Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/05

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

Songs by Carlos Gardel/Canciones de Carlos Gardel

This section was archived on a request by: —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I have doubts about the US copyright status of some recordings by Carlos Gardel. They were published after 1922, so they don't qualify for {{PD-US-record-expired}}, and apparently {{PD-1996}} doesn't apply to sound recordings. Is there anything I'm overlooking, or should I go ahead and make a deletion request? The files in question are listed below.

Tengo dudas sobre el estado de los derechos de autor de algunas grabaciones de Carlos Gardel. Fueron publicadas después de 1922, entonces no cumplen los requisitos de {{PD-US-record-expired}}, y parece que {{PD-1996}} no aplica a las grabaciones de sonido. ¿Hay algo de que no me doy cuenta, o debo ir y hacer una solicitud de borrado? Los archivos en cuestión se enumeran a continuación.

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

1923 is already free in any case. Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
1923 recordings become public domain in the US in 2024. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Why? Isn't the term 95 years? Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Pre-1972 sound recordings have a particularly awful status in the U.S. -- see {{PD-US-record-expired}}. There was a recent law change giving some clarity, and put pre-1923 recordings into the public domain finally, but a longer term for the rest of the pre-1972 works. It is 100 years from publication for recordings published before 1947. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States is not especially clear on this point, but Commons:Hirtle chart#Sound recordings seems to say that sound recordings had their copyrights restored by the URAA even if they were out of copyright in their home country on the URAA date, with the result that they follow the same rules as sound recordings published in the US. Looks like I should go ahead with the deletion request once I check the rest of the files in Category:Audio files of tango music. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

FoP Question - Sculpture in UK

Hoping for some FoP help - this picture (and this close-up picture) shows the artist El Anatsui's sculpture Man's Cloth (1998-2001), installed at the British Museum in London. The license suggests that the photograph is allowed on Commons thanks to Freedom of Panorama in the UK, but I don't believe that's correct. If I understand correctly, this work would have to be permanently installed for Freedom of Panorama to come into play - per the object listing at the British Museum's website, this work has left London several times for exhibitions, and is not permanently displayed in the museum. Is this a candidate for deletion, or allowable under UK FoP regulations? Thanks! --19h00s (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

To me, being usually on exhibition at the British Museum (as suggested by the object listing) sounds sufficient for the permanence requirement of the UK regulations.
This is in contrast to only being there for an a priori limited amount of time, e. g. for a special exhibition. Felix QW (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, would tend to agree. It seems the "permanent" is generally true when displayed without any scheduled date of removal. The display elsewhere for temporary special exhibition would not be permanent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Questions about "Commons:Flickr files/reviewers" or "trusted users"

On this page about Flickr license reviewers ("trusted users") - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flickr_files/reviewers there is this image reviewer list here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/image-reviewer. If a user is not on this list, what actions can be taken related to licenses? What actions can an approved "reviewer/ trusted user" perform that a non-approved User cannot? -- Ooligan (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

They can update a {{LicenseReview}} template to verify the license is as claimed at the stated source. See Commons:License review. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect licenses on file for county flags

I have come across two files, File:Flag of Marion County, Florida.svg and File:Flag of Volusia County, Florida.svg, which have problems. Both files give the source as "Own work", but are licensed as a work created by a government unit of the State of Florida. A search of the internet reveals images of flags for the counties that are significantly different from the files in Commons (see the talk pages of the files). It appears that the files are licensed incorrectly, and mis-represent the appearance of the flags for those counties. Donald Albury (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This can actually get complicated -- there can be a copyright in a vectorization of an image, so it's possible for someone to have an "own work" derivative copyright -- or even completely original copyright, if a drawing of a written design spec, and not incorporating elements from an existing drawing. If derivative, both copyrights need to be accounted for. For coats of arms, any drawing conforming to the written blazon is "accurate", even if not the drawing actually used -- see Commons:Coats of arms. The first link sure appears to have copied a web graphic, so doubtful there is any copyrightable expression added, so is not "own work". If the graphic came from the government, the license may be correct. If it came from a private source, it may not. I do see it looks pretty much the same drawing as what is currently on the county's Facebook page, so presumably it did originate with the government. The uploader may have done the work (though a bitmap should not be in an SVG), but there is no copyright there almost certainly. The flag is supposed to have the seal on it; I do see File:Seal of Marion County, Florida.png but not sure how correct that is -- maybe that is an older one no longer used? We would want versions of any historical version used if possible, but the descriptions can be updated. I have not found any official definition of what the current seal and flag are with a quick search. As for the second one... that could plausibly be "own work" on the vectorization, derivative of a PD-FLGov original. But I also can't find any photos which match that coloring -- all photos I see of the courthouse have a base white flag. That makes it of dubious educational use directly, but as an SVG it should be easily fixable. It's always possible there are multiple flag versions in actual use, though. You could add the {{Inaccurate}} or {{Fictitious flag}} templates (though the latter may be overstating it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I probably just put the wrong licensing thing by mistake, I wasn't very good at uploading things correctly then, so by all means please correct it if you are able to do so. If you go to these two Google Street View links [1] and [2], you will see physical examples of the two flags I uploaded. The seal of Marion County was updated to the one featured on its flag. IndysNotHere (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Threshold of Originality vs Creative Commons Non-Commercial

I'am drafting an article about the Instituto Aaron Swartz (a think-tank of Brazilian Pirate Party) on pt wiki but looking for the logo, I saw that the logo may fall on COM:TOO (and possibly allowed on Commons), but the Institute page footer states that it is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA (not allowed on commons), making me unsure if should be published on Commons or uploaded as Fair Use on pt wiki.

Which should I consider for the logo: As a PD by COM:TOO or as not allowed COM:CC license? Jose8122 (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  • @Jose8122: if something is in the public domain, it doesn't really matter that it comes from a source that also offers an NC license on all of the materials that may bear their copyright. You can't meaningfully offer to license something that is in the public domain. (Obviously, there is other content on that site that is not in the public domain, and that would not be appropriate to upload to Commons.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

File:2023 Kremlin drone attack.webm

This video was uploaded as being CCTV with licensing as {{PD-RU-exempt-autocam}}. But it seems the camera is moving as if it is handheld and there are reflections which suggest it is from behind a window. The audio feels like one can hear a person breathing. I do not believe it is actually CCTV. -- SVTCobra 05:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I had that same thought a while ago. My guess is that it was made by someone recording the two guys climbing the dome and they just happened to be filming at the right time to catch the explosion. Although that's with the caveat that you can't see anyone in the reflection, but that's not conclusive either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, but it's not autocam, right? So it's not PD. SVTCobra 07:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
If it was taken by a person no. That said, it's possible it was taken by an indoor webcam, which then I think it would be an autocam. Really we don't know though. So it might be better to air on the side of caution and just delete it. At least in absence of an authoritative source saying how it was taken. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I think I see a reflection of a person in the window (I mean, obviously there are people around as a guy says something at 0:04), and the thing he's holding looks like it could be a large camera, but perhaps it's just a gun. There's also a strange sound — snoring, maybe? — at 0:01. I also think a CCTV would pivot more smoothly, if at all. Heavy Water (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Karelian National Battalion Fighters.png

Hello there, I uploaded a file a while ago which I had found on Telegram of a military unit in the Ukrainian conflict. My image was flagged and I am unsure of what copyright to put it to, I did put the correct sources and linked it to the Telegram post and stated where it was from in its description. I am unsure of how to change it, and what I need to change it to.

Here is a link to the image if anybody is interested: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karelian_National_Battalion_Fighters.png

Thank you to anybody who can assist. Davomme (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  • @Davomme: I see no reason to think that is anything other than a copyrighted file with no license. Why do you think otherwise? - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think otherwise, I'm trying to figure out what copyright to put it under. I don't own the file, however it is a core piece of a Wikipedia page I made in the past. Do you recommend deleting it? Is there any way to maintain the file but put restricted copyright on it on behalf of those who uploaded it? I'm new to this, and assumed it was free to use as they had publicly uploaded it on Telegram. Davomme (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    For Wikipedia in English, you should be able to use it based on fair use. Check the rules. However, the file does not seem to be in use; has the article been deleted?
    You could also ask the copyright owner to license the image (with CC-BY-SA or similar), which would be the best solution.
    –LPfi (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Davomme: It may be "free to use" in many circumstances, but Commons hosts only files that meet one of two criteria:
    1. They are in the public domain in their country of origin and in the U.S.
    2. They are available under an explicit free license that is broad enough to allow derivative works and commercial use.
    • (There are a few edge cases, because copyright law is complex, but this doesn't get close to those. As far as I can see, publishing something via Telegram does not relinquish any rights whatever, certainly not to the general public.)
    This doesn't seem to meet either of those criteria.
    No need for you to do anything about deleting it, it's moving toward deletion already.
    Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    Okay thank you for your assistance, I appreciate it. Have a good day bud. Davomme (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Question about revoking the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0

I'm currently reviewing the backlog of non-free flickr files, and I noticed that a large number of them appear to be sourced to Flickr user Randolph Black. One example, File:Ulexite 01 10x (27840469989).jpg, has its flickr source as [3]. At first glance, it looks like it's all rights reserved (a clear reason to delete the file), but upon examination of the license history it looks like the license was changed from the CC 1.0 Public Domain Mark to ARR on January 24, 2021. The file has been on Commons since June 2018.

There is a community consensus that we can accept files under the 1.0 Mark (with the template {{PDMark-owner}} or {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} being used for this purpose), but I'm unsure if this consensus applies to when the mark has been revoked by the uploader to Flickr. Unlike {{CC0}}, the mark itself isn't actually a copyright license, so I don't see any legal reasons that would protect re-users from infringement claims in the case that the file is switched from the PD Mark to one indicating that all rights are reserved.

How should this situation be handled? I'm leaning towards deletion for lack of a valid, suitable license for the copyrighted works, but I wanted to hear others before deleting these as failing license review owing to the previous community discussion on this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Delete and blacklist that flickrstream.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I've opened up a related deletion request; my reading of the prior discussion is that this is enough of an edge case that this shouldn't be a speedy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
There was some discussion on the revocability aspect originally. The wording of PDM does not say "irrevocable", but it does not say "revocable" either. Licenses like {{BSD}} are generally considered irrevocable despite not using the term, either. Usually you need to actually say revocable if you want it to be, I think. A waiver of rights is going further than a license, as well. The U.S. photographer Carol Highsmith filed suit over photos that she had dedicated to the public domain and donated to the Library of Congress, but were being used uncredited. The judge in that case said public domain means public domain -- her rights were lost. I'm not sure there has been a similar test case like that in other countries, so it's less certain, but I would find it odd that for transferable rights like the EU economic right, that you can't waive it. For non-transferable rights like moral rights, the PDM would not waive them, for sure. The gray area on whether a country allows waiving of rights is why CC-Zero falls back to an actual license, so it's not as cut and dried, to be sure. But for U.S. authors certainly, there is a precedent already that it would be irrevocable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Raidió Teilifís Éireann works

Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) is the public broadcaster of Ireland, but I don't believe its employees are "officer[s] or employee[s] of the Government or State of Ireland" within the terms of {{PD-IrishGov}}. I believe that PD-IrishGov applies to members of the Civil Service of the Republic of Ireland, but not to not to employees of state-sponsored bodies of the Republic of Ireland. I added a {{Wrong license}} to File:Ireland National Anthem (Amhrán na bhFiann) RTÉ 1961-1966.ogv but Illegitimate Barrister simply reverted this. When the recording was made in 1961, the relevant organisation was a statutory corporation named Radio Éireann, established on 1 June 1960 under the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960, to which were transferred property and personnel previously employed in the broadcasting division of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is my contention that those people were Government employees prior to the transfer but not after. Jnestorius (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

KGS Photo Library

Out of my natural abundance of caution, I am checking with the rest of you if the images from the KGS Photo Library are free to upload on here on the terms the site states. 

Photos in this collection may be reproduced for non-commercial and educational purposes. Photo credit information accompanies each photo.

I am thinking on uploading I would site that statement and give the photogapher's name.

The particular imaged is Buffalo Mound.

Am I free to upload under their terms?

IveGoneAway (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't quite grant the right to create derivative works; it only grants a right to reproduce the photograph. The additional grant on the website (i.e. Feel free to use photos from the Kansas Geological Survey's collection for any non-commercial use) contains a restriction on commercial use, so it doesn't appear to be quite freely licensed enough for anybody to use or re-use the work anytime, for any purpose. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
In other words, no, we can't accept those. - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:The Owl House magic glyphs

​The files in this category are uploaded as {{PD-simple}}, which seems a bit borderline to me. These files (sorta?) come from a TV show, which would mean that they can't be evaluated for originality on their own. In addition, whether or not the designs are below TOO in the first place (in the US, for the record) also seems a bit borderline. Thoughts? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It is always matter of opinion. Ruslik (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
And what's yours? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Some of them may be above the ToO. Ruslik (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Tough call. The light glyph might be original. The fire glyph probably not since it's just a couppe of oval shapes inside of each other. Like RuslikO says though, it's always a matter of opinion and I see all of them being kept if you nominate them for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Are images from CC BY licensed studies using biorender.com figures also CC BY?

Many studies use figures from biorender.com. Some of them are licensed under CC BY which usually allows uploading their images here. However, it's unclear whether in these cases the images are CC BY as well.

I could not find information about copyright permissions for biorender.com here or elsewhere.

One example are images from this study (I'd like to upload this and this using biorender graphics and two other images not using them).

Maybe somebody else asked about it earlier and I haven't found it, or biorender.com needs to asked about it, or they have to permit CC BY publication of their images if the proper pricing plan was selected, or the info can be found somewhere else.

As sad as that is, if they aren't CC BY some other images may need to get deleted such as this one. Only (non-)discussion I found. If things only point towards these images not being CC BY but that isn't fully clear, it would be nice if somebody could ask biorender.com about it as many studies (mainly but not only biomedical ones) use the graphics, probably usually not aware of the image licensing implications. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You can read the details here. Ruslik (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. However, I could not find any information about whether publication under CC BY license is allowed there.
-
Relevant content there is "We do require credit for any use of BioRender figures and must be cited with "Created with BioRender"" and the "Where can I use my Illustrations?" suggests that at a minimum an "Industry Subscription" would be required for commercial use and hence for a CC BY license (which is not CC BY NC and afaik nearly no study crediting biorender clarifies their used subscription anyway).
It's better to clarify this sooner than later so scientists stop using biorender when they'd like to have their images be freely available and before we have lots of such images here which would make it harder to remove them and because having them here could lead to some inadvertent copyright-violations as people falsely assume it's CCBY.
Furthermore, a complication is that many studies don't even name biorender.com as a source for icons used in images in the study – such as this one of which I'd also like to upload some images (I confirmed that it uses biorender by cropping out a symbol from one of its images and then used tineye to reverse search that to find this). The proper solution is here to use biorender alternatives and raise awareness that their icons are not CC BY compatible. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
We do not know, which subscription those scientists have, but they can well have the industry subscription. Ruslik (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
May be but we can't just assume that...and even if they have that subscription it isn't clear whether in that case CC BY licensing is allowed anyway. So far it looks like the images can't be uploaded here (and the few already here should get deleted). Prototyperspective (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Does it matter? Software programs don't have copyrights to things you create with them. Paint doesn't own copyrights to images you create in the program. Even if terms of license suggest otherwise, only person who put creative work in image owns the copyrights. Borysk5 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • It matters that this issue is clarified sooner rather than later. Because if they get used a lot and many such images get uploaded here and only later it's found that they can't be CC BY that's more problematic than if they are removed now and alternatives are getting built and used more and this problem is better known early on. The earlier this is solved the better.
  • It's not a paint-like tool but a set of icons/symbols/graphics. You can't use proprietary icons for your websites without a license for example and paint-like tools don't have such. And if the images are CC BY you could also crop out the icon and use it as a standalone symbol in other graphics. Moreover, the licensing info on their website also seems incompatible with that notion. Thanks for making this constructive point though.
  • I think this issue requires at a minimum some action on the side of biorender.com to clarify things. Maybe I'll send them an email asking about that before making any deletion requests if nobody else sends a mail (pls do) or finds the required info somewhere (pls quote the relevant part).
Prototyperspective (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

PD-textlogo in US and Japan

I'm not sure about the licensing of the logo File:Katawa Shoujo logo.png? While it's true that the licensing of the individual elements of this logo seem rather simple, I'm not as sure that the combination of them together isn't complex enough to be {{PD-textlogo}} per either COM:TOO US or COM:TOO Japan. Since Commons requires that the logo be PD in both countries, it's not clear this is OK as licensed. The reason I'm asking about this is because en:File:Katawa Shoujo logo.png was originally uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, but was recently converted to a PD license and tagged for speedy deletion. If this logo is OK for Commons, then the local file can be deleted; if not, then it shouldn't and needs to either be converted back to non-free or to another license like en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly accepted locally by English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Should be noted that this is not a Japanese game so Japanese copyright does not apply. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. You've described the copyright holder as being ad hoc studio created solely for the production of that single visual novel and has apparently disbanded after its release in your post at en:User talk:Explicit#File:Katawa Shoujo logo.png. You also found that studio gives its location as "Internet, United States Minor Outlying Islands" on its SoundCloud page with the domain for katawa-shoujo.com being registered in Arizona, US. Commons requires that logos such as these being "PD-logo" in both the US (where the Commons servers are located) and in their country of first publication. If the latter is assumed to also be the US, then bascially this needs to be "PD-logo" only under US copyright law. If the latter is assumed to be some other country, then the logo would need to be "PD-logo" under that country's copyright laws as well. It's this second possibilty that could make assessment tricky because the TOO often varies quite a bit from country to country. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Photos of 18Aug1976 Panmunjom Axe Incident

I am a 74 year old retired veteran and am in the process of writing my autobio.  While I was on active duty I had 3 tours to S. Korea, one of which was in 1976 when the two American Army officers were axed to death by North Korean guards.  At the time of that incident I was 70 miles south at Pyeongtaek S Korea. I searched the Wikimedia Commons image database and found several photos of that Panmunjom incident in Aug 1976.  I am devoting a chapter of my book to that incident since this was one of the closest incidents that could have brought the US into WWIII or a 2nd Korean war.  My question is are the photos on the Commons site free stock/public domain or do you hold the copyrights to these photos and what would I need do to obtain permission for download? Henny7795 (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  • @Henny7795: Commons doesn't own any photos; we just host them. All images here should be readily reusable, though license terms vary. Look at the text on the file pages of the individual photos, and it should state the licensing status of the photo. If anything is unclear, please come back here with a link to the particular photo you are asking about, because there is no one general answer about licensing terms. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    Jmabel: I appreciate your immediate response to my query about Aug1976 photos. I do not understand, specifically, what you meant by the ‘text on the file pages’. But I did find that the photos were taken by the US Military, scanned and copied to a booklet published by the UN Korean War Allies Assoc. It further states “Contents of this publication may be reproduced in part or in entirety with or without credit to the publisher”. But I am providing a link to one of the photos I’ve shown interest in and many thanks for your assistance and time:
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Axe-wielding_Murder_at_Panmunjom.jpg Henny7795 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Henny7795: And on that page, under "Licensing", it says, "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. Note: This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision. This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. (See § 313.6(C)(1) of Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices). It also does not apply to certain US coins; see The US Mint Terms of Use," (with some links I'm not bothering to reproduce here). You'll find a similar (but not necessarily identical) licensing statement for every photo on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Photo from FAA News

I wish to upload a photo that was uploaded by FAA News' Flickr account. The photo is here: [4]. It is tagged "All rights reserved" and the Flickr account says that its photos are uploaded for "demonstration purposes only." [5] The photo was published in 2017 in an article by D.L. Chandler, which says that the photo is public domain. The article was published in blackamericaweb.com Is the photo OK for Commons? FunnyMath (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be useful to known when the photo was published for the first time. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
If it was originally a photo made by the FAA, it should be PD-USGov. But the simple fact of being published on that Flickr account probably doesn't change things either way. I did find a copy in an article at https://www.faa.gov/about/history/people/media/Oscar_Holme_article.pdf , done by an FAA historian. It does say Thanks to Tuskegee Airmen and retired FAA executive Bill Broadwater for information and photos.. If the photos were found in FAA archives, I think they were PD-USGov. If they were prints owned by Mr. Broadwater, they may have counted as published and long expired. If they were private photos taken by Mr. Broadwater, they would still be under copyright unless we think they are effectively PD-author by allowing them to be published in that way. Not... quite sure here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Ruslik and Carl for your help. Carl, you do have a point that even if it is a private photo, it could be public domain regardless of whether Broadwater took the photo. I did find the email address for D.L. Chandler, who wrote that the photo is public domain: [6]. I'll contact him for further information. FunnyMath (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Excellent advice and assistance, it's nice to see the sound voice of reason jump into assistance with things of such nature. 68.53.163.88 19:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright of a Page Published Before 1978 in a 1978 Published Document

What is the copyright status of a page from a document that is specifically noted as being published before 1978, but the entire document was reissued during or after 1978?

There is a service manual (source) for a Grumman GA-7 airplane that has a 3-view drawing on page 2 of section 6-0 that I would like to upload. The manual was originally published in 1977 and then published again in a revised format in 1978 with an effective copyright notice. However, the relevant page has a notation that specifically states it was published on 15 July 1977 and the revision list at the beginning of the document confirms it was not updated. According to the defective notice template, documents published before 1978 with a defective notice are not recoverable by registering them. Presumably, the 1977 edition would have not carried an effective notice as another manual for a different airplane from the same company from 1975 lacks it. Furthermore, the precedent set by the no notice advertisement template would seem to suggest that there may be instances where a copyright meant for an entire work may not apply to a subset of it if is not specifically called out. Therefore, would this particular page be public domain? –Noha307 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

If a drawing was published before 1978 without a notice then it is in public domain now in USA. It does not matter that it was latter included into a document carrying the proper copyright notice. Ruslik (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
What evidence is there of a 1977 publication with a defective notice? A "wrong year" of one year later was allowed. Per 17 USC 406(b):
When the year date in the notice on copies or phonorecords distributed before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 by authority of the copyright owner is earlier than the year in which publication first occurred, any period computed from the year of first publication under section 302 is to be computed from the year in the notice. Where the year date is more than one year later than the year in which publication first occurred, the work is considered to have been published without any notice and is governed by the provisions of section 405. (emphasis added)
Secondly, if this was a later edition, the copyright notice only covers the new material included in the new edition. I don't think it can be construed to have published earlier material without a copyright notice. If the 1977 version of the manual had no copyright notice, then it would be OK as a later publication with notice can't restore copyright, but I don't think that can be demonstrated by only looking at the 1978 revision, which is a derivative work of the earlier manual. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the key part missing is the argument as to why we should assume that the 1977 manual would not have carried a copyright notice.
All that we have for now is that a 1975 manual did not have one, but a 1978 manual did. How does that allow the conclusion that the 1977 manual would also not have born a notice? Felix QW (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Credibility of CC copylefting of 20th-century works

I came across this image yesterday. It was very mushy. Lazily assuming that its copyright status was unproblematic, I made it slightly less mushy. I then noticed that its proximate source says that the copyright belongs to "International Bomber Command Centre Digital Archive - University of Lincoln", and "This content is available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 International license (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0)." This is of course incompatible with Commons, but let's put the incompatibility aside for a moment. It's a photo, with caption, from an unspecified (but presumably British) newspaper of an unspecified date (arriving at its proximate source via this collection), showing Billy Strachan (who died in 1998).

I don't understand how a digital archive can copyleft something for which it doesn't clearly own the copyright, and I have trouble believing that it would own the copyright to a 20th-century newspaper photo/article without bothering to describe how it came to own it. Should one take such CC licensing seriously? (I'm very willing to believe that yes one should, because I've ignored some salient facts.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Looks to me like (possibly inadvertent) license-washing. Hard to imagine how the archive would come to own the rights to a newspaper photo, and certainly not to be trusted without explanation. - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I searched the British Newspaper Archive - it appears the source of the newspaper clipping is the w:Lincolnshire Echo (24-Feb-1995, page 2).[7]. So yes, the University of Lincoln archive claiming CC 4.0 seems doubtful. Muzilon (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Muzilon, I see that you've started a discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:We meet again.jpg. (Which had already been closed for discussion; I wonder if a new discussion, on a different file that just happened to share the same filename, would be better placed at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:We meet again.jpg 2" or similar.) Also note File:Billy Strachan's RAF flight crew.jpg, whose proximate source is this, which similarly tells us "This content is available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 International license (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0)". -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Hoary: I've created a separate discussion for File:Billy Strachan's RAF flight crew.jpg. If the admins want to move or merge those discussions, fine by me. Muzilon (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Die Stem van Suid-Afrika

composer of Die Stem van Suid-Afrika, M.L. de Villiers died in 1977. any possibility that this song is free? otherwise, Category:Audio files of Die Stem van Suid-Afrika should be mass DR. RZuo (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Africa, a musical work from SA enters public domain 50 years from the end of the year it was published, performed in public, offered for public sale, or broadcast (whichever was done first). So if this was first published in 1926, it is public domain according to the South-African law. --C messier (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

NATO emblems

There was a discussion about this a few years ago, but it doesn't appear to have reached a conclusion. And since I also want to move these two files [8] and [9] to commons, I wanted to restart the discussion in the hopes of getting a definite response regarding the NATO emblems.

As I pointed out in another discussion on the Romanian Wikipedia, the files on commons appear to be uploaded with the copyright licenses of host nations (of those certain NATO structures), but some also appear to be uploaded with US copyright licenses (even though I highly doubt US employees made them). So - which one is it? Alin2808 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright for government images in the Democratic Republic of Congo

File:Coat of Arms Democratic Republic of Congo.png is apparently downloaded from [10] but there is no mention of it being public domain, nor permission from the artist. Government images are often PD, but not always. What do the relevant laws in that country say? Pinging @NouveauPays as uploader.Sjö (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  • "As for government works, "official acts of authority" ("actes officiels de l’autorité") are ineligible for copyright protection. All other government publications are copyrighted." COM:Democratic Republic of the Congo. Which means that design itself of the coat, which is described in the constitution of the country, is in the public domain ([11]), though I think specific realization of this design on the website could be copyrighted. Borysk5 (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Coats of arms, I'm not sure a drawing can be derivative of a written blazon, even if the text was under copyright. They should be separate expressions of the same idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • By {{PD-Democratic Republic of the Congo}}, doesn't look like it. However... it appears that version is a slight variation of File:Coat of arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.svg, which looks like it was a CC-BY-SA-2.5 image done by a Wikipedia contributor, and modified since. Although a completely new version was uploaded to overwrite it, and then various revert wars, and along the way the license was mangled and lost. The particular SVG drawing can have its own copyright above and beyond an original design. The completely different image should be uploaded under another filename, and the original license should probably be restored. The original author looks like they recently reverted to the one they wanted. It's possible the SVG is derivative of some other drawing from long ago, but the specific delineations seem to have existed on Wikipedia since 2006, and were since re-used by the government's drawing (though they enhanced it). I might prefer to delete the .png and go back to that .svg file. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

60s Italian photo from Getty being declared free-use?

Can I just confirm whether File:Giuliana_Camerino_60s.jpg is REALLY OK to be on Commons? Just chanced upon it, and if it is really OK (something that I have questions about, despite the statements and templates on the page), it seems obvious that it should be switched out with the fair use image in the En-Wiki article. However, I find it very hard to credit that an image like this can be taken off Getty and declared fair use, regardless of all the statements in the article, so I just wanted to double-check first, running it by here first for an informal but informed opinion, rather than go straight to AFD. Thanks so much. Mabalu (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mabalu: Looks fine to me. Getty can (and does) try to get people to pay them to use public domain images, but it doesn't give Getty a copyright on those images. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It's dubious. First, as to the U.S. copyright status, the template asserts the photo was published without copyright notice before 1989 or published before 1964 and not renewed. But there is nothing to back this up. There's nothing to indicate how the photo was published or even that it was published at all before 1989. Getty's collection page says the collection consists of "thousands of previously unpublished historic images". Second, the country-of-origin copyright status (if Italy is even the country of origin, which we don't know without knowing where the photo was first published) is asserted based on it being a "simple photograph" and therefore entitled to only 20 years protection. But this looks like a carefully posed portrait, not like a casual snapshot that might fall under the definition of "simple". (But perhaps someone with more knowledge of the Italian standards could show otherwise.) Toohool (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Toohool: I'd disagree with "carefully posed". It's certainly posed rather than candid, but it's basically a snapshot. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
No, just look at the uncropped image. This is not some quickly posed snapshot at a party. A magazine photographer probably was invited into her home for a portrait session, composed the scene (who keeps their globe right in front of their armchair?), framed the picture, had her bring out some handbags to look at, took many photos, and only kept the best. Toohool (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree on both counts. In a studio photo, everything is under control of the photographer, and that has generally been one of the main examples of what makes a "photographic work". It's an artistic portrait, just done with a camera. Most of that sort of work was published at the time it was made, but the declaration that the collection did contain unpublished worth is a bit troubling. But I tend to agree this should be a 70pma work in Italy, and (if that is the country of origin) then still under copyright, and US copyright restored by the URAA. It would need to be first published in the US, without notice, to be OK -- but we would need evidence for that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I hate to disagree with you. If it were published abroad first, never published in the US within 30 days with US formalities, and still copyrighted in 1996 (chart) in Italy, then more likely it's unsuitable for this project. George Ho (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

A new "PD-AR-Gov" proposal for public documents in Argentina

Hi! Last year PD-AR-Gov was deleted because it contained errors, meanwhile we lost the ability to upload some types of documents. Although our copyright law does not specify many exceptions in it, there are other laws that allow the use of documents as if they were in the public domain by definition. I propose a new tag with the following text:

This work is in the public domain in Argentina, since it is an official document of the Argentine State or of an obligated subject funded by the state.

According to the New Civil and Commercial Code of the Nation Law 26.994, article 235, section g). “Bienes pertenecientes al dominio público. Son bienes pertenecientes al dominio público, excepto lo dispuesto por leyes especiales:” (...) “g) los documentos oficiales del Estado;”

Likewise, According to the Law 27.275, article 2  “The right of access to public information includes the possibility of freely searching, accessing, requesting, receiving, copying, analyzing, reprocessing, reusing and redistributing the information in the custody of the regulated entities listed in article 7 of this law, with the only limitations and exceptions established by this rule.”

—

As an image regulated by an edict of a government, it is also in the public domain in the United States.

Our Access to Information law, It is based on a legal principle called "In dubio pro petitor" that establishes: "The interpretation of the provisions of this law or of any regulation of the right of access to information must be carried out, in case of doubt, always in favor of the greater validity and scope of the right to information.". I know it is not a copyright law, but everything that falls under it, allows it to be used on equal terms with the public domain. It its third articles, is defined the scope or reach in terms of what types of documents, the official annotated version establishes in it (pages 38/39) extends the type beyond a text document. Articles 7 and 8 establish its scope, in a few word to any body that is financed with public funds. Regarding exceptions, article 8 in subparagraph D, says "Industrial, commercial, financial, scientific, technical or technological secrets whose disclosure could harm the level of competitiveness or harm the interests of the obligated subject" clearly this does not apply to most of the state, since it does not perceive a commercial use of their texts or images, but protects a third party (such as a photographer who sold them the photo for a single use).

This would allow us, for example, to upload government reports on the Malvinas war, 1976 coup d'état, and many other topics at the national state level.

CC: @Fma12 @Aymatth2 @Clindberg @Lmalena @Xover Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The deletion of PD-AR-Gov impulsed the deletion of many public domain images and documents a new tag is an urgent need. Lmalena (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Lmalena: as the creator of the PD-AR-Gov template, I think I can talk accurately about this issue. There was a discussion (here) where it was decided that Argentine flags and COA had to be under the Commons terms of licenses to be accepted. Unfortunately most of them were removed.
I also think that Municipal or National flags and coats are free of use so they are promulgated through decrees or ordinances which are public documents (replying to what @Mauricio V. Genta: exposed here). As far as I know, the authors of the respective emblems assign the copyrights of their work to the province or municipality for which they created them. But the "consensus" stated that emblems had to be {{PD-old-70}} or {{Argentina.gob.ar}} as requeriment to be hosted on this website.
About public documents, I agree with Mauricio that the Law 27,275 allows the access to public documents. Nevertheless, the Infoleg website (which contents are under a CC license) contains a search tool for laws, decrees, and other normative. But I don´t know if you are referring to classified documents or general information. Fma12 (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Infoleg and Argentina.gob.ar (or casarosada.gob.ar) and others, have a CC license because several years ago before law 27275 we (Wikimedia Argentina, Creative Commons Argentina, and other) worked with them to make their content open...now is kind of obsolete since we have the 27275, to the extent new Gov sites reject adding CC tags, since it is not necessary if by default they are more open. Right know we are limited to upload only documents from before 1946 (per URAA) missing the ability to preserve some unclassifed and general information documents. Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
We have been discussed this before on my talk page... I fear that there is nothing we can do with documents disclossed after 1946. If you upload them here, they will surely be nominated for deletion alleging not PD-old reasons (one excpetion could be PD-AR-Anonymous if the author remains unknown). Fma12 (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
That why i bring the discussion here, because at least to my understanding the Law 27,275 is compatible with the commons policy. Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, good luck with that. I hope more editors and/or admin read this post and leave a feedback about the topic. Fma12 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Portrait of Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici

This portrait was made by Bronzino, Agnolo di Cosimo (1503-72) in the 16th century. The artwork is also on Bridgeman Images. Is this in the public domain? -Artanisen (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've uploaded the image here. -Artanisen (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Question (not to Artanisen, to the group in general): this should also have a U.S.-related tag. What would be the best choice? - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status of works cropped from magazines

I recently started this deletion request for a photograph that for all intents and purposes should be copyrighted because the photographer died in 2000. People came along and claimed the photograph was public domain because the magazine that it was featured in from 1930 is now free of copyright. Which I find to be a ridiculous argument since the magazine and the photograph are clearly separate, distinct works. At least in my mind enough that the photographer would retain their own copyright on the photograph that is separate from that of the magazine. Otherwise it seems like the copyright status, or lack of one, for any given magazine could be used as a justification to upload otherwise copyrighted works just because images of them were featured in the magazine. For instance essentially everything in Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter would uploader because "magazine." Since essentially every album cover out there has been in a magazine at some point. Same goes for most paintings, book covers, board games, plenty of buildings, screenshots from films, action figures, Press photos and so on so forth.

It seems rather ridiculous to me that it would be perfectly fine for someone to upload images of say Beatles album covers or screenshots of Star Wars movies just because they were in magazines from the 60s and 70s that are now potentially public domain. It seems like people in the DR think doing either one would be perfectly fine though as long as we can find evidence that the magazine in question doesn't hold a copyright anymore. So I'm wondering what exactly the rule of thumb for such things is if there even is one. Or if not, I'd at least like it to be clarified if otherwise copyrighted works are public domain as long as they have been featured in magazines that are. Personally, I would say not, or at least not if the image is cropped from the wider context of the magazine. But there's clearly a disagreement about it that I'd like to have clarified by people outside of the DR. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

First, you have the basic law all wrong. This is the US; the year the photographer died is irrelevant. Most magazines had a copyright notice, so they would need to get a non-renewal clearance, which isn't applicable to works after 1963. Not only that, the URAA restored foreign works, so at least British album covers would still be copyrighted in the US. Buildings pre-1990 are public domain in the US.
Yes, there's times when we have to worry that an image, like an album cover, was used under fair use. Still, virtually all album covers are going to be in the public domain because they weren't renewed. If a copyright owner wanted to preserve their copyright, they needed to take careful steps, like renewing their work 28 years after they were published, and in most cases, they didn't. Things like press photos in non-renewed magazines are almost never going to be renewed independent of the magazine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
first of all I don't see how the year the photographer died is irrelevant just because it's the United States since at least from what I understand the standard term for photographs is Life + 70 years. Otherwise, can you point out where exactly the guidelines say that's not the case and what it says instead? Secondly, the album covers where one example of many that I provided. Your free to toss them out of the equation, but still doesn't negate the point I was making. Cool though that British albums were restored by the URAA. There's still plenty of other examples where that's not the case and where allowing for the copyright status of the magazine to transfer over to images in it would allow for otherwise copyrighted images to hosted on Commons. So I'd still like it to be clarified outside of you just acting like the only thing I mentioned was British album covers.
More on topic I'd like to see some evidence that "press photographs" are almost never going to be renewed independent of the magazine. Although with the DR that insinuates it was a photograph taken explicitly for the magazine and under their employee, instead of just one taken by the photographer on their time that they licensed for the magazine, which at least as far as I'm concerned is way more likely. Since there's zero evidence that Arto de Mirjian worked for the magazine. Although he did take other photographs of celebrities' on his own time as an independent photographer. Assuming that's the case then he'd clearly be the copyright holder. Not the company that published the magazine. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
See the table near the top of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States: The death year is relevant only for works published after 1978. Of course, many of us have lived their adult life after that, so previous practices might have passed unnoticed.
Press photographs are taken to illustrate news, and most such photos are irrelevant soon after the event they were taken at. Only some iconic images are worth worrying about a few decades later. You might want to keep them for historic stories, but most competitors would use their own images anyway.
–LPfi (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, well. I'm aware of what the guideline says, but it's obviously not that simple. There's been plenty of DRs for works created in the United States before 1978 that were deleted because the author hadn't been dead for 70+ years yet. The only thing guaranteed to be public domain in the United States is works created before 1928. Everything else depends on the particular instance. We'll have to agree to disagree though. Either way tangential to question of how to handle otherwise copyrighted works that are published in magazines that are public domain, which I still haven't gotten an adequate answer to. Any opinion about that aside from press photographs since they don't really have anything to do with my question? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
If something was first published in the U.S. before 1978, then the date of the author's death does not matter at all. All of those terms are based on date of publication. If it was created but remained unpublished until 1978, it's possible for the author's date to matter (though works for hire continue to be based on date of publication). You can use the Commons:Hirtle chart to see when copyright expires for US works.
If a work was previously existing, and published in a magazine, the copyright status of the magazine does not matter -- the work has its own copyright. If a work was first published in the magazine, and it did not have a separate copyright notice, then it was covered under the magazine's copyright notice. A magazine is considered a composite work; i.e. it has a copyright in the selection and arrangement of all the contained articles and photographs. Each of those articles and photos are works unto themselves, and can have separate copyright notices, but if not (or they are works for hire of the magazine) then their copyright is tied to that of the magazine, if that is where they were first published. If the magazine forgot a copyright notice, they became public domain immediately. If published before 1964 and they were not renewed 27 or 28 years after the first publication, they became public domain that way. If renewed, then copyright lasts 95 years (the 1928 line you mention). Again, this is only for works first publishe in that magazine -- if a magazine or newspaper forgets a copyright notice on say an AP article, that probably would not inject the AP article into the public domain. Only works for hire of the magazine, or first published there and not separately renewed as a contribution to a periodical, would the magazine's copyright matter.
In the case you are citing, the deletion reason doesn't make sense. It was clearly published in the US before 1978 (and before 1964), so the term is based on date of publication only. If the author was foreign, then there is a chance it was restored to the full 95 year term, but only if it was first published in another country at least 30 days before it was published in the US. If you find DRs of old US works deleted based on an author's lifetime, those are mistaken, or are because of one of the edge case exceptions. If the photo in question was first published elsewhere, then the magazine's copyright status does not matter and you'd have to find another reason -- though likely for something published then, you should find the actual renewal record to show it was in fact restored. Those are searchable online now. It was possible for a contribution to a periodical to be renewed separately, but it was very rare. The records for that are online though -- see links here for older years; anything published 1951 or later should be searchable online at www.copyright.gov . The author died in 1979; if he separately renewed that photo in 1957 or 1958 then it would still be under copyright until 2026. But for a DR, you should probably need to find that renewal record. If you can show the photo was earlier published in another source, then possibly that source kept the copyright alive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you said. Except it seems rather obtuse to expect people to search www.copyright.gov for the status of every single separate work in a magazine when it's a shared work and the copyright status of the magazine clearly doesn't transfer over to the individual elements. I don't think most photographers filed official copyright claims for every individual photograph they took either. But I image someone who is still alive and published a photograph in a magazine from like 1977 could still file a law suite if someone copied it. That said, it's clearly complicated and I don't feel the need to play devils advocate over the details. As long as we can all agree about the part of what you said that "A magazine is considered a composite work; i.e. it has a copyright in the selection and arrangement of all the contained articles and photographs. Each of those articles and photos are works unto themselves, and can have separate copyright notices." That's really my only issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Re: "it seems rather obtuse…". We didn't write U.S. copyright law. We don't have the choice of making it simpler, or more logical. We have to follow it as it stands. - Jmabel ! talk 22:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Obviously ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to claim PD-US-not_renewed, then you should document the searches you did. The status of the periodicals themselves are documented by UPenn here. If it seems reasonable that the work was first published in the magazine, it's reasonable to use that status. If you want to delete a particular work from it, it's because you have particular information that the work is not subject to that copyright, either by virtue of being published earlier or because a separate renewal exists -- the latter you'd have to search, under the photographer's name, and give the renewal number, and it'd be an obvious deletion. We follow copyright law, and renewals (and searches) were part of older US copyright law, so no getting around them. You are correct that most photographers did not file renewals for their photos -- it was a work for hire (staff photographer) they couldn't; otherwise they became public domain 28 years after publication if they failed to renew. There is some gray area if a periodical's renewal covers the individual works, if they were not also owned by the periodical. Some of that gray area depends on if the author died before the 27 year anniversary of publication, and the original contract. it was possible for the renewal term to "vest" in the periodical if they had exclusive rights originally, but if the author had died the rights went to his heirs or estate, and there was no vesting -- only the heirs could renew, and if they did they could re-sell the copyright as they wished. The connection comes into play when there was *not* a separate copyright notice for the article or photo; in that case the periodical's copyright notice covers it. Another exception to that is actually advertisements; those were considered to not be part of the selection and arrangement copyright, and as such required their own individual copyright notices otherwise they were public domain immediately ({{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}). You do have to determine the copyright for the photo itself, but if it was first published in that magazine and there was no separate notice, then you naturally start looking for the copyright status of the magazine itself. In your 1977 example, if it was published without a copyright notice (or even was published without a copyright notice later on, but before March 1989) then copyright was lost, and you cannot sue. But, any copyright notice in the magazine would serve to preserve your copyright. The fact of the subject still being alive does not affect the copyright (though publicity/personality rights of the pictured person would also apply, regardless of copyright). Copyright did not become automatic until March 1989 when the US joined the Berne Convention (and renewals of older works weren't abolished until 1992). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Re: "someone who is still alive and published a photograph in a magazine from like 1977 could still file a law suite [sic]": Absolutely, assuming it had a copyright notice. But if it was from 1963 or earlier and the copyright notice was not renewed, it does not matter whether they are dead, alive, or bodily ascended into heaven: the copyright has lapsed. - Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I personally believe that the entire concept and reason of "copyright" as is practiced to day has been so misaligned from original intent that regardless of what claim or position a person on Wikipedia gives you is most likely just that, their opinion. I would venture and argument that unless the concerns are from the artist (or in this case those charged with overseeing his estate), the magazine or a legal entity representing either of those two entities specifically, you should be safe to ignore them. While there is much information available offline that can guide you better as to involving an attorney some basic concepts that may help is first; what is the overall intent of your use of the photo? Is it with and inline of what would be considered "good taste" in its use of reference to the artist or magazine (who the artist in 1930 most likely sold all rights to an entity that no longer exists today - with a contract stuck in a coat pocket that's long been thrown away). If it's not in good taste, regardless of your own personal feelings, then you are safer not to use it. Another benchmark question to ask yourself is how much of the cropped photo contributes to the new material you are creating? If it's only a small portion of something that is uniquely yours then again you are more than likely safe. And finally regardless of the first two questions, giving and linking proper credit with the source (i.e. the artist and the magazine) in your post or work and citing it also shows good taste and judgment in matters like this; and helps support an earnest attempt to do the "right thing" with an issue that publishers and lawyers have turned into a huge complicated mess for their own personal means. Best of luck and hope this helps. 68.53.163.88 19:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • My personal belief is that the personal beliefs of someone anonymously disagreeing with Commons "precautionary principle" have no bearing on the discussion, which is about what we can and cannot host on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 21:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • The person who started this discussion clearly has no idea how copyright works in the United States. The date of an author’s death does not matter for copyright purposes for works published before 1978 (this was published c. 1930). The photograph in this instance was first published in a magazine, and, it appears, without a copyright notice specific to the photograph. That means that the copyright status of the photograph is determined by the copyright status of the magazine—which had a notice, but was not renewed. Based on the above discussion, it is clear that you do not understand the concept of historical copyrights, or how copyright in the U.S. used to work—viz., based on first publication. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Commodore_TV_Game_2000K.jpg

Can someone review this image so I can upload or not upload other images from the blog (without worrying)? You can see in the right pane of the blog the cc-by 4.0 licence. Thank you. Arosio Stefano (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The lincense is fine. The only worries:
  • Whether the images are original from the blog. That's likely fine. At least, I can't find the same images anywhere else.
  • Screenshoots: Screenshots are, in principle, not OK because they are derivative works of the copyrighted games. However, those videogame had so simple graphics that they might fall below commons:threshold of originality. i wouln't upload them but somebody more knowledgeable may give better advice.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. So now can an administrator or reviewer confirm that the license is valid and transform the "LicenseReview" tag as reviewed?--Arosio Stefano (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@Arosio Stefano: I've (slightly reluctantly) marked the license as reviewed for File:Commodore_TV_Game_2000K.jpg, but I'm not confident that the four images for the four basic games/modes are simple enough to be under the threshold of originality. Don't be surprised if someone nominates it for deletion on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 06:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I will not load the screen images. But why does @Jmabel: say "slightly reluctantly" about this single image? You have some doubt about the blog or the blogger? Can the blogger do something extra (what?) to make you feel more confident? Thank you. Arosio Stefano (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@Arosio Stefano: Nothing the blogger can do. As I said, the four images for the four basic games/modes (which are included in File:Commodore_TV_Game_2000K.jpg) might not meet COM:TOO, and they don't look de minimis to me, so the image may be inherently problematic without permission from whoever now owns Commodore's intellectual property. - Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
These are clearly de minimis. That's a perfect typical case. Yann (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, Yann. They're in the dead center of the photo, and to my eye they "pop" more than anything else in the photo. I'm not nominating it for deletion, but I don't think it's a clear-cut case. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I think de minimis would apply as the focus of the photograph is on the hardware rather than the label. It also passes the separability test because you can't really take a picture of the hardware without the label getting in the way. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Who is Slg. W. Chmelar?

Hi, so a few images mention the author "Slg. W. Chmelar". To verify the copyright status, we need to know a) the full expansion of the name "Slg. W. Chmelar" including what "Slg" means; and b) the death date of this supposed person. I tried searching the VIAF and Wikidata, but with no luck. I can't really do more, since my German skills are very poor. I'd love it if someone could help work out who this is. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 14:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not know, but...
If I look at a book using "Slg. W. Chmelar", I get
Looking up a definition for the German abbreviation "Slg." suggests it means "collection" ("Slg. comes from Sammlung which is collection").
So "Foto: Slg. W. Chmelar" might translate to "Photo: collection of W. Chmelar".
Google Translate: "Foto: Slg. W. Chmelar" → "Photo: Coll. W. Chmelar"
Glrx (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
If these photos are in fact from the collection of Werner Chmelar, he may not be the author at all. Nosferattus (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: Indeed - so is it best to just stick up a {{PD-anon-70-EU}} tag? --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 18:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Files deleted despite archive org CC licence proof

Due slow License process on commons many files are deleted despite it had originally CC licence. Can we now revoke CC? Is this change recently? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_ToprakM Shadow4dark (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence that the original license was CC? Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Does this not count as evidence. https://web.archive.org/web/20230411030844/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itrk7OI-o70 Shadow4dark (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
It looks like that proves that the license was originally CC-BY. I'm not sure why Jameslwoodward doesn't consider that sufficient. Perhaps he could elaborate here. Nosferattus (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the administration or security of the web archive cited. Looking at an archive to do license review is not a part of our usual procedures. Remember, please, that a license review must be admissible and stand up in court. A review done while the original license is present on the file will count in court as a "contemporaneous written record" which would be admissible in a US court, and, I imagine, courts in other countries. I have no idea how courts would look upon an archive created by a bot. In any case, changes in our established procedures cannot be made on the fly by Admins. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I would presume that, given how archive.org works, there is no more chance of a forgery there than when we use a scan of an old newspaper rather than having seen the paper original. - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
how can we speed up licence process? I have here file uploaded on 2021 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephan_van_Baarle_in_2021.png but it is never confirmed if this is new policy on commons CC can be revoked. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
also Archive org is valid link according this page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_review#Uploaders 4 Shadow4dark (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The role of "license reviewer" is a made-up Commons construct that has no particular meaning in law. If a "contemporaneous written record" from a human is required, then wouldn't the uploader's statement suffice? As in, we use the archive.org link to be internally satisfied that the uploader is not lying (even though they are not an LR), but in a court of law the uploader counts as an LR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that counts in my book as sufficient COM:EVID. In fact, I view it as more a more reliable statement that the video on the linked youtube page was, on that date, licensed ac CC-BY than a license review. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@Shadow4dark: Sounds like this needs an undeletion request. Nosferattus (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Ariola Logo 1967 001.svg

The logo is German-based and is subject to COM:TOO Germany. The various shapes were designed to form a grid-like sphere resembling a globe. Can German law deem the logo copyrighted in its home country? George Ho (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This is just a red globe with the equator and meridians superposed on it. It does not look very original. Ruslik (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Manar al-Athar

The Manar al-Athar website (https://www.manar-al-athar.ox.ac.uk/en/copyright.html) includes a licence notice as follows:

All material including images on the Manar al-Athar Digital Archive is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England and Wales (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/. We realize that academic books, textbooks, and documentaries sometimes have a commercial component. Thus, you also have permission to use our images in them. See also the section on the ‘Copyright and Database Right for the Manar al-Athar Digital Archive’, below.

Whilst NC is normally a problem for us, does the "We realize that... Thus, you also have..." provide us adequate protection to use the images on commons?

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  • @Onceinawhile: short answer: no. While this allows an additional set of uses beyond the strictly non-commercial, it still limits some commercial uses. Commons really doesn't accept any copyright-based restriction of where an image can be reused, although we do accept personality rights restrictions that can limit (for example) use in advertising or where an endorsement might be implied. - Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Depeche Mode music videos - questionable status

I noticed that two Depeche Mode music videos (with audio) were transferred to the Commons from YouTube recently. File:Depeche Mode - It's Called A Heart (Official Video).webm & File:Depeche Mode - Hole to Feed (Official Video).webm. I checked YouTube, and they indeed have a 'Creative Commons - reuse allowed' tag. It appears that these two videos were uploaded to the site in June/July 2020.
I am not sure if that tag alone would really allow such use. Both videos have © notices at the end, and the music will have its own copyright registrations. Music labels are not known for their generosity and take their copyright real serious. I highly doubt the artists/copyright holder would have done this.
I'll add - if you check the videos page and scroll down to about 2 years ago, you'll see a promo video, which is under a CC license. I am guessing that video was meant to be freely licensed but the channel manager left this setting on by mistake around the upload of those videos? I am pretty sure this was an accident/un-intentional by whomever manages their account. Does anyone know more about copyright on music/music videos/record labels and if a YouTube tag really overrides this? Thanks PascalHD (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  • @PascalHD: it seems to me that if a (very) established and professional organization put out a video on their official channel with a free license, it isn't really our job to second-guess that. Being copyrighted is in no way a contradiction with offering a free license: in fact, you can only offer a license on something to which you do, in fact, hold the copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The videos are from Depeche Mode's own YouTube channel. So it's extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that the licenses would be wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I just find it really hard to believe that the band would release copyrights on just two music videos out of the blue (One from 1985 & other from 2009). Majority of musical artists have interns or staff who run these pages/sites, who cannot release the rights themselves, only the copyright holder can do that. Just because it comes from the 'official' account, how do we know for sure the copyright holder agreed to this? (Images are deleted on these grounds frequently). I mean sure it's possible, but this should be open to questioning as the video contains copyrighted music, is it really worth the legal risk? If someone was to take the song/audio from the Commons and tried to use it for other commercial purposes...? If you want to leave it up go ahead, I'm sure Sony will be pleased to sue whomever uses it. PascalHD (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Wait! Are the sound recordings subject to CC license yet? If non-free, then the music must be muted out. George Ho (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@George Ho: Not if the same entity owns the copyright. It's not like using someone else's music in your video. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying they necessarily did this intentionally, just that they did this. Just like if you published a book in the U.S. before 1978 without copyright notice, it was instantly in the public domain, intent be damned. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Not saying there isn’t a tag. I’m just concerned about the legitimacy. In order for a CC tag to be legitimate, the copyright holder has to release the content. If anyone else puts the tag there, it’s invalid. The publishing & artists who likely hold the rights would have to do that. They’re very strict about this stuff. An account manager who runs the YouTube account, cannot release the rights. How do we know for sure that the music publishers/licensers and artists agreed? I’ve reached out via email to get some answers. PascalHD (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I think that's reasonable, and I'd be perfectly willing to honor their intention if they say they did this by mistake, but legally? I'd guess they haven't got a leg to stand on. An official page has apparent authority, and I can't imagine anyone losing a lawsuit for taking it at face value. - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@PascalHD: Have you heard anything back from them? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I sent some emails to the appropriate music publishers (Sony SMP), am yet to get any replies. Couldn't find an email address to contact the band management directly. PascalHD (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree this looks too good to be true. While we should avoid copyright paranoia, this is a very unusual move. I can understand releasing promotional material under a free license, but a whole music video? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
This is a similar case as File:M83 - Midnight City.webm. We need to be cautious about such cases and not trust CC claims on first sight. There has been too much unjustified licensing by people who are not really copyright holders. --TadejM (t/p) 00:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Have you seen the Hogwarts Legacy and RWBY trailers uploaded here? This is hardly a new thing Trade (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I did a search on YouTube and it appears that the DM channel has a handful of videos under a CC license. Mostly promotional videos (which makes sense) and 4 music videos. Those 4 are which I am really skeptical about. Music videos in their entirety with music.
Looks like a third video made it to the Commons. File:Depeche Mode - Everything Counts (Live - from 101) (Official Video).webm the video is a clip from the D.A. Pennebaker Depeche Mode 101 film. Same situation at hand, yes there is a tag on an official channel, but did the appropriate rights holders release this? On the Apple TV page, i see '© 2003 Venusnote Limited/Mute Records Limited, under exclusive license to Sony Music Entertainment. Nothing shocking there.
I have tried reaching out to Sony Music via email but no response so far, hard to get a concrete answer. Not sure if these music videos would fall under precautionary principal worthy deletion or not. PascalHD (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay. If in doubt, let's nominate it for deletion. Right? --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Can a police chief release the rights to a police department's works?

I am trying contact the Hopewell Police Department to request the release of an image of a meteorite under a free license. The image is currently used on Wikinews as fair use.

However, the only email addresses I could find are those of the police chief and lieutenant. [12] Would either of them have the power to grant such rights? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Ixfd64, works by the State within New Jersey are already public domain. See: w:Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States#New_Jersey. --dsprc (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@Dsprc: Interesting find. We had a {{PD-NJGov}} years ago, but it and all the related files were deleted because of a clause prohibiting derivative works. However, the linked page does suggest the such works are actually PD and not just "public" as in public records. Has something changed in the past five years? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ixfd64: Better find you have… en.wiki wording might be misleading.
Being too lazy to pull up the old template from The Wayback Machine: From what I understand, information in template was wrong, and referenced an incorrect statute (open "datasets"). This is NJ's Open Public Records Act (independent of the open "data" act) – which does not contain any restrictions upon derivative works, and …shall be construed in favor of the public's right of access… Harvard has some related stuff here (which may have a misreading of the third-party copyright disclaimer on the nj.gov website).
If not PD, then the original photographer would have to release under an acceptable license… unless it's considered like a work for hire, then 17 U.S.C. §201 says the employer holds rights… and I have no clue about the sub-structure of sub-government within NJ to say how far up or down the chain licensing would have to go. --dsprc (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Distraction
By USA law it is automatically oublic domain after 12 years for locl goverment Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Citation needed. --TadejM (t/p) 13:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
User:Stanislov Patrick 473 was quickly banned for disruption/vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Karaoke images with lyrics are posted

There is a suspicion of copyright infringement by posting the lyrics.

Image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E3%81%AA%E3%81%8F%E3%82%82%E3%82%93%E3%81%8B_(15634044837).jpg

discussion (ja) https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%89%8A%E9%99%A4%E4%BE%9D%E9%A0%BC/%E9%80%9A%E4%BF%A1%E3%82%AB%E3%83%A9%E3%82%AA%E3%82%B1 Papu (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Distraction
@Papu: Song lyrics cant be copyrighted if they are less than 4 verses Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Citation needed. --TadejM (t/p) 13:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
User:Stanislov Patrick 473 was quickly banned for disruption/vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Does crown copyright cover all published War Office works?

I'm considering buying a scan of the book The Development of Artillery Tactics and Equipment published by War Office in 1951 in order to upload it here. Since for me £18.38 is quite expensive, I would like to check for sure that this is indeed covered by crown copyright which expired in 2001. If there is a more detailed explainer of what was covered by it in the middle of the 20th century than COM:CROWN, please point at it. Thanks in advance. Ain92 (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a 2005 edition, so unless it was a facsimile of the first, it (more precisely: any amended, updated or additional content) is still in copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Tasmanian license plate

I was looking at File:Tasmania standard number plate, 2010.jpg to review the license which is okay for the photograph as the Flickr source doe specify a free license. But the license includes a stlyised Tasmanian devil. Based on the name of the file, this would be a 2010 plate and would not be out of copyright. Reviewing COM:FOP Australia, it states that there is FoP for 2-D works of artistic craftsmanship, but {{FoP-Australia}} specifies that it applies to works "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public". Would that apply to a license plate? -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The stylized image itself can be based on some old photo, which may be already in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
That's rather speculative, and in any case, a derivative work carries its own copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Any stylization will not be original enough for copyright protection itself. Ruslik (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
On what basis are you making that statement? -- Whpq (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
What elements of a stylization apart from the original photo the copyright can protect? Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
One might be tempted to argue that there's almost certainly always one of those situated in a public place somewhere in Tasmania. No idea if that's going to convince an Australian judge, though ... El Grafo (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

FoP-Vietnam

All uploaded photographs of architectural and artistic works from Vietnam considered unfree if upload date 1 January 2023 or later. But how about images those has been uploaded to Flickr or other websites before this date? Can we still transfer this files of Commons? Files uploaded on other websites before this date don't violate copyright, why they violate on Commons? Юрий Д.К 13:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Юрий Д.К. in my opinion we do not inherit the user rights of Flickr itself. We function as media repository that hosts images, and importation from Flickr is an action in itself. We want to err on the side of caution; perhaps the action of restricting FOP in Vietnam is their legislature as well as artists' response of displeasure over our free culture hosting of their artworks, but that is just my opinion only. I would instead want to wait for someone to obtain official response from relevant intellectual property body of Vietnam, to know if Vietnamese FOP was unfree in the first place ("introducing/presenting images" is highly vague), and that their addition of non-commercial restriction only makes restriction obvious to content creators, specifically Wikipedians and users at Flickr, Unsplash et cetera. See also Violetbonmua's opinion here regarding a suspicion on the unfree-ness of Vietnamese FOP of 2005–2022. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

University at Buffalo Digital Collections

The University at Buffalo has a Digital Collections page which contains "thousands of historical photographs, print materials, audio and video recordings, artworks, and other unique materials." A lot of these works were created before 1928 which, by law, should put them in the public domain in the US. However, under the "Rights" section on these photos, it says that "Researchers must contact University Archives to obtain reproductions of images and to request permission to use any image" (e.g.). When I submitted an inquiry to the University Archives to clarify, I got this response from a "Visiting Assistant Librarian."

because th[ese] item[s are] located in our Digital Collections, the University Archives is the steward over the preservation and use of th[ese] photo[s]. Researchers must obtain our permission in order to use our materials, regardless of copyright. For example, if an item was located in our collection, but the copyright was owned by the creator, we would require our researchers to obtain permission from both the creator and ourselves in order to proceed with use.

We are currently operating under a fee schedule, as directed to us by the University, at which photos for publication use is $30.00 per image, to the paid by credit card. We would consider use of this photo on a website like Wikipedia to be publication.

I concentrated in intellectual property in law school and this doesn't seem to make sense to me. If a photo was published before 1928, it's in the public domain in the U.S. You can't just say "regardless of copyright," we're the photo's "steward" and we're not going to let you use it without paying. It doesn't matter that the work was commissioned by the school, the school's copyright expires and it enters the public domain after 95 years, right? Am I crazy? Denniscabrams (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Denniscabrams You are correct. The museum has no right based in copyright to prevent copying of public-domain works they've posted on the internet (but may have a non-copyright restriction in their terms of use or contract elsewhere, which is not a concern of Commons but may be a concern to the uploader), and no copyright on anything that is an exact copy of the original (Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#United States / USA). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@Denniscabrams: What the university is doing is no different from what companies and organizations like en:Getty Images and en:National Portrait Gallery, London have been doing for years: they're trying to monetize the digitalization of images in their collection. As pointed out above, Commons doesn't acknowledge such copyright claims and some intellectual property rights experts in the real world refer to them collectively as en:copyfraud. Of course, I doubt it's the intent of anyone at the museum to commit fraud, but that doesn't mean the museum is also not inclined to go after low-hanging fruit (individuals such as you yourself) if it thinks it can get people to pay for what it considers its images (see en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute for an example of this). There are many types of COM:NCR that Commons doesn't really worry about, but they could affect you depending on whether you're required to enter into an agreement with the university to access their images. That's probably what you need to be careful with the most because that would have nothing to do with image copyright and would just be between you and the museum. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Just a small addendum regarding the National Portrait Gallery case: This is slightly complicated by the fact that the NPG is located in the UK, where the threshold of originality is lower, and there can absolutely be British copyright on a faithful reproduction if done with sufficient care.
In this instance, the University is clearly located in the US and so the copyright situation is rather unambiguous in that there is no copyrightable expression in a mere reproduction under American law. Felix QW (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Gandhi - Young India, v. 5, 1923.pdf

Hi, This journal was published by M. K. Gandhi (who died in 1948), so it is in the public domain in India. However, this volume has a different editor, C. Rajagopalachari, who died in 1972. So it is not necessarily out of copyright in India applying a 60 pma term. Is the copyright from the date of publication as a collective work, or not? It is in the public domain in USA, so it could be moved to Wikisource if necessary. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Usually the editor is not the author of articles published in any journal. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I just sampled the first issue contained therein, and C. Rajagopalachar is indeed credited as author of several, if not most, of its contributions.
So these should certainly still be in copyright in India until 2033, if the term there is 60 pma. Felix QW (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Request and question

I had to upload new versions from two files with their copyrighted material removed/censored: Os Negros (1921).pdf (illustrations) and Meu amor! adoro-te!.pdf. Any admin could occult the early versions? There's any way to program a bot to "revert" it after some time? The illustrations from the first file shall only enter PD in 2055, while the preface from the second file shall only enter PD in 2046 in their home country (Brazil).

I also have a question about the Category:Jéca Tatuzinho: the illustrator, Kurt Wiese, was a German-born illustrator who died in 1974. According to Britannica, in around 1927 he became an US citizen. In this case, which copyright law takes precedence for his early 1927 works? Germany, Brazil (where the work was published - both cases Life +70) or the United States (where he became a citizen and died)?

Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have hidden the first version of the 2 files mentioned above, and added them in the relevant categories.
Copyright depends on the place of publication, not on the nationality of the author. So works published before 1928 are in the public domain in USA whether the author is a US citizen or not. Works first published in Germany will use German law, whoever is the author. Yann (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: thanks! So in this specific case is the Brazilian law which takes precedence? In this case, going by this discussion in the Portuguese Wikisource, it seems that it would be PD since he didn't have any heirs. Erick Soares3 (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it is possible for someone "not to have any heirs" in this sense, since there will always be someone taking on the inheritance, even if it is a government body as heir of last resort. I would be very surprised if copyright would not have been transferred to some entity. Felix QW (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Besides, the NYT obituary states that he has been survived by both a widow and a sister. Felix QW (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The bookseller's copy of a public domain book

Is it possible to upload the image of that copy of an antique book, which is offered by a bookseller on his website (or on AbeBooks) with no free license? --Frognall (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Frognall: If the image is basically of something two-dimensional (e.g. a title page reproduced), then yes, because it is an uncreative reproduction, and there is nothing there to copyright. However, if it is (for example) a picture that clearly shows the book as an object, then no, because that photo would itself be a copyrightable work. - Jmabel ! talk 07:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I'm confused. Is it possible to upload a (more or less cropped or retouched) image of a closed copy of the old book (like this one), with details and defects which make it a unique piece? And can the source (the bookseller's website) be cited, even if copyrighted? --Frognall (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. The court case was about a photo which basically served as a copy of an old painting, so it was a straight-on photo cropped to the painting's borders. Such photos take skill, but not creativity, so they were ruled as below the threshold of originality, since several of the creative aspects which goes into the copyright of a photograph (the angle chosen, and the cropping) are basically decided for the photographer. However even a photo of a coin may still have enough of those elements to still support a copyright, so we keep pretty closely to the court decision and delete such photos if not actually taken by the uploader. In the photo you mention, it has a copyright, as a photo of the entire book as an object. If it's a straight-on to the cover though, you could crop the photo to just the cover art, especially if you retouch away some of the wrinkles/tears specific to that photo. At that point, if the result is just a copy of the cover art, it would be the same copyright as that cover art. As a U.S. book published before 1928, the cropped/retouched result should be {{PD-Art|PD-US-expired}}. The artist of that cover was William E. Hill who died in 1962, which should be noted since any 70pma country which has a reciprocal copyright agreement with the U.S. (many in Europe do) cannot use it yet because the cover art is still copyrighted there, despite the fact it can be uploaded to Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Why would the wrinkles and tears need to be removed? They are not specific to that photo, but to that book, and created without original human decisions (if I understand the words correctly). Or do you mean that the photographer chose to take the photo from an angle where some of them were pronounced and others not? –LPfi (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
They wouldn't necessarily, but it'd be safer probably. You might be able to argue that the photographer was intentionally including them for effect, or using a particular lighting to create shadows using them, or stuff like that to distinguish this particular photo as a copyrightable work, from other plain photos of the cover. They may not be winning arguments, but anything you can do to get the cropped copy to be closer to just the original artwork, the better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Here the image must be cropped to keep only the cover, and remove the shade affect of the picture. Yann (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all. Please, @Clindberg: can/should I cite the bookseller's website as a source? --Frognall (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
That would be appropriate, since they are certainly the source of the image. Felix QW (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

City flag

Is this flag a copyright violation? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Anthropological life casts

I have photographed several 19th-century life casts at Musée de l'Homme, an anthropological museum in Paris. These life casts are a bit like death masks, except the subject is still alive. They are made in plaster, painted in a realistic way, so they look like busts of people with their eyes closed (because of the cast-making process). Many of them were made by naturalist and phrenologist fr:Pierre Marie Alexandre Dumoutier (1797-1871), but the museum cartels do not always mention this information. Are we to consider these casts as sculptures or are they PD-ineligible? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Longstanding edit request to Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto - admin needed

Please see Template talk:PD-Japan-oldphoto#Publication date requirement. In short, several years ago I flagged that a publication date requirement was mistakenly added to this copyright template, but no one has taken action. Removing it would bring the template back into harmony with Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan#Old photographs. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the Nottingham Forest F.C. logo basic enough to be licensed under public domain? An unofficial logo (without the two stars at the top) does exist on commons and it doesn't seem to breaking any copyright rules. Thanks and have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Pretty unlikely in my opinion as it would be difficult to describe the tree in terms of simple geometric shapes. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I just tagged the one on Commons as a copyright violation, as it is well above COM:TOO UK. It's above COM:TOO US too, but less so. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The file has been  speedy deleted as a non-free logo. It might be fine to change the licensing to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} on EnWiki, but that is a decision for the community to make at EnWiki's Files for discussion page, not on Commons. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Photos from US Military Ships Voyage Books

I possess one of such books. I assume that photos from it fall under PD-USGov-Military-Navy and thus are fair game for Commons. Any opinions to the contrary? -- Wesha (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I am skeptical of a blanket PD-USGov-Military-Navy. I believe the cruise books are made by the crew, but that does not mean the cruise books are part of the crew's official duties. I could see a machinist mate submitting some text about what he did on the cruise. The cruise books may also include photographs made by ordinary crew members rather than the ship's photographer mate.
Patrol reports are prepared as part of the officer's duties, so they would fall under PD-USGov-Military-Navy, but there would be exceptions. For example, a USS Trigger war patrol report included a drawing of Bugs Bunny sitting on an island. Warner Bros. holds the copyright on Bugs Bunny, and the derivative work was probably done outside of normal duties. Glrx (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Uploading Kodeeshwaran Season 4

For some reason, the videos (example) are licensed under CC-BY, which means that they are technically eligible to be on Commons (unless the videos themselves are out-of-scope). Can someone confirm whether this is possible? For instance, it is not clear to me on the logos, given that's usually not free-use. Thanks in advance, and please ping me in an answer. Leaderboard (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: For start, is uploader actually having rights to this material? Sometimes people upload materials without having rights to them, see COM:Flickrwashing for a similar case. Is it this TV station/producer or random person uploading copyright violations? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The TV station in question is fully owned by Disney. - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: "is uploader actually having rights to this material"? I would say so - it's Asianet's official YouTube channel after all (and that's the channel where this TV show was hosted, from Season 1 - 4). Asianet does have a connection with Disney India. Leaderboard (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Maybe logos may be COM:de minimis in this case Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Copernicus.eu images

copernicus.eu has an image of the day from their Sentinel satellites and I've looked, but I'm unsure of the copyright status of these images. Would like some help determining that. Thanks PalauanLibertarian (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@PalauanLibertarian: Please notice that the link you provided doesn't work.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Fixed PalauanLibertarian (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@PalauanLibertarian: So long as the image in question is actually from one of the Copernicus Programme satellites (and that one is from Sentinel-2, so it's fine), you can use {{Attribution-Copernicus}} as the license template. Just read its instructions, which are very simple. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Thx PalauanLibertarian (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

PD book cover art

Could File:Depiction of woman's reproductive organs from the Early Modern period in England.jpg possibly be PD if the image on the front cover is PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably yes, but it's a UK publisher, so who really knows with the UK's notoriously low threshold of originality. They'd probably declare the logo in the lower right corner to be original enough for protection. I'd rather upload the original 1671 illustration ([13], [14]) and use that. --Rosenzweig τ 06:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The artist is probably Johann Reinhold Schildknecht, his name is on the title page engraving. Better source here. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Good find Rosenzweig, your find of this avoids any non-free issues with the book cover, especially as it is a UK publication. Ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright record for a New York license plate

In going through some copyright registrations, I found RE0000717453, which is a renewal registration for a 1968 New York license plate. The files we have on Commons for those sorts of plates are really simple, such as File:NEW YORK 1968 LICENSE PLATE - Flickr - woody1778a.jpg, so I'm a bit skeptical that the registration refers to the blue-and-yellow design that would otherwise appear to be well below COM:TOO USA. If this is about the blue-and-yellow design, we'd need to radically re-evaluate how we handle the threshold of originality for vehicle registration plates in the United States, since that New York design is about as simple as can be.

Is there a way to request a copy of the copyright filing from 1968 (and/or the subsequent renewal) that would get a copy of the design that was submitted to the copyright office? I have my doubts that this is indeed about the blue-and-yellow design, but I would like to make sure I'm correct in doubting this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There could be a copyright on license plates which include a complex design, such as File:New York license plate, 1986.png. Anything before 1978 would be {{PD-US-no notice}} anyway. Yann (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Searching for the author's name, I found the original registration from the 1968 copyright catalog. He registered license plate designs for all 50 states, all described as "Silhouette of state in shield shape, scenes on border". So these registrations couldn't be for the official state license plates; perhaps these were souvenir plates like you might buy in a gift shop. Toohool (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Mary Marjory Macdonald.jpg

File:Mary Marjory Macdonald.jpg is almost certainly incorrectly licensed, but the question is whether it can be converted to another license and kept. en:Mary Marjory MacDonald died in 1926 at age 41 or 42, and this photo probably was taken not too long before than. Even though there's no indication as to whether it might've been first published prior to 1928, I'm wondering if this can be relicensed as PD. Since the UK seems to be the likely country of origin/first publication, maybe this can be converted to PD for some reason per COM:UK or COM:AW#UK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a police photo (or similar), which checks out considering she was a jewel thief. If it is the work of some UK police force, {{PD-UKGov}} (for a photograph created before June 1, 1957) should apply. --Rosenzweig τ 07:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
UK police forces are not part of the United Kingdom Government. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
{{PD-UK-unknown}} should work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Are they not? London's Metropolitan Police says “Work produced by police staff is copyright of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC). Work produced by Police Officers is the copyright of the Crown.” So they apparently distinguish between work by staff and work by officers. Interesting. --Rosenzweig τ 09:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for looking at this. {{PD-UK-unknown}} seems appropriate unless there's an objection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Licence for a derived work

I wish to upload a file to Wikimedia which is based on things provided by more than one UK government body under the Open Government Licence 3.0. I'm not acting on behalf of the governmnet, so plan to use the CC-BY 4.0 licence for my file, and specify the authors of the original works.

How should I upload a file to Wikimedia in a way which shows this?

I had a look at the upload wizard, but I couldn't tell if any combination of options would include the correct details with the file. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Re-upload?

Can someone please check if this image is another re-upload of this one which already has been deleted several times, or if the licensing is o.k. this time?

This basically affects all uploads by users BalintGoldenstein and Jan-Hendrik Pelz: It seems that many or most of their files are re-uploads of previously deleted files.

Jan-Hendrik Pelz is the name of the artist himself, so if that is him, he owns the Urheberrecht to the artwork. However, his user name is not verified on the German WP at least. Neither is the user name Balint Goldenstein which apparently is his assistant. (What he writes in that discussion about the copyright having been transferred to him is nonsense; the Urheberrecht is non-transferrable by German law except by inheriting it after someone's death.) --2003:C0:8F28:D600:D5F5:BED2:9BE1:79EF 08:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

P.S. There is a weird deletion request here: Do these young artists know what they are doing? They produce political art that is obviously meant to be provocative and highly controversial, they publish it under a CC license for everyone to use and distribute freely, and then they are surprised at getting exactly the reactions they bargained for? --2003:C0:8F28:D600:D5F5:BED2:9BE1:79EF 09:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It's the same two people, but in a different place and time. In the other one, they were in front of some bushes and holding a sickle and a flag (or similar). --Rosenzweig τ 10:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Today Records logo and label

The Today Records logo contains a peace symbol, and its vinyl labels contain the same symbol in large size (45cat). It's okay for this project to use, right? George Ho (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the logo is just within use threshold of originality. It's a bit stylized with that extended tail on the "y". Do remember to use {{Trademarked}}. - Jmabel ! talk 15:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Government works of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian SSRs

(Originally asked at en.wp, get directed here) For example, Flag of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (1953–1990).svg. These works are always being tagged under the copyright laws of modern Baltic states regimes as their government work. Which is hard to believe, because of State continuity of the Baltic states. They don't view Soviet Republics as predecessors to them, thus the tags are incorrect and the copyright status of Baltic SSRs' legacys is unclear and should be discussed. ibicdlcod (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Photos of a metro card

Hello, I'm new to the Commons village pump, so if I get anything wrong, please correct me. I have taken a photo of the back side of a Christchurch metro card for use on Wikipedia. The photo contains mostly text and shapes, but I still want to check in here to make sure that this photo doesn't violate copyright. As well as the proper tags/template, I should use: File:Christchurch_Metrocard_back_side_2023.jpg

Also, here are some older photos that I would also like to hear people's copyright analyses of, but they weren't taken by me: File:CHCH_Metrocard.JPG File:CHCH_Mobile_Phone_Metrocard.JPG CoderThomasB (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, these are too simple to get a copyright. You can add a mention "Object: {{PD-ineligible}}" under your own license. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I am less sure of that, since Christchurch lies in New Zealand and COM:New Zealand suggests that the NZ ToO is very low, with little regard to originality of expression.
So the arrangement of the coloured panels may already push it over the edge, I think. Felix QW (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I also  Oppose what @Yann: said here, at the very least, the "e" icon left of "Environment Canterbury" (sic?) can really be copyrighted in common law countries. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
This is certainly de minimis here. Yann (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

NEW copyright law of Ukraine

Involved page: COM:CRT/Ukraine.

A new copyright law was recently passed in Ukraine, and this is proven by WIPO. It dates to December 2022.

I immediately went to look for its freedom of panorama provision if there are any. The ipkitten blog states there is but seems to be restricted. Reading from the WIPO copy (in Ukrainian):

Стаття 22. Загальні випадки вільного використання творів...

10) створення зображень творів архітектури та образотворчого мистецтва, що постійно розташовані у доступних для громадськості місцях на вулиці, за умови що такі дії не мають самостійного економічного значення;

This translates as...

Article 22. General cases of free use of works...

10) making of images of works of architecture and fine arts that are permanently located in places accessible to the public on the street, provided that such actions do not have independent economic significance;

Your thoughts? Ping users whom I interacted regarding FOP things, like @Ox1997cow, A1Cafel, Abzeronow, King of Hearts, Yann, Minorax, Jeff G., Liuxinyu970226, and Rosenzweig: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

To quote from ipkitten article with some emphasis, "The updated list of general exceptions and limitations provided in Article 22, for which the concept of ‘general cases of free use’ is used, includes the Ukrainian version of ‘freedom of panorama’. Thus, it is allowed to create images of works of architecture and fine art, that are permanently located in places accessible to the public on the street, free of charge and without permission, provided that such actions do not have independent economic value. This provision somewhat truncates the granted freedom, as it does not directly permit the following use of such images." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what "provided that such actions do not have independent economic significance" really means. Is that a non-commercial restriction? It does seem as though the exception is much more explicit now than it used to be, but not sure it's free. That phrasing may be a weird translation, but if not purely a non-commercial restriction, it's different wording than most other laws so it may be hard to know. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I think I have seen something similar, originating in the EU directive. It might be more clearly expressed there, and the wording in and reasoning behind an EU directive should be available in several languages, including English. –LPfi (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
The only EU directive I'm aware of is the one from 2001, which allows member states to define some contours of uses for works permanently situated in public places. There can be non-commercial restrictions, or not. Unsure what Ukraine just did, on that score. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
That was my thought when I read the sentence. You'd think that they would have just said "non-commercial use" if that's what they meant, instead of being so weirdly cryptic about it. Who knows what else it would mean though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@Rubin16, Микола Василечко, Ahonc, and A.Savin: (some users from Ukraine and Russia) for their opinions on this weird Ukrainian FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I share the concern with the above users. IMO "do not have independent economic significance" is vague and provides little information about commercial use. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Base, Antanana, and Piramidion: Right above? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
It is vague indeed. I compared other uses of the same phrase ("самостійне економічне значення") in the same law and I believe it basically means commercial use. Meaning, there is FOP in Ukraine now, but only for non-commercial use. In general, nothing changes for Commons. --Piramidion (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Не дуже добре можу викласти свої думки англійською, тому спершу напишу українською. «Створення зображень» не означає «поширення», «розповсюдження», «завантаження» тощо, тобто, як на мене, нічого нового нема: можна фотографувати для себе, для родини, для друзів, але поширювати зображення поза особистим простором й надалі не дозволено.--Микола Василечко (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I do not speak English very well, so I first wrote in Ukrainian. «Creation images» does not mean «spread», «dissemination», «download», that is, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing new: you can take photos for yourself, for family, for friends, but it is still not allowed to distribute images outside of personal space.

Стаття 12. Майнові права інтелектуальної власності на твір

7) ... публічний показ; ...

This translates as...

Article 12. Intellectual property rights to the work

7) ... public show; ...

download to Commons is «public show», which is forbidden. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
А взагалі, щоб не було різночитання і різного трактування Закону, Вікімедія-Україна може звернутися із запитом до Верховної ради України чи в Конституційний суд за конкретним роз’ясненням. І тоді буде чітко зрозуміло. Бо обговорювати тут не юристами юридичні тонкощі — нічого не вирішить. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Discussing legal subtleties here with non-lawyers won't solve anything. That's what we do here all day every day. There's never any lawyers involved unless something gets report to the WMFs legal department or they get taken to court. Lawyers or not, it's totally on us to figure out how to explain and apply the law in the meantime though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 the IPKitten blog article seems more authoritative as the two contributors, Kateryna Militsyna and Liubov Maidanyk, come from Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. According to the article, in terms of FOP (with some emphasis), it is allowed to create images of works of architecture and fine art, that are permanently located in places accessible to the public on the street, free of charge and without permission, provided that such actions do not have independent economic value. This provision somewhat truncates the granted freedom, as it does not directly permit the following use of such images. Comprehending from the article, it is safe to assume that the provision is a "contra-FOP", that the first part is immediately truncated or restricted by the second part (provided that...do not have independent economic value). Perhaps an allusion to non-profit use of images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Interesting. That would be my guess. Either that or it's saying the work has be included in a larger product for it to be usable. Like an image in a book that includes other content so it's not of independent economic value on it's own separate from the larger work or something along those lines? Who knows. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Even if it is included in a larger (profitable) product, it still has its own economic value for that particular product, so that interpretation doesn't change anything.--Piramidion (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
For some reason, the quote you provided doesn't take into consideration the subsequent use of such images which is also mentioned in the law. Not only creating, but also using such images is now allowed, but only if it's for non-commercial purposes.--Piramidion (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I can't remember where exactly the idea from right now, but I was reading a legal brief or something a while back where they were talking about the difference between profiting directly from a work versus profiting from it indirectly. If I remember correctly it had to do with de minimis in commercial products. Like one of the reasons it's OK to cite a sentence from a book in another book without it violating copyright is because if you divide up the money made from the sale of the book into equal parks based on the number of pages or whatever your only making like an penny by including the sentence. Whereas the problem with copying another persons work whole cloth, or even half cloth, is that your directly stealing money they would make from selling it themselves. Or to put it another way, by copying half the book and selling it yourself the book your selling has economic value that is dependent on the other person's work. So it does matter. Although it's still up in air as to if that's what the law means in this specific case, but whatever. I think my point still stands regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Микола Василечко: ось повний текст того пункту: ''створення зображень творів архітектури та образотворчого мистецтва, що постійно розташовані у доступних для громадськості місцях, та подальше використання таких об’єктів, за умови що такі дії не мають самостійного економічного значення. Як на мене, то у своїй інтерпретації ви пропустили те, що я виділив жирним. Хоча згоден, що тут більше значення має інтерпретація юристів, але, оскільки їх (як і відповідних судових позовів) немає, то доводиться інтерпретувати вікімедійцям. (Ну і так, для Вікісховища такі умови все ще неприйнятні)--Piramidion (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Piramidion: та уважно я прочитав і з прочитаного зробив саме такий висновок, як описав вище: я можу ці зображення використовувати надалі (для себе, для родини, для друзів), але точно не для завантаження на Вікісховище, де є вільна ліцензія, і звідки вже хтось інший може використати моє зображення того твору, у т. ч. й для власного «економічного значення» (видати, наприклад, календарик з моїм фото пам’ятника і заробляти на тому гроші). Бо й так мої фото з Вікісховища часто публікують на сайтах, у газетах/журналах/книгах, і приблизно в половині випадків навіть не вказують мого авторства, заробляючи при цьому гонорари на своїх публікаціях. А тут ще й автор втору на зображенні. Я ж не буду за кожним скульптором чи архітектором бігати і роз’яснювати йому нюанси українського Закону, хоч саме скульптори й архітектори дивуються, що саме така норма існує і в них крім гонорарів, які вони отримали за саму скульптуру чи проєкт будинку, є можливість у судовому порядку стягнути з порушників Свободи панорами ще додаткові гонорари. Тому я злосний противних завантаження (а як завантажили, то за вилучення) таких зображень звідси, поки наші свідомі люди не навчаться поважати чужу інтелектуальну власність. --Микола Василечко (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree: whatever exactly this "independent economic significance" may mean, this looks like a Commons-incompatible restriction. No change for us with this law, IMO. --A.Savin 12:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Several users more competent for Ukrainian law than me (IMO) have already weighed in, and I agree that while there may now be some version of FOP in Ukraine, it's apparently not suitable for Wikimedia Commons, like the French version and several others. --Rosenzweig τ 13:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

New case law about freedom of panorama in Germany

Per [15] and [16], the Oberlandesgericht Hamm has decided that freedom of panorama in Germany does not apply to drone shots of protected works of art, affirming case law by Germany's highest (regular) court, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH). This contradicts an earlier (outlier IMO) decision by the Landgericht Frankfurt which some people took as a justification to keep or undelete such drone shots. The OLG Hamm is one rung up the legal ladder from the LG Frankfurt, so I'd be even more critical of that LG Frankfurt decision now. The decision of the OLG Hamm has been appealed to the BGH, so there will probably be a new BGH decision about German freedom of panorama in the next couple of years or so. --Rosenzweig τ 09:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The OLG Hamm was itself the appellate court in this case btw and confirmed a decision by the trial court (court of first instance), the Landgericht (LG) Bochum. Which is on the same level as the LG Frankfurt. --Rosenzweig τ 10:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Rosenzweig for the update. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Family photograph

I would like to upload a photo of a person (for use in a Wikipedia biography). The photo is an old family portrait from the 1950s. The photographer is unknown. I am a family member. Can you advise how to proceed? Thanks. Cjholula~commonswiki (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, you may need to find out who the photographer is. If you tell what jurisdiction this is, it is easier to help. Anonymous photographs are nowadays usually copyrighted for 50–70 after creation (the term used to be shorter), in the USA (the laws of which we also follow) publication date matters. If the photographer is unknown, the local law says 70 years (also for old photographs), the URAA date is 1996 (as for most countries) and it is unpublished, it is copyrighted in the USA until the 2070s. For some countries, the copyright had expired by the URAA date, and in that case the US law is irrelevant and the photo free to be uploaded. –LPfi (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Depending on what Wikipedia you are going to use it in, you might also be able to upload it locally with a fair use rationale. I think that would be possible for this photo at least in the Wikipedia in Finnish and the Wikipedia in English. If the photo has entered the public domain or you can get a licence from the photographer's heirs, it is much better to upload it to Commons so that it can be used in all Wikipedias. –LPfi (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks both. I want to use the photo in the English Wikipedia. I am in the UK. I have no information on the photographer, except that the studio was in Mexico and the family commissioned and paid for the portrait. In this case, wouldn't the copyright belong to the family rather than the photographer? Cjholula~commonswiki (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cjholula~commonswiki: Short answer: no. Just like if you commission a painted portrait, the artist still owns the copyright unless it is explicitly signed over. Not sure of the details in Mexican law, but most countries have historically required that any transfer of rights be done in writing. (I gather that some European countries have recently loosened that.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cjholula~commonswiki and Jmabel: Although you have a good case for claiming that your photo is in the public domain under Mexican Law (See Wikimedia page on Mexican copyright which states "Anonymous works are in public domain until the author or the owner of the rights are identified.", you will still fall foul of US copyright law. You do however have an alternive route - you could publish the photo under "Fair Use" in the English Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Self-requested copyvio speedy deletion

I have started a discussion on Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Self-requested copyvio regarding what to do if an uploader tags their own file as a copyvio, if 1) it will probably be deleted at DR; 2) it does not meet any of the copyvio criteria (such as F1 and F3); and 3) it does not meet G7 due to age. An example is if the uploader realizes later on that they took a photo of a building in a country with no FoP, but FoP normally does not qualify for F3; does the fact that the uploader is requesting the deletion allow us to speedy it? Please comment there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Hey Commoners,

I just received a great big message from Wiki Commons that starts with this:

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Coolidge Exhibition opening.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. etc, etc.

Well, I'd like to politely disagree. I filled out all that info I was asked to fill in and in one of the many boxes you have to fill in, I said that I have permission from the photographer — who I commissioned to shoot this photo and many others — to use the shot. I created a copyright tag - as was asked for - that covered this. So before some bot decides to delete the photo, can someone please tell me what's wrong with the copyright on the image and maybe how to fix it? Thanks. Santoman (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Coolidge Exhibition opening.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Santoman: the image has absolutely no license template, and not even text that would allow me to guess what the license should be and fix it. Furthermore, it seems to credit a third-party source, which would then presumably be the copyright-holder, and therefore the only entity that could issue a license. See COM:VRT for how the third-party copyright holder can grant a license.
And, sorry, but you saying you have someone else's permission to upload their work isn't something we can accept as a basis. Anyone could say that about anything. Also, it certainly doesn't amount to an explicit license, which is what we require. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes I agree, anyone could say that about anything, but I am saying it as it was in am email from the photographer.
This is what she said in her email on September 14, 2022 at 3.22pm: "You can use all pictures copyright free, but would kindly ask you to give credit to "Niva Studios" when pictures are posted online etc."
So she has handed copyright to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to grant a free licence, I was just hoping to do the right thing and honour her request to credit her small business.
Based on that, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm technically the copyright holder? Santoman (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
It looks like she has given YOU a license to use those pictures. That does not mean she has given anybody else a license to use her work or allowed you to sublicense her works. Glrx (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
@Santoman: Again: at this point, really the only way to sort this out is VRT. I suggest you read COM:VRT and then start an email correspondence with them and with the photographer. That team should be able to sort it out to everyone's satisfaction, though it may take some back-and-forth.
For what it's worth "You can use all pictures copyright free" doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of law. "Copyright-free" suggests waiving copyright, not assigning it, but if she's asking for a credit, then she's clearly not waiving all rights under copyright; maybe she meant to grant something like {{CC-BY-4.0}} (mention that one if you correspond with her and with CRT, it's probably the right solution here) but as Glrx says, it isn't clear whether she meant that to be transferable. And, again, it should be possible to sort this out, but the sorting out needs to happen. - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
If the contract for the commission transferred copyright to you, then you can go through the COM:VRT process and send them a copy of that transfer document. But you'd still need to grant a specific free license. - Jmabel ! talk

I've now changed this from a tag that could result in speedy deletion to a formal DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coolidge Exhibition opening.jpg. That should slow things down and allow Santoman time to communicate with the photographer and VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 02:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Which one do we follow in this case?

After reading COM:CUR, COM:FOP, and COM:Stamps, I had this thought.

If currencies/stamps are drawn on signboards or information boards located in public places, which one follows: freedom of the panorama, copyright of currencies/stamps?

For example: Uzbekistan has no freedom of panorama, but currencies and stamps of Uzbekistan are public domain. See COM:Uzbekistan. But Thailand has freedom of panorama for 2D works, but currencies and stamps of Thailand are copyrighted. See COM:Thailand. Ox1997cow (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I would think that either is good enough: If the stamp/unit of currency is PD in the first place, then there is no need to rely on FoP; if not, then the FoP provision covers the use.
However, even if it does not say so explicitly at COM:Thailand, I guess that the permanent outdoor display has to have been put up with the consent of the copyright holder, just as effective publication is only possible if done with the copyright holder's consent. Felix QW (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Star Wars related uploads

File:MaxPixel.net-Storm-Stormtrooper-Lego-Star-Wars-Trooper-1343877.jpg seems to have questionable licensing per COM:TOYS, particularly under US copyright law, and might need further assessment. File:Starwarsbanneryo.png is probably OK, but just incorrectly licensed. Can the two files be kept as licensed or even kept at all? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Logo Partai Masyumi 2020.jpg

Even though File:Logo Partai Masyumi 2020.jpg is pretty much just text, Indonesia's TOO is apparently quite low per COM:TOO Indonesia. Can this file be kept as licensed since there's nothing to indicate it's been released as such per partaimasyumi.id? Should it be converted to {{PD-textlogo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

File:SasSquare Studio.jpg

I would like some input on the licensing of File:SasSquare Studio.jpg. It seems like it might be OK per COM:TOO United States, but it could be cutting it close. SadSquare Studio seems to be based out of Canada per its Twitter account, Kickstarter page and YouTube account; so, maybe COM:TOO Canada also needs to be considered. COM:TOO Canada says that Canada's TOO is similar to the US's but it might not be exactly the same.

Finally, if the file's licensing is OK, the file might need to be renamed because the studio's name is incorrectly spelled as "SasSquare Studio". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

UK graduation photo, circa 1930

I have a British graduation photo taken around 1930 (photographer unknown). Reading through Help:Public domain, I am not sure about its copyright status in terms of USA vs UK vs the URAA. Any suggestions? Muzilon (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

URAA applies since the UK was 70 PMA in 1996 (1925 was the cutoff year, but 1926 and 1927 works would be public domain in the U.S. now). As to the UK copyright, has a reasonable inquiry been made as to the identity of the photographer? (knowing more about the provenance of the photograph might tell us if the photographer could be found) Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The photo is in the possession of the family of the subject, but it's not clear whether the photographer was a family member or a professional studio. It might qualify as {{PD-UK-unknown}}, but would be it be considered PD in the USA? Or do we have to wait something like 95/120 years after the creation of the photo before it's considered PD in the USA as an anonymous/unpublished work? Muzilon (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I would guess the family owns the copyright. It had become PD in the UK, but was restored in 1996 (and therefore in the US too). If it was first published in 1930, or only in 2001 or later, it is again in the PD in the UK, but will take a while for the US (shorter of 95 years from publication, 120 from creation). If first published before 2001 but less than 70 years ago, the UK copyright would still be valid. If it was a family photo, I would presume the copyrights were inherited by the family. If it was a studio shot, the law at the time said: where, in the case of an engraving, photograph, or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration in pursuance of that order, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright. So, presumably the family would have owned the copyright even if performed by a studio. I'm guessing the authorship is anonymous, thus the 70 year terms. If the family wants to license the image for the US side of things, I think it would be fine. Otherwise, probably PD in the UK, and not in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thanks! I hadn't been aware that there were countries where the default was that when you commissioned a photo you got the copyright by default. Do we have any list (even partial) of what countries at what times have/had such a law? - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The US was divided (no law, but courts went both ways). The UK had that clause, and also in their 1956 law, but I think their 1988 law rolled it back some. Australia still has some flavor of it (though muddier), and I would not be surprised with other countries which were based off of UK law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

SpaceEngine licence question

Is https://store.steampowered.com//eula/1026970_eula_0 compatible with COM:LICENSING?

Reading it through it seems like a user of the PRO version of the software can reuse screenshots of the software commercially with credit, but I'm less certain whether they can release such screenshots under another licence (there are a number of uploads on Commons under CC-BY), for a third party to reuse in the same way despite never having owned the PRO software. Belbury (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to say, for screenshots specifically, it does seem like a free license. Agreed they can't re-license it though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
What does that mean for Commons? Should there be a {{SpaceEngine}} template for these images (where the uploader confirms that they were made with a PRO account), and if so what should it say? Belbury (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Government works of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian SSRs

[Added here 11:55, 3 June 2023 by Ibicdlcod]

(Originally asked at en.wp, get directed here) For example, Flag of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (1953–1990).svg. These works are always being tagged under the copyright laws of modern Baltic states regimes as their government work. Which is hard to believe, because of State continuity of the Baltic states. They don't view Soviet Republics as predecessors to them, thus the tags are incorrect and the copyright status of Baltic SSRs' legacys is unclear and should be discussed. ibicdlcod (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not know, but for me it is even harder to believe that everything which was created in these republics between 1940 and 1990 is PD. Their legal standing is probably that in this period, Estonian SSR did not exist, and whatever was created in the area was created in independent Estonia.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
When it comes to drawings of flags and seals, the copyright tends to follow the particular drawing -- the government copyright should not matter (unless the government themselves made the drawing). See Commons:Coats of arms. But, whatever they consider the history to be, the current government is likely the legal inheritor of any SSR government copyrights. So, not sure why the current government would not control them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Question about North Carolina government copyright laws

Hello, while trying to find out about the VRT process regarding government documents published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, a fellow editor made a good point that those documents, and many like them, could be considered "public records" under Chapter 132 of North Carolina state law. Though, there is some confusion on the basis of what the statute defines a "public record" as (the public being able to view gov. records vs. the public being able to view and modify/reuse gov. records). If anyone knows something about state copyright laws, is there enough justification in this statute that could allow the creation of a public domain license tag on Wikimedia Commons for documents created by the government bodies in North Carolina? Thank you for your help and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Adding on to the above, this "Copyright Decisions" page from the Government and Heritage Library of the State Library of North Carolina says "Most of these [North Carolina state publications] are considered to be in the public domain, pursuant to General Statute 132-1b," which is the section of law which defines what constitutes a public record. Despite this, other state sources do not treat their files/photos/publications this way, as evidenced by the different licenses with which agencies' official Flickr pages will use, and other various references to some state works being copyrighted. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Moving discussion here after same discussion was unanswered and archived at Commons:Village pump. This same issue regarding NC copyright was also discussed all the way back in 2014. Consensus on this issue would be greatly helpful. Thanks and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There is also Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NCGov. Public records do not mean the same thing as copyright public domain, which is what we are after. It's possible the wording is strong enough to make such things public domain, but we would probably need a court case to come to that conclusion before accepting the rationale here (as there were in Florida and California). The Harvard state copyright page notes the public records law, and lack of clarification when it comes to copyright. In general though, every state has public records laws, but most don't really affect the copyright status (though many uses would more likely fall under fair use). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

UK government works from 1944

Hi, What is the copyright status is USA of these pictures? The copyright in UK expired, either because they are government works {{PD-UKGov}}, or because the author is unknown {{PD-UK-unknown}}.

  • If PD-UK-unknown applies, they are still under a copyright in USA due to the URAA.
  • If PD-UKGov applies, the copyright in UK expired in 1995, and they should be in the PD in USA. Or don't we consider government works in the public domain in the source country being also in the public domain in USA?
  • Does the copyright notice on the back change anything to the copyright status in USA (lack of renewal?)?

Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that PD-UKGov applies as these were extremely likely to have been taken by people of the Royal Army Medical Corps in the course of their duties. The British government has made it clear that expired works of theirs are not subject to URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. So what's the template for the US copyright status? Yann (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
You can just use the PD-UKGov template since that template says "HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide" with links to document that. Abzeronow (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
All of these are in the IWM collections - search [17] by the B number on the back of the image. As many of the IWM image are already on Commons it's worth a search to see if they are already here. Nthep (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Interesting, but they can't be downloaded from that URL. Yann (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Even unable via web.archive.org?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/05&oldid=774181946"