Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/09

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

UK patent illustrations?

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Typhoid Mary photo

I'm unsure what to do about this image. File:Mary Mallon in hospital.jpg The first upload is from an old newspaper, but was then "replaced by the original" (actually a thumbnail). The two images seem substantially different, and the particular variant from the new upload seems to stem from Getty Images as part of the Bettmann collection. [1] Is the Getty version also public domain, or does the scanning from the archive make it its own work? Does it even matter, since the image was ripped off of a website subject to Getty's license agreement? Should we delete the whole thing, revert to the old version, upload the full size new version, or maybe something else?

(P.S. I don't understand the notifications system very well, please mention me to make sure I see it.) Duckduckgoop (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Duckduckgoop: If the original photo was published before 1927 it's in public domain in the USA. Just because Getty scanned it doesn't give them copyright to it. Borysk5 (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Duckduckgoop: They are both public domain and should be uploaded as separate images. Nosferattus (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Information about permission of depiction of persons in photos

That the copyright needs to clear of the content uploaded is clear. But what about the depiction rights of persons who are recognizable in those pictures and are not public figures?- I do not seem to find rules about this. - I know it is not strictly copyright but it is a delicate legal issue. - And I do not mean the publication of images of normal people without their permission. - Example; you take a picture of a store. The shop owner and his employee is in the picture. They do not mind, the give permission to the photographer to be depicted. - How do you deal with this in the Commons system? I know it is common that media company's or other entity's who make video or photos ask those people to fill in a permission slip. But there is no indication about a provision to document such a permission in the upload process. Walter (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Walter: See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and Template:Consent. Nosferattus (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Have some reading to do. Walter (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this picture of an UFO taken in 1979 public domain?

Is the picture on the right public domain?

It was taken by Italian military pilot Marshal Giancarlo Cecconi from his G-91R aircraft during state/military activity.

To me, this seems like this part of Italian copyright law applies (1979+20=1999) as summarized in en:List of countries' copyright lengths:

20 years from publication (copyright of State, the provinces, the communes, the academies or public cultural organizations, or to private legal entities of a non-profit making character)

or in en:Copyright law of Italy#Duration:

For works in which the economic rights are owned by government, academies, public bodies, and non-profit cultural organizations, the duration of the economic rights is 20 years from the first publication (Art. 29).

The picture has a higher visual (not thermal) image quality than the three confirmed videos of en:Pentagon UFO videos, it's important whether it's in the public domain.

More info can be found in these three pages which I didn't vet for reliability or quality: 1 2 3 where you can find additional images and more info on the event. From source 2 (1985+20=2005):

By June 1985, the Ministry of Defense would respond, essentially confirming the pictures were authentic, including official copies of the three photographs in their reply.

and

When Ceconni first met with CISU in September 1994, perhaps one of the first things that he confirmed to the team was the three photographs published in Epoca were part of the 80-plus photographs he had taken on that June morning in 1979.

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It's in public domain in Italy, but not in the United States, where it will be copyrighted for 95 years from creation. Borysk5 (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

What about other countries if that's true? Can it be used in the German and Italian Wikipedias? Prototyperspective (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

No, the rest of Europe it would be 70pma probably. This would only be usable in Italy, in terms of expiration by law in those countries. The one question on Italy's 20-year term for government works, is if they consider that term to apply worldwide. We have no confirmation of that, the way we do for the UK, Canada, and Australia, but that would be the only argument I can see. Not sure that many admins here agree with that take, but it's at least a little arguable. There is of course no precedent for government works like this, in either direction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You could perhaps argue that when government is placing copyright limitations on itself it's like artist releasing their work into public domain. But that's just a theory. Borysk5 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That's the argument, basically -- a form of {{PD-author}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Upload an image of a map published in a 1895 book

I'd like to upload an image of a map published in a very old book (published in 1895). The book was published in Belgium, and has a single author, Joseph Halkin, who died in 1937, i.e. more than 70 years ago. Given this, I'd think it would be ok for Wikimedia, but given that the repository where the book is hosted has the following licence, I have doubts. Would it be legal to update an image extracted from this book for use in e.g. Wikipedia? EvilNectaire (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that this "ORBI usage licence" does not apply for works that are clearly in the public domain, such as this book. The licence states "The present licence is applicable worldwide and for the legal duration of the copyright protection". They cannot create copyrights on works that are in the public domain, otherwise this would be a case of copyfraud. Therefore, you can safely upload the map to Commons. Skimel (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I will upload the picture later:) EvilNectaire (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@EvilNectaire: I uploaded the whole book for you as File:Étude historique sur la culture de la vigne en Belgique.pdf. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Jeff G.! EvilNectaire (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@EvilNectaire: You're welcome! After RL delays, I uploaded File:CARTE DE BELGIQUE.jpg for you, too. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

WHO monkeypox maps

These two maps, File:Monkeypox cases.png and File:Map don monkeypox multicountry.png are clearly the work of Commons:World Health Organization but were not uploaded by the official user account User:WHO-openaccess. They also do not list the source URL and have a dated copyright symbol ©. Should they be tagged as lacking source and/or permission or is it fair game to re-license as {{World Health Organization permission}}? SVTCobra 18:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not fair game; tagged them as copyright violation. El Grafo (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Academy logo

A question related to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences logo.svg. This ruling [2] as listed on the file page seems to state that copyright registration is refused. I have difficulty to interprete the legal text however. Would this mean this new logo can be kept on Commons? Ellywa (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No. The logo is a derivative work (or rather partial copy) of the statuette, as explained in that ruling. What was disallowed was registering the logo as a derivative work, since it only added a triangle to the already-registered statuette. A derivative work must add an original amount of copyrightable expression to an existing copyrightable object -- this did not. Some of the expression in the statuette is here, which is copyrightable, but that expression was already registered for copyright. No new expression was added, so there is nothing additional to register. So, the logo should be fine in 2037 (the statuette was registered/published in 1941, and later renewed). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I'm just seeing this now. I've just gone ahead, closed the DR and deleted the file. Sorry if that causes any confusion :-) --Rosenzweig τ 09:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg, thank you. Now this is clear to me. Ellywa (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like the RE/MAX logo listed on COM:TOO to me. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

twitter.com/10downingstreet photos

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downing Street, Earth Hour 2021.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Red in No. 10 Downing Street.jpg, should all photos taken from twitter.com/10downingstreet be removed from Commons?

Neither discussion was able to find any evidence that the content was distributed under an Open Government Licence, as is being asserted, and in some cases the images appear on the government Flickr account as CC-BY-NC-ND, suggesting that a free licence is not intended. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: Yes. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, only the ones that aren't archived by the National Archives. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christmas 2019 Downing Street Decoration (2).jpg has an interesting claim Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: I countered it. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christmas 2019 Downing Street Decoration (2).jpg suggests that maybe this files can be kept, or at least not all should be deleted. Maybe this deleted files should be undeleted then? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll look into it, if Jeff's countered claim didn't stand up. Thanks for the considered response. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Alamy copyright infringement

I noticed that this image I uploaded to Wiki Commons was also unlawfully uploaded to Alamy here, by a contributor named Jeffrey Grigsby. A quick scan of this contributor's upload suggest that most, if not all, of his images have been stolen from Wiki Commons, e.g.:

Alamy's designated agent can be reached at copyright@alamy.com, and here is a DMCA Takedown Notice template. I have sent them a takedown notice and would suggest that other affected users do the same. Is there anything else we can and should do to mitigate this sort of infringement, which seems to happen more and more with the likes of Alamy, Shutterstock and other stock image services?

Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Not again ... Thanks for your information. --XRay 💬 11:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: Alamy has replied with a commitment to quickly delete my image from their platform. I have asked them to do the same to the other images listed above, which they will hopefully do without the need for each author to send individual takedown notices. Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you ... takedown notice sent. - Kenneth C. Zirkel (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Walter Stoneman

Hi, There are more images in this category which might need investigation. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Inadvertent copyvio involving reproduction of Fair Use images

I recently flagged four images from the same uploader for deletion for copyvio. The uploader asked me to clarify the reasons for the request, and since the situation is a little complicated, I thought I would post a brief notice here in case any admin who handles the deletion request has questions. The uploader found the images in an article released online with a CC 4.0 license, and they uploaded them on that basis. But the images were reproduced in that article under Fair Use, and the museum web sites from which they were taken retain the copyright to them. The CC 4.0 license applies to the text of the article, which is the original work of the author, but not to the illustrations, which are not his work, but were reproduced in his article under Fair Use. Such Fair Use images are explicitly forbidden from the Commons. For further discussion see my exchange with the uploader on my talk page.

The files are

I want to emphasize that I intend no criticism of the uploader, Ficaia, who acted in good faith on the assumption that the CC 4.0 license on the article applied to the illustrations as well. The fact that article copyrights very often do not include copyright to the images reproduced in the article is normal in archaeological and art historical publications, but understandably confusing to those who are not familiar with them. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The second image looks like an exact reproduction of a public domain 2D drawing. So, it could have been retained. Ruslik (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ruslik The original 2D painting is not in the public domain, so the concept of PD-Art does not apply. The painting, created in late 1954 or early 1955, represents an original attempt to translate the decoration on a 3D object (this vase) into two dimensions. It is therefore an independent artistic creation deserving of copyright protection. It was first published in 1955 in a journal article copyrighted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, and the painter, Piet de Jong, died in 1967. Whether you consider the copyright holder to be the publisher or the painter's heirs, the copyright is still in effect. -- Choliamb (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What makes the painting original? That looks like a pretty slavish copy of the design on the vase. Did they add any elements or delineation? Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It certainly was as close a copy as the artist could create! But interpreting the decoration of a 3D object and translating it to 2D form, no matter how faithfully, necessarily requires judgments and adjustments on the part of the artist. (The adjustments are similar to those involved in depicting the world as a flat map rather than as a spherical globe: the mapmaker has to decide what kinds of distortions s/he is willing to accept, and how much to adjust the size of the landmasses to compensate for different latitudes; this is why in maps of the world using Mercator projection Greenland falsely appears larger than South America.) Since some distortion is unavoidable in translating a 3D object to 2D, the choice of how to render it is an artistic choice on the part of the painter or photographer, which makes this an original work even when the goal is to depict the object as accurately as possible in two dimensions. Unless I'm mistaken, PD-Art does not apply to 2D copies (like photos and paintings) of 3D objects, period. This is why photographs of PD coins, for example, are not considered PD images under Bridgeman vs. Corel. A flat photo of a virtually flat coin is a much more exact copy than this flattened painting of a round vase, but as I understand Commons policy, neither are considered public domain images. Am I mistaken about this? Choliamb (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Is pngrepo.com credible

I plan to upload https://www.pngrepo.com/svg/103781/fuel-truck to Commons. Please let me know if that is wrong idea because this site is suspicious Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: That page says the fuel truck icon is licensed "CC0 License". What makes you think "this site is suspicious"? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 21:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that site looks like a scam. It only credits the uploader who is not necessarily the licensor. In fact, according to a TinEye search, the icon was first seen here without CC0, but it does come with a free licence that only requires attribution of the source and creator (see "How to attribute?"). You may use

{{Attribution only license |nolink=Freepik |text=[https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/fuel-truck_349 Fuel Truck free icon created by Freepik - Flaticon]}}

as a licence tag. De728631 (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the freepik license is free. There are several restrictions on use and it's explicitly revocable. The summary sounds free, but the details, not so much. They use "free" in the sense of "free of charge" for many uses, but they are not really "free as in speech" (as understandable as many of those conditions are). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

See Template:Freepik BTW, there are some images claiming to be from Freepik and on CC-* but maybe they used more open license in past Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I notified pngrepo.com via email on their contact page Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I start with "I am suspecting something wrong with it" as a baseline for websites unfamiliar to me Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Sadly, uploading it here would be wrong per @Carl, and we can't trust pngrepo.com per @De728631. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 04:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Doh. Thank you for the further analysis. I now have to agree with Carl Lindberg that the Freepik licence is incompatible with our requirements. De728631 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyright on currency in Paraguay

According to Commons:CUR Paraguay it is unclear whether Paraguayan currency is copyrighted. This has resulted in a number of file deletions. Is someone in a position to find out? Cheers, Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You can send e-mail to Paraguayan government if you're really curious... Borysk5 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama regarding sculptures in Argentina

I have a picture of a sculpture placed in public intervened by Julio Menna and donated by Cetrogar to the city of Rosario. Despite the article saying that it will be moved of place to the cross of the two pedestrian street of the city in a few days, more than six months later the sculpture remains in front of one of the Cetrogar branches. Does freedom of panorama apply to my picture? Lugamo94 (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Per COM:FOP Argentina, there is no such right for sculptures in Argentina, regardless of the "permanent" status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Jeno's pizza football cards

Hi,

A commenter suggested that I bring this question here after I started it at the Help Desk. There's a category, 1986 Jeno's Pizza, in wide use on NFL pages, as images of players from that time period are hard to come by. After the use of a couple of these in an FA candidate was challenged, I'm seeking guidance on whether their use is valid.

Thanks, Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

U.S. copyright law required a copyright notice on all published works, before March 1, 1989. Notice needed to be on *all* (authorized) copies; forgetting notice on a large number of subsequent copies could still invalidate copyright. Forgetting on just a few copies would be OK, but this appears to have been a distribution of thousands, with trademarked logos on them, which imply everything was done with permission. Between 1978 and 1989, an author who forgot a copyright notice could preserve their copyright by following a few steps outlined in 17 USC 405, the most verifiable being the registration of the work within five years of being published. This is also documented on the Hirtle chart. The backs of the cards appear to have been uploaded, with no copyright notice visible. If someone can find a copyright registration for them, that would cast significant doubt on them -- but failing that, they would appear to be public domain in the U.S., although likely not in many other countries. In the online copyright catalog, I don't see anything with searching on "Pizza Rolls" or "Jeno's Pizza". It's possible there is an individual photographer or NFL publication which registered them, but it would have to be identified I think. There can always be theoretical doubts, but the COM:PRP standard is "significant doubt". Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Clindberg: The FAC reviewer points out that the image appears in this 2021 article credited to AP/AI Messerschmidt. Does that have any impact on whether it should be allowed? Harper J. Cole (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Harper J. Cole: The only registrations I see involving the name Al Messerschmidt are a 1985 photo of Super Bowl XIX, and two 1988 registrations for 1989 team calendars, one the Buffalo Bills, and the other the New England Patriots. Don't see any sports related AP registrations in that date range either other than some things related to the 1980 Olympics (and those are textual work registrations). Of course AP may have only used it once it became public domain (not likely in this case, though many photo databases would try to accumulate public domain publicity photos and the like). I would mention the photographer though on that image page, though -- it has a bearing on the copyright term elsewhere. But sure, provenance information like that can help, to provide names to search for when looking for registrations. The only thing which would affect the no-notice status though I think would be finding out if the photographs were used unauthorized, which also seems unlikely to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

uncertain copyright?/public domain

in terms of [3]...they all seem to indicate public domain so I'm not certain as to the issue--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I only looked at a couple, but it looks like you put a {{CC0}} license on it. That is a specific license given out by copyright owners, so if that license (specifically CC-Zero) is not present on the source page, it should not be used here. However, U.S. federal government works made by employees in the course of their duties are automatically public domain. So those should be fine, but change to use the {{PD-USGov-CDC}} license tag instead. There is also a {{CDC-PHIL}} source template where you can give the image ID as an argument, to be a more obvious source statement. Not all PHIL images are public domain, but the ones which explicitly say that should be fine to use that license. Once you switch to the PD-USGov license, remove the speedy delete tags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

thank you , will immediately do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa: in fact you should have uploaded the highest resolution available, which is actually a tiff file further down the source page, not the low resolution webpage file as displayed. I have downloaded this one File:PHIL 2166 lores.jpg as a high res tiff, converted it to jpg on my computer and overwritten your upload; check it out. Perhaps you would do the rest. You will see the high res file has metadata which was missing on your upload. I presume all the rest are similar. You should always upload the highest resolution file available. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa and @Ww2censor: Our guidance on the matter of resolution is COM:HR. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Map from a third-party site for translation into Russian

Hi all! I found map on the Russian social network Vkontakte. Written by Nick E. Verelst. I can't find him, all Western social networks are blocked. I want to translate this map and redraw it, and then post it here. I'll leave the icons the same. Does this violate Wikimedia Commons rules? How to solve this situation? Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Пётр Тарасьев: I found the post here and the actual map here. This post on imgur points to this post on Reddit as the source, but I can't reach the latter. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 20:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G. I looked at the Wikimedia Commons help, it doesn't say that Imgur is a free site. But I went to the site itself | here and in the "Information you post" section it says that "In particular, every image uploaded to Imgur is public – whether uploaded directly without going through a user account, or uploaded via a user account – and has its own URL." So I can share this map with the | source? And another question: under what license can this file be uploaded? I'm just not a lawyer)))) Thank you for the answer. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Пётр Тарасьев: I see no free license to use. Please read COM:L or COM:L/ru. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 10:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G. Thank you. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Are Kit-Cat Klocks copyrighted?

You know, those iconic American wall clocks (en:Kit-Cat Klock) we have in Category:Cat clocks (with one British "cat clock" lumped in there). There are definitely trademarks for them, see [4]. But copyright? Per en.wp and [5], those clocks were first manufactured in 1932 and have changed very little since then: two more paws and the bow-tie added in the 1950s, the Kit-Cat designation on the clock face in the 1980s, more colors beyond the original black and also pearl necklaces and eye lashes for female versions later.

They're not exactly COM:TOYS, more utility objects, but per COM:UA, “the design of a useful article [...] shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.” Which should be the case here, so I guess they should be copyrightable. But are they actually copyrighted? I guess they would have needed a copyright notice and registration right from the start in 1932 to acquire a copyright. I searched for clock and Arnault (the original designer and manufacturer, with his Allied Clock Company) in [6] (Catalog of Copyright Entries, part 4 – works of art etc. – from 1932 to 1934, linked from [7]), but did not find anything.

So are these clocks PD-US-no-notice? Or did I miss / misunderstand something? --Rosenzweig τ 16:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: I would say they are PD-US-no-notice. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 20:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's based on a catalog search rather than a visual inspection of the packaging, I would say PD-US-not renewed is more descriptive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Useless column in the summary table of FoP?

Hello, you are invited to give your input on Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/table#Useless column. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Municipal flags

I noticed this editor adding a lot of US municipal flags. I read Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems and would like an opinion about whether these are copyrighted images. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at a few like File:Flag of Aberdeen, Mississippi.svg, File:Flag of Danville, West Virginia.svg and File:Flag of Clarksburg, West Virginia (2013-2021).svg, and it does seem like these uploads need to be given a closer look. Some of them appear (at least at first glance) to be too complex to be PD, and some appears to be sourced to sites like en:Flags of the World (website), which tend to be a problem when it comes to image licensing per COM:BAD#Flags of the World. The uploader probably means well, but perhaps it would be wise for them to slow down a bit until things can be sorted out. Flags aren't automatically within the public domain or released under a free license that Commons accepts simply because they're publicly displayed, and flags created by state, county and municipal government employees as part of their official duties in the US aren't automatically within the public domain per en:WP:PD#US government works. It's also possible that in some cases a flag was designed by someone who's not a government employee who might possibly retain some copyright ownership over it. Anyway, I posted a brief message on the uploader's user talk page about this; so, perhaps they will respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

File:William Keyser Jr. bench at Alewife, July 2005.jpg

It's not clear how File:William Keyser Jr. bench at Alewife, July 2005.jpg which is supposed have been taken in 2005 meets the criteria for {{PD-US-1989}}. Perhaps this is just a case where the file is OK for Commons, but the license chosen is incorrect. There might also be COM:FOP United States issues as well since the "bench" appears to be public artwork per en:Arts on the Line. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The photographic work is licensed GFDL+CC by-sa 3.0, whereas the 1978-1989 tag, added by Pi.1415926535, is applied to the bench. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that Asclepias. That info is right there on the file's page, but I still completely missed it. My bad. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually not quite sure that {{PD-US-1989}} is valid for the bench; COM:PACUSA states that "it is clear that [a public display without concurrent sale of copies] made on or after January 1, 1978, does not constitute publication". However, it could be PD-ineligible per COM:UTIL. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

As the pictured object is a bench that people can actually sit on, I would argue it is considered utilitarian and not copyrightable. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Smithmore Castle logo

File:Smithmore Castle Logo.png is asserted to be PD because it is just text and simple shapes. The lion is obviously not a simple shape, but is the lion copyrighted? I'm not familiar with heraldic symbols. Is this some old symbol that is free to use, or is it something of recent origin that may be copyrighted? Whpq (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems (at least in my opinion) to be too complex to be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States. The text is obviously PD under US copyright law, but I don't think the same could be said of the lion. So, unless it can be shown that the lion is PD for some reason, I don't think Commons can keep this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Lions are not simple shapes, so it is not {{PD-textlogo}}. In heraldry, the text description of a coat of arms is not copyrighted, but the resulting images from that description may be in copyright. There is no copyright on the word "lion", but there can be a copyright on an artist's rendition. For the image to stay on Commons, there must be a free license for the lion. Glrx (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I see user:Yann has nominated it for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Can I use these images under free license?

Hello, I kind of feel these images of politicians come under the free license, you may check this website [8] and the copyright policy here [9] I just need a guide if it's okay to post these, if yes then which license will be appropriate? Rejoy2003 21:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the licensing terms there are incompatible with our requirements. The Goa government states that the licence "is subject to the material being reproduced accurately ..." In my opinion this excludes the making of derivative works based on their content. Moreover there is a contradictory note at the bottom of the website: "©2022 Government of Goa.All Rights Reserved" De728631 (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I have seen the "All right reserved" note at bottom of many websites which in terms of use have some kind of license to use their material, including Creative Commons. I think it's just default text meaning material is copyrighted. Borysk5 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

We have kept images with similar terms from Indian government websites, such as indianarmy.nic.in. The "reproduced accurately" was deemed to be in relation to moral rights (can't distort works to misrepresent what the original looked like) rather than barring derivative works. So I think it's OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Image File:171216 양세종 10.jpg overwritten

It looks like the image at File:171216 양세종 10.jpg was completely overwritten by another image on 16 May 2019. I cannot find attribution for the new image as it has been widely copied from Commons. But it is very unlikely to be owned by the poster User:Yoondu given history of uploading copyrighted files. Is there a process to remove the older revision? Evaders99 (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: Would you please do the honors? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Evaders99: I tagged it for you. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 21:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Appreciated! Evaders99 (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Evaders99: You're welcome! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"missing SDC copyright license"

I have notice this on files once I add my template and have no idea how to resolve it. I get ""missing SDC copyright license"" on every upload, twice. Any guidance would be appreciated. --Don (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@WPPilot That just means the copyright info is not stored as Structured Data yet. You can safely ignore that, but if you'd like to work on it see Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Copyright for details. El Grafo (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yvette Vickers publicity photos copyright

Would this 1950s-1960s photo of Yvette Vickers be considered public domain? An ebay listing shows nothing printed on the back of the photo, and the original prints also show nothing on the front. This is a photo that Yvette Vickers autographed and sold at conventions, as seen here

Alternatively, this photo would be ideal, but I haven't found a picture of the back. It appears there is no copyright on the front. [10][11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say this qualifies for {{PD-US-no notice}}. De728631 (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Both photos? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @De728631. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 22:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Since we can't see the backside of the second photo, I'd rather only go with this one. In general though, such publicity photos were rarely copyrighted in the US. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

findagrave.com images

The photographer gives permission in the text of his personal webpage on the findagrave.com website. Two source links are here: File:McNaughtan Grave.jpg. I added the source that was more specific about using the photographers own images.

However, I could not find a clear statement from the findagrave.com website about license(s) for use of images found on its website, related to its many thousands of contributors/ photographers. There could be many useful images here, but what is the best way to find an appropriate license for use on Commons? Ooligan (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Any of my photos can be copied and used by anyone." is not a valid licence. Findagrave.com licence does not appears to be compatible with Commons license. Contents on the site are subject to copyright protection with all rights reserved.T Cells^Talk 20:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The statement "Any of my photos can be copied and used by anyone" is indeed a little too vague as it is silent on any conditions (a slight rephrasing of "Any of my photos can be copied and used by anyone for any purpose" would probably have been acceptable). However, the Findagrave.com licence is not relevant here. According to their terms of service, "3.1 Ancestry does not claim any ownership rights to Your Content, control how you choose to share Your Content within the Services, or limit how you share Your Content outside of Ancestry’s Services."[12] The point here is solely whether we think the single sentence in the user profile on findagrave is sufficient to cover our needs. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Manipulator_reconstruction_2022.png

Moved from en:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions. This is image I uploaded from this paper.[13] The figure originally consisted of this illustration and two photographs. Original description is this, "Figure 13. (A) Ethological reconstruction of Manipulator modificaputis, drawn by Mr Jie Sun. (B,C) Zaprochilus australis, shared by Reiner Richter © CC BY-NC-SA 3.0" This means that two photos are CC-BY-NC-SA, however is that safe to upload other illustration? Paper itself is CC-BY-4.0. If that is not clear, I'd send it to quick deletion. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If Jie Sun were a coauthor of the paper, then the images would be under the CC-BY-4.0. However he is only acknowledged and therefore the images' status is unclear. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

His name is in Acknowledgments. "We thank the reviewers for their useful and informative comments. Jie Sun drew the ethological reconstruction. The micro-CT operation was undertaken by Su-Ping Wu at NIGP." Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You could trying contacting the authors of the paper and asking them to clarify the status of image. If the copyright holder sends a COM:CONSENT email to COM:VRT, then it would make it clear that it's OK for Commons. Whether it actually gets used in a Wikipedia article is another question altogether since that's not really a concern of Commons, but from a copyright standpoint it wouldn't end up being deleted from Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, now I sent e-mail to author, and will wait for reply and hopefully they will send COM:CONSENT. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

After consulting with User:Hemiauchenia, I came to the conclusion that this image is probably fine. Because the two photos in the description of Figure 13 clearly show the NC license on the website, it's almost obvious that the NC license applies only to photos. Most certainly, the use of NC images in a CC-BY-4.0 licensed paper caused some confusion. I haven't received a reply to the email from the author yet, but it would be better if they noticed it and made it clear. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I got a reply from Xin-Ran. Figure 13 is NC license only for the photos. However, the authors of the paper do not appear to have discussed licensing the illustrations with Sun. For the time being, I will send the image to quick deletion until the problem is resolved. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

bank logo

Can I upload logo for a bank on Commons?Ziad ^{Message Me} 22:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@زياد محمد: Hi, and welcome. Where did you find the logo? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Jeff G.: I find it from the bank's official website. Ziad ^{Message Me} 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziad Mohamed (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ziad Mohamed: Where exactly? Also, please fix your signature. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Logo review - Semantic Scholar

Does this logo meet the criteria of {{PD-Shape}}, making it eligible for hosting in Wikimedia Commons?

en:File:Semantic Scholar logo.svg

This is a trademarked logo of Semantic Scholar (Q22908627). It has been in English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale since 2021. Thanks for anyone who can review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

In USA it is probably below the ToO. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Determining if a photo of art is public domain if the artwork is public domain?

I had always understood that a simple photo reproduction of 2-D artwork (like a photo) cannot have a separate copyright from the 2-D artwork itself. But looking into this, it seems slightly more nuanced: if given special lighting or just a part of it, it seems that a photo might have a separate copyright. Is there a guide to this somewhere in Wikimedia? I have seen a bunch of 2-D pieces of art where the photographer lists it as some form of CC (or even GNU) license, but I suspect they are in the public domain as simply a reproduction of public domain 2-D art. I don't want to be changing these pages to public domain unless I check so I'm sure they are so. (If I do know for sure, I think I'd be changing a lot of images to state they are in the public domain, as I'm often going through these images to add to my slides as a professor, and can easily spent 90 seconds making an image indicate that it is public domain below it when I see it if I know the rules.) Can someone please help clarify this?

I posted on main village pump [14] and someone said I should post here. The person there noted Wikimedia generally considers it the same copyright as the work if nothing but the 2-d art, thus public domain for old art (I'm often dealing with stuff made in the 1700s or earlier so past all countries copyright limits), but some countries like the UK sometimes seem to allow "sweat of the brow" claims. I would assume there is a guide somewhere, but I don't know where. MPSchneiderLC (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

On Commons we don't care what other countries than the USA claim about copyright when it comes to PD-art, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. So you can upload regardless of source and it won't be deleted. The caveat is that the uploading user might be liable. If you are based in a country does grant new copyright to reproductions and you upload these to Commons, you might be breaking copyright in your country. Multichill (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also recommend keeping any licence added by the uploader, for uses in countries where "sweat of brow" or similar claims may be relevant. A reuser can then choose whether to use the file as PD or using the licence, in the same way that one can choose between GFDL and CC-BY-SA for many files. –LPfi (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

On the same note, a variant of the question at Category talk:Hagia Sophia (Istanbul) - Komnenos mosaics. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Which is the right forum to raise copyright issues. For example, File:Fortification_of_Guwahti_during_the_wars_with_Mughal.png is tagged as own work, even as it is clear it is a scanned image from https://ir.nbu.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/1594/19/241008.pdf (p637), a PhD thesis. Chaipau (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Please see COM:DP in general, and in this case use {{Copyvio}}. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: thank you. The user has uploaded the image again File:Fortification of Guwahti in 1670.png. I am unsure though if it is actually licensed CC as the uploader claims. Indian PhD theses are "encouraged" to be released under a CC license (https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/, way down at the bottom). Is there a convention in commons which is followed as regards these sources? Chaipau (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: You're welcome. Pinging @Túrelio as the deleting Admin for File:Fortification of Guwahti during the wars with Mughal.png. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"Shodhganga encourages the submission of content under Creative Commons Licence Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International". Even if the author of this thesis followed the advice and he had the rights on the image, this CC license would be incompatible with Commons.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Syndicated articles

Who owns the copyright on a syndicated article? Is it the first newspaper to publish the article (despite the fact they didn't write it), or the organization that wrote the syndicated article (despite the fact that they didn't publish it)? Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Syndicate owns all copyright of course, which they then license to republishers. Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Ruslik0, so I would calculate copyright length for the US by the year of first publication of the article (even if it is through being licensed to a newspaper), but for renewals the syndicate itself would have to renew the work? Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The copyright owner is responsible for renewals. Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Permission to upload an audio file

I wanted to upload an audio file of a historical speech of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in 1948 but I didn’t know that uploading audio file was restricted. Can I get the permission to upload the file. I believe it is under public domain of Pakistan and 74 years already passed after the speech. I collected the audio from a website that uploaded by a person who collected the audio from Radio Pakistan. Here is the audio file: link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehediabedin (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It may be in public domain in Pakistan, but still not in USA (due to the URAA restoration). Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Zimbabwean banknotes

According to the text of template:PD-ZW-currency and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Zimbabwe#Currency, demonetized Zimbabwean currency is public domain. However, this text relies on the 1967 Copyright Act (Section:22:1), which has been taken out of force by Article 136 of the 2004 Copyright Act (Section 22:5). I was unable to find an equivalent clause there. So while the old rules are helpful in establishing US public domain for Rhodesian currency, I am not sure they cover their current use here for the currency of post-1980 Zimbabwe. Does anyone here have any thoughts or insight on this? Felix QW (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Same file, same source and author, different release rights - which rights take precedence?

The following image, 38GpPO-OFFICIAL-20200714-0125-684.jpg, was released to Defence Imagery in two different iterations:

"RAF REGIMENT CONDUCT SPECIALIST PROTECTION TRAINING", released under the MOD News Licence which is incompatible with this site
"Best of Defence Imagery 2020", released under the Open Government Licence (OGL) which is compatible with this site

As far as I can tell, the images are otherwise identical and even share the same filename as indicated above. The question I have is which licence takes precedence, particularly since this seems to be the only such dual-licenced image I've found on Defence Imagery? Dvaderv2 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The MODNL copy has a publication date of 2021, the OGL copy has a publication date of 2022. I suppose they first published the photo under the MODNL only, and later they released it more freely under the OGL. It should be good with the OGL. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Dvaderv2 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Both licenses apply -- it's an example of multi-licensing. Commons would use it via the OGL license only, of course. If the MOD license version has a higher resolution, I would only use the resolution licensed under the OGL. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Except the version released under the MOD News Licence can't even be downloaded, or at least not as simply as the version released under the OGL, and so there's no way to compare resolutions as such.

Anyway, I'm in the middle of uploading the file now, and will be adding a link to this discussion in order to have something to rely on. Thank you all. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Affected page: COM:CRT/Nauru#Freedom of panorama.

Nauru passed a new copyright law in 2019: see this WIPO copy. If anyone can access, kindly read [15] (I cannot download this on my Samsung A20 phone). The CRT page for Nauru must be updated accordingly.

But alas, they finally abolished freedom of panorama! Nowhere in their new law a reference to photography of public works and art is found. :-( So Nauru becomes a red country from a green country now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Info I have updated the FOP section. Hope other users/editors will update the rest of Nauru CRT page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it retroactive? What about pictures of Nauru on Commons taken before 2019? Gestumblindi (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: the law is silent on that matter. The final provisions do not contain a transitionary clause. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Info I just updated the rest of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nauru, to the best of my interpretation of the changes of the laws. Luckily my personal schedule became light which enabled me to update it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 10:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Eisenstein film posters

I'm having trouble understanding why some Soviet film posters are currently tagged with different copyright statuses and want to figure out if any might marked incorrectly. File:Vintage Potemkin.jpg and File:Kino0.jpg don't have an author's name but are marked as {{PD-Russia}} because they were created by/for Goskino in the Soviet Union. Since they're posters and not films, I expected the copyright status to depend on who the author was. ru:File:Стачка плакат.jpg was also created by/for Goskino, and its author is listed as Anton M. Lavinsky. It's tagged as copyrighted since he died less than 70 years ago. Does the status of the Battleship Potemkin posters depend on who their authors are, can all of these be considered PD because of Goskino, or is there a reason they'd have different statuses? hinnk (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Those works are probably anonymous (author unknown) and lapsed into public domain 70 years after the first publication. Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, got it. So a different standard applies because the authors are no longer known. Makes sense, thank you! hinnk (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It's hardly about "no longer". At least here, if the authors' names were ever disclosed to the public, the works aren't regarded as anonymous. –LPfi (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Cover art of 10,000 Maniacs' "Peace Train" single

I wonder whether this cover art is free or non-free. It contains just plain colors, the sun symbol, the moon symbol, three stars, song title, and band's name. Is the cover art above COM:TOO US? George Ho (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The individual elements are probably not copyrightable, but the combination or compilation of them together could possibly be. There are lots of examples given in COM:TOO US for which probably the same thing could be said, but the example of File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg might be the closest given the apparent reasons why a request for copyright protection was denied. There are more elements to consider in the "Peace Train" single cover art, but the perhaps the basic principle is the same.

Interestingly, the request for copyright protection for the "Avenue of the Saints" makes specific reference to the en:Hot Wheels logo which apparently was deemed eligible for copyright protection. I'm not sure whether File:Hot Wheels logo.svg is the same logo that the court case Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc. dealt with, but Commons is hosting it even if it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Took the Hot Wheels logo to DR discussion. George Ho (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

How should I attribute when author is stated with link?

Is it enough to use " Honza Groh (Jagro)" for author description in case like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zmiennica,_studna.jpg ? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line seems to claim that it is insufficient

What if I use "CC-BY-SA 3.0 Honza Groh (Jagro) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zmiennica,_studna.jpg" ? Is it good enough?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It will be fine if you use any of the credit lines mentioned in Commons:Credit_line. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Does a 15th-century painting need permission?

Hello guys. I uploaded this today, but fellow Wikimedian Didym proposed the file for deletion, arguing it lacks permission. I don't think permission is necessary (as with all other old paintings' photographs on Wikimedia,) because imo the creator of this object is the 15th-century painter and all rights belong to them. What do you think? Dirk0001 (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Likely because the object is 3-dimensional and thereby doesn't comply with {{PD-Art}}. --Túrelio (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dirk0001: I agree with Túrelio. Any photo you took of the painting yourself would be fine, but because it is a folding triptych, there are copyrightable decisions being made in photographing it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok got it. Thanks.--Dirk0001 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree at all. Why are 3D objects excluded? Because the photographer's copyright comes into being as he chooses position, distance, lighting etc. so that it is not a simple, faithful photographic reproduction. Of course also a frame itself might be copyrighted, but that's here not the case, it's as old as the painting. This frame protruding 3 or 4 Millimeters is a borderline case that IMO doesn't generate a copyright of the photograph and thus can be treated as a 2D image. I'd like to hear Carl's opinion, thank you. --Achim55 (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Over here, the creative choices by the photographer should reflect their personality to make something a work (isn't that based on the Berne convention?). If you don't try to get some effect (consciously or unconsciously) by choosing a certain angle, then the choice probable doesn't create a copyright. –LPfi (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The decision was about a painting, and a pretty exact reproduction. The further you stray from that, the more risk you run. The suspicion is that photographs of coins may still be copyrightable. We tend to crop out frames to be safer on regular paintings. On the other hand, I think we have decided it's OK for straight-on photos of a bas-relief wall, which isn't strictly 2D. This one is in that same plausible area to me -- the wings are folded out flat, and this has cropped out anything else in the background which might have been in the photo and made it more distinctive. Certainly the actual painting areas are OK, and not really sure the inclusion of the frame would make it copyrightable in this particular case. For the new European directive, Article 14 states: when the term of protection of a work of visual art has expired, any material resulting from an act of reproduction of that work is not subject to copyright or related rights, unless the material resulting from that act of reproduction is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation. I'm not sure you could argue that this result is the author's own intellectual creation, though also not sure we have gotten court cases on that yet (and indeed most countries have not yet implemented it). I'd probably lean OK on this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Higher res image

Hi, So we have File:High Barnet Station - geograph.org.uk - 1480084.jpg which was transferred from Geograph however we also this image which is the exact same image but 10x larger however that image is obviously on Flickr but is under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 licence which isn't compatible here,

As the Geograph/Flickr uploader have the same names and as both files are completely identical ([16][17]) I would be well within my rights to replace the Geograph image with the Flickr one as the file is under a CC licence on Geograph wouldn't I ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct. The author has produced two versions of an image of different quality and released each version under a different licence. That is the legal right of the author. For you to try to apply the licence of the inferior quality image to the higher quality image appears to be in breach of the author's intention and the conditions of the licence. If not outright illegal, it would probably stray into the morally grey areas that Commons tends to avoid. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @From Hill To Shore, Ah okay that makes sense, I just assumed that irrespective of what site you uploaded the image too the CC licence would still stick to that image and if a higher res version was found then that could be used, It just baffles me that someone would upload a generally poor quality image under a cc licence but then could upload the same image in higher res elsewhere on a non-cc licence. But then again like you say if they want to do that then that would be up to them, Oh well glad I asked here first, Many thanks for your help, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

An author can decide the scope of their license -- they could license one chapter of a book, for example. If a painter wanted to only license a low-res version, and keep a high-res reproduction under license, that's probably fine. Basically, if you can identify expression which exists only in a high-resolution version, you can license that expression differently. That is highly likely in the case of a painting. With photos like this, you are getting into untested legal areas. It's possible that all of the copyrightable expression (angle, timing, framing, etc.) is present in both versions. However, that could depend on the particulars of copyright law (and previous decisions) in a given country, so it could be inconsistent. I would expect a judge would try to side with authors in cases like that, but it gets into theoretical areas where I'm not sure there is any court precedent. For us, that probably amounts to a significant doubt, so we tend to respect the author's wishes and only upload resolutions where the author applied the license. Authors do need to be aware that licensing snapshot photos that way could be problematic, possibly depending on country, but re-users also who assume they can use the higher-resolution one could also run into problems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Clindberg, Ah I see that does make a lot of sense, For the examples you gave I had no idea it could even ever work like that, I've certainly learned a lot here today so thank you both for your detailed help today I greatly appreciate it, Truly glad I didn't go with my brain and upload that image very glad indeed, Thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 14:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Davey2010: That could just be an oversight, one could ask the Flickr uploader about that. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey Jeff G., Unfortunately not :(, Those 2 were the most recent images so I'm guessing ALL of their images there are all marked under that licence, Guess it could still be an oversight but I doubt it tbh, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

A license is applied to a work. Work is a terminus technicus in copyright. So if the photograph is the work, the license should apply for any resolution and size of that photograph. As resizing a photo does not create a new work, all sizes and resolutions of a photograph can be used by any license, under which the work has been released. --h-stt !? 12:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Glass sculpture in the United States

Hello,

What about File:Las Vegas, 2016 Dale Chihuly Sculpture en verre du Bellagio_(1).jpg? It is a glass sculpture by artist Dale Chihuly, installed on the ceiling of the Bellagio Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas.

FoP United States#Artworks and sculptures states "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." and we have a template {{NoFoP-US}}.

It was recently nominated at FPC, and now again, so potentially future candidate for POTY or a POTD -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a copyright registration (VA0001644783) for "Fiori di Como" by Dale Chihuly, from October 2007, with Portland Press saying they are the employer for hire. It says it's a "2-Dimensional artwork". But, yes that would make photos of it very concerning, if that registration is regarding the same work. Portland Press has registered lots of works by Chihuly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks three-dimensional to me, and more like a work of craft than (high) art. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl Lindberg and Andy Mabbett. Whatever 2D or 3D, they both are

Not OK in the USA according to the FoP table. If the copyright is registered, I think the picture should be nominated for deletion. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: not only that photo, but also virtually the entire Category:Fiori di Como by Dale Chihuly at the Bellagio Hotel & Casino. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for researching artist Dale Chihuly's glass sculpture on the ceiling of the Bellagio Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. The question of its legitimacy in the commons deserves to be clearly posed. Best regards, --Pierre André ^(talk) 21:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Done: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fiori di Como by Dale Chihuly at the Bellagio Hotel & Casino Thanks, JWilz12345, for your suggestion, and thanks, Pierre André Leclercq, for your understanding -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Photo of Alfred Krupa: 'public domain'?

I like to use a photo of Alfred Krupa in an article about trolley suitcases (nl:Rolkoffer). This photo can be found on several places on the internet (amongst them here and here), and there I read "Krupa family archive/Public Domain" and simply "Public Domain". But is that indeed true? Can anyone tell me if I can legally upload this image to Commons? The image seems to be made in 1954 in Croatia. Erik Wannee (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Photos form 1952 and later may not be in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's possible, but only in very rare circumstances in Europe. Italy for example would have a shorter term for snapshot photos, maybe a couple other countries. But in most of Europe, it would be under copyright for a minimum of 70 years. And if this was a family photograph just recently made available to the public, it's probably not OK even in those countries. If it was authored by a family member, and they gave it a public domain license on Unsplash or something like it a few years ago which that first link hints at, that may also work. The question is where did the public domain status come from, though. There is a link here which gives a credit of "Krupa family archive/public domain/ Kevin Baquerizo on Unsplash" . There is a Kevin Baquerizo user on Unsplash, who gives his location as Barcelona, but this photo no longer appears among his uploads. One does wonder if he uploaded a copy to Unsplash with a public domain license once upon a time, but did not have the rights to do so (see Commons:License laundering), and it has since been taken down -- but maybe some other news sites used it under that probably-incorrect license. Or maybe the user saw "public domain" somewhere else, and thought they could upload it. So, this maybe be pretty hard without finding out exactly where the Krupa family actually made this public domain. If they did not, then there is almost no way it could be PD yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your comment. I think it is best not to upload the photo. The reader of the article may find the (could-be illegal) photo via the external link in the references. Erik Wannee (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Use it freely. It is from the family archive, an unknown author (family member). It has been published in many, many places now. You can contact me directly if you need formal permission (mladen.krupa@gmail.com). Gabackokorabac (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gabackokorabac: If you want to send an email directly using the COM:VRT process (they have email templates there further down the page), that might help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

If there is a legal permission, I would be thankful and then I can add the photo to the article Rolkoffer to give the inventor some honor that he did not get during his life. Perhaps it will also be added to en:Alfred Krupa and other language versions. Erik Wannee (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You have the permission. If you wish me to write it in another form, please let me know. Gabackokorabac (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gabackokorabac: I have uploaded the picture, as shown here. And I have added it to the article nl:Rolkoffer. AntiCompositeBot has added a nomination because there is insufficient information about the copyright status. So the image will be removed after 7 days if no action is taken. Can you please take action to preserve the photo? Thanks, Erik Wannee (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Erik Wannee Done! I added the appropriate tag. Gabackokorabac (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)