Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/04

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

template talk:Moegirlpedia

Just wanted to put more eyes on this. Also, some files at the source wiki at first appear to by tagged with a 'full-copyright' template, but upon closer inspection seem just to be a disclaimer that files without a specific license should be assumed to be full-copyright (https://commons.moegirl.org.cn/File:Moegirl_and_wikipedia_s_welcome_blank.jpg is an example that has additional text releasing 'for any purpose', for which I believe we have a template here). Arlo James Barnes 19:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Would the newest revision of en:File:Nic-chile.png be OK here?

It looks simple and below the TOO to me, Though I'm not confident about this when looking at the below text and the star symbol in the middle of the textlogo, especially that this is from outside the US (Chile). -SergioFLS (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It is simple enough in my opinion, although the threshold of originality in Chile appears to be rather low. Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the reply.
Now I wonder if re-licensing the file under en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly would be a bad idea... (meanwhile until someone confirms the logo is OK for Commons) SergioFLS (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status for photos of East German periodical cover

Hi there, I'm trying to determine if it's okay to upload to Commons some photographs that I took of a magazine / journal published by a now-defunct organization, the [Women's International Democratic Foundation]. They were published in East Germany, between 1960 and 1964, before the fall of the Soviet Union. I haven't been able to determine if current German copyright law applies to these, and if so, how does the "death date of the author" principle apply to an organization? I've documented my research so far, and my confusions, here on my Talk page. Any help would be greatly appreciated! - Triciaburmeister (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The current German law does apply to them. As to dates of death, you can treat them as anonymous if the authors are not known. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Seems very unlikely even for an anonymous photographer to have been dead for 70 years if he took an image in 1960. :-)
I don't see how the organization should come into play here; by German law, the copyright (rather: Urheberrecht) is non-transferable and always remains with the author of the image. --217.239.2.25 18:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
For anonymous images the copyright last for 70 years since their publication. Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the photographers and their potential rights as authors, I'm going to need to try to get my hands on one of the physical copies of these journals so I can look for any credits or copyright-related statements. When I created these images years ago, I was working in a library and sending those journals to a massive storage facility, so I can only hope that they're still physically retrievable. Thanks to everyone for the assistance! Triciaburmeister (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

To be more precise, this doesn't seem to be so much about the photos being anonymous but rather about them being published by a now-defunct organization in a now-defunct country. I think it has been settled that German law applies. But what about those photographers? I would assume that their names are listed in the magazine somewhere, so I would actually be quite surprised if they really were anonymous.
@Triciaburmeister: What I don't quite get about your question is why you are concerned about publishing those pictures on Commons when you have already done so on Wordpress - ? --217.239.2.25 23:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I want to delete my old Wordpress blog where I had originally posted the images, and I'm trying to be a better steward for that media content I created many years ago. In the process of researching this I discovered that it is quite rare to be able to see images of this old periodical online, so I want to make sure the content persists and is in a good home. I guess I may just have to wait until 2034 if I want Commons to be that home. Triciaburmeister (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
German law applies, the photos are protected for the lifetime of their creators (here: photographers, human beings, not organizations) + 70 years (70 years pma). There is the concept of anonymous works in German law, but you should really show that they are anonymous (which is not easy and perhaps impossible) and not just claim it. Even if they were first published anonymously, they are not considered anonymous anymore if the author's name became known in any way during the 70 years after first publication (at least for works before July 1995). Also, works of the "visual arts" like drawings, paintings, sculptures etc. (but not photographs) before July 1995 were explicitly excluded from these (German) rules for anonymous works. --Rosenzweig τ 13:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! My next step is going to be to attempt to find out who the photographers were. I'll update this thread with what I discover, but it may take me awhile since this is going to involve archival spelunking. Triciaburmeister (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Aboriginal flag

Bring this back up again, I have recieved a personally signed letter from [external link to the scanned letter] the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt.

Interesting part of the letter is “The Commonwealth does not consider the copyright in the Aboriginal Flag to be in the public domain or covered by Crown copyright.” From what I can understand from the letter is that personal use is ok but commercial production/reproduction is not. Bidgee (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems to be just the usual 'shareware' arrangement -- roughly attribution, no derivatives, no explicit enumeration of terms. I'm surprised that the deletion and undeletion discussions ended up the way they did. That said, I suspect this issue will clarify itself as the government does or doesn't pursue legal actions over time related to the flag. Arlo James Barnes 13:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that as long as they don't, any use may be the first to be brought to a court. –LPfi (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I think their statement was "The Aboriginal flag will now be managed in a similar manner to the Australian national flag, where its use is free, but must be presented in a respectful and dignified way." They explicitly talked about allowing commercial use on clothing, as that was one of the contracts they bought out. So it would seem commercial use is fine. If they don't consider the copyright Crown Copyright (which may end up a legal question due to the wording of the law), and they are right, then the copyright has not expired and we can't claim PD-AustraliaGov. So, that is good to document. But, we may simply instead consider it a copyrighted-free-use license which should not violate moral rights, like many of our others, based on their statements (and which that letter pretty much states). The only sliver of copyright left in private hands is the flag-making one, which definitely still exists, but is likely only valid in Australia anyways. That is undoubtedly a commercial use, but the question for us was if that one restriction really meant the entire thing was non-free. Technically it would be non-free based on that, but it may practicably be free since we don't make physical flags on Commons, so I think the decision came down to that really -- do we want to disallow its use here naturally just because of the one flag-making application, which wouldn't be relevant in most countries anyways since the flag would be PD-ineligible almost everywhere else. I can completely understand the decision, either way it went. Perhaps we need a special license tag, which is mostly {{Copyrighted free use}} but has their exact statements, and mentions the moral rights (which could not be bought) and the one flag-making restriction, which to me would be the only basis for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, by the strict wording of their law, it's quite possible PD-AustraliaGov applies. As you mention it's part of a section named Crown Copyright, and the title of the article is "Duration of Crown copyright in original works, sound recordings and films", so they may be arguing the intent is to limit that term to just Crown Copyright works. Also, part of the copyright remains in private hands, which would retain the original term. Might be an interesting decision for a judge, though I think the government-owned portion is OK here either way, given their statements, and that letter. Moral rights still remain with the original author, and the worldwide flag-making license (limited to countries where the flag is not PD-ineligible) still exists in full. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Language help needed

... to determine a possible copyvio: Is there anyone with knowledge of Persian around? Google Translate is not quite clear on this, depending on which target language I choose: The caption of the image on this website could be "picture by Mahdad Lamasya" or "picture of Mahdad Lamasya". Either way, the search result doesn't go well with a picture by Ali Ameri of Andranik Madadian. Can someone figure this out? --91.34.35.188 15:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

pinging specialist 4nn1l2 ;) --Achim55 (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a picture of Andy (singer), a famous Iranian pop singer based in the USA.
مهداد لاماسيا (Mahdad La Masia) is just a profile name on a website, not a real name. Mahdad is a masculine given name, and La Masia is the famous youth academy of FC Barcelona. The user obviously likes football and is a fan of FC Barcelona. He has nothing to do with music, singing or even taking pictures.
The Tarafdari.com website is also a famous sports website in Iran. It also hosts user-generated content mostly for increasing its views. I want to say there are many clickbaits there, including old pop music!
All in all, you should not be worried about what you find on this website as it hosts user-generated content and they don't care about copyright very much. They have copied this image onto their website and have given wrong credits.
I don't think File:Andy in dc 1 09.jpg is a copyvio. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Sometimes I can only marvel at Wikipedia and Commons, and the specialists that are active here! --91.34.35.188 20:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Fragezeichen.png

I need help with this image and the license statement. The level of creation should not be reached here. So the picture should be allowed. Or? And how do I enter the license information correctly? --Geoprofi Lars (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If it was drawn by hand, then it is certainly above the ToO and a permission from its author is required. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Official document

Hi there, this image is certainly not "own work" but a scan (derivative work). However, I am not sure about the copyright situation for official documents like this "Amtsblatt" of an Austrian county. Any specialists around for that kind of a question? --91.34.35.188 20:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We have {{PD-AustrianGov}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Dust Jacket of "Their Eyes were Watching God"

here we can find what I believe is the First Edition of this book. The book is copyrighted 1937 therein, but the dust jacket neither has a copyright nor artist credit. What does this work out to copyright-wise? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Photos by US military members

Want to confirm I am reading Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Works by the US Government correctly: Images...frequently are creations of military members in their individual capacities (e.g. soldiers on patrol using their personal cameras). So images taken using personal cameras are not public domain? I am working on w:en:United States invasion of Afghanistan and under this interpretation many of the images there are copyright, for example:

There were no combat cameramen with the Special Forces as far as I know, so all of these images were probably taken with personal cameras. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The PD-USGov rule is for works done in the course of their duties. If they were not assigned to take photographs, they would not be part of their duties, and the soldiers would retain copyright. If you take pictures of friends at work with your phone, does the company then own the copyright? There is always some gray area of course; if the military would like some documentation of a mission where they can't send official photographers, etc., they could ask that photos be taken when possible (and as such would then become part of their duties, though you'd think they would supply the cameras too if that was the case). For photos taken by the soldiers which they later gave the military to publicize, it may also be a bit of a gray area -- the soldiers would likely be aware those would be treated as PD, in many cases. But ones they publish on their own, then I don't see a way we could assume anything. Most of the ones in your list above look like they are publicized by the military without any particular copyright statement (as opposed to ones taken from third-party sources which give explicit copyright statements; many of them are in this PDF). So, I'd lean OK on those, unless there are specific claims by the author, or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Got it! Thank you for the detailed response. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Microscopic image & Copyright

(Moved from Commons:Help Desk#Microscopic image & Copyright -- Just Sayori OK? (have a chat) 15:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC))

When I take a picture from a microscopic slide which I didn't prepare. Whose copyright is it? This is my concern for file:Aspergillus niger 02.jpg. -- Just Sayori OK? (have a chat) 15:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The copyright will belong to the photographer, i.e. to you. Ruslik (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Thank you. -- Just Sayori OK? (have a chat) 04:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
(to elaborate, a microscope slide is basically a 3D assemblage; if done with creativity, perhaps by artistically arranging the specimen at a micro-level, it could constitute an original work of which an imaging would be a derivative work, but that is almost never the case with yer everyday utilitarian slide.) Arlo James Barnes 01:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated image

Not too sure where to report this. The image File:Non-codin RNA.png is a duplicate of File:NcRNAs-central-dogma.svg, where the editor has claimed this as their own work, and linked to their copy from en.wikipedia. Is there a process for dealing with these issues here? --Ppgardne (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Nominate the .png for deletion. Normally PNG files and SVG files are not duplicates, as they are often not exactly the same, although there is little reason to have a PNG file generated from the SVG as appears to be the case here. So, it would be redundant, and the later upload should be deleted. As you mention, the license and attribution is completely wrong, but those can simply be fixed rather than deleted. In this case though, there isn't much reason to have the .png separately, so nominate it. Automated tools are not likely to find a duplicate like that, so thank you for noticing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Ka pai, thanks Carl. Hopefully I've done that all correctly. --Ppgardne (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to note, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Non-codin RNA.png shows the PNG contained a correction of a label that I missed seeing, so that should be fixed in the SVG before any deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

BBC copyright review

May I get an opinion on the copyright of this video: [1] [2]. The source link is [3] and it claims Public Domain Mark 1.0. The Commons file has a Crown Copyright tag, and an editor has questioned the tag in This diff based on BBC v Wireless League Gazette Publishing [1926] in This link. Thanks in advance. Bammesk (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

BBC works are not crown copyright. See {{BBC voice project}} for an example where they did license a few works. So, those files should be nominated for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

US: non-published anonymous work copyright owner?

We got an image (family photo, paper), which was created in 1935 by an unknown person (real unknown, not the "I don't care" kind), and was not published within creation+70, then was published by physical owner in 2012. It is non-copyrightable in origin country (Hungary; non-published, anonymous works are protected creation+70).

  • Under EU copyright, as far as I see, the publisher gains copyright, I am not sure for how long; the publisher seems to have the power to give permission.
  • Under the US copyright, the protection is 120 years from creation but it is not clear to me who is the owner of the copyright, or namely, who have the power to give permission of use?

Also the guidelines about anonymous work (both Commons:Anonymous works and Commons:URAA-restored copyrights) are pretty silent about non-published anonymous works and works not published within the protection timeframe of the origin country; maybe this shall be "fixed". --grin ✎ 10:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, In France, the new copyright for old unpublished works is 25 years. I don't know for other countries. Yann (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no publisher right in the U.S.; the original copyright owner would be the one to own copyright. A publisher can act as an agent for an anonymous author, but that is about it. On the other hand, how did someone other than the author or their descendants get a hold of the photograph in the first place? However it got out, it might constitute publication at that time, depending on the details. If it is owned by heirs, then yes it's unpublished. If the owner is not an heir of the original, it may be an orphan work which are especially frustrating. It's also possible older copyright laws may have transferred the copyright to someone else (say for commissioned works), so sometimes the question is who the copyright owner is, and not the author. As Yann mentions, the EU has a 25-year publication right, effectively the same as copyright, for works first published beyond the original copyright term, which is owned by the publisher. I would presume that all EU countries have enacted that clause. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

PD-shape?

File:State of the Map U.S. 2013 square logo.png - is it qualifying as below TOO in USA? (it is being migrated from another wiki and user requested "If a user on Wikimedia Commons has checked the license status, the image can be deleted at OSM" - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Sotmus2013.png ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

IMO, it's probably below the US TOO and fine to transfer. Nosferattus (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I've added an SVG version to category:State of the Map US 2013 based on the expanded logo previously uploaded here. Arlo James Barnes 00:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Arlo James Barnes 01:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Dubious uploads

There is a highly disruptive sock master active at the Koli-related articles of the English Wikipedia. Their socks have often uploaded a large number of copyvios on this project as well. One of their latest confirmed socks has uploaded the following pics apparently from the JSTOR: [4]. As I am unable to crosscheck the source, someone should have a look at that.

Many previous Koli socks have uploaded images from the following copyrighted blog to the Commons: [5]. The following user has done the same thing: [6]. The pics are dubious, e.g. the subject of this file died in 1978, as per en WP. So the pic is most likely copyrighted and is obviously copied from the aforementioned blog.

So the uploads of this and this user need to be scrutinised. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

PD-Italy

The files in Category:Cannibal Holocaust (uploaded by user Mariomassone) are frames from the Italian movie Cannibal Holocaust. {{PD-Italy}} says: including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks. On the face of it not in public domain, but wasn't sure. I'll appreciate your opinion.. -- Geagea (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I only used it because I saw it used on screenshots of Category:Suspiria, and just applied it to Cannibal Holocaust. I could have been wrong. Mariomassone (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't the tag say film frames apply? On the other hand, as {{PD-Italy}} says, they would need to be from before 1976 to avoid the URAA and U.S. copyright, so those frames are under U.S. copyright until 2076. They should be deleted for that reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@Geagea Still frames are in the public domain in Italy after 20 years (not stage photographies). These files however are not PD in the US, as Clindberg said. But we do not delete no URAA files just for that reason. Ruthven (msg) 14:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree about the URAA but wondering regarding to the film stocks issue which are analog medium. -- Geagea (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the wording in their law is "stills of cinematographic film" (though obviously that is a translation) would qualify for the 20-year term, so these would seem to fall under that. I'm still not sure what your distinction would be. The law dates from long ago, when all such things were analog. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Yes, we do delete files for that reason. The nominator would have to show that the work was in fact restored by the URAA, not just claim it (since for many countries we have incomplete copyright histories). We don't delete on an allegation of URAA restoration, but the policy says If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle. Italy's law is fairly well known; they were effectively 56pma on the URAA date of 1996, but the best possible case for these works under their law at the time (and now) was public domain as of 2001, so they were still copyrighted in 1996. It was simultaneously published in Indonesia by the looks of it, but not the United States, so it was restored by the URAA. So if you agree that the U.S. copyright still exists, they should be deleted per policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Word definitions

THIS IS AN UNNECESSARILY COMPLEX MYRIAD OF DEAD ENDS. When a person merely wants to look up the definition of a vocabulary word like "notor", you bewilder him/her with "first-person singular present passive indicative" wordings that avoid a simple definition of the term in plain English. Can't you please strive for a little less aloofness and complexity by FIRST providing a basic, understandable meaning for an uncommonly used word? Do you really suppose your using terms like etymology, third declension and Swedish derivations is what the average one of your site users is looking for? And then, instead of providing a linked "SEND" button for the inquirer to send his/her inquiry to you, you show only links for "Publish changes" and "Show preview" to input no one has thought to enter. Can't you please just try to be helpful with vocabulary definitions? Thanks, ciao and be well. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 100.0.110.215 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, it sounds like you are describing Wiktionary, which is a dictionary. You are here at Wikimedia Commons, which is a media library. If you have suggestions for improving the dictionary, you could try to add them at their information desk. Wiktionary, like Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia is a wiki which anyone can edit. That's nice in principle, but it certainly makes discussion pages like this harder to use than a normal forum. --rimshottalk 19:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, the entry notor in Wiktionary in English uses those phrases for the second and first sense respectively of the word in Latin. Most people looking up words in foreign languages would expect to find an explanation in grammatical terms (which in these cases are absolutely central for understanding and using the words). Wiktionary is a multilingual dictionary, and "Swedish" is used only for the entry for the Swedish word. Wiktionary does not have a service answering inquiries, so providing such a link would be frustrating for inquirers and editors alike. There are help pages, but they are not for random inquiries about individual words. –LPfi (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Balloon model/costume FOP problem

Some days ago I nominated File:Balloon leprechaun at Boston's St Patrick's Day Parade in 2018.jpg for deletion due to possible problems of COM:FOP US, in which I originally thought that it's a normal balloon model being tugged during the parade. Beeblebrox later reminded me that there was a person within the balloons, and raised the possibility of interpreting the balloon set shown in the image as a costume.

The questions becomes: how should we interpret the set of balloons? If it's considered as an artwork, then obviously it would have to be deleted for FOP reasons. Classifying it as a costume is also ambiguous: one can argue that it's a balloon model moved by people due to limited degree of freedom, a fact differs from other full-body costumes like Fursuits.

I'd therefore like to seek for more comments from specialist users. Thank you for your opinions.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Transferring from French Wikipedia, help needed...

May I transfer this file from French Wikipedia? Are the rights to use ok?
If so how to do it? (how to transfer from French Wiki to commons). Lorem333Ipsum (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It depends on whether it is simple enough that it falls below the threshold of originality in the USA and in the country of origin. On the linked page it is marked as above that threshold, and depending on country of origin that may well be true. "Fair use" isn't allowed here; either there needs to be no copyright at all – nothing complicated enough to earn copyright – or we need a licence from the copyright owner. –LPfi (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Post-2017 images from Unsplash OK when modified?

The logo for Uberduck (or at least one version thereof) originates in this photo posted on Unsplash in 2020, modified to have a rainbow background. As the Unsplash license (applying to photos from 2017 onwards) only prohibits resale of unmodified photos, could the edit be posted on Commons, assuming a CC0 (or other) dedication from the one who modified the photo? Would the additional prohibition of "compiling photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service" still be an issue? Sobsz (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The answer to the first question is no. We don't "assume" any free licences but need evidence that the Uberduck logo does come with a free licence. It looks sufficiently creative and original to be copyrightable, so the logo is a completely new work. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Should've been clearer with that, sorry; I meant that I would ask the editor to license ​the logo, if it turns out that the Unsplash license doesn't restrict use of the edit. Thank you for the answer! Sobsz (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

LIFE Photo Archive

Hi. This photograph (File:Nehru, Gandhi and Patel 1946.jpg) was taken in India by Life photographer, and is PD in India. But what about its copyright in US? (Life archive says "© Time Inc." and "For personal non-commercial use only") I want to know about copyright status of pictures taken in Iran by Life photographers. Are they PD if Iranian law says so? HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The "country of origin" is actually the country of first publication, not where they were taken, nor even the nationality of the author. If this was first published in the U.S., the status in India's law should not matter here (though obviously it would matter for usage in India). If it was a print of a previously-published photograph that Life simply obtained and had in their archives, then it would matter who photographed and distributed the print -- Life simply has a copy, but would not own any copyright in that situation. A photograph taken by a Life photographer in Iran, but published in the United States, would have the U.S. be the country of origin. The status in any particular country though is dependent on that country's laws. Our policy is to use the law in the U.S., and the country of origin -- if PD in both we can upload, even if still not PD in some other countries. Unfortunately, even if published in 1946, that would have been restored to a 60 year term, and would have been restored by the URAA in the United States, so even if Life did not originally publish it, it would seem to be under U.S. copyright until 2042. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Sometimes I get confused about country of origin. For example, this picture (available in AFP Archive and Getty) was published one day after being taken in an Iranian newspaper (See page 6, top left in File:Kayhan13320529.pdf - 20 August 1953). It is 100% PD-Iran, but how to know if country of origin was Iran? Was it an Iranian picture obtained by AFP, or AFP picture printed in Iran? Can I upload that picture with PD-Iran? HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The Berne Convention (which definition we use) says:
(4) The country of origin shall be considered to be:
(a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country; in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection;
(b) in the case of works published simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union, the latter country;
(c) in the case of unpublished works or of works first published in a country outside the Union, without simultaneous publication in a country of the Union, the country of the Union of which the author is a national, provided that:
(i) when these are cinematographic works the maker of which has his headquarters or his habitual residence in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country, and
(ii) when these are works of architecture erected in a country of the Union or other artistic works incorporated in a building or other structure located in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country.
If a photo was in an Iranian newspaper, it was first published in Iran. Iran is not a signatory to Berne, and does not have copyright relations with the U.S., which can complicate things. If the authors also had it published in other countries within 30 days (which qualifies as simultaneous publication per Berne), then they would get worldwide protection for their work under Berne, since they had it published in a Berne country, as that other country would then be the "country of origin". If Life simply took the photo without permission (which they legally could, since there was/is no copyright treaty with Iran), then that would not count -- it would simply be an Iranian work, published (with permission) only in a country outside the Union. There is no U.S. copyright to worry about in that case, and Commons simply respects Iranian law and waits until that expires before allowing upload. If it was an AP photo that the Iranian newspaper simply used without permission (again, completely legal) then the situation would be reversed. I'd have to admit, I would almost presume that an Iranian newspaper documenting Iranian events would be the most likely situation, unless that newspaper has a history of using AP photographs instead of having photographers on staff. If there is a credit in AP or Getty to a particular photographer though, that could answer it. If it's just a general credit, that increases the chances that they just used an available photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for elaboration. Iranian newspaper (Kayhan) was one of two newspapers of record in Iran (in company with Ettela'at) and definitely had multiple photographers on staff. In that time, Iranian newspapers did not mention name of staff involved (something like Economist I think) and in that specific issue, tens of photographs are printed that I have not found online (the image in question is an exception). Is it safe to assume it is an Iranian photograph obtained by AFP? If yes, can I upload the high-quality image from AFP with PD-Iran, or only the scan from Iranian newspaper? HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The Iranian newspaper is the safest. The question then becomes how did AFP get a higher-resolution photo, if not given by the Iranian newspaper directly. It's probably OK, but it is hard dealing with older works where attribution wasn't practiced as much. In the end, our standard is "significant doubt", and given that the earliest source you've found is an Iranian newspaper, I would tend to side with just using PD-Iran as the tag wherever it comes from. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I learnt a lot! HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Licence query

File:Maharaja suraj mal.png was deleted as its source of origin wasn't known. It was actually cropped from the following old Indian painting present at the site of Free Library of Philadelphia: https://libwww.freelibrary.org/digital/item/67288. Is the licence of that site compatible with the Commons? Note that the subject of the painting is Suraj Mal who died in 1763. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  • It seems the licence is incompatible, although the painting seems very old. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't see any licence on that page, or any claim of copyright. The agreement on the request form explicitly says the person ordering a reproduction is solely responsible for determining the copyright and getting needed permissions. As I can see the agreement is only on making and handling over the reproduction. They do want to know the intended use, and reserve the right to decline a request, but without trying, you don't know what they'd say if you want to publish it for public use, and what payment they'd ask for in that case. –LPfi (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
LPfi, thanks for the comment. The very first line states that the High-resolution images ... are available for publication and other uses, within copyright and licensing restrictions. And they have indeed uploaded a high-resolution portrait: [7]. So I guess the restrictions apply only to high-resolution images. But the deleted file was a low-resolution cropped copy of this old painting. So maybe their restrictions don't apply to the deleted file. Ruthven, what do you think about this issue? - NitinMlk (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@NitinMlk It is clear that the Library doesn't own the copyright, and that they are selling just the reproductions of their files (at diverse resolutions). At the bottom of the print I read 1927. In any case, even if the source i now clear, the author, and the date of creation/publicaiton are missing, and we cannot restore a file under these conditions. Ruthven (msg) 19:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Ruthven, I agree with you. This old Indian painting is probably in the public domain and was probably acquired by the library in 1926. But we can't do much without having certainty about its origin and the date of creation. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Or rather: we need some evidence that it is old enough and/or that it was "published" early enough. If we can assume that it is in the public domain, origin and date are irrelevant copyright-wise. Of course, exact date and origin would be nice to have regardless. –LPfi (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
LPfi, it seems the best organisation/person to answer about the publication/origin of this painting is the Free Library of Philadelphia itself. They seem to be responding to general queries: [8]. But I guess we need to frame our query carefully because they might not show much enthusiasm if they will know about our real intentions. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this file eligible for copyright?

I saw this file which was licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Because it has only simple text, is it eligible for copyright? I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Newsreels

Hi. Newsreels created by U.S. Information Agency specifically to be screened for Iranian audience and screened in Iran +50 years ago is both PD-USGov and PD-Iran, and so free to upload here, am I right? HeminKurdistan (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

uploading screenshot from wikipedia

I'm updating the images for The Missing Manual, and was wondering if there's any extra steps I need to take for uploading screenshots of the 'pedia. (I am a newbie and this is my first time in the commons.) IHaveAVest (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the page for the image i'm replacing, and can't find any issues with it, and the method used to take the picture is the same as what i'm doing, so what the heck, i'll just do it. IHaveAVest (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have tagged your upload with {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} which is a more suitable license than {{CC BY SA 3.0}}. Hulged (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Something I've been musing on about sound recording cover art

How does United States copyright law treat cover art from sound recordings? I know that sound recordings in the United States have a very different history of copyright law than other works, culminating in the Music Modernization Act. Normally I assume that a book cover or DVD cover often has a copyright which is inseparable from the work it is part of. This is not difficult to conceptualize because the terms of copyright (in the US) would be the same for a book's text and its cover illustration. How does this work for album covers though? Does the cover art follow the rules for sound recordings even if the art is not itself a sound recording? Or does the cover art follow more traditional US copyright terms? Interested to hear anybody's thoughts. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason for books covers to follow the same copyright rules, which exist for the music. They are just images or graphic art. The same is true for book covers: after all different editions of a book can have completely different book covers. Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Book covers are a separate work from the book text. No relation, other than they would be published at the same time. Copyright ownership can be different. File:Jaws Book 1975 Cover.jpg is an example where the only copyright notice in the book was to the author, meaning just the text, and the Copyright Office decided that it could not be construed to also pertain to the cover, so it was effectively published without notice. A copyright notice in the name of the publisher could be different, since they could own both. It would be little different for album covers, I'd think -- the sound recording is unrelated (just like it's unrelated to the musical composition copyright). Album covers have always been copyrightable as artwork, if above the threshold of originality. There would have needed to be a copyright notice somewhere in order to keep copyright before 1989. (The sound recording copyright had a different symbol, ℗ for phonogram instead of ©.). The Music Modernization Act only pertains to the phonogram, and has no effect on the cover. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Painting by US artist created in 1947 but publication unknown

I have just been working on fixing files with no categories and I have stumbled on a duplicate pair of files from a US artist (File:Betsy stanley marc wright.jpg & File:Javid art collection.jpg). They were uploaded as own work with a creative commons licence by a new user 20 years after the artist died. I believe the user imported the images from pinterest[9] (as the files there are in the Javid collection, as mentioned by the uploader) and all the details I have are from the pinterest site. It is claimed that the painting has a date on the frame of 1947 but there is no mention of publication. Do we have any grounds for retention here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If it was published only recently (after 2003), no we do not. Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Links to Wikidata

While searching for a category for an image I came across the Hungarian Wikipedia page. There I looked for the link to the Wikidata page and couldn't find it (using Google Translate). I have noticed many times before that there is no Wikidata link at the Hungarian WP. Are there any, but am I looking in the wrong place or are there far fewer Wikidata links than with other WPs? Wouter (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Darthsabious as the uploader of File:Nagy Szabolcs.jpg and the author of hu:Nagy Szabolcs (zenész).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Permission for own work

In order to retain a non-PD photograph (assuming there are no other issues like COM:FOP), we must be convinced of two things:

  1. that the named author is the copyright holder; and
  2. that the named author has actually issued a free license.

The first point tends to a judgment call based on heuristics rather than hard evidence. For example: Is the photo a professional portrait or a casual snapshot? Does it have EXIF? Can it be found earlier and/or at a higher resolution at another website? Does the uploader have a track record of uploading images with correct authorship and licensing information?

The second point depends on whether (a) the uploader has indicated that the photo is "own work" or (b) they have named a third party as the photographer. In case (a), we know that an upload by the copyright holder constitutes a release per the UploadWizard clickwrap, so the only question is whether the uploader is truly the named author (which is usually uncontroversial if the named author is a non-famous individual). In case (b), no legally effective license release has occurred, so COM:VRT must be used unless the photo is sourced from another website with a free license.

{{No permission since}} is currently being used as catch-all for all of these situations. However, it and its accompanying talk-page notice {{File permission}} primarily deal with case 2b, even though a lot of times the template is being used to dispute an "own work" claim. In essence, the tagger is saying, "I don't believe you." Either I don't believe that you actually took the photo (case 1), or I don't believe that User:Widget Factory, Inc. is actually Widget Factory, Inc. (case 2a). As a result, the uploader is often bewildered by what they need to do. I've tried to help by creating Commons:But it's my own work! and linking to it from the talk-page notice, but not everyone reads everything and it doesn't change the fact that the wording of {{No permission since}} heavily implies that the uploader put down someone else's name as the author.

Sometimes the issue requires VRT to resolve, as with the Widget Factory example or if an image has appeared previously online. Other times, the issue can be resolved simply with a good-faith assertion. For example, most of the time a photo of a person is taken by someone else, so if we come across a portrait where the username matches the named subject and it is not an obvious selfie, we might dispute the "own work" claim. However, if the subject says that it is in fact self-photographed and there is no reason to doubt their claim, then per COM:AGF we should accept their claim at face value. Likewise with an image which has a real name in the author field, EXIF, and/or watermark, but the uploader's username is a pseudonym. If the uploader claims that that is their real name, and the images cannot be linked to any online presence (e.g. reverse image search results or a website named in one of those fields), then per COM:AGF we will again accept their claim at face value. The point here is that most people are honest and trying to do the right thing. A lot of people might have no qualms lying to a computer or simply not understand what "own work" means (a lot of portrait subjects think they own the rights to photos of them), but not many are going to tell a human "I took this photo" when they in fact did not. In any case, a photo with no online provenance is always going to be one where a lot of good faith is placed with the one who provides a copy of the original file.

I'd like to ask the community to brainstorm how we can make the process of disputing "own work" claims better. Do we rewrite {{No permission since}}? Create a new template? Use a different process like COM:DR? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping somebody with more experience of problematic uploads would answer, but it seems I have to start.
There is some confusion above about author and copyright holder, who do not need to be the same, which causes some more complications, but for cases where they are identical, the analysis holds, more or less.
The first problem to solve, I think, is the Upload Wizard interface. It talks about the creator of the file, not the creator of the work, which makes the own work claim seem the right one in many more cases than it should. Own work being checked by default doesn't make the situation better. There should be three options, none checked:
  1. This file was not created by me, or is my scan or photo of a 2D work (an image in a book or similar). This includes portrait of me taken by somebody else.
  2. The file was created by me, such as by photographing or recording, but the subject is a work, which may be under copyright (a statue, a performance or similar).
  3. The file was created by me and there are no other copyrights involved. If the subject is a work that is not under copyright (such as a very old painting), still use (1) or (2).
The {{No permission since}} should have parameters (perhaps with shortcuts) for the most common cases and for an explanation where those aren't enough. I have seen it very much abused, such as where permission is stated but not believed, stated in a language other than English or stated in free text outside the normal fields (such as with old uploads, from before {{Information}}, even when imported already at the creation of Commons). The wording with the right parameters should fit the case at hand. If that can be accomplished, we'd avoid confusing and frustrating new uploaders.
We also have some typical cases that should have good procedures. One is that of uploading a portrait photo of oneself. Often the uploader really has no right to license the photo. In some cases there is no reason for the photographer to deny such licensing and we could be less strict on the formalities. If the photo was taken by a stranger with a handed over camera, they legally keep their copyright, but are we really to observe that absurdness of the copyright laws? If the photo was taken by a friend or near relative, perhaps a special-case VRT procedure could be created (a standard letter for that specific case). There are more cases with orphan works in family albums that we might want to allow uploads of. Regardless, we might want to have pages (and no permission templates) specifically about some such cases.
–LPfi (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I've brought up problems with UploadWizard before: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/07#UploadWizard instructions do not align with actual VRT requirements. Unfortunately the technical process for updating UploadWizard dialogs is rather arcane.
Regarding so-called "bystander selfies", we have meta:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership, but there is no community consensus on how it should be treated in practice. I think it is reasonable to treat the subject as the sole copyright holder if all of the following hold:
  1. The subject is the owner of (or otherwise in legal possession of) the camera and asked a stranger to take a photo of them, providing rough instructions on the background/framing.
  2. Neither the subject nor photographer retains any contact info or identifying details about the other person, and the photographer does not retain any copy of the files.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
What a timely question, dear sir! I have just posted a discussion where I am utterly inconvinced that both "the named author is the copyright holder" and "that the named author has actually issued a free license" — and no evidence has been presented for either. Please join the discussion (or merge the two, or the like). -- Wesha (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Iranian Students News Agency

Sorry but I cannot find any indication of "All Content by Iranian Students News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License" in {{Iranian Students News Agency}}. Is it really exists? --A1Cafel (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd and 4nn1l2: would you please help with this?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
This license template is fake and should be deleted. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I tried to find the actual lisence disclaimer but I cannot find where it is. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Denkmalgeschützete Klinikgebäude

Habe heute einige Bilder von denkmalgeschützten Häusern auf einem Klinikgelände gemacht. Natürlich ohne Personen. Das Gelände ist vollkommen offen und kann jederzeit von jedermann frei begangen und befahren werden. Sollten die Bilder in entsprechende Verzeichnisse einsortiert werden oder garnicht erst hochgeladen werden ? Das Archiv usw. konnte ich nicht befragen, weil alles nur in Englisch geschrieben ist. Da kann ich nichts mit anfangen. Ist daher für mich wertlos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClausNe (talk • contribs)

Wenn es keine Privatklinik ist, sollte es grundsätzlich in Ordnung gehen. Lade die Bilder einfach mal hoch, so dass man ggf. sehen kann, von wo aus du fotografiert hast (der Standort des Fotografen ist relevant). Wenn du mehr wissen willst: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland. So etwas fragst du (auf deutsch) besser auf COM:Forum.--Túrelio (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Entscheidend ist vermutlich die Frage, ob die Bilder von öffentlichem Grund aus gemacht worden sind. Wie Túrelio schon sagt, bei einer Privatklinik könnte das problematisch werden. --217.239.1.41 21:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

threshold of originality of derivative works

If a derivative work of a copyrighted work is deemed not to be original enough to generate a new copyright — like in the case of the RE/MAX hot air balloon logo — then do all the derivative works also lose copyright protection after the original enters public domain?

For example, the original Paramount Pictures logo is old enough to be in public domain. However, modern versions like en:File:Paramount Pictures (2022).svg are marked as non-free. If a modern version of the logo is based on the original, then can we assume that it is public domain as well? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No. If a derivative work adds additional copyrightable expression, then that additional expression has its own copyright term. The original may expire, but any added expression can have its copyright added longer. Someone is free to make new derivative works of an expired original without worrying about the original's copyright, but if they are too similar to someone else's existing derivative work it can be a problem. There is likely to be a good example soon -- the original Mickey Mouse film will expire in a couple of years, which is the one which created the initial character copyright. However, as each film can add more expression to the character, that expression will not expire -- only the original film. So most anything related to Mickey Mouse will still be a copyright problem even after that film expires, other than that film itself. Portions of that character copyright will expire very slowly. If a derivative work does not add enough expression for itself to be copyrightable, then only the copyright on the original still exists, so once that expires the original (and that particular derivative) could then be used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant only the derivative works that don't add a copyrightable expression rather than all derivative works. I guess the biggest issue is having to determine whether the new expressions meet the threshold of originality. Do we have any other examples besides the RE/MAX logos?
And do you think the new Paramount logos fall into the latter category? Ixfd64 (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
One place you can look is the Copyright Office's archive of appeals decisions. If they refuse a copyright, there are two levels of appeals you can use, and those are the results of appeals that got to the top level. That site allows you to select different aspects of copyright to filter the list based on that. One recent one was the Golden Globe statue; the more modern one was ruled to not be different enough from the (copyrighted) earlier one, and there may be others. It can be dry reading, but it's a pretty rich source, since there are more of those than copyright-related court decisions, at least ones dancing around the borderlines. They are not precedent-setting like court decisions are, but they still give a pretty good idea. As for the Paramount one, any selection and arrangement copyright (if it exists) on the original is largely reproduced in the new one, so no extra copyright for that. However, the drawing of the mountain itself seems completely different to me (copyright expression exists in all the specific line drawn), so yes I'd guess the new one gets a copyright on that basis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I see, thanks. So we probably shouldn't upload this to Commons per the precautionary principle. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The precautionary principle requires "significant doubt" and I don't see us reaching that threshold yet. I could see if we found some evidence in writing that a court/copyright office had made a determination. --RAN (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Tutankhamun tomb photographs

I'm trying to be absolutely certain of the copyright status of photographs from the excavation of Tutankhamun's tomb that were taken by Harry Burton (d. 1940). Many of his photos from the early stages of the excavation are unambiguously in the public domain, because they were published in 1923 in the first volume of The Tomb of Tut.ankh.Amen by w:Howard Carter and w:Arthur Cruttenden Mace. But I'm unsure about some of the photos of his that were not published in that first volume but are on Commons right now, tagged as public domain.

The photos in Category:Tutankhamun tomb photographs 1, Category:Tutankhamun tomb photographs 2, Category:Tutankhamun tomb photographs 3, Category:Tutankhamun tomb photographs 4, and Category:Tutankhamun tomb photographs 5 were taken in 1922–1923, but I'm unsure when they were actually published. And File:The Moment Carter Opens the Tomb.JPG, File:Howard Carter opening mummy of King Tut cph.3b08637.jpg, and File:Tuts Tomb Opened.JPG were taken in 1924 and 1925, and I'm not sure of their publication date. The first two were published in the second volume of The Tomb of Tut.ankh.Amen in 1927, though I'm not sure if they were published elsewhere first; I don't know where the third photo first appeared. Am I just being overly cautious? A. Parrot (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

PD-USGov-NASA

PD-USGov-NASA reads: "The SOHO (ESA & NASA) joint project implies that all materials created by its probe are copyrighted and require permission for commercial non-educational use." but the actual website reads: ""The use of SOHO images or data for public education efforts and non-commercial purposes is strongly encouraged and requires no expressed authorization". I don't see strongly encouraged as a legally binding demand of non-commercial use, especially with the absence of a specific license logo that would have standard legal implications. An encouragement is not a legal demand. The bolded words are my emphasis. I want to change the wording in the license to use the actual wording without relying on a guess of what is implied. --RAN (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

But the truth is that SOHO does not allow its images to be used for commercial purposes. Ruslik (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I think you are misinterpreting what that text is saying. It is encouraging people to use its copyrighted works for public education and non-commercial activities. They are saying they want education and non-profit activities to benefit from their work. You appear to be interpreting it as "strongly encouraging" people to keep away from commercial activities, and then saying that "strongly encouraging" is not enforceable. In fact it is silent on commercial activities and no licence for commercial reuse is provided. The absence of a licence does not invalidate copyright or allow us to upload the materials here on terms that the copyright holder has not granted. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • And that is the problem with not using standard boilerplate text from a standard creative commons license, the wording is ambiguous. --RAN (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Uploader wishes to delete

Hi, I have pointed out to a new user that she is not the photographer and thus does not have the Urheberrecht to the photos she uploaded of herself as "own work". She now wishes to have them deleted but is not quite sure how to go about that.

I had already started a deletion request on one of them and could of course start one on the other image, but I thought maybe someone here knows of a way to speed this up. Thanks, --217.239.1.41 22:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP. The original uploader could tag that file with {{SD|G7}} to request the speedy deletion. On the other hand, you could tag it with {{Copyvio}} if it is a clear copyright violation. Hulged (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Licensing question

File:Putin palace interior1.jpg and others from this series has been uploaded by Akrabbim (talk · contribs) who claimed they are CC-BY-3.0. However, I highly doubt the said user is the original author who sneaked into the allegedly highly guarded building. Furthermore, "Author" is listed as "Russian Wikileaks", which gives me further doubts about the license status of these photos. Does "Russian Wikileaks" list the license status on these photos' pages? I can't see these pages (and thus check their license status) because the site is not accessible; and I have serious doubts that the REAL original photograpger released these pictures under CC-BY license.

Also, @PlanespotterA320: who historically seems to be higly concerned with licensing issues is invited to this discussion. -- Wesha (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wesha Old archived versions of the source site indeed bore a creative commons license but I doubt that it extends to the photographs. According to the site, the "editors of RuLeaks.Net" merely "received a series of photographs of the palace" which they published. They are not the copyright holders thus they do not have the authority to license the photos. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Howdy.carabao Thank you. Therefore, no matter how importamt these pictures may be for the posterity and/or the world, I'm afraid they license question must be risen. @PlanespotterA320, would you show us your high moral stance as an unbending copyright upholder, and do the honors of nominating these imaged for deletion on the basis of their uncertain copyright status? -- Wesha (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I assume they got the series of photos accompanied by the right to publish them on their CC-BY 3.0 site. If I send a photo to be published, I either trust it will be published according to the publisher's normal routines or I explain my wishes and ask for them to be specifically acknowledged. There could of course be all kinds of doubt, but without further evidence I don't see any need to delete these images. –LPfi (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Last time I checked, Wikicommons has to have a direct permission filed in the OTRS system. "We believe that..." doesn't fly here, it creates a dangerous precedent. A good number of my uploads was deleted on that ground -- and now I insist on consistency. Doubt adds weight to the "delete" side, not to the "keep" side. -- Wesha (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Consistency isn't among our policies. Too hard to achieve and too many corner cases for it to be practical. We need VRT correspondence when there is significant doubt about the licence. I believe the photos were sent to be published on whatever standard terms, to be applied at the discretion of the publisher. Any other arrangement would have required negotiations or a specific request, and that request should have resulted in a note at the page in question. –LPfi (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

But seriously, is the Eiffel Tower lighting under copyright or not?

This was discussed a few weeks back, and there was (yet AGAIN) no conclusive answer. All I seem to be getting is “the copyright claim from Eiffel Tower inc. is universally parroted and accepted but it’s completely unclear if it’s legitimate”. I think there should be a formal conclusion to this argument that’s been dragging on for 10+ years. Dronebogus (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

See the general advise at Category:Eiffel Tower at night. I don't know if the copyright-claiming entity S.E.T.E. has actually gone to court and won a suit. However, as their copyright-claim still persists, we are bound by COM:PRP not to expose re-users to such a risk. --Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
So it’s under copyright and images of it should be deleted? Thus far it seems like undeletions have relied on local consensus, dated legal precedent, and admin opinions and not general consensus and reliable sources. Dronebogus (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "Nighttime photographs of the Eiffel Tower are copyrighted and you could be fined or sued, you’re told."
"To clarify, the Eiffel Tower itself, constructed in 1889, is in the public domain. Tourists can click away all they want during the daytime. However, the light show, added in 1985, is considered an artistic display and is indeed protected by copyright. But because the lighting is attached to the Eiffel Tower — and since any photographs of the Eiffel Tower taken at night aren’t likely to be terribly interesting without the lights, the practical effect is that nighttime images of the Eiffel Tower are a violation of the artist’s copyright under French law." -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
A lot of weasel words... SV1XV (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
www.paris.fr => "In November 2017, in decision 2017 DFA 10, the Paris Council entrusted the public service contract (délégation de service public, DSP) for operation of the Eiffel Tower to Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel (SETE) for a period of fifteen years" -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

Are files licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike permitted on Wikimedia Commons? If not, why? Wikimedia Commons is a nonprofit website so any use of the images by the Wikimedia Foundation (a nonprofit organization) is noncommercial. I just uploaded the humans.txt logos (licensed as CC BY-NC-SA) to "category:humans.txt" but had to manually add the license for "category:CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0". Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Commons provides "free" (which means allowing commercial use as well) works to everyone that wants it -- so it's probably legal for them to be here, but they are against Wikimedia-wide policy (text licensed that way is not allowed on Wikipedia either). Commons does not allow fair use, either, since those are not "free". See Commons:Licensing#Forbidden_licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Amending to say, a -NC license is allowed provided there is another, free license along with it. So you could multilicense CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC, for example. Commons just needs the CC-BY-SA, but you could additionally allow the file to be used non-commercially without the share alike provision. But an -NC license cannot be the only one, since Commons is serving not just Wikipedia but everyone. See Commons:Project scope -- the first aim is that Commons makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all . The key is "freely-licensed", where "free" has a very specific meaning, one which precludes non-commercial restrictions (it does not refer to cost). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Nicole Sharp: I'm sorry, but the license restriction "‐NonCommercial" AKA -nc- (noncommercial) is not usable by itself for Wikimedia Commons. For the reasons, please see Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I think non-commercial licensing is okay if and only if it’s optional and provided alongside a commercially available alternative. Dronebogus (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be legal to use the noncommercial licensed logos for humans.txt on Wikimedia projects (e.g. for wikimedia.org/humans.txt) even if not permitted under the internal policies of Wikimedia Commons. I have already emailed the HumansTXT.org team requesting a license change, but I have not received a reply and it looks like none of their social media accounts have been active in several years now. I tried to reach out to some of the individual developers listed at https://www.humanstxt.org/humans.txt but haven't gotten a reply back yet. If you want to mark the images as "license change requested" perhaps that might be helpful (I don't know if a template exists for this), otherwise it seems like they will need to be deleted and then re-uploaded, or moved to Wikipedia. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It might be legal, but that is not what Commons (or all Wikimedia projects in general) is about. You can only use them in Wikipedia under a fair use rationale, as well. The NC license doesn't work there either -- it is "non-free". I don't think there is a "change requested" template, because until a license is actually granted then there is no rationale to keep it here at all. There may be a grace period on deletion if you think there is a reasonable chance for it to be resolved in the near future, but otherwise yes they will need to be deleted. The other possibility is {{PD-textlogo}} ... it is actually pretty close to that line, but the eyes/mouth part of that logo might be just enough to push it over the threshold of originality. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not think the images qualify as public domain. I particularly like the anthropomorphic "h" since it makes the logo more human-friendly than a simple text logo (which any robot can read with optical character recognition). I think only the "h" would qualify as being restricted to noncommercial use, with the rest of the logo being simple text. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I heard back from one of the developers, and (translating from Spanish to English) the reply is: "there is little chance of changing the license of the logo". So I would recommend these for speedy deletion under the Wikimedia Commons policy, until the HumansTXT.org team decides to change the license. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Drawings based on sculptures

Should File:Dinosauroid drawing 2021.png be treated as a COM:DW since it seems to be based upon this sculpture created by someone other that the file's uploader? Would it, on the other hand, be OK as licensed since there's FOP for sculptures in Canada per COM:FOP Canada? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

All reptiloids look similar to me. So, it is difficult to say whether this drawing is based on a particular model (and general ideas are not copyrightable). So, it may well be considered an original work. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: Licence query

This is in regard to a recently closed discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/04#Licence_query

I queried the Free Library of Philadelphia using this link. They not only mentioned that the painting is in the public domain but also provided a link to the University of Pennsylvania's this page which confirms that point. Anyway, this is their reply:

Thanks for your inquiry. Lewis M 433 is available at no cost in the public domain. If you need a higher-resolution version than the one that right-click saving provides, you can download the 15MB .tif file here: https://openn.library.upenn.edu/Data/0023/html/lewis_m_433.html

The painting, likely removed from a muraqqa album of similar court portraits, was made in India, probably in the late 18th century. It is not published, you can read more about muraqqa albums here: https://sites.duke.edu/globalinmughalindia/

The Free Library received it as a donation from Anne Baker Lewis in 1933, and it had been purchased by her husband, John Frederick Lewis, in 1926 from a sale at Sotheby's.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

So, I guess there shouldn't be any issue in restoring the that file now. In fact, we can also upload its higher resolution version.

I have uploaded a screenshot of the email for those who want to read the original reply: https://i.imgur.com/F3RP2GX.png. I can also forward the original email if anyone is interested in it. Ruthven, is it fine to restore the file now? Courtesy ping to LPfi, as they provided valuable inputs in the archived discussion. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done I added some information to the file page, but feel free to add more using {{Artwork}}. Best, Ruthven (msg) 08:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I added most of the info above. Feel free to move it to {{Artwork}} or otherwise edit as appropriate. But what does the "not published" mean? Wasn't the painting published by made available at the Free Library? –LPfi (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@LPfi The painting was very probably "published" for the first time in the 18th century in a muraqqa album. They write "not published" because probably they consider that manuscript are not "published for the public". But the creation of the album is, by itself, a publication for us. Ruthven (msg) 12:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ruthven and LPfi: thanks to both of you. I asked them to clarify the publication-related detail, and this is their reply:

Sorry for the confusion. The painting has not been published in print. It has been "published" online at the link you mention, and we (the Free Library) own the painting so we're credited as publisher as we provided the digital image. Does this clarify the confusion?

Here's the email's screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/RXimpCb.png. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
NitinMlk I still think that they interpret "to publish" as to "widely provide access to the artwork". I agree that they re-published the original album in a digital form. But this doesn't transfer any copyright after two centuries from first publication. --Ruthven (msg) 07:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ruthven, I agree. In fact, they are not claiming any copyright to start with, as they have clearly stated in an academic source that this painting is in the public domain: "These images and the content of Free Library of Philadelphia Lewis M 433: Portrait of Maharaja Suraj Mal Smoking a Hookah on a Terrace are free of known copyright restrictions and in the public domain."
I guess I have already wasted their time, along with posting their replies without their knowledge. So I won't harass them further. - NitinMlk (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 09:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Painting attribuited to Alfred Choubrac

I would like to upload a picture attribuited to Alfred Choubrac, Scène de champ de course. Unfortunately, to my knowledge the only available reproduction is a jigsaw puzzle made by Nathan and I bet it's not allowed to upload it (without the copyrighted writings). No way then? Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Carnby You can either crop away the writings or delete them with an image editing software, before uploading the picture. Ruthven (msg) 09:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Please check whether everything is all right. Grazie.--Carnby (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it's fine. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 07:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 07:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

no copyright mark - max resolution of festival poster

Hello mates! I there is no copyright mark or similar references to licence, trademark and so... - what is the maximum resolution of (festival) poster to upload? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 31.217.20.95 (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. What can you tell us about the names and lifetimes of the photographer, designer, and author, and the dates and countries of photography, design, and publication? Also, please see COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Copyright marks were needed in some other countries before, but aren't needed any more. The festival poster is thus under copyright unless it is old. As long as the poster is the subject of the file it cannot be uploaded under a free licence without the consent of the copyright owner. To get advice, please also specify the relevant jurisdiction (country). –LPfi (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Airport X-rays

What's our stance on airport security X-ray pictures, like the one in this tweet? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If it was an automated screenshot I'd say it was unoriginal and PD. That one in the tweet, however, was apparently photographed off the screen, so one could argue that is possibly copyrightable. That said, I'm not aware of any general policy on X-ray images. Theoretically you could even use them as a form of art by specifically tuning the contrast and colours on the device. De728631 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Any image generated by a USA federal employee should be in the public domain. However, there are likely serious privacy and security concerns if an airport employee releases images of people's personal belongings and internal body parts (neither of which are in public view) without their permission. A photograph of an airport x-ray by a passenger would likely just be a normal copyright to the photographer, but with the same privacy and security concerns (passengers should not be able to view other passengers' private belongings or internal organs). Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
[replying to both] In this case, we don't know where it was taken. It's arguable that the photograph is a mechanical copy of a 2D (X-ray) work with no creative input, and hence no new copyright, on the part of the photographer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
There is meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Medical Imaging, and {{PD-US-Medical imaging}}, and {{PD-medical}}. I would think those would fall under the same type of criteria. The Copyright Compendium, in section 909.3(B), is a bit more generalized. As a general rule, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register medical x-rays or imaging, regardless of whether they are claimed on an application as photographs, images, artwork, or graphics. These types of images do not typically possess a sufficient degree of creativity to sustain a copyright claim. They go on to say, For the same reasons, the Office will not register surveys of water and land masses that are captured by the data that echo-sounders and similar equipment produce. So no, I don't think there is any copyright in the image shown on the screen. The photo itself may be another matter, though that looks close enough for {{PD-Art}} to me, especially if cropped to just the harp. There could easily be privacy issues involved there as well, so that is something to be careful about, but don't think there is an issue for the harp. The photo sounds like it was likely taken in Ireland or the UK, and the situation may be a bit less clear there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Can someone remind me the Wikimedia related copyright rules for lists?

Hi all

I know I've read it several time but could someone link me to the page that relates to copyright for lists? (E.g a list of protected areas in a country). I'm sure it was along the lines of a complete list of all of the (e.g protected areas in a country) cannot be copyrighted because it is not a creative work, just a list of everything, like a phone book. A link to the relevant rules and page would be very helpful.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @John Cummings! Creative lists (like 'the 100 most beautiful love songs') are so-called database works and therefore protected by 'ordinary' copyright law. Normal lists like the one you mentioned are (only) protected by the so-called sui generis database right in the EU. Please see meta:Wikilegal/Database_Rights. Happy to answer any questions (I wrote that page years ago). Gnom (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps this would help, though it's technically an "essay" but its advice on selection and arrangement (and the legal basis for these concepts) is sound. en:Wikipedia:Copyright_in_lists - Fuzheado (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks both :) John Cummings (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

British Pathé newsreels

Hi. I noticed that there are some newsreels in Category:Pathé News that are tagged PD-UK-unknown (taken more than 70 years ago). Can I upload 1951 and 1952 newsreels from British Pathé? HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

If that is the license, only ones from before 1926 would have expired by 1996, so only those are definitely OK. Otherwise, the {{PD-1996}} tag would be erroneous, so some of those possibly should not be here. If the newsreel was simultaneously published in the United States (i.e. within 30 days), then they would avoid the URAA. While very possible, I'm not sure how that could be proved. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, so we cannot be 100% sure that they are free. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Right. Actually, if any of those were French newsreels (Pathe had two offices it seems), then ones before 1936 are OK -- French terms were 50 years plus wartime extensions, at the time of URAA. But there is no hope for 1950s foreign newsreels under U.S. copyright law, unless also distributed in the U.S. at the time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

{{PD-BNF}}

We have had many files deleted although they were assessed by BNF to be PD and a file cannot be deemed to be in the public domain merely because BNF says so. Therefore I find the template misleading and suitable for a DR. Other opinions? — Racconish 💬 16:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that this is suboptimal, so it should replace with better licenses whenever possible, and then deprecated, and/or the wording changed. However deleting while it is in wild use is a bad idea. Yann (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Do we have any evidence (good or bad) about BNF's ability to judge PD status correctly? If not, should we put related DR subpages in tracking cats?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm always leery of assuming we know better than institutions like that. I would prefer to require a very good reason for ignoring their analysis. Of course, that is only for the French status; files could still be deleted if they are not yet PD in the U.S. And yes, replacing with a more specific license tag would be best. Would also not mind the tag taking another license tag name as a parameter; this would then be more of a source tag in that case. But deleting it without first processing all files using it (which are most likely fine) would be a bad idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: I remember you used at some point a category like Files_considered_by_BNF_to_be_PD_but_should_be_checked. What was it exactly? — Racconish 💬 20:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Images from Gallica to be checked, Category:Images from Gallica with broken source, Category:Images from Gallica with HR at source. Yann (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. At this point, I suggest, instead of merely deleting the template, to put all files having only this template as a PD rationale in a sub-category of category Category:Images from Gallica to be checked (for which I suppose we would need a bot to categorize them first as such); and to add to the template documentation a warning this template alone is not sufficient. — Racconish 💬 21:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, good for me. Yann (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: how would you name the category to be created ? Files tagged as PD-BNF to be checked? — Racconish 💬 16:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, good. Yann (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding declarations of PD by a reliable institution, I would treat them this way: If the declaration is clearly mistaken, in that all publicly available evidence precludes the possibility that the image is PD, then we should delete the image. However, if the publicly available evidence does not conclusively prove either way (e.g. a 1950 US postcard without a back side), then we can take the PD declaration as an indication that the institution has checked the necessary details (i.e. made sure that either there is no copyright notice or the copyright has not been renewed). So I would treat the institution's statement as having real value in terms of COM:EVID; without it, we would be deleting the image per COM:PCP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

CC BY-SA color change

Am I allowed to change the color of the CC BY-SA logo? @Masur: has changed it from gray to orange, and the logo is also available in white, yellow, and blue here on Wikimedia Commons (@John Cummings: ). The logo is trademarked but otherwise should be in the public domain to alter as one wishes. However, the Creative Commons trademark policy specifically says that the color should not be altered from the bland gray background used by Creative Commons (and Creative Commons does not offer a version of the CC BY-SA logo with a transparent background): https://www.creativecommons.org/faq/#may-i-use-the-creative-commons-logo-and-buttons Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do not overwrite the orange file. Obviously there is a grey version which you even provided here as an example, so that should be the default version. Why Masur chose to upload the orange version though should best be answered by himself. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Huh, 2009. Most likely it was requested at pl-wiki, for some projct, help page, or whatever. Currently it is not used there, so pardon me - I cannot say why I chose to upload it :) Masur (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
What I mean is: Can I create additional versions in other colors? Wikimedia Commons already has the logo available with the background colors in gray (the original trademarked color) plus white, orange, blue, and yellow. What I want to know is if the color variants that have already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are a mistake (and should be removed from Commons) or are permitted as public-domain alterations of a trademarked color background? Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I see. I would better not create additional versions with new colours then. I seem to remember an old discussion about the CC logos being even not really free to use at all, so that whole topic is a can of worms. So, in light of the CC FAQ I created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SVG Creative Commons license logos. De728631 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how the trademark is legally enforceable though, since it consists entirely of Unicode characters (🅭🅯🄎 / 🅭🅯🄎) with a basic border. This may be a case of dual licensing, in that it is both public domain and trademarked, but the trademark is unenforceable since it is in the public domain (and thus alterations are permitted even if Creative Commons says they are not). Nicole Sharp (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand that reasoning. My understanding is that the logo is in the public domain copyright-wise, but trademarked. A logo can be simple and still trademarked (we have many such logos). Thus you are free to create new versions of the logo, but you should be careful when using them as that might infringe on the trademark. Thus you would be free to upload them on Commons, with due warnings, but they may not be in scope. What educational purpose do they serve? The orange one is mostly used on user pages. I cannot deem whether the other uses are justified (one or two help pages and a couple I cannot understand). –LPfi (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The safest option of course is to respect the trademark policy of Creative Commons and not to look for any loopholes that might allow altering the logo without the written permission of Creative Commons. In that case, the altered logos should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons as a violation of the Creative Commons trademark policy. I would think that changing the color (even as a violation of trademark) should be allowed under fair use, such as if you need a specific background color to match the design of a larger work that the logo is embedded into. But fair use doesn't apply to Wikimedia Commons. And it is very easy to create your own unique logo design (bypassing the trademarked logo design) since the symbols are available as uncopyrighted Unicode characters, so altering the original trademarked logo shouldn't be necessary then. Nicole Sharp (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
We usually don't care about trademark rights, as they are non-copyright restrictions. Legally, we can host them as long as we don't mislead visitors. But are they in scope? –LPfi (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I like the brighter orange color since it is more eye-catching. The gray background blends into the black and white text, but orange or yellow stand out (typically associated with hazard or warning colors). So changing the color does serve a functional purpose, in addition to a design purpose. If allowing color alterations, then red, pink, and green should also be provided as "eye-catching" colors as alternatives to a neutral gray. Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that might be up to the copyright owner. If the trademark is on the grey variant, then the other colours make the original harder to recognise. But we should have an informed opinion on trademark law before thinking about what is practical. –LPfi (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Taguigshazzam.jpg

File source claims it is from Photobucket – [10]. Unsure if the source at Photobucket is licensed freely, as the link only gives the download of the image and not the image description page at Photobucket (if ever). No results found for both reverse Google Search and TinEye. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Tough call. The rest of the user's uploads look fine. This one was a different camera, though taken in another year than the other uploads. It is credited to a different username (which is also in the filename), but that username doesn't exist on Wikimedia projects, it would seem. It was uploaded only four days after being taken, so not much time to simply find it somewhere else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Clindberg looking at the file history, it appears it was uploaded by Oldag08 (talk · contribs), but some point later a user Philippino12 (talk · contribs) changed the author field to "shazzam" from "Oldag08" and even changed the source field from "own" to this Photobucket URL. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, interesting. He did link to his own account originally, though displayed the text "Shazzam" as the author (and in the filename). And then another user changed the author link to something broken and added the source. The source is the same photo, but does not include the same EXIF data that the Wikipedia upload has, and has a Photobucket watermark. So (unless photobucket was not doing those modifications at the time) that may not be the actual source, but may have been copied from Wikipedia to photobucket instead. It's still a bit odd, but I don't see any reason to not assume good faith, I think -- just assume it was that user's upload. Maybe the source should change back, with the photobucket link put into other_versions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Clindberg: ✓ Done restoring the file info. See [11]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Counter productive image deletions

Images by Nobu Tamura[12] (who is noted exactly for creating images for Wikipedia[13], our most prolific artist of prehistoric animals) were deleted per[14] on very shaky grounds by Ellywa with very little discussion, even though it's not a clear case at all. These DRs come up again and again because NT has uploaded images here with one licence, but elsewhere (his blog[15]) with a non commercial one (even though the blog also states the low res versions found there are of the commercial CC variety), but that should not be a problem, as dual licences are allowed. Another source of confusion is that he initially uploaded his images under a different name, Arthur Weasley[16].

I find it counterproductive and even ridiculous that these deletion requests keep coming up, and harmful that the images were deleted in this case with almost no discussion, and no examination of their context. I think the images should be undeleted and we should have some mechanism to prevent further deletion of NT's images here. Ellywa noted in the DR that NT is inactive on Commons now anyway, which is ironic, since the main reason he is inactive is exactly because people kept nominating his images for deletion. Perhaps a creator template needs to be made for him on Commons like the one for Dmitry Bogdanov[17] which lists both their usernames to avoid further confusion and pointless deletions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The "shaky grounds" have been explained on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Protocetus. These four images were not uploaded by Nobu Tamura, but by three other users. These users took the NC licenced files and changed the licence into CC_BY_SA. This appears not correct imho. I did not delete files uploaded by Nobu Tamura themselves. Ellywa (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I fail to see why deletion was the best course of action as opposed to replacement and revdeling, as the author indicates that low res versions are permissible for use. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
As I said. The artist was not involved in these uploads. A Revdel would not result in other versions of the uploads. The artist could give permission for these images. Then they can be undeleted. So please get into contact with Nobu Tamura and ask to send permission to VRT. The email address is easily found. Would love to undelete the beautiful drawings as a result! Ellywa (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
It is difficult to find heads or tails in this now because of the premature deletion, but images of his with BW in the filename were usually uploaded by his alternate account, Arthur Weasley[18], including some of these that were deleted, another important aspect which wasn't discussed during the DR. So yes, most of this was uploaded by him or with his permission, heck, he was even a prolific editor at one point, so it would be more than easy to just ask him, he is still contactable, before second guessing. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
It is sad to say that the massive paragraph detailing the failings of commons admins posted by none other than the author of all these works is relevant again. ArthurWeasley and NobuTamura are the same individuals, discussions should be made before deletions, we give authors the courtesy even when it might not be right under a strict application of rules, and more, because the goal is not to police images so intensely and rapidly that everyone becomes disillusioned with the process entirely, which has happened before and will happen again. IJReid (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 Support The back history of this is difficult to find. The files on the DR were indeed uploaded by several different users, but per the DR they are all apparently derived from just one, File:Protocetus BW.jpg, so that is the only one that matters. That was indeed uploaded by the alternate account long ago, so it would appear to be uploaded by the author. A few years after upload, the author looks like they tried to get several images deleted as inaccurate, but most/all were rejected as being in use. The user then changed the license on all their uploads to an NC license, which an admin apparently took as a user-requested deletion request, and deleted them (including the one in question), despite most being in use (maybe that was missed). They were restored the next day during this discussion (which is no longer in any archive, so hard to find). It also ended up at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive_35#Dinosaur_extinction_across_wikis. I presume the history was similar to File:Dromaeosaurus BW.jpg, which was also deleted at the time. They then tried to delete at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dromaeosaurus BW.jpg, but was turned down. The original upload was by the user, but they gradually added reference to their alternate username, and two different external sites, before removing reference to the en-wiki account and only leaving the second website (which was likely not in existence at the time of upload). In 2018, a permission statement was added to that file, which seemed to indicate a mention of the free license for lower-resolution files was on the source website at the time (can still see something similar at a different image page). Unsure if a similar permission statement was on this file, but it appears to be of the same basic history, which was that the files were validly licensed by the uploader, with external references being added later. On File:Ichthyornis.jpg, the uploader themselves eventually reverted the change to the license on that file, so they appear to have later understood the irrevocable nature of the original license. The file in question was uploaded before the source website existed, although the *date* mentioned on the website page is years earlier, which likely confused the nominator into thinking it existed on that website before the upload here, which appears to be inaccurate (the Internet Archive histories of that website don't start until 2012, and indeed the date on the source URL is also 2012, while the file was uploaded here in 2008). The other website mentioned looks like it started in 2009. Several other uploads here from the author date from 2006. That all leads to a situation hard to diagnose, as evidenced by that an admin nominated this file for deletion again, and another admin agreed. But it would appear to have been uploaded here before the author started a website for their works (and then changed or merged identities, as their external email address also changed over time, same as Wikipedia usernames, looking at the history). Really not sure of the best way to document all of this to prevent future deletion of that user's uploads. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Note that one of the reasons the artist started nominating his images for deletion were due to recurring deletion requests by others, he just got fed up. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Didn't know that, but can understand. Admins delete so many copyvios every day, things that look like they meet the same pattern can sometimes not get investigated as thoroughly. Might be good to have a VRT confirmation that they are the same user, so that one of those tags could be added to the files -- that can more often stop quick deletions. Removing reference to the Commons username might also have hurt. A note added to their user page linking their newer user account might also help, to see they are the same person. Really though, the "source" should be "own work" uploads, since that is in fact the source of the permission, with the external website mentioned as "other versions". And maybe the author field could mention the original uploader, and mention the new username as well, to make clear the connection. The history is therefore unfortunately partly disguised on the file pages themselves, and while understandable, it does make things a bit harder on others coming into it today. Very unfortunate results (over and over, it seems). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: as involved admin. Yann (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: If I understand well, you are implying that that User:ArthurWeasley~commonswiki is the same person as User:NobuTamura. I did read the current talk pages of both, but did not find any reference they are the same person. In the history of the talk page I found some comment from you it is the same person, but this was deleted by ArthurWeasley~commonswiki. Doing more research I found this redirect from en:User:ArthurWeasley to Nobu Tamura, but that redirect was made by an anonymous editor. In addition I found a deleted edit of Nobu Tamara redirecting an unused user page User:ArthurWeasley, which might also indicate it is the same person.
Being a relatively new admin, I was not aware of this possible relation. But I cannot find any "proof" that both users are the same person. If we want to avoid such DR's in future, it should be written somewhere quite clearly that uploads from ArthurWeasley~commonswiki when attributing Nobu Tamura as author are legitimate. Otherwise this will occur again and again I'm afraid. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
It's the same person, he just switched to his real name after some years as his art got more exposure. I and others at the dinosaur Wiki project were in touch with him regularly (he used to edit too), and he uploaded many of his images here first under the AW name before even posting the same ones on his later blog. The easiest way to confirm would just be to send him an email (listed here[19]). I just noticed he already has a creator template listing both names, as I requested earlier:[20] FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ellywa: As part of the history of one of the files mentioned above, there is this edit, which shows the uploader account changing emails from the old alias to the new username, in 2009 long before any of the deletions came about. In fact, the author username is that account in that edit, but the visible text was the newer name, so I guess later on they simply eventually created an account under the desired Nobu Tamura name. It seems pretty clear they were the same person, as I'm sure similar credit changes were done on many of their uploads. I too was unaware of any of this, but it's possible to go digging into a lot of old edits and page histories. Granted, there is no hint of this on the page anymore, and the files look a lot like images simply copied from the web. Agreed that the page descriptions should contain some of that history, to tie things together, and would make deletions far less likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't this[21] creator template do the trick to avoid confusion? FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't hurt either, although that template (nor the Wikidata entry) seems to link to the actual user accounts, so given the "source" entries of the files it would still look like they were being copied from that external source, so if there is no mention of the CC-BY-SA license on that source page then there could still be issues. I still think the "source" should be {{Own work}}, the author field could link to both user accounts (and also use that Creator template for good measure), and the website be linked to in the other_versions section. I think that would be the most accurate/clear. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, modifying the creator template would probably be easy enough (will give it a try), but modifying the file descriptions themselves would probably need a bot, because it's hundreds of files... FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Just a note: If a deletion request is closed after being open for 6 months, like this one, deletions are not "premature". And please don't attack Ellywa, she simply set herself the – obviously thankless – task of closing the oldest deletion requests, and I don't think she or anyone else enjoys aggressive threads like this one. If you think any closing admin missed some facts, just tell them without all the incendiary rhetoric. Thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 13:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any "aggression" directed at the closing admin specifically, it is clearly a general statement because this has been occurring for years by various admins. I called it premature because little attempt was made to address my arguments in the DR. And I think such actions are indeed very harmful for the project when ongoing, hence the, let's say, hyperbole, and admittedly, frustrated desperation. But yes, I will take this to UDR. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
And please, FunkMonk, take action on the template to show that uploads by ArthurWeasley~commonswiki are legit and take care to mention this on all uploads of ArthurWeasley~commonswiki. This can probably be done using Help:VisualFileChange.js. Ellywa (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The images have been undeleted[22], and yes, if I can figure it out, the template will be added everywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like an image of an antibody

Hi, as the title of the section suggests I would like an image of an antibody, specifically Nirsevimab. There is a resource from Sanofi (the company developing it) that can be found here, but I am highly inclined to believe that it is copyrighted. Could someone please do this for me? Thank you! X750 (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@X750 Yes, it is copyrighted: there is no mention of a free license in the pdf from SANOFI you linked. Ruthven (msg) 09:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ruthven Yeah thought so. How do we proceed? Is someone able to create something line an SVG for this? I mean it's not particularly imperative but it would be nice. X750 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@X750: Hi, and welcome. To upload here on Wikimedia Commons (directly or as a derivative), you would need permission from SANOFI or possibly AstraZeneca due to Commons:Licensing and because we don't allow Fair Use here. However, such an image may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia for use in that article in compliance with en:WP:F.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Jeff G. Yup, I have understood Wikipedia's guidelines surrounding non-free content, that is why I came here. It would technically fail NFCC, because someone could just recreate it, but obviously then you run into the problem of getting permission from Sanofi & AstraZeneca. Take en:Tirzepatide, a user I collaborated with simply uploaded an SVG of the compound, but it was technically in the public domain since it was based off of an image found on ChemSpider. So, should we wait till nirsevimab is published to some sort of public antibody database (especially since we can then see its amino acid sequence)? X750 (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@X750: Yes, unless your need is immediate.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Jeff G. Understood. It can wait. X750 (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Two Black Lightning S.png

Hi! I think this Image should be renamed because it shows Nazi Symbols, also it lacks the legal disclaimer for these Symbols. I hope I am in the right section for my requests. Tryout123 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tryout123 The file name is indicative enough: I don't see reasons to rename the file. The alternative would be Doppel_Siegrune.png, but the English name is good enough. Ruthven (msg) 09:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
A disclaimer has been added and the File was moved to the right category. Thank you. Tryout123 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Author and title of File:Herb Robert Geranium robertianum Potawatomi State Park Wisconsin.jpg

I recently corrected the ID of the flower on this image and the image was renamed. I just checked the original image on Flickr again and it is just named "Flowers in the rocks", with the additional note "Mom took this picture". This note is also part of the Exif metadata of the latest version, but not of the image uploaded to Commons. I have no idea where the precise location and the previous (wrong) ID for the plant came from, but I assume that Flickr pages can change. Bart Everson is the uploader on Flickr and he is incorrectly named as the author of the photograph on Commons. I am not sure whether "Flowers on the rocks" is an image title that must be mentioned on the Commons page. What should we do here? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The previous (incorrect) plant ID seems to have come from Epiphyllumlover who uploaded this photo to Wikimedia Commons two years ago. Thank you for your correction. Since I am the person who published the photo on Flickr, I can confirm that the photographer was Ruth Everson, and that she gave me permission to publish the photo under a Creative Commons BY license. I can also confirm that the photo was taken in Door County. I don't know much about the rules governing image titles here. --Editor B (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright analysis pls!

Can someone tell me if this image of Gregory Maguire, the author of Wicked, would be okay to put on his article?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/18576229@N00/1580694875 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Another Cringy Username (talk • contribs) 02:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Defense Language Institute materials

Are books and audio by the Category:Defense Language Institute open for uploading? My supposition is that they are {{PD-USGov}}, but I am not familiar with this.

The only text relating to copyright claim on the PDF, AFAICT, is from a stamp (?) on page 3: Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted [...] Further reproduction outside the ERIC system requires permission of copyright owner, but then, the text is also available in 2022 for free download online. Fish bowl (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Screenshots of Taisei Project

"Taisei Project" is a doujin work of Touhou Project. Recently I noticed a batch of works related to Taisei Project uploaded by Zache, including portrait of characters from GitHub repository (released under CC-BY 4.0), screenshot and recorded videos of this game (YouTube video released under CC license, soundtrack released under CC-BY 4.0). Kind of wondering if such is compatible with guideline of fan art, which said "[...] certain types of fan art are in principle allowed provided they do not copy any creative element of the original work of fiction". But for derivative work of Touhou Project, there are some sort of special rules which allow such uses, just like the description field of this portrait of Kirisame Marisa, "The copyright of derivative works belong to the creators of said derivatives. If there is trouble regarding the derivatives of my work, I cannot take responsibility". Is such kind of statement an OK sign for uploading such doujin works? It is hard for me to judge, so I raise my question at here. Stang★ 18:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status assessment of IMS Vintage Image photo

Can anyone help sort out whether this photo would still be protected per COM:United Kingdom? The photo is of the comedy due en:Dukes and Lee and looks to have been taken on 1 August 1977. Since the pair were both British and their performances seem limited to the UK, it seems fair to assume that's where the photo comes from. There's no visible copyright notice on the back of the photo, which would probably make it {{PD-US-no-notice}} in the US, but I don't know whether there's something equivalent to the US's "no-notice" license under UK copyright law. The site hosting the photo is IMS Vintage Photos, and that appears to be based out of Lativia; IMS seems to be something like Getty Images, but I'm not sure whether IMS may have any copyright claim over the photos it hosts. FWIW, there are a number of photos uploaded to Commons from IMS found in Category:Photos from IMS Vintage Photos which are licensed as PD for one reason or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

In UK these is no equivalent of {{PD-US-no-notice}} and the photo will remain protected until 70 years passes since the death of the photographer. Ruslik (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this Ruslik0. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

40-year old guy doing ahegao.jpg

Would the picture of the T-shirt the guy is wearing not violate copyright? --Trade (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Trade. Assuming that you're asking about File:40-year old guy doing ahegao.jpg, then I think an argument could be made that the T-shirt is actually only one of many elements in the photo and that the imagery that appears on it would be consisdered COM:DM. If the photo was cropped or otherwise taken to focus in entirely on the T-shirt, then that might be a problem; however, I'm not so sure that's the case here. While the T-shirt wearer does seem to be trying to make the same facial expression as what's on the shirt, I'm not sure that makes the photo a COM:DW in which copyright of the T-shirt needs to be separately taken into account. This kind of photo would likely be considered a type of COM:COSPLAY and the photo might just be considered to show someone "merely cosplaying". -- 21:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
"T-shirt is actually only one of many elements in the photo and that the imagery that appears on it would be consisdered COM:DM" is clearly untrue, as evidenced by actual use of this file and composition. I nominated it for deletion Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: If you're going to quote someone, you shouldn't en:cherry-pick the quote to suit whatever meaning you want to attribute to it. The entire sentence was ..., then I think an argument could be made that the T-shirt is actually only one of many elements in the photo and that the imagery that appears on it would be consisdered COM:DM. This doesn't mean that I was unequivocally stating the T-shirt imagery is de minimis, but that someone could try and argue that it was. It's fine that you nominated the file for deletion, but I never implied that it shouldn't be nominated for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
It was not intended as quote, but to preempt a possible argument against deletion (and you found the most plausible one). Note that it was not formatted as quote nor claimed that you are wrong @Marchjuly: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
​ When you refer to something posted by another editor verbatim between a set of quotation marks, then it's almost going to be seen as quoted text. If I misunderstand the intent of you post, then that's fine but the use of quotation marks does make it seem as if you were quoting me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I checked only deletion request text - and here I quoted it. Sorry for that. My intention was to express that this potential argument is really weak Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying and apologies if my original response was too defensive. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Own render model of the Master sword

Hello dear community,

I have modelled and rendered my own model of the Master Sword from The Legend of Zelda (https://www.deviantart.com/nintendokater/art/WIP-Master-sword-20220422-011-914041112). I wanted to ask if it is copyright okay to upload this image to Commons under the CC-BY 3.0 license (or CC-BY 4.0 license)?

I have the modeling file (created) and can render a higher resolution image with RGBA16 from it.

Thanks and greetings, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks original enough to be copyright, sorry. Dronebogus (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, what a pity. Would it be okay to upload a picture of the blade itself and the triforce (triangles) on the blade? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The triforce, yes, it’s below the COM:TOO. I’m not sure what you mean by “the blade itself”; as in just the sword blade and not the handle? Dronebogus (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Right, I would remove the hilt and the colored elements (the purple and yellow ones) and just render the blade (the gray area where the Triforce is also on it) :). --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
That would be fine. The triforce is simple geometry and the blade is a utilitarian design with no original author. Dronebogus (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, this helps me a lot :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

1842 drawing of UK school

I'm wondering if anyone here on Commons could possibly help sort out whether en:File:Grove House School.jpg is PD. The file was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, and it is currently being discussed at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 April 18#File:Grove House School.jpg. It seems a bit odd that a drawing of en:Grove House School which is supposed to date back to 1842 would still be under copyright protection, but it's not clear when it was first published; it's now also not clear whether this is the original drawing or a reproduction subsequently created. If the file is not OK for Commons because it's still protected under UK copyright law (which is the likely country of origin/country of first publication), then perhaps it would still be PD in the US. In that case, it might not need to be treated as non-free content locally on English Wikipedia, a could be possible relicensed as en:Template:PD-USonly or some other license for use on English Wikipedia only. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Everything would definitely depend on date of publication, or at least "making available to the public". The questions would be, how did the Bruce Castle Museum obtain the work in the first place (it's possible publication happened then, or before). If they are simply claiming copyright over the photographic copy of the drawing, that is {{PD-Art}} by our policies, but that might be a valid copyright in the UK, though that is far from clear and would be against more recent EU law (which the UK no longer needs to follow). But, that could be the basis for their copyright claim. If that museum did get the drawing from the original family legally but never published it, there are certain publication dates which could be problematic. If it was first published before 1989 in the UK, I think the term there would be 50 years from publication. If first published 1989 or later, it will expire in 2040 in the UK (unpublished works got 50 years starting in 1989 with their new copyright law at the time, regardless when published after that, other than pre-1957 photographs). There is also a 25-year publication right due to the publisher, no matter how they got it, so that could also be the basis for their claim. For the U.S., it would have needed to be first legally published between 1946 and 1977 (term would be 95 years from publication) or 1978 and 2002 (term would expire in 2048), otherwise it's PD. Determining "publication" can also be challenging, for both countries. The more provenance info the better (when did the museum obtain it, and from who, and has it been on display, etc.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this Clindberg. Could either en:Template:PD-1996 or en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad be possible for some of the scenarios you’ve mentioned above for local use on English Wikipedia. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
PD-1996 would work if it was published before 1946 (since the 70pma would have expired by then; we only need to deal with the 50-year-from-publication posthumous terms from their old law). If published then or after, and before 1978, it was still under copyright in the UK on the URAA date, and the U.S. term would be 95 years from publication, even if since expired in the UK. If first published on or in 1978, and before 2003, then they hit that odd window of U.S. law which would give them 70 years protection from 1978, so would only be PD in the U.S. in 2048. If first published since 2003, it would be fine in the U.S. but still under copyright in the UK until 2040. Of course, you would have to explain how it was not legally published until then -- how did the museum obtain it in the first place, is the usual question. Most of the time it's unlikely for something to remain truly unpublished that long (or be legally published, with copyright owner's consent, if it was truly unpublished). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I can contact the museum, Deborath Hedgecock, with a list of questions but I'm doubtful I will get a reply. I'll ask them where they got it, from who and has it been on display. I send it in the morning. Scope creep (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I have forwarded an email to Deborah Hedgecock re: the questions above. The school closed in 1877 and was converted into a church, so it was completed before that. Scope creep (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Right, it was created in 1842, so it's obvious the author died long ago. The copyright term is however dependent on the tortured question of publication date, due to older copyright laws in both the US and the UK. It's honestly pretty difficult for something to remain truly unpublished for that long, but it's possible. Hopefully the museum has some provenance information. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: If the image was made before 1902 and the author is unknown, it qualifies for our {{PD-old-assumed}} tag. While it is theoretically possible for works from so long ago with an unknown author to be in copyright, Commons community consensus is that if 120 years have passed since creation, it is assumed to be safe to upload. If additional details become available to give a more precise licence then that will be great. However, it isn't a requirement to be that detailed (as that level of detail doesn't exist for many old images). From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore and Clindberg: The only thing I would add to what's be posted so far is that Scope creep posted on English Wikipedia something about this being a "reproduction". I'm not sure what that means so maybe Scope creep could clarify. Is it a case of COM:2D copying? Is it a case of simple digitalization (maybe that's why the museum claimed copyright over it)? Did someone create a "new" drawing of this school using the original 1842 as reference? Perhaps "reproduction" was just used by Scope creep in a non-copyright related context, but it was used at the end of an already long discussion about the image on English Wikipedia and never really got clarified, except by a different editor who seemed to imply that a reproduction would be a "clear derivative work" so that means it too would be PD; that reasoning seems odd and incorrect to me, but I might be missing something. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The two things I found. It was a shop, selling the original lithograph, [23]. This document from Library of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain on page 12 states the same thing, by W.D. Sparkes 1842. The software is not letting me link to the document, but its states on page 12:
“Grove House School, Tottenham” [Pict. Box L 1/23]
Reproduction of pencil drawing by W.D.S. [W.D. Sparkes], 1842
Grove House School, Tottenham (1828-1877) was conducted by Thomas Binns
Scope creep (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I have found an online shop dealing in rare prints that is selling a lithograph of this image.[24] (edit: same shop as linked above) Having a lithograph of the image means it was definitely published (lithography is a printing process to reproduce multiple copies) and it was probably before the advent of photocopiers. In terms of derivative work, the lithograph process itself involves recreating the original. Normally the lithograph is nearly identical, so no new copyright is produced. However, even if there are significant variations, most images labelled specifically as lithographs were published before 1920, so are PD in their own right. The lithograph process is a technique still used today in printing but you don't tend to see images labelled as such. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore and Marchjuly: So I can upload the full size image and state it is public domain by loading into commons, which I've not done before. Does it need any particular template type, I'm not sure.Scope creep (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
It would be fine by our policies; use the {{PD-old-assumed}} tag as the license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/04&oldid=656327237"