the Canterbury logo.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy delete question

Can someone explain this to me please? This is pretty much the most blatant kind of copyright infringement I can imagine, with the copyright holder including his full contact details and "Please pay me before using this photo" in the exif data. What is speedy delete for if not for cases like this? --87.150.13.119 11:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@87.150.13.119: You should probably just ask the user who made the edit at User talk:King of Hearts. They replaced just replaced your speedy tag with a different one, so it will be deleted anyway. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I did. I did not find the explanation convincing. It seems to be more important not to "demoralize" SPAs who are interested in publishing their one PR article than to protect the rights of copyright holders, even in an extremely obvious case like this. It's beyond me why we even have a speedy delete procedure if it's not applied in a case like this one. How much more clear can a photographer make his intentions? --87.150.13.119 14:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It was in fact a copyright violation. Published here without a free licence, so I deleted it. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't even seen that, but the photographer's info in the exif data was so clear and unambiguous that I really couldn't see how this should not be a copyright violation. --2003:C0:8F33:F00:1584:65A9:E1:1B58 23:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) (Sorry, my router insists on giving me this silly new IP address.)

This section was archived on a request by: 2003:C0:8F33:F00:1584:65A9:E1:1B58 23:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Inanimate Insanity Logo Question

File:InanimateNewLogo.png claims it is own work, but I highly doubt this[2]. I am not sure about II's copyright status though. I think it may be borderline {{PD-textlogo}}, or a copyvio. Unbinilium-322 Dibromide (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It indeed may be just a {{PD-textlogo}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Completly unsure about

Wikimedia has an image My Lai massacre.jpg in different versions. A well known variation is this image with some text added, shown in various American museums and on their web pages, e.g. the Smithsonian https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/q-and-babies-and-babies-111524. Yhe text of four words was added by The Art Workers’ Coalition (AWC):

"The Art Workers’ Coalition (AWC) was a group of New York artist-activists. After the exposé of atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in 1968 in the My Lai Massacre, AWC members Frazer Dougherty, Jon Hendricks, and Irving Petlin designed this poster. Its image was taken at the scene by army photographer Ron Haeberle. The devastating phrase “And babies” came from a news interview with soldier Paul Meadlo, who had participated in the slaughter."

Another explanation tells (RIGHTS STATEMENT © The Artists' Poster Committee of the Art Workers' Coalition):

"Copyright for this work may be controlled by the artist, the artist's estate, or other rights holders. A more detailed analysis of its rights history may, however, place it in the public domain. The Museum does not warrant that the use of this work will not infringe on the rights of third parties. It is your responsibility to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions before copying, transmitting, or making other use of protected items beyond that allowed by "fair use," as such term is understood under the United States Copyright Act. For further information about copyright, we recommend resources at the United States Library of Congress, Cornell University, Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums, and Copyright Watch. For more information about the Museum's rights project, including how rights types are assigned, please see our blog posts on copyright. If you have any information regarding this work and rights to it, please contact copyright@brooklynmuseum.org. If you wish to contact the rights holder for this work, please email copyright@brooklynmuseum.org and we will assist if we can."

My question: Is this image useable in Commons - and when yes, under what license ?
When not: Is the arrangement protected, i.e. may I compose by myself a version of e.g. Dead from the My Lai massacre on road.jpg with that text, under the wikimedia license of the original? -- sarang♥사랑 06:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

There are credits on the image, but they don’t seem to include a copyright notice as the USA required at the time. OTOH there might have been a notice on the back or on a cropped-out border, in which case it would be protected until 2046. Or the poster as such may not have been the first publication of the design with notice. If that’s the case, a recreation would have to avoid mimicking any of the creative expression in the original—at least the visual aspects; the text is probably too short (but perhaps debatable), and there’s no copyright on concepts. (And assuming the photo from here is free; I didn’t look into them.) That said, if no evidence of notice can be found for the original, through enough diligence to satisfy COM:PRP, the licence tag would be {{PD-US-no-notice}}.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The text comes from the interview and is uncopyrightable. So, there is a composition consisting of a public domain image + a short public domain text overprinted on it, which is unlikley to be above the ToO. Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479 and Ruslik0: Thank you for your explanations. The pictures on our category Corpses from the My Lai massacre are doubtless useable, and I may add any text and republish it on wikimedia.

But I am not allowed to just copy a picture into wikimedia from any of the webpages e.g.

— or is e.g. the Library Of Congress in Public Domain and therefore copyable ? -- sarang♥사랑 06:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

To the last question, in general definitely not; they’re a repository of copyrighted and public-domain works alike. They don’t own whatever IP may subsist in the content (except perhaps some explicit gifts & bequests), and providing public access does not change that. As for copying, though, if my no-notice argument or Ruslik0’s too-simple argument holds water (which in practice here means prevailing in any deletion discussion that may be raised), then yes, you can copy any instance of the image.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I had uploaded And Babies.jpg and now I am waiting what will happen — whether a DR will start -- sarang♥사랑 09:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

uploading image

Hi, I'm trying to upload a portrait image for a new wiki page, but it doesn't upload, just some generic message that it didn't work, no specific reason mentioned. What is one to do without any feedback? I've written the name of the person on the image, the photographers name (not my own, but permission given for wiki commons use). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellodop (talk • contribs) 20:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bellodop: Hi, and welcome. I don't see any evidence of such a rejection in our logs for your account. Please be more specific in the error message or account used, and see COM:SIGN. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 08:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sports clothing for professional competitions

Hi all,

I'd like to quickly run something by you. According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Sports_uniforms/kits professional sport kits are protected by copyrights. In big competitions like the Tour de France, they create new designs for the jerseys every year. On the other hand a yellow jersey in the Tour de France might also just be considered a yellow jersey with some sponsoring printed on it.

For the second time I am now working on a VRTS permissions request involving sports clothing, and I am still not really whether to accept or not. We have so many sports clothing hosted on our database, that the first time I accepted a release for images taken of this kind of clothing, but now the holder of the rights to the pictures is returning with a second set of 500+ images (really well portrayed!) sports clothing. What would be wise to do? I actually lean towards cleaning up the complete Category:Sports clothing by sport, or can I accept these kind of image as in the gif on the right? Ciell (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ciell: The statement on Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Sports_uniforms/kits is very clear. Sport kits are copyrighted. A yellow Tshirt as you show here is imho PD. But the logo's on the shirt are copyrighted and cannot be considered "de minimis". I think only sport kits with simple text logo's can be considered to be in PD. You may look at previous deletion requests here. Elly (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ellywa, for the T-shirt, and the rest of the sport kits, I am not sure if they themselves can be considered PD, even without the logo's - but I am not sure if I would be to strict. For cycling, as for speed skating for instance, the sport kits are improved and designs are adjusted every year. The air flow around the suit has to be perfect, in order to go as fast as possible. Compare 1995 (men) with 2015 (men) for instance, and the 2020 (women).

VRTS is for documenting evidence which cannot be collected on-wiki, not for arguing minutia of publicly readable copyright law. If you are convinced that the customer is the photographer/copyright holder of the photos, but there is little chance that continuing further would lead to a license release from the creator of the shirts, I would accept the ticket but note that it only covers the image, not the original work. If it gets nominated for deletion then people will be able to react accordingly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Yes, I am convinced of the copyright holder, but I also do not want to have 500+ images on Commons with long discussions and a disappointed GLAM partner, if they were not in line with Commons policies in the first place. I know this is not my responsibility from VRTS point of view, but if that was what I doubted I would be asking a second opinion on the VRTS-wiki. I'm asking this on Commons because I want a 2nd opinion on if the images fit within our policies, so I can advise the GLAM accordingly. Ciell (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting... I have another opinion of the task of the VRT team members (Ciell and myself are both members of the Dutch team). On the NL queue we receive many permission statements and uploads, through the website https://wikiportret.nl . We don't help uploading obvious copyvio's, images taken from the internet, portraits people sent of themselves obviously made by another person, screen captures of TV, incoherent meta data... if we would upload all of these to Commons, the workload of the DR's will be even larger then it is now. I assume this is why Ciell asks the opinion of Commons collegues. Elly (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between permissions-commons and photosubmission, and also a difference between obvious copyvios and edge cases. If these jerseys are on photosubmission, then I would not spend the effort to upload them when there is a high chance of deletion. If these jerseys have already been uploaded to Commons, then might as well slap a VRTS tag on it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

They have not been uploaded yet, they are pending for permission (per Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Release of big collections, which we use for GLAM donations in the Dutch queue). Ciell (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Basically:

Agent's opinion of image's status	permissions-commons	photosubmission
Almost certainly kept	Accept	Upload
Uncertain	Keep pushing for more evidence (if applicable), then accept, noting the uncertainty	Don't upload
Almost certainly deleted	Keep pushing for more evidence (if applicable), then reject if not improved	Don't upload

This applies not only to copyright issues, but also other things like COM:SCOPE. So if I get a license release for a selfie of a random person on permissions-commons (and all the evidence checks out), I would just confirm the permission since it's not our place as agents to judge an image's usefulness. However, if I get the same image on photosubmission, I would ask them to state its educational purpose before being willing to upload it on their behalf. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, fully agree. Elly (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ellywa and Ciell: I have sometimes wanted to check Wikiportret submissions. Is understanding of Dutch required for that? I can use Google Translate. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is in Dutch. You are welcome to check anytime. The procedure we use is outlined here nl:Wikipedia:Wikiportret. Elly (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elly: Thank you. How does one become authorized to login to https://www.wikiportret.nl/admin/index.php ? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: , the login to the website gives access to the original (local) uploads. These are cleaned on an irregular basis, because many uploaded images are copyright violations, perhaps also to save serverspace. The same information (except the image itself) is to be found in this VRT queue: permissions::permissions-nl::wikiportret . The first email to the VRT system about any upload is sent automatically with this information. I think User:Mbch331 can provide more details about the login procedure. Perhaps it is more convenient if I send you an example of screen prints of a recent Wikiportret upload by email? Its only one page per upload. The information is private, because it contains an emailadress and names. Elly (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G., @Ellywa: To login you need an account for Wikiportet. And those aren't linked to Wikimedia accounts. Giving access to non-Dutch people makes it harder to track if people are still active on VRT and no longer should have access. (Only VRT users are can have access because of the private information that's stored on Wikiportret).

All photo's are still accessible. Only thing that happens is that they're marked as archived, so it's more clear which photos need to be checked. Mbch331 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elly, Mbch331: Thank you. I will explore that after my RfA. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 20:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Two Dimensional Representations on Three Dimensional Objects

Would two dimensional representations of company logos on three dimensional objects, such as those on box art (example, source) or product labels (example, source), be public domain?

My understanding is that generally 2D objects published before 1977 – and unoriginal reproductions of them – are public domain, but 3D objects are not. However, it would seem to me that the examples above, other than being applied to or depicted on a 3D object, have all of the characteristics of a 2D object. Therefore, provided they are cropped to show just the logo, they would qualify as public domain. –Noha307 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Photographs of 3D objects get a new copyright, but the 3D objects themselves were subject to the same rules, though most of these types of things the objects themselves would be uncopyrightable in the US. Printing would need to be checked for copyright rules, whether foreign publication meant they're still in copyright or if they actually had needed copyright notices.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Old painting from Louvre

Is it OK to import that painting from Joseph-Désiré Court (1797–1865)? Thank you. William C. Minor (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@William C. Minor: that depends on what you count as “OK”. According to Commons policy the copyright claim is invalid (some here would call it “copyfraud”), so the image can be hosted here with a {{PD-art}} notice. That would definitely appear to be a violation of the site’s ToU, however; only you can decide whether or not you can do that with a clear conscience and accept any risks under French law that might expose you to.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you input @Odysseus1479: I thought that Louvre authorities had agreed that there can be no copyright on faithful reproductions of artworks. Was I wrong? William C. Minor (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@William C. Minor: sorry, I don’t know any more than what they say on the website. If they did agree to that, I suppose it’s possible the policy was only applied to reproductions made from a certain point onward, so as not to break previous arrangements. Or maybe they simply haven’t gotten around to updating the site …—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Photo of a photo on a monument?

I am wondering about the Creative Commons status of File:Radhabinod Pal.jpg, which has been uploaded with claims of "Own work" – which appears questionable as it looks like a professional studio photograph. The image may have been extracted from one of the various photos on Commons of the monument to Pal at the w:Yasukuni Shrine, but there's no acknowledgement of the source. What are the rules regarding images of monuments that include a photo embedded in the monument? Muzilon (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muzilon: Hi, and welcome. I tagged it with {{Dw no source since}} for you. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 08:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you... but as a matter of general principle does Commons allow "photographs of photographs" if the original may still be under copyright? Muzilon (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muzilon: A photo of a previous work is a derivative work. You can read Commons policy on derivative works at Commons:Derivative works. In general a photograph of a work that is still copyrighted protected can not be freely licensed, and thus not permitted on Commons. However, Commons has two exceptions to this general rule:

Commons:Freedom of panorama — in some jurisdictions photographs of copyrighted works on permanent public display are permissible,
Commons:De minimis — if the copyrighted content is a very small portion of the photograph.

Somewhat similar is the opposite case, i.e. a photographer claims copyright on their photograph of a public domain 2D work. In this case the Wikimedia Foundation's position is that a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain works of art is public domain. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. —RP88 (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated this user's other two uploads for deletion as they do not appear to be their "own work." Ixfd64 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Die Glocke : copyright image

The wiki page for Die Glocke is showing an image that is credited to the wrong person. My name is David Winship and I created that image. It can be found at my deviant art page https://www.deviantart.com/vitaloverdose/art/Die-Glocke-The-Bell-121651192. I don't mind wiki using my image but it is credited to the wrong person. In fact, I have much better images of Die Glocke that I would be happy for Wikipedia to use. The one on display was from 2009 and I have made much better renderings on the 3d model since that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Winship (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Under which license do you want it to be present here? Ruslik (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2021

It's a very old image I'm happy with a free license with credit to me. I could also provide a more up-to-date image if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Winship (talk • contribs) 00:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for sorting that out for me Ruslik, that has been a thorn in my side for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Winship (talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The author information has been already changed. If you want to upload additional images, you can do this under your current username. Ruslik (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Rules for work published by an entity in country A but printed/sold in country B

I have a few periodicals I'm hoping to upload. They would be public domain according to United States copyright rules (due to copyright non-renewal), but I'm not sure if that's sufficient given that they have some ties to other countries. For example, I have one magazine which self-describes as being "published by" a studio with a UK address, but "printed in" the United States. The cover price is given in (presumably US) dollars. Another was published by a Canadian publisher but printed and sold in the US. (The publishers may or may not have printed other editions of the same magazine in their home country. I can try to look into this if it's relevant.)

Is it sufficient to use US copyright rules to determine whether these are PD? I couldn't find much about this situation, though Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States mentions that URAA restoration applies to Works which were first published outside the US (and not subsequently republished in the US within 30 days). Does this mean I can use US copyright rules provided the issue wasn't published outside the US more than 30 days earlier than its US publication? And if so, can anyone suggest reasonable good-faith steps I could take to try to find evidence of prior non-US publication? I can't exactly prove a negative, but would want to at least satisfy COM:PCP. Colin M (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Legally, to host an image on Wikimedia Commons, it is only required to be PD in the US. Note that COM:HIRTLE provides different PD requirements for works which are legally US works (i.e. first published in the US, possibly simultaneously with another country within 30 days) vs. foreign works.

Morally, we also require works to be PD in the source country. The definition of "source country" does not necessarily have to align with the legal definition, and is something we can set ourselves via consensus. But this is simply a "house rule" that we choose to enforce, rather than any strict legal requirement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have a sense of where the current consensus falls on cases like the ones described above (assuming they were published first/exclusively in the US)? I mean, I guess I could just upload them and see what happens, but I'd just like to avoid making work for other editors if it's very likely they'll end up deleted. Colin M (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It's fine to upload anything you believe in good faith to be PD; the file description should include an explanation why if it is not immediately obvious. Someone can nominate it for deletion if they want, but I would not consider it "likely" for images meeting your description to be deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerning self-made photos, and paid portaits of oneself that have been published widely in the internet already (by venues, festivals, etc.)

I try to add a photo to a wikipage. I own the photo, it was taken by a professional photographer and I paid for it, I can use it in public. The photo has been published by a number of festivals, by universities, conferences etc. I was told I need a 'written declaration of consent to use copyright-protected media'. Does this declaration have to be signed by the author? Or is the name enough?

If I publish a photo that I made myself, do I give this consent to myself before publishing on WikiCommons?

Thank you, Horchposten — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.46.204.248 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

To your first question: Please see the instructions on COM:VRT. A work by a professional photographer generally belongs to the photographer even if you paid for it, unless the photographer transferred the copyright to you in writing.

To your second question: If you have not posted the photo on another website, then generally not. It is best to post the photo at original resolution with EXIF metadata to avoid people questioning your authorship. If you have posted the photo elsewhere, then you also need to go through the VRT procedure. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This is an Autrian IP address. To the best of my knowledge, by Austrian law, it is not possible to transfer the copyright unless by death and inheritance. --2003:C0:8F33:F00:1086:C63D:59A0:3AA7 11:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion - are museum label images copyvios?

Before I go on a speedy deletion b/c copyright spree, can I check that my understanding in the following matter is correct, please.

@Orizan: is uploading one or more sets of images of ancient objects photographed by someone who has placed their work in the public domain. However amongst the photo stream are images of museum labels; examples:

My understanding is that the museum which originated the notice is the copyright holder of the notice, and that Commons considers such images to be copyvios. Is that correct? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

What I would consider to be a label would not be copyrighted; a few words of a purely factual matter doesn't gather copyright in the US. However, these works, that have at least a paragraph of text, especially with photos attached, are clearly copyrighted by their authors or photographers or possibly creators.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Question on the so-called de facto Italian FOP

Affected page: COM:CRT/Italy#Freedom of panorama (the exceptions)

Just today, at UNDEL, @Racconish: expressed doubts over the so-called de facto freedom of panorama for Italian works (like buildings and public art) by authors who are deceased for 1-69 years (that is, less than 70 years p.m.a.). The exception was recently recognized after the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/04#On Italian FOP - cases and status (which involved me). As per Racconish, there are various articles and sources that seem to refute the supposed interpretations of a de facto FOP from the 2008 ministerial response (available here in Italian language). For one article by Luca Spinelli (which I believe is authoritative as Luca Spinelli is mentioned as a significant figure on Italian FOP matters, at en:Freedom of panorama#Italy), it considers the ministerial pronouncement as vague and somehow contradicts the Italian copyright law that mandates protection of works for 70 years after the deaths of their artists or architects. This implies there are some Italians questioning the rationality of the ministerial response. Other articles: this, this, and even this by Wikimedia Italia itself, have no mentions of a so-called de facto FOP for works by authors who are dead for less than 70 years.

For this reason I reopen this discussion regarding the matter, as it is becoming evident that Italy does not have FOP indeed — for anything.

Besides mentioning Racconish above, I will also mention all people involved in that prior discussion: @Ruthven, Marta Arosio (WMIT), Marco Chemello (WMIT), Gianfranco, Sannita (WMIT), and Blackcat: . Also ping @Liuxinyu970226 and Ox1997cow: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear. It is not that these sources refute the ministerial response itself, but they refute some interpretations of this response, which is in any case formulated so vaguely tit cannot be considered as a strong base for a "de facto exception". — Racconish ^💬 15:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Racconish: I stand corrected. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes but. 1. That's Luca Spinelli's own opinion (a Swiss lawyer of Italian mother tongue) expressed on his own blog; 2. It was expressed 13 years ago. 3. Since when we base our copyright policy on blog entries? -- Blackcat 15:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Per en:Wikipedia:Blogs as sources since Luca Spinelli is an expert on the subject. I have also given three other sources. On the other hand, which sources sustain the claim of a "de facto exception" based on this ministerial response? — Racconish ^💬 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The ministerial response itself :-) -- Blackcat 15:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The ministerial response merely says "Pertanto, ove il soggetto fotografato fosse un’ opera di autore vivente, l’utilizzo non potrà avvenire che nei limiti anzidetti etc." (Therefore, if the photographed subject is a work of a living author, it can only be used within the aforementioned limits). It says nothing about dead authors and moreover nothing about authors dead for less than 70 years. We cannot base our policy on an a subjective and unsustained interpretation that the explicit statement on living authors is implicitely equivalent to a statement on all dead authors, regardless of the death date, despite the copyright protection granted 70 years pma by the Italian law. We need at least a reliable published source on this ministerial response considering it establishes such a "de facto exception", and even more so in view of the fact there are a number of recent sources (I cited 3) saying there is no such exception. — Racconish ^💬 15:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: In some cases, we may need to put a delete request on {{FoP-Italy}}. And we may need to re-attach {{NoUploads}} to categories of buildings or sculptures in Italy where {{NoUploads}} has been removed or marked as {{NoUploads|0}}. {{NoUploads|0}} means that the copyright is expired as soon as the author dies. (For example, Category:Allianz Tower (Arata Isozaki and Andrea Maffei are still living.), Category:Needle, Thread and Knot (Claes Oldenburg is still living.), Category:Generali Tower (Zaha Hadid died in 2016.), etc.) Ox1997cow (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, so far, since when we were discussing the same issue. I should then simply repeat what I said (better, what @Ruthven: summarised) in April: there is a list of protected monuments (architectural works) which are protected because they show elements needing attention, therefore they undergo protection and listing. This sort of [unintentional] joke means that if a given work is in the list, we can't use it here, but if it's not in the list no interest has been recognised in its content, therefore it doesn't deserve the protection of the Italian Copyright Act, the same way it happens to {{PD-Italy}} non-artistic works. Being in the list also means that owners will receive contributions and tax reductions for the works they own (not to mention a huge extra worth on the real estate market), so if the owners themselves (not the architects - author) don't ask for fiscal advantages for the works they possess, or in case they are refused (because their works are not recognised as of interest), we can deduce that their works are not of interest and are not worth the legal protection.
Please bear in mind that the famous ministerial response answers a question that explicitly mentions Wikipedia, so what we read in that answer is not to be meant as vaguely related: it regards us directly.
Apart from all that, you might be right in this, I can see no difference between a living author and a recently (<70) died one. If they are entitled to royalties, they both are; or neither is. The 70pma rule makes a difference. The formal legal meaning of the politician's words would effectively limit the regulation to living authors, this is precisely what he said; but the substantial legal logic behind the whole copyright scheme actually allows those words to make sense only if the politician forgot (by mistake or in a hurry) to mention the <70pma authors. Yet, we are not talking about the unlisted works, this was about those works which the "Urbani decree" put under paywall. And that we could never use.
But we shouldn't miss an important point, I do believe. If this is an argument which is still under political scrutiny (it isn't really, but let's figure...), we certainly are a player in the game, as the WikiWorld. Therefore we have a right, and we won't dismiss it, to have a say and to follow our free-knowledge-focused agenda. As such, we have to always remember what is in the "Wiki" interest and what's not. It is not in the Wiki interest, for instance, to stress for a rigid compliance of the Italian law with the EU law: we enjoy a legitimate (and rich) {{PD-Italy}} because the Italian law is not completely coherent with the Unionist one. So an elementary call for a generic European uniformity should never be a proposal of ours; a very specific and sharply shaped request for FOP could, instead. I wouldn't consequently forge and foster a strict policy about this, a policy in which - matter of fact - we would be more severe than the Italian Government; rather, I would leave open any road our system allows, so to show materially and tangibly the importance and the possible advantage that FOP represents for a Country like Italy; one of the roads might be the risk of deletion of a certain amounts of pictures, a threat which already proved to be impressive to outsiders far more than it would be to us.
In "political" terms, the under-secretary made a sort of... acrobatic stunt in giving us a favourable backing about "the Coliseum", while avoiding at the same time to disown the Urbani decree, which is always in effect. The good part is in that "what's not forbidden is allowed, go on with the Coliseum"; then there is what, in his role, he couldn't restrain himself from pointing out, but we know that he had to. Then there is a cluster of considerations that might gain their own place in this context; one of them is that when I was a SIAE's advisor at their headquarters, I could learn that they practically didn't even know about royalties from architectural works, it is quite certain that they never ever collected a single eurocent in this field, and it is more certain that they don't have a specialised unit for this kind of revenues like they have for music, cinema, literature, painting, etc. This doesn't mean that these royalties do not exist, it only shows how unmeaning they can be, how indiscernible is the economical worth of all this argument.
To be frankly concrete, let me put it this way (which I hope you won't read as rude or otherwise unpleasant): haven't we got anything more urgent than this to repair today, given that in the meanwhile the Italian Chapter (@Marta Arosio (WMIT) and Sannita (WMIT): is going (yes, it's going, I'm pretty sure) to rebuild its tracks to file a new motion to the Parliament? ;-))) --g (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As g altready said, there are no news till last discussion. It is possible that in the next months there will be some changes about the Italian copyright laws: in that case we will reopen the discussion. For now, the only pronunciation of an Italian government about panorama freedom is favorable for us. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Marco Chemello (WMIT) and Gianfranco: will changes in your copyright law finally include the inclusion of FOP? Or at least: either FOP for outdoor works only or FOP for architecture only? Around a month ago I accessed your research work entitled meta:Research:Freedom of panorama survey among architects of Italy, and it revealed that majority of the architects favor FOP in some way (most of them are fine in free uses of images of their works, while around 20% seem to suggest a freedom of panorama similar to Chinese FOP which obliges attribution. Perhaps that research will help you greatly too in your new attempt to introduce FOP in Italy, if there is. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

In any case and to summarize the discussion on the issue at stake here, a so-called de facto Italian FOP exception concerning works of authors who died less than 70 years ago, there is no solid argument to justify such an exception at this point. We can only hope it will change in the future. — Racconish ^💬 12:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Racconish: so in your opinion, the "de facto" exception concerning authors who are deceased for less than 70 years at COM:FOP Italy is invalid? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "OK for works by deceased authors" should be removed for now. — Racconish ^💬 13:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Racconish: I will leave the edits to the CRT page of Italy to other users or admins. But right now, you may now close all of my UNDEL requests to Italian files as not done, as I now withdraw those requests from now on. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Done for now, in the hope we will be able to change it again in a near future. — Racconish ^💬 15:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 and Racconish: So, I requested to delete {{FoP-Italy}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Portrait of Gerome Ferris

Is it OK to import this sketch from Stephen James Ferris (1835–1915)? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William C. Minor (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 August 2021‎ (UTC)

Yes as long as it has been published before 1926. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

But that’s the tricky part; it doesn’t seem to have been published by anyone but the Smithsonian, having been in private hands until they got it in 1927 or 1932. Was the USA on 70 years pma for unpublished works by 1986? If not, was the sketch PD for other reasons by the time the Smithsonian put it on their website? If I read the Hirtle chart aright, if it was first published before 2003 it could be protected until 2048 or even later.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Works first published between 1978 and 2002 got copyright until at least 2048. Does the Smithsonian own the copyright? Then as long as they published it before 2003, it's under copyright. If they only own the work, and don't have permission of the copyright holder to put it online, it's in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Packaging

Hello, the contributions (files) of Special:Contributions/Oasisllc (like limited liability company ?) do not seem to have their place on Commons, in compliance with COM:PACKAGING.
I'm no specialist, but packages, with the product name, logo and trademark, don't seem "insignificant" or "old enough" or "simple enough" to me. I would like some expert advice ;-) Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

CS Lewis image

Would this photo of C. S. Lewis from c. 1918 be OK for Commons? (https://www.wheaton.edu/media/magazine/winter-2021/CSLA-P7-reduced.jpg)
The source (Wheaton.edu) credits this image to the Marion E. Wade Center, Wheaton, but (while I can't recall about how British copyright laws work exactly) with how the American copyright system works, this would be in the Public Domain because of the age I believe. Again, would this image be OK for Commons? Thank you for your time. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not clearly public domain anywhere. When was it published, and who took it? Works have to be published before 1926 to be PD in the US, otherwise it's tricky. In the UK, it's normally life+70, and if it's anonymous it most likely got 70 years from publication. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. We need to know way more about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: , would it be OK to CC/connect you so the emails I send to the Marion Wade Wheaton center and the ones they send to me would also be sent you? Just so you would have proof of what I would be relaying from the Wade center to be true regarding the when and who. If not, is there an email address where I could CC Commons? Thanks for your time. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

If they have to give a license, then emails should go direct from them (or at least CCed) to the COM:VRT team, using the address at that link. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

photographer signed waiver stating that photo will not be used for commercial purposes: safe to undelete?

File:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica Jan 2006.jpg was deleted on both Commons (discussion) and the English Wikipedia (discussion) after it became known that the photographer signed a waiver saying that the picture will only be used for non-commercial purposes. However, my understanding from reading Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography is that such agreements do not affect the copyright status of the photo as long as the photo does not contain copyrighted elements. Any such breach of the agreement would be between the photographer and the venue. Would it make sense to request undeletion of the photo in this case? Ixfd64 (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There are two issues here: 1) whether the document Diliff signed actually prevents him from releasing it under a full CC license; and 2) whether Diliff is worried about getting in trouble with the basilica. If copyright sharing is involved like with Burning Man, then they would actually be able to sue reusers as the copyright holders of the photo. However, if it is just "I agree that this photo will not be used for commercial purposes", then I don't think there is any grounds for them to sue reusers; they could perhaps sue Diliff for breach of contract for allowing the photo to get into the hands of commercial reusers. This is a PD building which they only hold property rights to; we don't care about use cases which are restricted by e.g. publicity rights per COM:NCR. We have traditionally done courtesy deletions when the author believes there may be legal trouble for them (even if non-copyright-related) by continuing to host the image, but if Diliff is willing to have it up I see no reason not to host it. Unfortunately, he seems to be on a long Wikibreak right now. If he does see this message and is willing to take on the personal legal risk, the next step would be to forward the agreement to COM:VRT for review. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Welp. I guess this isn't exactly a cut-and-dry case as I had expected. Forestiere Underground Gardens also has a similar photo policy but doesn't make you sign a waiver. I uploaded a picture from that place after being told that 17 U.S. Code § 120 does not allow others to exert their rights over my works. At least I haven't heard anything from their lawyers. However, the waiver probably makes a difference in Burning Man Case. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Car design drawings of Paolo Martin

These are licensed with a VTRS ticket.and a user with the alias it:Utente:Torusuzuki claims the right to be named as creator of the depicted work.
Obviously the user is not the creator of the original work. He may have produced digital copies of the original works, but that doesn't make him the creator of the depicted work. In my opinion, it's not the correct license and the text must be changed to Attribution: Paolo Martin. The Italian Copyright Law says that the author (Paolo Martin) keeps the unalienable right of authorship.
Which is the correct license template for the correct attribution and how can it be changed?--Chianti (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Info: the VTRS confirmed that the attribution ist false [3].

So, how can it be changed?--Chianti (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

1971 Kubrick photo

There's a 1971 image of Stanley Kubrick here on Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stanley_Kubrick_1971.jpg) uploaded by InterEdit88 under Public Domain. Even with the PD tag and reasons listed, I have doubts as to whether or not this is really Public Domain. For one, there is no unedited scan upload of the front or back, which would show the copyright info if it had any. Also, looking at the eBay listing, it notes that this is a "Print" (as in a copy made by a third party), and it also notes that this is a reproduction in the "About this item" section.
I would hate to put a deletion tag on such a good photo of Kubrick (especially with Commons and Wikipedia desperately having needed a good one of him in his prime), but unfortunately, this seems like it could be copyright infringement. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@StrangeloveFan101 and InterEdit88: I sent the seller some questions. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@StrangeloveFan101: You're welcome. Due to a family emergency, I may not get a human response from the seller for 5-8 days. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

en:File:Amt-logo.gif

Would this be creative enough for copyright in the US? If not, we should transfer it to Commons. I fear though this helix-type-of-element might be above the TOO. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It is just a Moon's crest with a short text. So, probably not creative enough. Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Unattributed photo released by the Chinese government

It seems File:Chen Wenqing.jpg might not be licensed correctly. I'm not sure how a photo claimed to have been released by the Chinese government (even without attribution) can be treated as "own work" and licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} even if it's only a modified version of the original. Reducing the resolution or cropping a photo doesn't seem sufficient to establish a new copyright claim as a COM:DW, but even if it did the copyright of the original would still need to be considered. MOreover, the original work had to come from somewhere; so, there should be some way of checking its en:provenance even if that's only a link to website. If it's assumed that the original is PD because it's an anonymous work first published outside the US, then COM:HIRTLE seems to indicate that the original photo would still be eligible for copyright protection for "95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first" in the US if it was taken in 2019 as implied in en:Chen Wenqing. Even COM:China#General seems to imply the original photo may still be copyright protected by "Article 18: In the case of a work of an unknown author, the protection term in relation to the rights as mentioned by item 5 to item 17 of first paragraph of Article 10 of the Law shall be 50 years ending on December 31 of the fiftieth year after the first publication of the work. Article 21 of the Law shall be applicable after the author of the work has been identified." I'm happy to move on if the consensus is that this is fine as licensed or I'm missing something quite obvious here, but I'm interested in hearing what others might think about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The source URL they took it from is missing, the uploader thinks reducing the resolution and claiming fair use is applicable here when it's not. It's a copyvio.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Just want to update that this file has been deleted as a copyvio. I also posted a message on the uploader's user talk page to inform them of this discuss, but they didn't respond and didn't challenge the tagging of the file; so, there's not much more to discuss here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

president.gov.by

Hello! In Official Website of the President of Belarus there is the following information regarding the use of materials outside of it:

"Materials of the portal can be reproduced in mass outlets or Internet servers without restrictions on the amount of material and the time of publication. The only condition is that any reproduction of materials should contain a reference to the original source. No prior consent from the Press Service of the President of the Republic of Belarus is required to use the materials of the portal."

Is it permissible in this state of affairs to download audiovisual works to Wikimedia Commons? Timur Rossolov (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Timur Rossolov freedom of reproduction isn’t enough, you can have a look at {{Attribution}} at what we at least need rubin16 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Question: Thus, is it permissible to use media files from the website of the President of the Republic of Belarus on Wikimedia Commons when specifying attribution? Moreover, a lot of photographs remain at a distance that have been at a distance for several months. Timur Rossolov (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

По русски будет проще. Нет, этого недостаточно, я имел в виду, что необходимо проговаривать как минимум четыре пункта из шаблона {{Attribution}}, чтобы считать работу достаточно свободной для Вииксклада: разрешение распространять, изменять и использовать его в любых (в том числе коммерческих) целях. Тут только разрешение на распространение/использование, не хватает коммерческих целей и разрешения на изменение (как правило, это самое сложное в общении с постсоветскими госорганами) rubin16 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Да, скорее всего фотографии распространяются по атрибуции, но не по Creative Commons. Поэтому здесь для уточнения лицензионного статуса придётся обращаться напрямую к правообладателям, чтобы решить судьбу фотографий с сайта. Timur Rossolov (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Timur Rossolov Ранее я загрузил файлы с сайта президента Белоруссии. Как итог - я номинировал на удаление файлы (см. здесь). Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ты кстати сам не пробовал уточнять лицензионный статус фотографий? Timur Rossolov (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Почитай номинацию и поймёшь, что это делать бессмысленно. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Uploading Film Posters

Hi, can anyone please advise best process copyright-wise to upload 3 promotional film posters. I have been sent them by the independent filmmakers whose films they are for so can get permission if needed, but as they are promotional items available online and elsewhere is this necessary? Would it be faster if the filmmaker uploads them herself? This is in relation to these three files which have just been deleted:

File:Further Beyond Poster.jpg File:Poster for the 2008 film Helen.png File:Poster for the film Rose Plays Julie.jpg

I am also unsure of the best process for the below which has been highlighted also wrt copyright.

File:Desperate Optimists - Christine Molloy and Joe Lawlor at the London Film Festival 2019.png

Many thanks in advance for any advice here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKHBlair (talk • contribs) 16:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Any image hosted by Commons must comply with Commons:Licensing, which means that posters must be released under a free license by their copyright holders, probably, through OTRS process. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@JKHBlair: The copyright holders would need to follow the steps at COM:VRT to email us a free license release. For authentication, the email address must come from an official domain such as molloyandlawlor.com or desperateoptimists.com. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Either that, or if they publish the posters on their own ‘official’ website(s), a notice granting the free licence can be placed with the images there, obviating the need for a VRT ticket.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, this is helpful. I was getting a bit overwhelmed with all the copyright options & guidelines.--JKHBlair (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Images that could only be US government copyright.

I have several images of US nuclear weapons that come from an online auction house. The auction house was selling a hardcopy folder of declassified images relating to the US nuclear weapons program and included several online as examples.

In my mind, this should be a clear-cut copyright matter being that the images could only have been taken inside a secure US government facility, and therefore the images were taken by a US government employee and therefore are copyright free, but I can imagine someone objecting. Similarly is what I would write in the copyright and author section for the upload. I would hope the above would suffice, but maybe not.

Thoughts? Kylesenior (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kylesenior: It would be helpful to know the context under which the photographs were taken/used because the relevant statute only prevents copyright protection in a work made by "an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". If the photograph was just taken by some random federal employee and it was not a part of their employment, it wouldn't be in the public domain. It is also conceivable that the picture could have been taken by a military contractor, in which case the photograph would also not be a work of the U.S. federal government and could therefore be protected by copyright. That being said, we are typically OK with hosting photos from the federal government where we do not know the exact circumstances under which they were made, but we should at least try to determine if an exception applies. Mysteryman blue 04:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Uploading a photo provided by third party (not author)

Dear all, When I started writing the draft of a designer page[4] on Wikipedia, not finding any public domain photos of him, I decided to contact him at an email address that I found on his personal website, to ask if he would be willing to provide a photo that could be uploaded to Wikimedia and used in the public domain. He sent me this photo [5], giving me permission to upload it under a CC licence. Being a newbie, I uploaded it leaving the default autogenerated fields for source (Own work) and author (my username). However, as Hoary correctly pointed out, these fields are incorrect. Since I don't know who is the author (photographer) of the photo, what should I insert in the "source" and "author" fields? Thank you for your help, best wishes --EnḫeduannaS (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Underinformed comment: If anyone's wondering about "as Hoary correctly pointed out", I did so here. I imagine that the solution is for an administrator to "delete" the image, which can be restored if/when a confirmation of its status is received by ... what I thought was "OTRS" but I learned just today was "VRT". But I'm just guessing. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick LIFE photo question

The site, PDImages.com, lists LIFE Magazine photos hosted by Google as being Public Domain at this link: http://www.pdimages.com/pdlist.htm. With this, I found a photo of Stanley Kubrick: http://images.google.com/hosted/life/5b361a5b7573c72b.html. I have some doubts whether or not this is OK for Commons, so I am asking here if this would be OK to upload. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. That PD Images site has a serious problem, in that they don't seem to appreciate the difference between "PD" and "freely licensed". Very few US images (old or federal government) are PD, most of these would be freely licensed instead.

You now get into definitions of "free". Commons is stricter than PD Images appears to be, as Commons requires freedom for commercial use too, but this image (the Google link) says it's only free for personal use, not commercial. So it's "free" (for many people), but not "free enough" for here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

File needs renaming, but I am unsure about the copyright status

Hello,

User:MaicolPG has recently uploaded File:Gladys Rosa Zender Urbina.jpg. However, both a reverse image search and the file's metadata confirm that the woman depicted in the photo is not Gladys Zender, but Leona Gage. I understand that the file should be renamed; however, the renaming guidelines state not to request a remain if the copyright status is uncertain. According to the metadata, the photo was taken in 1964 and the copyright holder is the Associated Press. It is my understanding that this photo would not be in the public domain yet, unlike the other photos uploaded by this same user (they do depict Gladys Zender and were taken in the 1950's, so they seem to be PD according to Peruvian law). Can someone with more experience in this area confirm whether I am correct regarding the copyright status of this file?

Thanks! FlyingAce (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Rosat-artist's-view.png

This image appears on the NASA website and does not mention any copyright information. However, there is a very similar image that is credited to the Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik (MPE). The latter's copyright policy states that such images can only be used for non-commercial purposes. Would it be prudent to assume that File:Rosat-artist's-view.png is not made by NASA? Ixfd64 (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Not everything that is on the NASA websites is actually in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly right. I've requested deletion of that file under MPEs non-commercial-use policy. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I was going to contact NASA to confirm whether they created this image, but I guess this is no longer necessary. :-) Ixfd64 (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Fotki

Hello. A great photographer, thousands of whose photos have been uploaded here, has abandoned Flickr in favor of Fotki. They contacted me as they would still like for their photos to be used on WP, but I cannot find a good way to verify the free license. Is there a way to upload these pictures without risking them all being deleted a few years from now? mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 13:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: Fotki has an icon showing the Creative Commons licence. E.g. here above the tags there is the CC-by logo. When you click the logo it links to the Attribution 2.5 Generic licence. This is sufficient to verify the licence when you upload individual images. I will also add a section about Fotki at COM:Where for reference. So, when you upload the photos please use {{Cc-by-2.5}} and {{License review}}. De728631 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@De728631: Thanks. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 16:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Another Kubrick photo question

Could this photo of Kubrick from RR Auctions be added? (https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/33458740460966-stanley-kubrick/?cat=0)

From the front and description, there is no copyright markings, and was produced around 1970-1971. That should make this Public Domain.

Here is also info regarding publicity stills like this:

The photo has no copyright markings on it as can be seen in the links above and in the unedited copy of the file.
The publicity photo was produced and distributed by a U.S. film company, Warner Brothers, and any copyright would be owned by them, despite the location of the filming being outside the U.S.
The front of the photo describes the subject, and relevant film, and Warner Brothers as the studio. Any copyright notice would have been added there.
The auction house states that for its photos, when there is material printed on the reverse side they always include a reverse-side image, for example, John Wayne, showing reverse side. As they sell their images like this one for hundreds of dollars, showing all details in necessary.
See also film still article, which explains that publicity photos were traditionally not copyrighted.
It was created for publicity purposes-distribution to the media and the image was meant to bring attention and publicity for actors and actresses. See also film still article.

Film production expert Eve Light Honathaner in The Complete Film Production Handbook, (Focal Press, 2001 p. 211.):

"Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary."

"There is a vast body of photographs, including but not limited to publicity stills, that have no notice as to who may have created them." (The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook By Nancy E. Wolff, Allworth Communications, 2007, p. 55.)

Creative Clearance-Publicity photos

"Publicity Photos (star headshots) older publicity stills have usually not been copyrighted and since they have been disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain and therefore there is no necessity to clear them with the studio that produced them (if you can even determine who did)."

United States Copyright Office page 2 "Visually Perceptible Copies The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all three elements described below. They should appear together or in close proximity on the copies.

2 The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology. The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles.

Also, can this photo of Kubrick filming Barry Lyndon be added back? It seems to me that it could've been wrongfully deleted. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kubrick - Barry Lyndon candid.JPG, BTW. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You can request undeletion on Commons:Requests for undeletion. Ruslik (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Kartographer maps using the Open Government Licence (Canada)

I have just created Data:Canadian federal electoral districts/2019/Halifax.map, which is a GeoJSON map of a federal election riding in Canada for the elections coming up. The original map data (I converted it to GeoJSON and worked the data) is at [6] under the Open Government Licence - Canada, which is acceptable, but the map doesn't have that option. Is CC-BY 4.0 equivalent for these purposes? Ebe123 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Willow Run Factory.jpg and SDASM archives

File:Willow Run Factory.jpg has recently had its licencing changed from PD-USGov-Military-Air Force (with an imprecise [7] used as source) to fair use (with [8] as the source), with the licence changing as per the file talk page as apparently although the San Diego Air and Space Museum claims "no known copyright restrictions" for its Flickr stream, its usage page https://sandiegoairandspace.org/research/usage-reproduction means that the file is fair use - presumably because its non-free? Are the SDASM's usage restrictions valid for files which they admit they don't own the copyright and do they make the file non-free and hence unsuitable for commons? Do SDASM have the rights to impose such restrictions? If so, what about the 9500 odd files in Category:Files from the SDASM Archives Flickr stream? Do they need to be deleted?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: A lot of museums claim certain rights over the works they hold that they cannot legally enforce. That is what's happening here. The San Diego Air and Space Museum has represented that File:Willow Run Factory.jpg has no known copyright restrictions - i.e., it is in the public domain. That is generally enough for us to host it on Wikimedia Commons. The page you mention at https://sandiegoairandspace.org/research/usage-reproduction does make it seem like the museum is claiming copyright in the photographs it holds, but that is not what it is doing. The museum explicitly states that "...SDASM does not, and can not, claim copyright ownership of images/film considered in the public domain". Rather, the museum is "requiring" a fee to use the images in its collection. This fee is essentially unenforceable because the museum neither holds copyrights in the photographs in its collections, nor in the scans of those images under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. At best, this is a non-copyright restriction, which does not impact the file's eligibility to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Mysteryman blue 04:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The trouble is per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mikoyan-Gurevich Ye-8 (by San Diego A&S museum).jpg, SDASM's claims that photos have no known copyright restrictions don't always add up to the photos being convincingly public domain.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Re-use Condition by the Irish President office

I recently discovered File:Swedish Anthem in Republic of Ireland.ogg, which although the wrong copyright template is applied, the Terms and Conditions given by the Irish President office seems to make it allowable under {{Attribution}}. My only concern is that the office stated that a re-user must not use the information for the principal purpose of advertising or promoting a particular product, service or political cause.

Does this condition make the file inadmissible for us because it limits the free use of the file uploaded? I also believe that this kind of restriction is more restrictive to the condition given in {{GJSTU1}}, in which no consensus was made regarding if such restriction is allowed on Commons.

Regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a restriction of not using a work for advertising or promotion is contrary to the requirement at Commons that all uploads be free for any purpose. And you were right to criticise the PD-IrishGov licence because that video was clearly not "created before 1st January 1971". So I deleted the file. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your admin action, case closed.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Two images uploaded by מחסל האגדות

I'm not happy with two images that have been uploaded by מחסל האגדות (talk · contribs) - File:Dankal logo 2.jpg and File:Kfir light rail.jpg. Initially uploaded without a license tag, but {{Remove this line and insert a license instead}} instead, this has been replaced by {{PD-simple}}. However, I don't think that the logos are simple enough for this: are they copyright violations? --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 21:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is the logo of the light rail in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, as there is a rint of the Carmelit in Haifa, what is the difference between them? מחסל האגדות (talk; at English Wikipedia) 13:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Dankal logo 2.jpg might be simple enough to be uncopyrightable, but not sure about File:Kfir light rail.jpg (which I'm leaning towards delete due to the ~~tiger~~ lion head). U.S. and Israel TOOs are similar to each other. panda kekok 9 14:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please look at the category of the light rail in Jerusalem, this logo is famous on the carriages and stations and is used by the public מחסל האגדות (talk; at English Wikipedia) 14:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Maps and the United States Threshold of Originality

https://vi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E1%BA%ADp_tin:%C4%90%E1%BA%A3ng_k%E1%BB%B3_%C4%90%E1%BA%A3ng_V%C3%AC_d%C3%A2n.png

I found the above flag on this page (another Musée Annam sockproject) and it's locally uploaded to a Wikipedia. The flag belongs to an American political organisation the only copyrightable part of the flag would be a simple map of Việt Nam. However, it is simply a map based on the borders of the country, is such a simple concept even copyrightable under US law? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably it is below the ToO in the USA. Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Semafor wjazdowy do stacji Wałbrzych Szczawienko.jpg

I've been waiting for almost a month for someone to delete this photo which infringes copyrights. How much more will I wait for a decision?I have the impression that DR is an excuse for the administrators laziness, who do not want to make a decision to delete. Once upon a time I waited over a month for the decision of lazy administrators only when I kindly pointed out this fact to them. If I were you, I would remowe DR possibility since some are so lazy that after a month they will not take a stand in the discussion. --Choojvdoopie (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you know what a volunteer is? There's a large backlog of DRs, and they'll be got to eventually.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Choojvdoopie: Since there tends to be more DRs than there are Commons administrators trying to sort them out, it can take a bit of time in some cases. For future reference, it would probably be better to ask about this type of thing in a less combative way at COM:AN instead of here. Calling administrators or any editor lazy isn't really going to make anyone want to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no interest in becoming an Admin (seems like a lot of trouble), but perhaps trusted users could be given the power to delete certain pictures? We could add a "three bad deletes and you're out" clause. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 13:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons does have a real problem with the time it takes to close out deletion requests. A system that allows deletion requests from December 2020 Commons:Deletion_requests#Lists_of_requests - NINE MONTHS - to remain open is broken, giving the impression that Commons does not take Copyright seriously. Copyright is something that all Wikimedia projects should take seriously, as persistent copyright breaches (that are known, as someone has raised the request) could ultimately cause the project (and users of the suspect files) serious harm.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

To put it in perspective, we're already better than almost every other user-generated website like Youtube, Flickr, Facebook, etc. Because we have a dedicated team of volunteers to review everything rather than rely on AI algorithms to do the heavy lifting, I would assume that our false positive and false negative rates are both lower than everyone else. Sitting for 9 months is not great, but reusers will see that big scary red tag in the meantime, and WMF is not liable due to DMCA (the community being aware != WMF being aware). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this too. Even DMCA requests are taking about a month to process. On most other websites, they're usually taken care of in one to three days. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not such a bad idea. Perhaps there could be a "copyright administrator" user group that has the ability to delete and restore pages. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Italy's TOO

Any opinions as to whether File:Campagna vaccini Logo.svg is OK to keep as licensed? I guess it could be argued that this is {{PD-textlogo}} per COM:TOO United States; there are lots of examples cited which seem to be PD in the US and some seem more complex that flower in this logo. I'm not so sure about COM:TOO Italy though since there are way fewer examples and the language is a bit vague as to how high Italy's TOO is and how it applies to logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Quite possible that it is below ToO even in Italy. Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

OGL-C

I'd appreciate some views on my reading of OGL-C applicability. I think that everything in IA albertagovernmentpublications is public domain, with everything over 50 years old falling under {{PD-Canada}} and all more recent covered by {{OGL-C}}. An example of the latter is 4-H community projects. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fæ: Are government publications automatically licensed with an OGL license? Two examples from the front page you linked, [9] and [10], are explicitly copyrighted + All Rights Reserved. -M.nelson (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph 7.1 of this policy seems to suggest that the intention is some automatic licensing. By its use of the expression "will be published", it's unclear if it applies retroactively to publications published before the policy. It's also unclear if the policy has a practical effect by itself and what other implementation steps need to be taken by the ministries according to its section 9. Also, there are exceptions in the licence itself and in this notice. Original copyright notices in documents as well as the OGL-A licence mention a reservation about parts of the documents that are from third parties. And some definitions refer to other texts. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you mean OGL-Alberta, not OGL-C. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

About sharing photos on Wikishare.

I wanted to offer a new perspective on the field of "copyright in images", after all for any copyrighted image - then adding to it a caption or logo on the image, and almost any image that does not have a caption or copyright symbol are actually published for public benefit without any copyright. So I suggest that you just check if the image was edited so that the copyright symbol was removed from it and in that case do not approve the posting of an image on Wikimedia Commons, but if the image does not have a copyright symbol, you can find copies in the oldest published imeg and see that its first publication was without Copyright So in that case you will be able to publish this image because most of the FIRST PUBLICATION images currently on the net are published without publishing the photographer's name or publishing any license - which means that advertisers do not care about any license and are interested in providing a public service while giving up on the copyright. Is there anyone here who is qualified to correct a way of thinking in wiki sharing? ANAELIAZOR (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: Have you read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT yet? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Yes and as stated I disagree with what is said there.

Because everyone uploads an image that cares about copyright on their image - then a few things happen. 1. HE is the first publisher of the image. The oldest advertising can be found by search engines such as TINEYE.COM 2. It explicitly states that the image is copyrighted or written on the site itself or embedded in the image itself. All other advertisers who post pictures without any marking they publish knowing that the picture is available online to everyone - and so they show us that they waive copyright - most also do not leave contact information so you can not ask them permission to use the picture for educational purposes for example. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: that is simply not how copyright works. You may well be right that many of the authors who don’t make explicit copyright claims on their publications care little for such issues. However, I would expect most of those people to suddenly get much more interested in exercising their rights if they notice that their work is being used to someone else’s benefit, or in a manner of which they disapprove. At any rate, from a legal POV most countries’ laws—if not all nowadays—consider copyright to take effect with the creation of a work, whether or not it is published and without requiring any notice or registration.——Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: ANAELIAZOR (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If an image has been published without stating that it is copyrighted, i can understand why it should not be used for commercial purposes - and demand money from it. But I do not think it is right to claim that every image has copyright even if the creator of the image seems to have waived that right. In most of the images you can find their initial publication as stated and then you can see clearly whether the creator of the image is interested in preserving copyright or that he published an image to the public while giving up the copyright that he had. You see, Wikishae is meant to be a learning aid for me - and as such it should be open to receiving images that can allow us all to learn as openly and as tangibly as possible. An open mind also means understanding that most image, advertisers do it for fun to enrich the public's knowledge or give them any benefit - while in practice they do not seem to care about copyright - so they also do not add a copyright mark on the image - so they Do not even leave details like who the photographer is or through contact with him, most of them do not even write on the site that there is copyright on the image - this means that the actual situation is completely different from what they described in Wikishare - and Wikishare should be updated on this matter and not be left with wrong stigmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANAELIAZOR (talk • contribs) 03:50, 31 August 2021‎ (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: What was the source of File:עטרות בצבע זהה לעור הגוף עקב שיזוף.png? Pinging @Geagea as deleting Admin and native Hebrew speaker. What is Wikishare? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The file is a collage of women breasts (only the breasts). According to the OTRS ticket photos grabbed from the net and you can find them in many sites source. Beside the copyright issue, there is also concern about COM:IDENT. -- Geagea (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Wikishare, is the platform that allows sharing photos on Wikipedia.

By the way, they deleted the photo I uploaded, even though the publishers of the photo waived the copyright + the photographers took part in the photo and were aware that they were being photographed [this is evident from the fact that they looked at the camera during the photo shoot] ANAELIAZOR (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: How does one access Wikishare? How does one know that subjects are looking at the camera, just from their breasts? Where are the individual photos? For each of those photos, what can you tell us about the name and lifetime of the photographer and the dates and countries of photography and publication? Please read COM:EVID and COM:TALK. Noting ticket:2021082710006416 for the record. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I have the full photos including the face which clearly shows them looking at the photographer.

Also from the images I have you can do a search in a search engine such as TINETE.COM and find the first appearance of each image - so we can check if the publisher of the image claimed copyright or he published the images while giving up copyright [did not even mention in writing next to the image that Copyright and of course did not incorporate copyright text in the image].

ANAELIAZOR (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: Where exactly did you get "the full photos"? Why are you not providing the full answers? Why are you using three levels of indentation for one reply? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: 1. Where did I get the full photos? From sites that published the images without copyright .. You can search for the first publication of each image and see that neither the image nor the site has any copyright captions! But Wikipedia expects the image publisher to explicitly state that the image is publicly licensed - and I'm talking about that Wikipedia requires excessive and unnecessary requirement, as most image publishers post images in a way that proves they have no intention of making money from the image or copyright. And I'm not saying that everyone is like that, there are also those who expect to be rewarded for the image, and as such they embed in the image or next to the image they write that there is copyright to the image, but in the images I used there are no such captions.

2. In what matter did I not give full answers? Did you mean to ask why I did not provide the full pictures? 3. I used two levels of entry because I thought it would be more orderly in the eye, but now I just line up the last two paragraphs of the conversation - the previous paragraph goes down line, and my / your answer goes down line .. If we maintain this order that each time there will be only two paragraphs with a space interval then it will be easier for us to find the last answers in the conversation. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: Let me make it simple for you. Our policy is that we follow copyright law as it stands. Most countries in the world (179 at last count) have ratified the Berne Convention. Under that convention, a photograph attracts copyright as soon as it is taken, whether or not it is stamped as such. For each and every partial photo included in File:עטרות בצבע זהה לעור הגוף עקב שיזוף.png, we need to know exactly where to find it (which exact photo, on what exact page). I can't see that image, so if it is online elsewhere, where exactly is that? I can see, however, that your misunderstanding of copyright extended to Hebrew in Ticket:2021082710006416. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 10:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Okay, if I attach links to the full images and you see that the advertisers have not attached any text seeking copyright protection, then you will approve the image?

If not, I'm seeking to change the policy, as it is inhumane to expect any image publisher to indicate that their images are on a free license to the public.

There are full of photographers who are unaware of all this nonsense of licensing or copyright protection - so they assume that if they did not state that there is copyright + they posted the image so that it is accessible to everyone online then it proves they do not care about copyright and here ends the story !!

I understand that you have a different policy. I would like to talk to those responsible so that you can change the policy so that it is a logical policy and compatible with our time, a time when there are those who demand copyright and they do so by embedding text in the image. Do not live in illusions - do not expect to attribute copyright to the image when you have no idea who the photographer is, because he did not leave any details of himself + he published the images on sites that are available to everyone + did not incorporate copyright in the images. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: First, you must get a country to abandon the World Trade Organization, all treaties and other agreements documented in the List of parties to international copyright agreements, and domestic copyright laws, in writing. That would be a herculean task, and rather detrimental to the livelihoods of content producers in that country. Then, notify us here with evidence of that abandonment and get that list changed, and we will make appropriate change(s) to that country's entry at COM:CRT. Until then, you must comply with international copyright laws, treaties, and other agreements. You must also comply with Commons policies, guidelines, and procedures, including COM:L, COM:TALK, and COM:SIGN. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thank you for allowing us from you to lead change.

1. Do you have any idea who is in charge of copyright in the country? To whom in the country should I address my claims? 2. If I get approval from the relevant authorities - then the pictures I will post according to my country's laws, will these pictures be visible in all countries? ANAELIAZOR (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: In many countries with parliamentary governments, that would be the legislature. In countries with autocratic governments, that would be the autocrat. Good luck getting the US to honor a lack of copyright, and getting approval to upload to Commons servers in the US. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 21:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks, but I'm not in it, how do I contact them?

Can you give me an email address for UN copyright inquiries? Or a link to a filler for the sake of contacting those responsible for US copyright law? ANAELIAZOR (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: You are not in a country? That is rather extraordinary! Contacts for legislatures and autocrats are generally at their official websites, which can generally be found from the initial External Links on the bottoms of their English Wikipedia articles, for example en:United States Congress, en:Knesset, and en:Parliament of the United Kingdom. Do you consider "Wikishare" to be Wikimedia Commons? If not, please explain further. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Before I approached the legislature with our complaints and grievances, I thought to check the copyright issue again.

And it turns out that according to the law - it is allowed to use the images for educational or study purposes - even without obtaining permission from the creator of the image, See quote from here: "The concept is sometimes not well defined; however in Canada, private copying for personal use has been expressly permitted by statute since 1999. In Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 37, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that limited copying for educational purposes could also be justified under the fair dealing exemption. "

Therefore, it turns out that there is no problem with images on Wikishare because they are all published for educational purposes - and by the way, the same law also appears on the Hebrew page [the language I speak, that is, the law is the same in Israel], I hope this is enough to lead a change in Wikipedia - so we will reach a more collaborative and helpful world. If I open a complaint against the legislature, he will explain to me that there is no place for a complaint at all because it is not a problem to share photos for educational or educational purposes. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: Yes, that's called fair use, and it is not allowed on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: Even if images are not allowed in the public domain, Wikipedia is still an educational platform and therefore in this respect it should not be a problem to publish images for the purpose of studying Wikipedia. It can be added in the text next to the image that the image is not necessarily allowed for use in the public domain but only in an educational context according to copyright law. But you should not ban the posting of images on Wikipedia just because the publisher of the image did not explicitly state that the image is freely licensed to the public, because as stated even if there is copyright to the image it is still permitted by law to be used for research or study. That is, I ask that you accept the law and update your conduct on Wikipedia. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: No, as this was already explained to you above. So for the last time, please read COM:L, why we can't accept such files. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: You only reinforced my claim that I said that the problem stems from Wikipedia and not from the legislature, because Wikipedia claims that they are interested in allowing everyone to reuse images and not just for educational purposes, and as can be seen from the quote here: [Paragraph 3 at the beginning of the page] "The additional restrictions imposed by our license policy are driven by our ultimate goal, which is to enable all Wikimedia site content— both media and text - to be creatively reused in a variety of contexts, in any country, without the imposition of cumbersome requirements or fees. "

"The additional restrictions imposed by our license policy are driven by our ultimate goal, which is to enable all Wikimedia site content— both media and text - to be creatively reused in a variety of contexts, in any country, without the imposition of cumbersome requirements or fees. "

But if you change your purpose - and it depends only on the openness of your thinking - you can focus on the main purpose for which people volunteer at Wikipedia - and that is to give access to educational content - and anyone who wants to publish educational content can also use Wikipedia content including images, so it should not To be a problem for Wikishare to get images which by law can be used for study or research ..

Too bad you create a situation where you pile difficulties on the volunteers and you create a problem that should not be at all - just change the direction of your thinking - instead of having a goal to contain images for use in any way - you should decide to agree to contain educational content - it will be more correct to implement, You are not a site for an image database without any purpose, but Wikimedia is an educational image database, do not try to force us into a situation where we will be very limited in presenting tangible content from the world - it is just unnecessary.

And if you can not change Wikipedia's policies because you are not the administrator - then I ask that anyone who has the ability to amend Wikipedia's policies - then he will be referred to our conversation.

Thanks. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: We can't decide the copyright laws. When you have read and understood the answers given to you by several experienced people, we can discuss. For now, bye. Yann (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)