Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01

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

I need help!

I'm not sure about uploading a screenshot of another website to Commons. Do I still need to display the license of copyright? What if there's insufficient info about the license of the website? Cowboyhats12 (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboyhats12: please do not ask the same question in multiple venues. It wastes people's time. You posted this here within a minute of when you posted on Commons:Help desk, where I replied to you within an hour. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Stone circle monument at Prophetstown State Park

I recently took some photographs of a stone circle memorial at Prophetstown State Park in Indiana. There is stone circle there installed as part of the state park in 2016. I am wondering if images of it that I took myself would be allowed on Commons. They seem to be rough hewn stones, but placed artistically, which might be considered a "sculpture". Each has a stone plaque on it representing a tribal nation once in the area. Here are some of the images I took:

Would this sort of thing be allowed? -- Yekrats (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  • @Yekrats: it's the sort of thing that is right near the threshold of originality for copyright. I'd say feel free to upload the images, but please don't take offense if the decision is to delete them. If you want to be really prudent, you could contact the person who designed the stone circle and ask them to go through the COM:VRT process to grant a free license (probably {{Cc-by-4.0}}) for their contribution to your images, which could be seen as derivative works. They could authorize these particular images without waiving any other rights to the underlying sculpture. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Steamboat Wilie (From Mickey's Toontown).webm

I don't think this musical arrangement is in the public domain. This version of the tune is apparently from 1993 or around then, and therefore still protected by copyright. I think the music is sufficiently changed compared to the newly-PD 1928 version that it would pass the threshold of originality. 70.181.1.68 19:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted: (c) Lewis Bertram. Yann (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Photos from my Father's collection

I took a look thru the FAQ, & didn't see these concerns directly addressed, so excuse me if this is spelled out somewhere else.

I have inherited from my Father all the photos (in slide format) he took during his lifetime. (He died Summer of last year.) I am in the process of cataloguing & scanning them. The earliest phots I have date to 1958, & continue up to a decade or so prior when he tired of his hobby. Topics include local history (I know he took pictures of the 1964 Willamette River flood), as well as his travels to Sudan, Nigeria, & parts of Europe. And there are a few slides that were purchased. I have two questions concerning these:

1. While I did not create these photos, since I am his heir I believe I own the intellectual property of these photos. So am I still permitted to upload those of these photos I want under a Commons-friendly license? (As an aside, while he was still alive I mentioned the possibility of uploading his photos to Commons for all to see, & he liked the idea.)

2. Amongst these slides are a number of commercially-produced ones that were, years ago, sold to tourists. These have no indication of copyright on them -- by that, no (c) symbol, no clear indication who produced them or who owns their copyright. Just a label of what the subject is in multiple languages. Are these to be considered public domain, or should I research their ownership? (That is, if there is a way to determine that: I suspect in some cases, because at the time they were created reproduction by individuals was so difficult no need was seen to go thru the procedure & cost of copyright.)

Thanks in advance for any help. -- llywrch (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Any photos personally taken by him can be licensed by you, the heir, using something like {{heirs-license|cc-by-sa-4.0}}.
Commercially produced slides are generally not acceptable; per COM:PCP, we can't assume something is OK just the copyright holder is unknown. However, if a slide was first published in the United States (regardless of where it was taken) before 1978 without a copyright notice, then {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) @Llywrch: My condolences for your loss.
In answer to your questions, the first group of images where you have inherited copyright, you can choose to release them through one of our "heirs" licences available at Category:License tags for transferred copyright. Further details are available at Commons:Transfer of copyright.
For the second group, we would need to consider them in more detail as it will depend on where they were taken (which country's copyright law applies), when they were taken and if there is any indication at all of authorship. Many countries have different rules for anonymous works compared to named works. Also, if they appear to be unique works (for example an image of your family at a tourist spot) or a generic photograph of a tourist spot (that may have been sold in bulk to tourists in a similar way to a postcard) that may have an impact on consideration of publication rules. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The commercially-produced slides were created outside the US, & are generic photographs similar to post cards. So I should look to the copyright laws of that country to determine if Commons can use them? (As an aside, I won't be upset if Commons cannot accommodate them: that would simply mean I would have fewer slides to digitize. I already have identified several from the first few hundred I've reviewed worth uploading out of a couple thousand my Father created.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, basically the copyright law of that country, and of course the 1996 URAA restoration of U.S. copyright may be an issue, too. I've got similar materials; I probably wouldn't try to put commercial content of that sort on Commons, it's rarely going to be PD unless it's pre-1929, though there are a few countries (e.g. Argentina) where you can go clear down to 1976.
You will definitely want to attribute him as author, and might want to create a user category for his works and use it on all of these uploads (in addition to all the usual categories, of course). - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the Disney Junior logo really above TOO?

Per COM:TOO#United States of America, an example of a logo that cannot be uploaded to Commons is w:File:Disney Junior.svg (VA0001927957). However, I just looked up that registration number at copyright.gov/records... it appears that it's not a registration for just the logo, but for an entire brand guide. The application title is "DISNEY JUNIOR - RETAIL AND MARKETING BRANDING GUIDE SS14 UPDATE". Typically a branding guide would mean a full book of information about a brand. In fact, I found the relevant portfolio page of the designer, and the brand guide included a complete refresh of the packaging of many Disney Junior products. Certainly a full-size book would be copyrighted, but that doesn't mean everything inside that book is copyrightable by itself. Unless there's some other information I'm missing, it seems that we don't actually have a USCO decision on this logo by itself, so it might be public domain?

I looked into this because I was about to cite it as precedent to delete File:Super Bowl XLVI wordmark.svg, which has a comparable 3D text effect... but now I'm not sure about either logo. Can anyone share any further insight on this? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi: File:Super Bowl XLVI wordmark.svg is definitely below the threshold of originality (there's absolutely nothing original about it), but I think w:File:Disney Junior.svg may be original enough to attract copyright protection, mostly just because of the Mickey Mouse stylized letter 'i'. Nosferattus (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status of Italian stamps

According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Stamps stamps of Italy are copyrighted until at 70 years after the artists death. Since according to the a sentence in the guideline "the law contains no exceptions to standard copyright law for stamps." Although according to another part of the guideline, Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Government_works, "Works created by or on behalf of either the government, the former national Fascist Party, an academy, or private legal entities of a non-profit-making character of Italy, have 20 years of duration of the rights." Which seems to be in line with, and referenced to, the wording in section 633/1941 art. 11, 29 of the Italian law on copyright.

Further, looking at the Wikipedia article for Poste Italiane it appears that the Italian Post was run by the government of Italy up until the early 1990s. At which point a large part of it was put in the hands of a private investment bank. Assuming that's the case, it seems as though pre-1990s stamps would be public domain as works created on behalf of the government of Italy. Whereas, ones created and/or published after 1990 wouldn't be. So assuming the year is correct, I'm thinking the guideline for Italian stamps should be changed to reflect that ones created before 1990 when Poste Italiane was owned by the government are in the public domain. Anyone disagree with that conclusion or have any other thoughts on the matter? Adamant1 (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct upload?

Hello, I upload the Cosina CX-2 image from Flickr, but are bigger and I cropping to have better size for articles in Wiki. It's correct the upload? https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cosina_CX-2.jpg Bernatargentona (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Cosina CX-2.jpg
@Bernatargentona: That's a bit hard to follow; if there is another language you write better than English, please feel free to use it here.
Cropping is fine.
Was there something additional you were asking? - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Moltes grácies, només tenia aquest dubte de si el retall era correcte.
Thanks you @Jmabel Bernatargentona (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Photographs of the European Parliament

Hello, I'd like to know if this picture and others of the archive of the European Parliament are suitable for Commons. It is atributted to © Communautés européennes 2001 and states that it can be used under "Identification of origin mandatory". Morevover, the legal notice of the website states the following:

"As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it."

I guess this would fall under an attribution acknowledging the source licence. Nevertheless, I've seen that File:Official portrait of David Sassoli, president of the European Parliament.jpg has been licensed as cc-by-4.0, so I don't know which licence should be used, maybe a new template should be created. Any thoughts? Basque mapping (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No. You can only use the CC-BY-* licenses if that license was explicitly stated by the copyright owner. In this case, the statement only authorizes "non-commercial or commercial dissemination" (which does not conform to our policies requiring commercial use) and also requires "the entire item is reproduced", which prevents derivative works, which also does not conform to our policies. So even though uploading with acknowledgment of the source would be OK by their rules, it does not conform to COM:Licensing so would not be OK here. The statement on the image you mention that "which is understood to be equivalent to a CC BY license" is not correct. They may have had different usage terms at the time which may qualify for us, but you can't "assume" a CC license, ever -- the license is the explicit wording they used, and we'd have to judge if it conforms to COM:Licensing. A license statement solely of "Usage terms: Identification of origin mandatory" with no other restrictions does sound like {{Attribution}}, but if there are more explicit terms associated like the ones you mention, then it would not be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg Well, in the legal notice also specifies that "the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it." so we could consider the sidenote "Identification of origin mandatory" overrides the general conditions of the website? Thanks for the help :) Basque mapping (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg I agree with you that this doesn't allow derivative works, so the rest of this is moot but: what is the problem with authorizing "non-commercial or commercial dissemination"? What is that leaving out in terms of our policies requiring allowing commercial use? - Jmabel ! talk 21:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I must have missed the "or commercial". So OK, that hurdle is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

DOVA-SYNDROME

I was planning to discuss the licence and the FAQ on the DOVA-SYNDROME music library website, so can anyone evaluate whether they're eligible or not? - THV | ♂ | U | T - 12:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems incompatible to me. Specific areas of concern are: 1. It is not redistributable - if the file is no longer distributed from that website, the licence becomes invalid for anyone who obtained the file from elsewhere (Commons, for example). 2. The licence states specifically that creators may impose additional conditions outside of the terms of the licence (we would have to check every single use of the licence to ensure no extra terms were added that invalidate usage here). 3. Usage is limited to background music only - that goes against our principle of being reusable for any purpose. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I guess I'll add it to my blacklist as above. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 14:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, I've nominated 53 videos for deletion, excluding the last one, where I removed the audio entirely. Feel free to have thoughts if there are additional issues. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 23:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC); edited: 23:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

French film posters

Hi, I wonder who is the copyright owner of French film posters. If I would be a film producer, I would get the copyright from the artist, but is it the case? I found 2 posters for Category:Les Aventures de Robert Macaire (1925): This one was made by Jean-Adrien Mercier, and this one by Alain Cuny. Both artists aren't dead long enough for public domain, but if the copyright is owned by the film producer, then there are in the public domain by {{PD-France}}. Any idea? Yann (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if France has any specific rules, but normally in countries where there is no such thing as work-for-hire or corporate copyrights (e.g., UK, Germany), the copyright belongs to the creator, which would be the artist in these cases. —holly {chat} 19:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I think work for hire does exist in French law, but I don't know the practice in film industry. Yann (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The UK has work for hire explicitly in their law (they treat "author" and "first copyright owner" differently). I would think in other places, usually the employment contract would specify that the economic rights would be transferred, even if technically first owned by the author. French law presumes that "collective works" published under a corporate name is owned by the company. However, I would disagree the posters qualify as PD in France by my reading -- the definition of collective works are only those in which the personal contributions of the various authors who participated in its production are merged in the overall work for which they were conceived, without it being possible to attribute to each author a separate right in the work as created. If you are able to attribute the artwork to a particular person, then it's not a collective work I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think these are collective works, and I don't understand why you mention it. Only one author is mentioned for each. Yann (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I thought that would be the only way they are PD in France. How would the copyright expire if it was owned by the film producer? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
If the film producer was Jean Epstein who died in 1953, it became public domain a few days ago. Or if the copyright owner was Films Albatros, it expired on January 1st, 1984, 58 years after publication (until 1996, when it was prolonged to 70 years if it didn't expired). Yann (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The film has a copyright term based on the director, author of the screenplay, author of the dialog, and score composer (if made specifically for the movie). The producer's lifetime does not enter into it. (EU directive 2006/116/EC, article 2; and French IP code article L123-2.) The poster would have a copyright term based on the artist's life, since they are known. The producer may own the copyright and is where you need to get permission, but the term of the copyright is pretty much always based on the human author (if known) in the EU, if you are waiting for it to expire. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
In looking, Epstein was the director, and it was a silent movie so no music. If Epstein was the sole writer, then the movie would be PD. But unless the poster was a still from the movie, it would be an independent work, with a term based on its own author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg: Well yes, they may have work for hire in the UK, but the copyright term durations, which are what is most important for us, are still tied to when the the author (a natural person) dies. --Rosenzweig τ 21:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how this is possible in practice. An organization or the State would have to keep track of all its employees' death date... Yann (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
If they want to sue and prove ownership of a valid copyright outside the 70 years, yes. If the company doesn't name the author, they may only get 70 years from publication. But if the author was named (or names themselves later, or in some countries simply becomes known), then the term reverts to 70pma even if still owned by the company. The EU directive does have a part which says that countries which have work for hire are supposed to require the author name on initial publication, else it will always be 70 years from "making available" with no option to expand to 70pma. The UK however did not actually implement that in their law, even though they have work for hire, so they still allow a work to become 70pma later on. France does not have work for hire technically, though I think they require an author to "make themselves known" to get the 70pma later on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on UK mural copyright

Hi all, I've been reading COM:FOP UK and the description of Category:Murals in England pretty much back and forth over the past half an hour or so, and having taken a few pictures around Hull Paragon Interchange's entrance hall yesterday of Andy Pea's 2023 mural (commissioned by Trans-Pennine Express) 'Creation of Hull', I'm not quite sure of my rights here. Would photographs of various parts of the mural constitute a "graphic work" and therefore be inadmissible for Commons uploading under Sections 4 and 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988? Hullian111 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It is hard to say without knowing the construction method of the mural. From the linked page it looks like a painted scene, so would be a 2D graphic work. We could only upload here if the artist releases their mural under a compatible licence. As the train company commissioned the piece, it may be that they also acquired copyright or the right to relicense the work; in that scenario, a suitable licence from the train company would be acceptable. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
So, hypothetically, I'd have to contact Andy Pea (who handily has a contact page) and Trans-Pennine Express to get 13 photos licensed. Ah, no bother then, that sounds like too many hoops to jump through; thanks for the advice, I'll just keep them on my hard drive for personal viewing. I assume the same licensing problem might be encountered if the GeographBot uploads this to the Commons in about a year's time?
As a test case so I know how to get this copyright thing right with murals in the UK, would anything by the 'Spray Collective', such as this street mural, fall under a similar licensing issue, too? The burger shop that commissioned it has since gone out of business some years ago, so the current owners of the building probably have no part in maintaining the mural, but I assume copyright still lies with the 'Spray Collective' and thus puts it under a similar licensing issue to Andy Pea's railway station mural? Hullian111 (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In general, taking a picture primarily of someone else's copyrighted work is a derivative, and we would need a license from the owner of the underlying work (for at least your photo) to be OK here (or the copyright needs to have expired, which can take 120 years or more). Some countries have a "freedom of panorama" provision for anything permanently in public, such that photos of it are OK, but in the UK that does not extend to murals or paintings (primarily just 3-D works like sculpture or buildings). Obviously such things are fine in many non-commercial contexts under fair use or fair dealing, but not on Commons. If the photo is primarily of something else and is a minor part of the photo, some of the situations in Commons:de minimis may apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Source country and the U.S. laws differences

Hello! I'd like to start a discussion on an issue that is bothering me for a long time: a file (photograph or book) that is public domain on its home country, but under copyright at the US, should never be uploaded at the Commons, and what have been uploaded should be deleted or moved to another project (like Wikisource)? This discussion has been made in the past (2008a and 2008b), but it seems that nothing has come out of it. What do you all think? The differences, for example, between "Publish + 95 years" and "Life + 70 years" is reaching to a point where the Wikisource may not receive newly PD works for some time and it seems that the attempt of a Wikisource clone has been dead for some time now. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The most recently discussion at the Portuguese Wikisource. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I may be mistaken but I believe all of the Wikimedia servers are based in the US, so US copyright law would apply. That normally means that if US copyright has expired, the file can be uploaded to any project. However, because Commons policy requires dual licensing in both the source country and the US, we won't upload here until the "life +x years" rule is also met. That is the reverse of the position you describe (copyright free in source country but under copyright in the US).
Commons has no control over the policies of other Wikimedia projects. If consensus of your local project is to adopt a different copyright policy and you can convince the Wikimedia Foundation that your new policy is not blatantly illegal (to stop them pulling the plug on the server they are hosting your project on) then that is entirely up to you. Hypothetically, you could convince the Wikimedia Foundation to move the server for the Portuguese Wikisource to Portugal, so Portuguese copyright law would be the most prominent concern. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The link to a Wikisource clone doesn't seem to go anywhere but does mention Wikilivres.[1] This appears to be a project independent of Wikimedia that is based in New Zealand and subject to New Zealand copyright law. The most recent change was in 2019. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's a project I started in 2006. I don't maintain it anymore, and the last maintainer is unreachable, but if anyone wants to start it again, there are dumbs on Internet Archive. Yann (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@Yann@From Hill To Shore (just some segué) the long-dead project may be stabbed by a trend to extend NZ term to 70 years. But right now, current proposals are confined to sound recordings (but that may open the gates of NZ to 70 years p.m.a.). Seems not yet incorporated in the law as the current version still bears the 50-year rule from making for sound recordings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I only saw the replies now:
  • But @From Hill To Shore, the standard at Commons would be to delete everything that doesn't complain with US law? Even the files from Template:PD-AR-Photo? The Portuguese Wikisource there's, at much, a draft of a decision: since there's about 3 or 4 active editors, the place is almost a ghost town.
  • @Yann: and @JWilz12345: : would it be possible to move Wikilivres to East Timor (Life + 50 years)? It seems the best place for this project. Brazil and Portugal are Life + 70 (which is already kind of strict)... Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Erick Soares3 consider the threshold of originality issue too. Also, the site itself is de facto dead and no one has tried to fix the codes, so unless there are persevering contributors to Wikilivres, there is no use even if it is migrated to Timor-Leste or anywhere where 50-year term for all works is still applied. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 My point is: there are stuff in the Commons that shouldn't be here in the literal interpretation of this site policies (like the 1950s Argentina images). I started to use the Template:Not-PD-US-URAA for some images/books because it was the only that made any sense, but ShakespeareFan00 rose some issues in some of my uploads, and then backed out when he saw that "Commons hasn't made a 'consistent' decision on these yet" (example). In my opinion, if this template shouldn't be used, it should have a clear warning on it (or just redirect it to SD). If books like Escândalo do Petróleo really should not be here, I'm ok with transwiking them to Wikisource. Erick Soares3 (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Erick Soares3: Argentina pictures are OK until 1972. Italian pictures are OK until 1976. Yann (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Yann There's no fundamental difference between the copyright situation of Argentina and Italy. The requirement of a minimum protection of 25 years since creation comes from the Berne Convention, a treaty signed both by Italy (1887) and Argentina (1967). Lugamo94 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
There was a grandfather clause in the Berne Convention which allowed existing members to keep shorter terms than that 25 years, which is why Italy is still fine to keep 20 years for simple photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
There is also the possibility to read the wording of paragraph (4) of article 7 as requiring a minimal 25 year term for only the photographs that are deemed to be artistic works, and not requiring any minimal copyright at all for those that are not. Depending if the condition "in so far as they are protected as artistic works" and the word "they" are understood to apply to both types of works mentioned before it (photographic works and works of applied art), or if they are understood to apply only to the second type of works mentioned (works of applied art). I suppose that it has been interpreted somewhere. Applying the condition to both types of works specified in the article makes sense, and that interpretation is reinforced by the presence of the comma in some linguistic versions (e.g. Spanish, Catalan). Do we know an official interpretation? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This is true. Photographs below the threshold of originality may be outside the scope of the Berne Convention but may still be protected by a country anyways, but the length of protection would not be mandated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg Out of curiosity, do you know when the requirement of a minimum protection of 25 years for photographs was introduced? I have checked the links sources listed here, and the first time I could find that specific requirement was in the Article 7, Subsection 4 for the 1971 revision, created 3 or 4 years after Argentina signed the Berne Convention. Lugamo94 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it was the Stockholm revision in 1967.[2] The Rome revision in 1928 mandated protection of photographs, but no minimum term. The Brussels revision in 1948 has no minimum term either. I think Argentina joined the Brussels act right before the Stockholm act came into force, although the grandfather clause is limited to countries which had acceded to the 1928 Rome act, which Argentina had not. Argentina did not ratify the Paris 1971 provisions until 1980.[3] This page has links (if you expand "Contracting parties") to show which countries acceded to each revision of Berne. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Lugamo94 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Erick Soares3 {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} has a cutoff date, March 1, 2012. URAA-affected files uploaded after that date are not supposed to be hosted here and must be deleted. Only URAA-affected files that were uploaded until March 1, 2012 can be retained here. We already reject public monuments of no-FoP countries that are now in public domain in those countries but are still copyrighted in the U.S., like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sveti Janez Marija Vianej.jpg (from Slovenia, a pre-1978 sculpture). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Erick Soares3 "complain" => "comply", I presume. And good luck finding hosting that would let you legally claim a base in East Timor. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
There are more countries with 50 pma laws: Hong Kong, South Africa, Taiwan, etc. Yann (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Accd. to meta:Non-free content#Wikisource, the French Wikisource does accept "some media files are free according to lex loci but not US law". You might try that approach at Portuguese Wikisource. --Rosenzweig τ 02:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Commons is not supposed to host anything which is still under copyright in the U.S. There are undoubtedly some out there -- nobody has wanted to go delete the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} files which were uploaded when the URAA was under a legal challenge. Other projects can if they want -- they could always claim fair use if a legal situation came up. That may be harder for Wikisource than Wikipedia, but probably possible. However, note that works published without a copyright notice lost their U.S. copyright, and only gained it back if it was under copyright in the source country (country of publication) on January 1, 1996. Portugal is in a bit of a gray area for that -- they did not enact the law extending works to 70pma until after January 1, 1996, though it's possible the text of the EU directive became legally applicable in July 1995 even without their law changing, if they deem treaties to be self-executing there. I'm not sure how U.S. courts would treat that. The policy on the URAA here is a little different -- it seems to require showing that a file was in fact restored, at least enough to show there is a significant doubt. So that gray area probably would mean we'd allow uploads which were PD in Portugal under their older terms in 1996, provided they were published without a copyright notice (which most non-U.S. works were). Also note that the text of laws, judicial decisions, and the like do not get a U.S. copyright in any case ({{PD-EdictGov}}). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Are You Experienced - US album cover art

File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg is licensed as {{PD-US-no notice}} and is listed as an example of a public domain album cover in COM:CB#Album covers. However, I'm wondering whether it's really PD based upon what's written about the cover art and other images created by the photographer who took the photo for the cover in this article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

What exactly in the (long) article? At first glance, the article doesn't seem to affect the conclusions reached in:
-- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Without reading the long article: under the old U.S. copyright law, any authorized publication without notice put the work in the public domain. It didn't matter if there had also been publication with notice elsewhere. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Asclepias and Jmabel: First, my apologies for not being more specific about the part of the article that I thought might be relevant. At the very end of the article, it states the following: "All images featured in this Cover Story are Copyright 1967 and 2008, Karl Ferris and Karl Ferris Photography - All rights reserved." It was the "Copyright 1967" part that made me wonder since the first image in the article is the album cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
There would be a valid copyright on it in the UK (and before Brexit all across the EU) -- since it's a British author, they would not use the rule of the shorter term, but 70pma. And there were more photos in the article than just what is on the cover in question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: As posted above, this file was discussed several times before and was deemed to be OK for Commons. Would this assessment need to be revisited if the cover art (based upon the article I found) is still protected by copyright under UK copyright law. The photographer who took the photo en:Karl Ferris apparently is still living so 70 pma would end at the earliest on January 1, 2095, if he died this year, right? What's also interesting is that File:Don gift cover new.jpg and File:Don heaven album w.jpg both are also attributed to Ferris, but are actually VRT verified. It might be possible that if the Hendrix cover is still copyrighted that Ferris might be willing to give his COM:CONSENT for that too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Country of origin is country of first publication, not nationality of the author. Since this was apparently for the U.S. cover only, it would appear it was first published in the U.S., so that would satisfy both the "country of origin and the U.S." rule. It's an odd situation where it's fine (provided our analysis is correct) in the U.S., but not a good many other countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Masks

Batgirl

One of this month's photo challenges is "masks" so it seems like a good idea to ensure our guidance on mask copyright is sound.

Currently, the language at COM:COSTUME is ambiguous. It includes a long explanation that, to my reading, can be summarized as "yes, they're copyrightable". But then the very end of that section undermines the rest with a photo of someone dressed as Spider Man and the line Present consensus is that "files that merely show people cosplaying" are acceptable. - What does that even mean? "Merely"? To say, they're copyrighted ... but hey, those people are merely cosplaying doesn't seem to make any legal sense. So a photo of an official Donald Duck costume at Disney World might be copyrighted, but not the same costume on a cosplayer? A copyrighted work hung on a wall is copyrighted, but not on a body? The English Wikipedia article on w:Guy Fawkes mask says Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns Warner Bros. and DC Comics, owns the rights to the image, but we host about 1,200 photos of that mask. Can someone do a better job than COM:COSTUME at articulating some clear rules here? — Rhododendrites talk |  20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites, That is a good point and I guess we should add some warning about potential for copyrighted material. Many types of masks like: historical masks, cloth masks, covid masks, welder masks, gas masks, fencing masks, balaclavas, hokey masks, etc. are not copyrighted but Darth Vader mask, iron man mask, Donald duck mask, etc. would be. How should we make people aware of the distinctions. I removed the photo of the batgirl (which we had on Commons for 12 years), because I am not certain of its copyright status. --Jarekt (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you know of any court cases which would clear up some of the gray area? I think "masks", unlike most clothing, are not considered "utilitarian" in U.S. copyright law, so they lose one of their possible ways to avoid infringement. Whether they can still count as "incidental" may be subjective, but if the photo is of the whole person and not the mask specifically, that may hold. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I do not know much about copyrights related to cosplay, etc. So my opinions are mostly based on some discussion from a past. For example I think we had photographs of hot air balloons deleted because one depicted Darth Vadar. In the past we had some Commons:Photo challenges where several winners got deleted for copyright issues. That is a bad publicity and I would like to minimize the chances of the repeat. Commons:Photo challenge/2024 - January - Masks is the link to the current challenge. I added a warning to the page, can I get a second opinion on the wording? I also removed some of the example images I considered more in the "gray zone". Any others I should remove from the example gallery? --Jarekt (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, sorry for causing such issues with my suggestion. I think the wording is clear, Jarekt, thank you for adding this box. I will remove one more image from the example gallery that might be questionable in terms of copyright and might also attract more questionable entries. Kritzolina (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it's one of those gray areas copyright-wise, where they may be OK but they will be arguable, and could end up with some uncomfortable decisions. I imagine those would likely go both ways, as with anything arguable, as there are no bright lines. Which also means we won't have any good answers here either. Some will get nominated, some of those deleted, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Gallica

I have just uploaded a 1603 book on Commons. Of course it is in the public domain everywhere on Earth, but Gallica claims commercial use is subject to payment and requires a license (see the second page of the PDF). What should be done here? Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7 Claims from Gallica on scans are discounted here - see #Deprecate Template:PD-BNF and Template:PD-GallicaScan above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Posso caricare questa foto in commons?

Buongiorno, vorrei sapere per favore se posso caricare questa foto. E' molto vecchia ma vedo un simbolo di copyright che mi incute timore. https://libreo.ch/livres/l-heritage-de-gustave-revilliod/epilogue/walther-fol-i-un-alter-ego-i-de-gustave-revilliod . Grazie a chi avrà tempo e modi di rispondermi. Manuela Musco (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Manuelarosi: Which image? There are several on that page. Some of them are certainly public domain, others less obvious.
Quale immagine? Ce ne sono diversi in quella pagina. Alcuni di essi sono certamente di pubblico dominio, altri meno evidenti. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Scusami tanto, la foto in questione è la prima in elenco e riporta questa didascalia: [b](fig. 62)[/b]
Sébastien Straub, Portrait de Walther Fol, vers 1855-1860. Centre d’iconographie de la Bibliothèque de Genève (© BGE). Manuela Musco (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Questo è ciò che in inglese chiamiamo "copyfraud". No, non è più possibile che qualcuno ora possa avere il copyright su un'immagine della metà del XIX secolo. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Partido futuro.png

Buenas Administradores, está foto debería ser removido (deleted) o quedarse (keep)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Page x missing from Dictionary of the Vilamovan language

As the title describes, page x (i.e. after ix, before xi) is missing from the file series Dictionary of the Vilamovan language. The category, created almost a decade ago, has a label indicating that the rights holder has given written permission to license it here and the missing page is also available online from the Polish national library, which labels the file as being in the public domain (in Poland, evidently). However, as a presumably posthumous (author died 1919) work published in 1930-1936 (page x would appear to be part of Vol. 1, so from 1930), I'm not confident on what the status would be for our purposes (i.e. according to the US situation, where it doesn't seem to have ever been published) and I'm not confident that the written permission applies to the whole work or only the files so far uploaded (thus inadvertently excluding the missing page). What are the chances of adding the missing page? Helrasincke (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Helrasincke: While I think it would be reasonable to presume that the intent of the permission would have included that page, this question would be better asked at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard, where someone can actually see the relevant ticket. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
On a quick and dirty search, Polish law in 1996 gave 70 years of copyright from publication to posthumous works (s:Polish_Copyright_Law#Chapter_4._Term_of_Author's_Economic_Rights), and thus the work would have been in copyright in Poland and thus in the US until 95 years from publication, so 2026. I don't know about the rights holder; I'd assume any release covers the page, but someone with VRTS access might have to take a look.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Licensing tag

File:An Ideal Cycling Costume.jpg is in public domain. Should the current licensing tag be replaced with appropriate PD tag? Syrus257 (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

And also I'm trying to upload some images from this Flickr album. But I have been unable to upload. What's wrong with the link? Syrus257 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Syrus257: Your uploads have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/142 frequently. Please avoid potentially problematic words and phrases when uploading with a mobile device. Perhaps an Admin can comment further.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I uploaded them one by one. And this time it worked. Could you please take a look at the PD image. Syrus257 (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Syrus257: Where did Seahawk4lyf get the cc-by-4.0 licensing tag?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: not sure where they got it from. Should we change it? Syrus257 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Logo Alcaldía de Lecheria

Buenas, una pregunta el Logo de la Alcaldía de Lecheria como lo indica esta foto (https://twitter.com/Urbanejalcaldia/photo) esta en el Dominio Público ({{PD-textlogo}} porque representa una "geometric shape")?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: No conozco el umbral de originalidad para Venezuela, pero eso es mucho más complejo de lo que normalmente se entiende por una "geometric shape". - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

What counts as an "author" for the purposes of copyright (with regard to a still image of a film)?

(copied from my question over at the English Wikipedia, because my question wasn't answered properly and i figure you all would know more)

The director? The cinematographer? The director in this case died in 1929 (it is a German film from 1920), and the cinematographer died in 1969. Or does it belong to the company? Since it's before 1928 it's good for America (so it can stay on enwiki) but it comes from a country that has life of the author + 70. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The copyright term in the EU for a film, these days, is defined in the 2006 directive, article 2: The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work. The copyright owner is likely the company, if you are looking to obtain permission. But if you are waiting for the copyright to expire, then you need to look at the lives of those people. If that was a silent movie, then obviously there was no music. The cinematographer does not enter into it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: for a silent, insofar as the author of the dialogue [in this case intertitles] is distinct from the author of the screenplay, there is probably not a clue to be had as to who the former would be. Does that mean we have to wait a full 120 years from initial release for all such EU films? - Jmabel ! talk 08:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I think what is not credited will be attributed to the director and/or the producer, copyright wise. Nowadays, the producers manage the copyright, but it may have been different in the 1920s. Yann (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
For unknown authors {{PD-anon-70-EU}} should apply for works form Europe. As in most cases the credited author was still alive on the date of publication this means that if it is public domain because all known authors are dead for 70 years the hole work is public domain. GPSLeo (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response!
So in summary:
  • director died in 1929
  • no music (silent film)
So on that front I'm good.
Alas the other screenplay writer died in 1966 so not out of the woods there. And I have no idea who the intertitle / dialogue writers would be (unless it's the same as the screenplay). Thanks for answering my question! PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Another related question: so when referring to copyright of film stills (not including dialogue/screenplay/intertitles), the same copyright still applies as to the whole work of the film (which would include the screenplay)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm prefacing this comment with a caution that I am not an expert, but I think a lot depends on exactly what you mean by "film still". If you mean actual frames extracted from the film, either by photographic reproduction of an original negative or print, or by capturing an image from a digital scan, then yes, the film copyright would apply. But many "film stills", especially in the silent era, are actually publicity stills: still photographs taken during production with a separate camera by a separate photographer, for use in lobby cards, advertisements, company promotional newsletters, etc. References to "film stills" often conflate both types of material, but it seems to me that any independently created photographs that were not extracted from the finished film have an entirely separate copyright, the term of which is determined by the publication date (in the US) or the death date of the photographer (in most other countries). If, as is usually the case with promotional stills, the photographer is unknown, then the applicable laws for anonymous published photographs (not films) would apply. In the EU, for example, that would be the standard 70 years after publication for works with no claimed author. This, at any rate, is what I have always assumed. If I'm wrong, I'd be grateful if User:Clindberg or someone else would correct me, because I can easily imagine using the wrong license myself when labeling future uploads. Thanks, Crawdad Blues (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Now that you mention it it seems to be a publicity still of the set. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Something I learned from User:Pajz in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greta-Garbo-and-Jaro-Furth-in-the-film-Joyless-Street-1925-142462321702.jpg: In Germany, a single frame of the film does not share the term duration of the film as such, but is protected as a work of the cameraman (-person) who shot it. So 70 years pma. --Rosenzweig τ 21:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Wow, that's unexpected and very interesting. Thanks very much for the link, Rosenzweig. So the camera operator is irrelevant to the copyright of the film as a whole, but he has the complete copyright for any individual frame of the film. Copyright law is so crazy ... Crawdad Blues (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite the paradox. I guess that is what can happen when you're trying to "harmonize" existing copyright law regimes all over the EU. --Rosenzweig τ 23:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
And Italy protects them for just 20 years :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
So in this case, would that apply to the cinematographer, or would it apply to the unknown cameraman (so PD-anon-70-EU would apply?) PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Since you say it's a German film, the German law cited in the link given by Rosenzweig above applies. Under that law, it really doesn't matter whether the image is a frame extracted from the finished film or a separately made publicity photo; either way, the copyright is determined by the rules for a single photographic image (70 years pma), with the author being the person who operated the camera. So
  • If the image is a frame extracted from the film, and the "cinematographer" was the actual cameraman (as was often the case in the silent era), then the image remains under copyright until 2040 (71 years after the death of the cinematographer in 1969).
  • If the image is a frame extracted from the film, but a separate camera operator (other than the cinematographer) is listed in the credits or is otherwise identifiable, then the image is under copyright until 71 years after the death of that cameraman.
  • If the image is a frame extracted from the film, and you know for a fact that the cinematographer was not the actual cameraman, and the cameraman himself is not identifiable, then then PD-anon-70-EU would apply.
  • If the image is not a frame extracted from the film, but a photograph taken at the time of production by some other photographer for publicity or documentary purposes, and the photographer is not identifiable, then PD-anon-70-EU would apply.
I think that sums it up. Out of curiosity, can you provide a link to the specific image in question? Crawdad Blues (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Crawdad Blues wikipedia:File:Algol 1920.jpg PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Yann moved it over to commons. Not sure about that... PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA: @Yann: I'm not going to get into a fight with anyone over this, but I agree that moving the image to Commons was premature, and the grounds on which it was moved and the license now attached to it do not seem valid to me. According to the EU regulation cited by Carl Lindberg above, the film itself remains under copyright until 2037 at the earliest, because one of the two authors of the screenplay, Fridel Köhne, died in 1966. And according to the German law cited by Rosenzweig above, the copyright term on a single frame of the film is tied to the death date of the cameraman, not the director. So, at least as far as German copyright is concerned, I can see no legal justification for Yann's attribution of this image to the director Hans Werckmeister as creator, or the application of a PD-old-70-expired license to it on the basis of Werckmeister's death in 1929. Yann, can you clarify your reasoning here? Now that I've seen the image, I would argue that the creator of the original three-dimensional artwork was Walter Riemann (died 1936), the art director and set designer of the film, and that this photo is a derivative work made by the cameraman, who may have been cinematographer Axel Graatkjaer (died 1969) or someone else. Since Riemann's work is now PD, this image may still be eligible for the Commons, but only if the cameraman died before 1953, or if PD-anon-70-EU is invoked. That, at any rate, is my understanding of the discussion so far. Crawdad Blues (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Fine, feel free to nominate it for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Aelita Queen of Mars.webm

Hi, What's the copyright status of this film? This is a Soviet film from 1924, but published in USA only in 1929. The director, Yakov Protazanov, died in 1945. Yann (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia and Template:PD-Russia/en seem to have the most up to date information (the other languages versions of the template are apparently outdated). As a film shown in cinemas before 1943, it's apparently out of copyright in Russia. As for the US: If that stipulation that pre-1943 films are in the PD in Russia is a consequence of Russia's 1993 copyright law, the film probably wasn't protected in Russia on the URAA date in 1996, and the URAA then didn't restore a US copyright. A subsisting copyrights check for Aelita at [4] also didn't bring up anything, and a search for Revolt of the Robots only turned up a 1966 screenplay, presumably for something else. So the film is probably in the PD both in Russia and the US. --Rosenzweig τ 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I added a {{PD-1996}} tag. There is a high resolution version on YT, which I will upload. Yann (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Unless in the 9th circuit, I think the 1928 line is taken to mean published anywhere. We would use the same thing for any URAA restorations. I think that was restored by the URAA, given the 4-year extension for people who worked during WWII, but should have expired again in 2020 -- the same wartime extension meant it possibly expired in Russia on the same day. For Russia, their 1993 law says the authors were the director, the author of the script, and the author of the music if created especially for the film. If it's silent, that may remove the music part (though some of those movies had music designed to be played by a live orchestra... wonder in the EU if that could be part of the term calculations, though it would not be a co-author as I read it for Russia if not actually in the file). If Protazanov wrote the script, I think the file is fine, though should not have been uploaded before 2020. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Then it will only be in the public domain next year? Yann (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia specifically says that films shown before 1943 are in the public domain in Russia, without making any references to authors, directors or other people attached to the films. The 4-year extensions are only for the pma copyrights attached to people I think. So the terms for any films after 1942 (50 years before the 1993 law) are probably based on the lifespan of the people involved, while those for films before 1943 are probably based on the year of release. At least that is what would make sense to me. I don't have much experience with Russian copyright law though, so I could be wrong. Alex Spade wrote that portion of COM:Russia, so probably he could tell what is correct. --Rosenzweig τ 22:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
OK. I did not see anything in their 1993 law which gave a shorter term for films, and they did explicitly name the co-authors of a film. So, I assumed those would be 54pma on the URAA date in 1996. But, I'm sure I missed a detail somewhere, and Alex Spade would know that far better than me -- I missed that point on the PD-Russia tag. So... would seem to be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, the 1993 law had a transitional clause: The copyright of legal persons which originated prior to the entry into force of the aforesaid Act shall cease upon the expiration of 50 years from the time of the rightful disclosure of a work or the creation of a work, where it has not been disclosed. That was extended to 70 years later on, but the 50 would have applied on the URAA date, with no wartime extensions. So this film would have expired long before the URAA date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
You are citing the sentence about the the copyright of legal persons (aka corporate copyright in legislation of some other countries), which is actual for old, but post-1929 films - see p.3(b) of PD-Russia (which is similar to p.4 - both of them are about the copyright of legal persons). Aelita is pre-1929 film - for it see p.3(a) of PD-Russia (which is similar to p.2(a) - both of them are about cases, where copyright term counts from publication date, not from author death). Alex Spade (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I've updated Template:PD-Russia/de. --Rosenzweig τ 23:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I retranslated Template:PD-Russia/fr from the English version, and translated Template:PD-Russia-1996/fr, which was never translated in French. Yann (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

New archive

Hi, I made a pic for one article, Can I simply upload and the license Commons starts to work or I have to register it in any way? Thank you. AntonioCyla (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@AntonioCyla: I'm sorry, but mostly what that question shows me is that you are very confused. "the license Commons starts to work" doesn't make any sense, and I can't even imagine what you are thinking about when you refer to "registering" it.
If the image is a photograph you took yourself, and it does not include anyone else's copyrighted work, just upload it as your own work, give it a license like {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} and it will be fine. If it is something else, please explain what the image is, and then someone can give you a more useful answer. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. AntonioCyla (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Once it is uploaded you can include it in the article. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

PD in Italy 70 PMA or not

Hello. I have marked this file File:Emblem of the Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria (Milan).jpg as unlicensed. This is a picture from a 1915-1919 fascist party card. The user started this discussion linking this template. I ask:

  1. ) What does published mean? Formally published in a register or simply made known to someone
  2. ) What does anonymous mean? That we don't know him because we didn't make enough researches or that the author's name is lost forever
  3. ) Is that template valid? Because I have seen many photos, taken in Italy before 1976, deleted. So I do not understand

Can anyone knowledgeable take part in the discussion, please? Thanks a lot. Kind regards. Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read COM:DR and COM:SD. This should be a regular deletion anyway. Yann (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Distributing copies to people is always publication. The definitions can get blurry for types of works which you don't make copies of, and can differ somewhat between countries. However, the anonymous term in the EU starts from the "making available to the public", which is different than pure "publication" in their definitions, and includes public display and broadcast. So the definition of publication rarely matters for the term, in the EU.
Anonymous is simply published (or made available) without naming a human author. It's true that it's not simply lost and now unknown, but if you can find the original publications and no author is named there, it's anonymous. If the author becomes known (or in some countries, they have to make themselves known) within the 70 years, it can move to 70pma. So if the real artist of that was known by the 1980s, it could be 70pma now. Otherwise, its copyright expired long ago.
"Simple" photos are 20 years in Italy. Artistic photos are 70pma. I think such things as studio portraits, where everything is under control of the photographer, are not "simple". I think carefully-composed landscape photos have also been ruled not simple. Also, works also need to be free in the U.S. to host here -- and simple photos from 1976 and later got restored by the URAA (since the 20 year term was still valid on the URAA date of 1996), so 1976 is really a more realistic limit for Italian photos here (not just current year - 20). There was also a time when we did not accept the PD-Italy tag, and photos got deleted then. So there could be lots of valid reasons why photos get deleted (and I'm sure some were deleted incorrectly, too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Photos generated from DALL-E

I have recently checked the DALL-E model and found it interesting to generate AI photos. However, I wonder that FOP (Freedom of Panorama) has effects across various countries, if someone utilizes DALL-E to produce AI-generated photos of buildings and scupltures, could they potentially encounter copyright issues?  A l p h a m a  Talk 13:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

My take: I doubt you could get in trouble for using DALL-E to generate the image, but you could presumably get in trouble for publishing it. (Just like you couldn't get in trouble for photographing a recent building in France, only for publishing that photo.) Someone who published could certainly encounter copyright issues in any country where the resulting image might be considered derivative work. E.g. an identifiable image of the Memorial of Rebirth in Bucharest or the pyramid entrance to the Louvre in Paris would presumably not be shielded from copyright because it was generated by AI. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
"AI-generated photos of buildings and sculptures" are almost always going to be either out of scope or copyright violations. If the building or sculpture is in the public domain or ineligible for copyright, freely licensed photos of it probably exist, so an AI-generated image is unlikely to have any educational use and is out of scope. If, on the other hand, it's protected by copyright, an AI-generated image is necessarily a derivative work which we cannot host. Omphalographer (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Universal Permissive License and Commons

I looked at the Open Source repository of Oracle, and found the UPL (Universal Permissive License). I didn't find a corresponding template on Commons. 1. Did I missed it and if not: 2. Does this license qualify to be used on Commons? OSI provides a page for the license here: https://opensource.org/license/upl/.

Greetings! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@PantheraLeo1359531: Is it every used for anything other than software? - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I assume it is only reserved for software, like GPL and others, and of course screenshots that show result of code, etc. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@PantheraLeo1359531: I guess if it is free enough and likely to be used, you could create a license tag. I can't imagine it will be used much. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I will think about it! I looked at the license on the Oracle website, and it sounds rather freely --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Also compatible with the GPL (https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/universal-permissive-license-added-to-license-list) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Mannequins cosplaying copyrighted characters with simple clothing designs

I was wondering the legal status of mannequins dressed as copyright-protected characters wearing "the kind of clothing that an ordinary person might wear on the street or on the job" per COM:COSPLAY (for example: Emmet Brickowski, Lois Griffin, Lincoln Loud, Dipper Pines and Steven Universe). May one illustrate copyrighted characters with simple outfits by using photos of mannequins cosplaying them? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@JohnCWiesenthal: I'm sorry: do you mean "mannequin" in the sense of a doll used to model clothing or a human modeling clothing? The word can mean either. Normally I'd guess the former, but "cosplay" suggests the latter. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
A doll modeling clothing, such as in department stores. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The question is how you get close enough to be useful without getting close enough to be a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
So, how close could one get to modeling the clothing of Mario or Indiana Jones without infringing copyright? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I post images received via FOIA?

I know copyright is by jurisdiction, but in cases where it's from a department of the Government of California (whose works are in the public domain), but are there any different circumstances for FOIAs? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: The details are covered by {{PD-CAGov}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
So a FOIA wouldn't be any different? I guessed it wouldn't but wasn't sure because it wasn't "published" prior to them giving it to me in most cases PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA: I don't think that's any different, but let's see what our experts say.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA: It doesn't matter if it's from a FOIA or not. What matters is whether or not it meets the conditions specified in {{PD-CAGov}}. Nosferattus (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Prensa Obrera

The license {{CC-AR-PrensaObrera}} is for images taken from the website Prensa Obrera ("Workers' Press"), a site managed by the Partido Obrero, a minor left-wing political party from Argentina. On first sight, it seems legit, the cc-by license is there at the bottom of the page. Problem is, if we check more closely, the site relies on license laundering, grabbing images from bigger and more reputable news pages and using and licensing them without attribution. Let's take a look on the images used today in the front page, January 11, 2024.

So, of all the images used in articles today, if I uploaded them with this license only a kitchen hob would survive a deletion discussion. I don't think this site can be trusted to be the author of the images it uses. Cambalachero (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

So: should we consider dropping that license (at least going forward) and blacklisting the site? Or what? - Jmabel ! talk 04:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Should probably start by reviewing the images in Category:Images by Prensa Obrera for potential copyvios. Omphalographer (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Would a 911 call (in California) be public domain?

I doubt I'd upload the file I'm thinking of anyway (it's interesting but I'm unsure if I'd want to use it in the relevant article) but would it be public domain in theory? Who would it belong to if not? (unrelated to FOIA question above, was released by news) PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably to the operator who recorded it. Since the operator will likely be a state employee then it follows that the recoding will be in public domain in California. Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

US Federal food photos

I'm looking at https://www.myplate.gov/eat-healthy/food-group-gallery and would love to have several of them for articles like w:en:DASH diet. https://www.usda.gov/policies-and-links says that of course Template:PD-USGov-USDA applies to most of the website. I don't see any indications to the contrary for these photos, but would someone else please check before I try to upload some of them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Just the images at the top? Those should be fine. If you meant something else, please be more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
No, the ones in the gallery itself. Click, e.g., on Fruits > Berries > Strawberries or Protein foods > Poultry > chicken. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I would think those are fine. It says, with reference to the copyrighted content on the site, "USDA with permission, and USDA has made every attempt to identify and clearly label them." These are not labeled, so it's reasonable to assume they are not copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to upload some of them soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
USDA Eat Healthy Food Group Gallery serving size small apple
Here's my first. Before I upload any more, would you please let me know if there's anything I should do differently? It'll be easier to get it right on the first try than to fix them all later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Only this. - Jmabel ! talk 07:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: 76% of the image is unnecessary whitespace.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I think they're using that white space to communicate that "one serving" is a small apple.
Thanks for providing a cropped version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Why is File:USDA_Eat_Healthy_Food_Group_Gallery_serving_size_small_apple.jpg out of focus? Yann (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe upscaled from a smaller version of the image (instead of making a new larger image from the photo)? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The source photo at [5] is out of focus to begin with. --Rosenzweig τ 16:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

International Court of Justice

The ICJ says on their website (https://www.icj-cij.org/media-services): "The Court produces videos and still pictures of all its public sittings and various official events. A presentation video is also available in a large number of languages. Such material is made available to the press, schools and universities free of charge for editorial use (copyrights exempt)."

I would like to upload these photos from this link https://www.icj-cij.org/multimedia/203403 of today's proceedings. They say "Photograph: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved".

Can I upload these, and if so under what license? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

No. (1) You can't make up a license. The copyright-holder has to offer the license. (2) This is sort of like when someone puts out a publicity still. They are saying "Go ahead and use it for the sort of thing it's meant for." But it presumably doesn't allow derivative works, and it's not clear whether commercial use would be allowed (e.g. an excerpt in a commercial film). - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
OK. Does anyone have any ideas where I might find public domain photos of the hearing? I know that a number of national news agencies release their photos into the public domain, but I cannot find a list? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile not free for two things: 1) we require files to be freely reusable even by commercial reusers, not just editorial purposes, and 2) the image you mentioned bears the "all rights reserved" note, presumably for the photographer mentioned. ARR are non-free for Commons' licensing requirments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Author for unpublished photographs

Apologies if this has been asked already, but say I upload some historical photographs that haven't been published anywhere before. Would I be the "author" or would the photographer? Also, would I put when they were originally taken or when I uploaded them to Commons in the date field? Or would the date of publication be whenever the person who sold them to me posted a picture of them on the internet? Adamant1 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, There is no reason for you to be the author. Best is mentioning the date when they were taken AND the date when they were published (now). Yann (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
If the person who sold them to you posted to the Internet, that is definitely publication.
Do you have the copyright to these images (and if so on what basis)? Or are they public domain (and if so on what basis)? Physical possession of the photos does not give you any right to publish. If someone were to acquire an envelope of photos I shot in the 1960s, they would not have a legal right to publish them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: They were taken in like 1904 and have been in a family album ever since. That is until I bought them as separate pages from the original owner, whom I assume was related to the original photographer. Regardless, I think they would be PD at least in the United States due to the age. So I'm mostly concerned with citing the proper information when I upload them. Since there's essentially zero risk of legal issues due to how old they are, but I don't want the description to be wrong either. Although I agree that there would probably be some with your example, but I guess that would depend on the country of origin and existence of a copyright notice. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: there's always {{Unknown photographer}} if you don't know anything more. Assuming you are using {{Infobox}}, the "date" field is normally the date depicted, but it is probably worth describing the situation at some length in the "permissions" field.
If these are actually unpublished 1904 works from the U.S., then they are just shy of entering the public domain. Under current U.S. copyright law, unpublished works enter the public domain 120 years after creation. Since that's always rounded to the end of the year, 1904 works would become PD on January 1, 2025. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Presence of a frame in the photograph of a 2D painting

Is the presence of the frame of a painting in a photograph (to be more specific, this one) enough to make it not qualify for {{PD-Art}}? I know it could be cropped, but I wanted to know if it was really necessary. The painting is from 1884 (according to the sources I could find) and the author died in 1952, for the record. Lugamo94 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The photo is CC-BY-SA so {{Licensed-PD}} format could work here. Abzeronow (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I searched in the archives, and I've found some previous discussions on this very matter (which I should have done earlier). It is definitely enough to make it not qualify for {{PD-Art}}, but, given that we have the permission of the copyright holder of photograph, the main question is to find if the frame itself meets the threshold of originality, which is a complex matter. Lugamo94 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about a frame

Does the frame in this picture meet the threshold of originality? I know that some frames were able to, hence the question. It could also be {{PD-old-auto}}, but I have no way to know that. There are not old pictures of that painting that I could find, especially with the frame included. --Lugamo94 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's not copyrightable. If someone were to manufacture an identical frame, I cannot imagine a successful copyright-based suit to prevent them. - Jmabel ! talk 05:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Jmabel. As the painting is from Argentina and both the painting and frame are in Argentina, it is a fair assumption that COM:TOO Argentina will apply to the frame. That says, "The creations are subject to a threshold of originality that distinguishes them from others by giving their personal imprint." In this case, I can't see anything in the frame that gives a personal imprint. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore @Jmabel Thanks, I will upload it then. Lugamo94 (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Land art installation copyright - Walter De Maria

If anyone has any knowledge on land art/copyright, could use your help! I uploaded this picture of Walter De Maria's art installation The New York Earth Room (1977), want to be sure I have the licensing/copyright details correct.

This art installation is a room filled with dirt in New York City, owned and stewarded by Dia Art Foundation. The owners imply that the work is copyrighted and the copyright is owned by the artist's estate. But obviously there are some pretty major issues with that claim, chiefly being that it is a room filled with loose dirt and does not meet the "fixed" standard to be copyrightable in the United States. The dirt is regularly replaced, and the only permanent "product" by the artist in the room is a small glass wall in the entryway. And there's no copyright registration.

a) Do we think that it's OK to move forward assuming the work is not in fact legally copyrighted, meaning freely licensed photographs of the work can be uploaded to Commons?

b) Is there any type of license/copyright tag that would be relevant here? As in, something that would acknowledge a claim of copyright but refute it? Or is that just overkill?

Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they don't say the work is copyrighted. The only claim of copyright I see anywhere there is for the photo, not for the work itself.
More of an issue for you, I would think, is that the page in question says, "Photography is not permitted." That probably means you violated the conditions of entry by taking (let alone publishing) this photo. That's not Commons' issue, and it's entirely your call how you want to handle that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I don't really care about their photo policies lol, I don't believe nonprofits should limit access to their collections unless it's for genuine safety/conservation reasons. And as you said, "house rules" on photography don't matter to Commons (the exception obviously being photos of identifiable people). There are lots of photos of the Sistine Chapel ceilings on here, after all.
But from my perspective, Dia does seem to be claiming that the work is copyrighted. Their brochure for the installation includes a copyright credit at the bottom which separates the photograph from the installation itself. It says "The New York Earth Room (detail), 1977. Installation view, 141 Wooster Street, New York, New York. © Estate of Walter De Maria. Photo: John Cliett"
They could be trying to fudge it a bit to make it appear that they're claiming copyright for the installation while giving enough wiggle room to not be declarative, but this is the standard format for including a copyright claim for a work of art. The photograph is essentially implied to be copyrighted by the artist/estate as well, but the copyright label in this format almost always applies to the work itself.
Edit/Addition: Should clarify that the reason I'm trying to be so specific here is to find the right way to format the file so it doesn't get brought up for deletion again and again because of such a clear copyright marking on the owner's website/brochure. It was already nominated for deletion like within hours of me uploading it. And apologies if I came off snarky re: the no photo policy. Didn't mean to be rude, thank you for your help. --19h00s (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Seems to me that claims copyright on the photo, not the installation. It doesn't say The New York Earth Room © Estate of Walter De Maria" or "The New York Earth Room, 1977. Installation, 141 Wooster Street, New York, New York. © Estate of Walter De Maria. Detail view: John Cliett." The copyright claim seems pretty clearly specific to the photo (at least that's how I read it). - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The image has been nominated for deletion. Discussion should continue there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Image of an old postcard (> 70 years old)

What is the situation with a photograph of an old postcard - where the original card does not state owner or publisher ? Charles.bowyer (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Then the author is anonymous, but the backside should be checked. Yann (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The copyright situation might be very different in different countries. Where is this? Also, when you say "does not state owner or publisher", have you been able to look at the back (since that is where this would normally be)? - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Street art and FOP in the US

Would the image of en:Guy Fieri in File:Portland, Oregon (July 26, 2022) - 008.jpg be considered copyrightable as a COM:DW per COM:FOP US or would it be treated as possibly COM:CB#Graffiti? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If it was legally painted, then it's not graffiti, and it would have a copyright. (The graffiti question is gray at best if illegally painted, but that has been our policy.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: It looks like this might've have been intentionally painted on the wall of the restaurant/food truck en:Viking Soul Food which was featured in a 2013 episode of Fieri's en:Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives. The photo seems to also show Fieri's signature next to his likeness. It doesn't seem to be a case of random graffiti, at least not to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
This might help: "Fieri spray paints a memento inside every restaurant in Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives" -Another Believer (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@Marchjuly I'd lean towards suppoeting its deletion. There are street art cases in the U.S. as proven by w:en:Freedom of panorama#United States. Majority of the cases were settled out of court, but presumably favoring artists. As there is doubtful freeness on U.S. graffiti like this, those files need to be deleted in accordance with COM:PCP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Has anyone tried to contact Guy Fieri about licensing photos of these murals?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I haven't tried, and I don't know whether anyone else has. I'm not sure how successful any such attempt would even be given that Fieri is a pretty well know celebrity and not just some "regular" person painting their likeness on the walls of restaurants. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

DM check requested

File:FBI exhibit - Joe Biggs in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.png was deleted IAW this discussion. That image was originally taken from File:US v Biggs - Affidavit in support of criminal complaint (redacted).pdf, a 16-page document containing seven medium-to-large non-free images. Would they qualify for {{De minimis}} tagging, or are they too much of the overall work? Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with de minimis. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Really? It's an overall public-domain work (a report written by an FBI agent) incorporating seven medium-to-large pieces of copyrighted content. That seems to be equivalent to the examples at COM:DM. I'm just asking for a check whether those copyrighted images are a substantial-enough burden on the PDF to render it unsuitable for our purposes here (as the images themselves, excised therefrom, are). Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, really. The notion cannot apply to that. The photos are included voluntarily in the document and are intended to be seen as part of it. It's not as if taking a photo and inadvertently a small part of a non-free statue happens to be far in the background. Not sure if DM could make sense at all in the context of a document. Maybe if a small corner of a kitten photo happened to be inadvertently photocopied on the side of a page. To the other question, the proportion of the document taken by the photos does not matter. If there is one non-free photo included with a 30-page free text, the photo cannot be hosted. It is different from trying to determine an acceptable proportion for an extract in fair use. But the document can be hosted with the non-free photos removed. It is not unusual. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Asclepias: could you explain what you are saying here? Fourthords's question seems to me to be very much on the mark. And, in any case we certainly could host a redacted form of the PDF with the photos removed (blacked out or something like). - Jmabel ! talk 22:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Going by your comment above, which you wrote after mine but for some reason chose to place above it: perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here. I agree that the images cannot be pulled out. They are copyrighted. But "It has nothing to do with de minimis (emphasis mine)? Clearly de minimis is exactly why we can host the document as a whole, and the fact that when you zero in on the individual image, you are taking precisely the copyrighted portion, so de minimis no longer applies. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
So we have to delete File:FBI exhibit - Joe Biggs in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.png because it's copyrighted, but we can instead keep hosting the exact same image (pixel-for-pixel) because it's contained on page thirteen of this PDF? Should we add the {{De minimis}}, in that case? Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
If you publish a 200-page book, you think you can, without permission, grab 20 non-free illustrations and photos from the internet and include them in your book and say "abracadabra, de minimis!"? That, without permission, it's not ok to use those non-free works outside a book but it's ok to use them in a book? That does not work. That has literally nothing to do with a notion of de minimis nor with a notion of incidental inclusion. It is just copyright violation. Unless in fair use or other exception (e.g. publication in judicial documents or whatever), but still not a matter of de minimis. (The 22:42 UTC comment is in reply to fourthords' 21:29 comment and therefore it is correctly positioned accordingly. Why did you position your 00:29 comment as if it were a reply to your own 22:05 comment?) -- Asclepias (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
"Why did you position your 00:29 comment as if it were a reply to your own 22:05 comment?" you had made enough of a hash of things by replying up-thread that there was no "normal" way to do this. Any placement at all would have had one problem or another at that point. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
"If you publish a 200-page book, you think you can, without permission, grab 20 non-free illustrations…" of course not. Conversely, if an entire copyrighted book is introduced into evidence in a trial, do you think it becomes PD on that basis? - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Then what exactly are you saying? Using 20 non-free images in a 200-page book is not ok, but Commons hosting a 16-page document with 7 non-free images is ok? The mystery thickens. You have not explained the rationale by which one might reach such a conclusion. What is that about a book into evidence? Can Commons host a non-free book if it was used as evidence? If not, then what? And what connection, if any, does that have with the file under discussion? The licensing of the file is that the text of the document is PD as a text written by an employee of the US government. That does not apply to the non-free images. How is it possible to extend the "freeness" to those 7 non-free images in a 16-page document? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The US government employees can insert non-free images under a fair use rationale in a document and publish it. The whole document is in the public domain, but not the images. This is the same rationale as freedom of panorama. We can host host pictures of non-free artworks if the law of the place allows that. It doesn't make the artworks free, and there are restrictions of what can be done with these artworks. Take for example File:007 new rail-tram-bus interchange.png: the permission from the map copyright holder is still needed to publish a copy, even if we can host this picture. Yann (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
We can host the whole documents, but we can't extract the pictures which are not in the public domain. That seems pretty clear. We already have had similar cases, i.e. court verdicts, etc. Yann (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

So, what I'm making sure of is: it's 100% a-okay for us to host File:FBI exhibit - Joe Biggs in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.png (previously deleted IAW this discussion) as long as its hidden within File:US v Biggs - Affidavit in support of criminal complaint (redacted).pdf? That's okie-dokie? Also, doesn't that mean I can just get around the deletion by invoking that PDF page in its stead ([[File:US v Biggs - Affidavit in support of criminal complaint (redacted).pdf|thumb|440px|page=13|Biggs inside the US Capitol on 6 January 2021]])? Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Fourthords: It depends what you do with it when "invoking" it. If you somehow insert it in a web page in such a manner that it displays just the image in question, then you are back to a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
So then we should add {{De minimis}}, lest yet another editor mistakenly extract the copyrighted materials within and reupload them here? Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Jim Davis' early work (Gnorm Gnat, Jon, Garfield)

I'm writing to about an issue that came up a few years ago, in September 2021. User:PseudoSkull had questions. I have answers!

Jim Davis is well-known for his comic strip Garfield. Before writing Garfield, Davis wrote another strip, Gnorm Gnat. Gnorm Gnat was not very successful, and was not picked up by any syndicate. It was only published in the Pendleton Times from 1973 to 1975. Davis followed up the strip with a new one called Jon, about a man named Jon Arbuckle and his cat, Garfield, beginning in 1976. The strip was renamed Garfield in 1977 and was published exclusively in the Times until February 1978, when it was picked up for syndication.

PsuedoSkull asked if the original comic strips were in the public domain due a lack of notice, asking:

  1. Did the original newspapers have a copyright notice?
  2. If the newspapers did have a notice, could the comics be in the public domain (if Davis had them placed as advertisements)?

I think that it's unlikely that the comics could be considered an "advertisement." The good news is that it doesn't matter! I checked the relevant issues of the Pendleton Times, which is available on newspapers.com (you can read it for free if you have a Wikipedia Library account). Except for the final Garfield (announcing that it had been picked up for syndication), none of the strips have a copyright notice, and there is in no case a copyright notice anywhere else for the paper as a whole.

All the Gnorm Gnat, Jon and Garfield strips published from 1973 to 1977 in the Times are PD-US-no notice, and the Garfield strips from early 1978 are PD-US-1978-89.

I have already uploaded all the Gnorm Gnat strips (see Category:Gnorm Gnat comic strips). I will shortly upload the Jon and Pendleton Garfield strips. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: Thanks so much for this! Great to see that this is finally being done (I've been meaning to do this myself, having gotten in touch with a review channel who revealed the comic strips for the first time in 2021 for the files). With Mickey Mouse being the hype of the month right now, I bet people will find it cute that Garfield is also a public-domain character (at least in his 1977-8 form). PseudoSkull (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploading now to Category:Jon (comic strip) and Category:Garfield (1977–78 comic strip).
However, I don't think it's accurate to say that the comics were "revealed for the first time [since the 1970s]" in 2021. As far as I'm aware, the Times issues were never lost. They were always in the local libraries and accessible to the public, and I suspect the complete back issues were already on newspapers.com for years (as they are now). It's just that nobody had bothered to really look (and take the time to write about them).
Please go ahead and update the appropriate pages/categorize the files as you see fit! D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:UnfoldTheUniverse

Background:

I believe that the images were uploaded with CC license to Flickr due to a mistake, which was later corrected. It is highly unlikely that NASA has legitimately acquired the rights to publish all the art, produced by hundreds of artist for this contest, under a CC license. As such, I believe that all art in Category:UnfoldTheUniverse should be deleted due to a copyright violation.

Just because there was a period of time when the Flickr pages for these images showed a CC license, doesn't mean that these files should be allowed on Commons. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Uhh, sorry. My fault. I uploaded the files using Flick2Commons and when I saw these images of drawings and models I also had my doubts about uploading them. If elimination is necessary, go ahead. Astromessier🪐 (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There was already a discussion about these files last year and I fully agreed they needed to be removed. I updated my bot to ignore them some months ago, I'm surprised to see that these files are still here. vip (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Don-vip, do you mean Commons:Deletion requests/File:-JWSTArt and -UnfoldTheUniverse Art - by Cassandra Li (53075839805).jpg or was there some other, wider discussion? —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes exactly! I thought all files would have been deleted through this DR. vip (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I had only nominated the one, and I hadn't done a deeper search on Commons for similar files. The licensing is on this page now, and it doesn't appear to grant the U.S.A. the ability to re-license the work to third parties. As such, images that depict this sort of artwork in a greater-than-de minimis way are going to need to be deleted for failing COM:L in light of PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
+1 --Achim55 (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a step to take before nominating possible copyvio for deletion?

I have noticed two files which taken from another site. The uploader has stated such publicly, and the wayback machine confirms the images were on the site before they were uploaded. I wasn't able to find any release of the files on the site, and the files are listed as {{Own}}. There are a couple of possibilities here:

  1. The uploader is the owner of the site, and they own the rights to the files.
  2. There is an image release somewhere on the site I could not find. The uploader was uploading based on this release and the uploader mistakenly tagged them as their own work during the upload process.
  3. The files are not freely available and the uploader has made an error in uploading it.

I am hesitant to nominate the files for deletion since only (3) would require deletion. (1) would require no remedy and (2) only correcting the attribution. I contacted the uploader about the issue but they have not responded and have since made a number of edits. Would it be appropriate to nominate for deletion? I don't believe whether or not the files ought to be deleted, and it seems like it would not be assuming good faith. Is there a different first step to take, or should I drop this entirely? AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@AquitaneHungerForce: It's really hard to answer this in the abstract, with no links to the files in question. No one answering you has a chance to look at the source site and see whether there is any license offered there, nor whether there may be some reason to believe (or doubt) that the uploader is associated with the site. If you want to raise an issue here, why conceal what you are talking about? - Jmabel ! talk 08:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying that the presenting the evidence to the Village pump would be the next step here? AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Just start a deletion discussion, that's what they're there for. Present your evidence there. Make sure everyone understands that you are uncertain as to whether the files actually need to go, and that you are starting the discussion in order to gain clarification and further opinions. El Grafo (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@AquitaneHungerForce: I'm saying that if you want other people's opinion on how best to proceed, it is a lot better to present us with a tangible case (by linking the files) than an abstraction. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Or, assuming the uploader is still active, you can contact them and ask questions. - Jmabel ! talk 08:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
As stated the user is active and I have contact them to ask. 9 days have elapsed since without a response, and with clear activity. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, you didn't say "9 days". For all I knew it could have been an hour. Yes, start a DR. Be clear that you are just raising the issue and don't know what the resolution will be, but there are things that need to be addressed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please, rev del this file.

To avoid possible COM:DW issue. File:U.S. Ambassador Brink and Howard G. Buffet, an American businessman, former politician, philanthropist, Kyiv, Ukraine on December 16, 2023.jpg Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Charles III official portrait

Cabinet Office released it's statement for the official portrait of King Charles III released for public authorities. I can assume licensing with {{OGL3}} and UK Crown bodies it could be compatible. Ferret-o-meter (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence of release under OGL at this time. They may choose to release the image under a free licence but I have yet to see it. There are some complicating factors in that UK Government works are often (but not always) released under OGL but Royal Household works are not. We will need to wait for more copyright information before identifying if we can upload here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone send a request for COM:VRT permission that apply from PA Images for King Charles III's photo? Ferret-o-meter (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. We can only involve COM:VRT if we know who the copyright holder is. Have you managed to confirm the copyright owner or are you guessing? From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Please contact the copyright owner Hugo Burnand/Royal Household 2024/Cabinet Office/PA Wire to get VRTS permission ({{Permission pending}}). Ferret-o-meter (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
First, which one is the copyright holder (or is it a joint copyright owned by all four)? Second, I'm not going to contact them for you - if you want to write to them yourself, that is your choice. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

PD-Turkey

Hi! I have been translating {{PD-Turkey/en}} and would ask for advice regarding the word 'owner' (particularly the fourth line about legal persons). Does this refer to the physical owner of the work or the creator/author? Should the text be rephrased by replacing 'owner' with 'author'? –TadejM (t/p) 15:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@TadejM: Probably author. See also en:Copyright law of Turkey.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I am also going to update the English version. --TadejM (t/p) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@TadejM: You're welcome. You forgot to ping me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm not used to constantly pinging participants in discussions. --TadejM (t/p) 12:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't need to ping anyone. Jeff G. can subscribe to this discussion if he wants to keep abreast if it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@TadejM: Since we got mw:Extension:Echo, standard practice here has been to ping anyone you reply to or mention. I like getting the pings and occasional user talk page messages, so I request them as a courtesy. I generally don't subscribe to topics on pages on my watchlist, as that's more of a headache than I would like. I can't subscribe to level 3 topics on m:srg because they're level 3, and no one will budge on that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

File:2023 11 14 - Yfirlitsmynd yfir varnargarða - fylgiskjal minnisblaðs.png

Hi, I have some doubt about the license of this file as this doesn't seem to be either "acts, regulations, administrative provisions, court rulings". And this is a derivative work of a satellite image. Opinions? Yann (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like a com:derivative work. Mhhossein talk 04:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I upload a screenshot of a tweet promoting Wiki Loves Monuments which only uses an image from Commons and a message

Hi all

I would like to upload a screenshot of this tweet by UNESCO which encourages people to enter Wiki Loves Monuments, the image used on it is from Commons

I assume there is no issue in doing this? Just want to double check (I wrote this tweet and some others when I worked there)

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, since Twitter may be throwing ads (etc.) onto any given screen I can't swear by what is in your screen shot, but as long as you indicate the source copyright status, and license of each copyrightable element, and you comply with any licensing (e.g. assuming that main image is not PD, there will be some consequence for the licensing of the screenshot as a derivative work), this should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 23:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much Jmabel I just wanted to make sure the text wasn't a problem, or there were specific rules for screenshots from social media. John Cummings (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The text there (at least what I saw) is way too generic for copyright. Depending what you get on your screen, we might have some cropping or blurring to do. - Jmabel ! talk 01:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Uploading pre-1929 photo with no date

I would like to upload this photo[6] from this webpage[7] of Homer Stryker as a child. The photo is undated; however, since Stryker was born in 1894, the picture was undoubtedly taken before 1929; however, the photo is also not 150 years old. Would this photo be acceptable to upload? Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Yann (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: Thank you! Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, not sure where you got 150 from, for most relevant purposes the period is 120 years, and that's clearly passed for this one. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Street art and FoP in Norway

Hello everyone,

I've recently uploaded this image of a mural in Norway. Would you say it is covered by Norwegian FoP, which does not apply "when the work is clearly the main motive"? What about the rest of the images in Norway's street art category?

Thank you for your inputs! Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I followed your link here hoping to understand what you meant by "motive" (an odd word in this context) and found that the word does not even appear on the linked page. I take it that you mean "when the work is clearly the main subject," a wording that does appear on the page. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that the mural is the main subject. If you eliminated it, the picture would not be of much interest. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
You're right, apologies. There seems to be a bit of an inconsistency here: the page I linked states "when the work is clearly the main subject", but the {{FoP-Norway}} template says instead "when the work is clearly the main motive". I agree that the latter is a bit odd, motif or subject would be clearer.
When I took the picture, capturing the mural was indeed my main intent. However, I don't agree that the picture would not have much interest without the mural, as I think there's some abstract merit in the composition and play of colours. I'm unsure though if that's enough for FoP to apply. Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@Julesvernex2 at best, edit to censor out the mural and upload it as a new file, and you can categorize it at Category:Censored by lack of FOP to show the effect of limited Norwegian FoP for distribution of public art images online under free licensing. The original file has to go. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Understood, I'll do that and start the deletion request process. Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
It’s a pity for such a nice photo, but probably unavoidable. – I have taken the liberty to update the English wording of {{FoP-Norway}} to use the term “subject”, too; the term “motive” was probably a false friend (in German and probably in other languages, “Motiv” is the normal word for the subject of an artwork).

FOTO'S STUUT

IK ZOU GRAAG IN CONTACT KOMEN MET DEGEEN DIE DE FOTO'S VAN sTUUT IN HET tROPENMUSEUM HEEFT GENOEMD. IK WEET NIET OF HET FOTO'S ZIJN DIE MIJN GROOTVADER, E.H. Stuut heeft gemaakt of een andere Stuut. Ik begrijp dat de mogelijke leverancier geen mail wil ontvangen maar wel wil reageren op een vraag op de site, maar ik heb geen idee hoe dat moet. kan iemand mij helpen? 2A02:A441:E0A7:1:862:7A0E:F977:C21A 19:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Google translate from Dutch: I WOULD LIKE TO CONTACT THE WHOSE PHOTOGRAPHS OF STUUT IN THE TROPENMUSEUM. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE PHOTOS THAT MY GRANDFATHER, E.H. Stuut or another Stuut. I understand that the potential supplier does not want to receive emails but does want to respond to a question on the site, but I have no idea how to do that. can anyone help me?
If you are wanting to know about a file stored on Wikimedia Commons, please post a link to the file. If you are asking about files stored on the museum's website, a link to the file on their website would also be useful. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The request seems to be related to these images: Category:Photographs by E.H. Stuut Julesvernex2 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I believe the OP is the same person who posted from a user account at the HD (reverted by Yann as a test) and at the main VP (in the Jan. 18 §). I recommend that further discussion take place in the latter thread, as it doesn‘t seem to be a copyright issue as such.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
When Odysseus1479 says "that latter thread" I assume he means COM:VP#photographs E.H. Stuut, overleden 24 november 1931. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly copyrighted image

Hello!File:Felixleeskzz.png is likely copyrighted. Noticed it after it was added to the English Wikipedia. After some reverse image searching, I was able to find the full version of the image (albeit, from Reddit), with a watermark for this company, MBC. I cannot speak Korean, so my search ends there, however I figured it's best to bring it to the attention of admins here. Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a red carpet photograph, so there will be multiple versions and authors. In this case, the Reddit link you provided (to a gallery of multiple images) includes one of the same moment and angle as uploaded here. I have marked it as a copyvio for speedy deletion but someone may prefer to switch to a regular deletion discussion to cover the slim possibility that this was from a different camera in almost exactly the same position that captured the exact same moment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright notice Q - Art exhibition catalogues/publications

Question re: copyright notice formalities for published works of art in the US. If a pre-1977 work was published for the first time in a catalogue for an exhibition, does there need to be a separate copyright notice for the individual work, in order for the copyright to have been correctly established? Obviously a copyright marking for the publisher covers most original content in the publication, but would that also the art reproduced in the book?

Specifically I'm thinking about Méret Oppenheim's Object (1936). It was first published in the United States in the Museum of Modern Art's catalogue for the exhibition Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism (1936-1937). The catalogue is available online mostly in whole. The book itself has a copyright notice for the Museum of Modern Art trustees from the year it was published, as well as a 2017 copyright notice from their digital upload. But there are no additional copyright markings or rights credits for individual works. Would the overall copyright marking cover the individual works, and if so, how would copyright ownership be established there if MoMA technically claimed the copyright for these individual works?

Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Any takers? 19h00s (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly restricted?

I am currently working on an article on Wikipedia and was wondering if these files are ok to upload. The description says that they are "Possibly Restricted - Some or all of this material may be restricted by copyright or other intellectual property rights restrictions", but wouldn't the files fall under PD-USGov as the films are taken by US servicemen?

Also, one clip from Reel 12 in particular is also featured here where the film is posted as being public domain (check around 7:26 on Reel 12 and around 0:57 on the other film for comparing the two clips). Alin2808 (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

An update since I didn't receive any replies, I've also found this report for the mission which states that the newsreel movies were taken by the the 1st Combat Camera Unit. Alin2808 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png

Hi, This file was undeleted as per this request, but there is a disagreement about its copyright status. There are more requests on COM:UDR#Various professional wrestling logos. More opinions needed. Yann (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I renominated this file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png. Yann (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

WW1 Propaganda Posters

I recently came across some references to https://www.ww1propaganda.com/ which seems to be no longer online, but can be accessed through archive.org. I thought that all these posters could be a good addition to Wikimedia Commons. The copyright side of this should also be not a problem since it's all WW1 propaganda posters which should all be in {{PD-old}}.
My question now is if this is consensus for most people here (or if there will be a DR within the first five minutes after being uploded) --D-Kuru (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If these are European propaganda posters, then the author of the poster would have needed to have died before 1954, and there are definitely cases of German propaganda poster creators living to 1954 and beyond. So death dates of authors has to be checked before uploading here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I assume You'd also have to account for the URAA along with the normal term, which I assume probably wouldn't have lapsed yet or whatever when the copyrights were restored by it in a lot of cases. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
These are all from the 1910s. They are definitely public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Yup. As Abzeronow indicates, U.S. law is not a factor here, because these were published before 1929. If you can establish an author having died before 1954, that puts you in good stead in most European countries; also, for some countries, anonymous or collective works only get 70 years from publication, so those would be good as well where applicable. - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
My bad. I stand corrected. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, interesting, but they have a proeminent watermark, and the first one is already on Commons, copied from the LoC. They are probably better sources for these posters. Yann (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Source url deleted

The only source url of File:Kenkichi Tomimoto and Shinichi Sasagawa, circa 1917-1918.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto (right) with unknown, circa 1917.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto, his family and his mother in front of his workshop, 1918.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto in front of his house, circa 1918.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto (left) with unknown, circa 1917.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto and his family, end of 1917.jpg is cancelled from internet. Can you delete them since they haven't another source now? Nanafuji (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have amended your comment to convert file names to links. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I have denied deletion, as there is no valid reason for that. Yann (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I see Nanafuji has been blocked. However, for reference of other editors, I have added an archive link to the source from WayBackMachine. All files above came from the same source document. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Just because sources go away, does not mean deletion. If we have verified the license, or the license does not depend on the source (such as in this case and most other PD licenses), they are fine. We shouldn't upload files in the first place if keeping them was dependent on their continued existence elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please, rev del these 3 files.

To avoid COM:DW issue.

  1. File:British Ambassador to the United States hosts the premiere of The Boys in the Boat in Washington, D.C.on December 14, 2023 - 1.jpg
  2. File:British Ambassador to the United States hosts the premiere of The Boys in the Boat in Washington, D.C.on December 14, 2023 - 2.jpg
  3. File:British Ambassador to the United States hosts the premiere of The Boys in the Boat in Washington, D.C.on December 14, 2023 - 3.jpg

Thanks you, -- Ooligan (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

AntiCompositeBot

A message by y AntiCompositeBot advised me to ask here about File:Msc.Can.3 0008.jpg. The image is not in copyright, and I think the information is both complete and consistent, but all help is welcome as the bot sounded like deletion was likely nonetheless. CRolker (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@CRolker: It is finally complete 13 months after upload. Please be more careful. The bot does not withdraw posts.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thanks for the prompt reply! what exactely caused the problem? My guess what that the relevant tag {{PD-Art-100}} was required twice, so I added it. It's very useful to have such bots, but it would be even better if they gave hints as to what the problem was. atb CRolker (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@CRolker: Are "valid copyright tag" in special:diff/716218907 and "our basic licensing policy" in special:diff/293048073 not enough?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
For me, it was not clear; I thought that the {{PD-Art-100}} tag I inserted 18 Dec 2022 would be enough, so at first I was confused what was wrong with it. But again, no offense: you do help the project, and more experienced users than me would probably not have been confused. All well. CRolker (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@CRolker: That insertion was 3h33m after the post in special:diff/716218907.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

help with copyright identification, for Wikisource

confused and new to this, just don't want to get anything wrong.

I got a PDF of The Retreat by Samuel Tuke (1813) from Wellcome Collections and as I am in the process of uploading it I can't figure out the exact license to answer with upon being asked for that information in Step 1 of the Release Rights section. The only information provided by Wellcome Collections is "Works in this archive created by or for The Retreat, York are available under a CC-BY-NC license" which isn't very specific. many thanks in advance. ScooterDooter (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Photos / Screenshots from the "Apache" recording of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster

Hey everyone, I'm bringing up this photo hosted on the Commons in particular: "ColumbiaFLIR2003.png", which is a frame from this source video on YouTube, posted back in 2008. I wanted to make this image the infobox photo for the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster page on Wikipedia, as it depicts the most historically significant and memorable part of this tragedy. However, from prior mentions on Wikipedia talk pages and in the Commons' Village Pump, there's concerns about its "freeness" to use on Wikipedia and other sites, specifically because the helicopter's camera was operated by a foreign crew, either Danish (as per the CAIB Report Vol. 1), or Dutch (as per YouTube and Reddit comments and "public knowledge", as well as an unsourced article on the aviationist.com). Still frames from the original Apache recording were used and presented in the CAIB report Vol. 1 and 3 (published in August 2003), the Columbia Crew Survival Investigation report (2008), and the Loss of Signal Aeromedical Investigation Report (2014). All three of these are NASA documents authored by government employees, and none of them mention a linkable source for the original Apache video, besides that it was a military source coming from a helicopter, which is public knowledge. Something else to note is that the YouTube video where the Commons image comes from is clearly edited, specifically at the end with the slow-motion and increased zoom at the end.

So given all of the above, and previous discussions / context, is this photo, ColumbiaFLIR2003.png free-to-use or not? If it is free, should anything be changed to its Commons description to make that more clear? If it isn't free, it probably should be removed from the Commons, and if that happens, I should be able to use this photo or a similar one of the re-entry in the article under free-use, since there would be no freer options available. SpacePod9 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Kylesenior, Prosfilaes, LPfi, and Carl Lindberg as commenters in that section and UnderworldCircle as uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I see this was previously discussed a few years back at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07#Footage_taken_by_Netherlands_military_pilot,_using_US_equipment,_on_training_in_US? PascalHD (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think my opinion has changed. Any editing of the video was mostly like by US government employees. It may well qualify as a work for hire under U.S. law, making it PD-USGov anyways. I doubt we'd ever know for certain unless a lawsuit was filed and the details of the contracts were spelled out and judged on. To me, this falls into the "theoretical doubt" area, well below the COM:PRP threshold. It's probably fine, and near certain to never find out for sure. I'd vote keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I doubt that USA military would allow a foreign trainee to retain any copyright over such (very sensitive) images. There must be a clause buried in their contracts where they agree to relinquish any claims to copyright. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I am afraid I don't have anything to add to it. I never got any more details on it and I am not familiar enough with the law. Kylesenior (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The description and the licensing don't match. The description says it's the product of "two RNLAF (Royal Netherlands Air Force) pilots", while the license says it's "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government". Either the description needs to be corrected, the license needs to be changed. Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
PD-USGov is also for works which are effectively "works for hire" of the U.S. federal government. Not directly in the legal text, but the legislative comments say that. It's just that there is a wide range of government contracts, and many of them would not fit under "work for hire". If U.S. personnel were directing activities though, this one probably does. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's a quote from the book Bringing Columbia Home: The Untold Story, authored by Michael D. Leinbach (the KSC Launch Director for STS-107) and Jonathan H. Ward, the former I believe is who is narrating here. Pages 158-159, "The pilot of an Apache helicopter, who was returning to Fort Hood from a night training mission when Columbia broke up, recorded a particularly important video. Seeing unusual streaks in the sky ahead of him, the pilot trained his targeting cameras on the smoke trails. Realizing later that he had witnessed Columbia's disintegration, he personally drove the tape to Barksdale and played it for Dave Whittle and our leadership team. The tape itself was classified, but he allowed us to record portions of the video showing the breakup. In the same book, an annotated frame from that recording (which is identical to the below photo from page 1-76 of the Crew Survival Report) is credited as a "NASA photo" (9 pages before p. 139). Presumably the recorded video the NASA team obtained was then made public and ended up on the internet that way. But now I've got a question for @Carl Lindberg, would the annotated photos in the Crew Survival Report qualify for PD-USGov because they were presumably annotated by US Government employees, even if the original classified video came from a foreign crew, presumably Danish or Dutch? SpacePod9 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@SpacePod9: I'm guessing the "allowed" was because its U.S. government owner normally classifies footage from those cameras, but that particular footage was of course a different situation. I don't think that statement had anything to do with copyright ownership (though if classified and kept by the U.S., it would be another argument that it is PD-USGov). Any annotations would be PD-USGov, though much of the time those probably don't have enough originality to create a copyright. The photographic copyright would be unchanged by adding annotations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

History of Hindu–Arabic numerals images are almost certainly copyright violation

The image File:Evolution of Hindu-Arabic numerals.jpg is a very lightly modified version of a diagram from Karl Menninger's book Number Words and Number Symbols (1969), page 418, originally published in German (1934) as Zahlwort und Ziffer. This is a very clear copyright violation, though the author user:Hu741f4 claimed this as their own cc-by-sa licensed work.

A couple other images are almost certainly also copyright violation: File:Numeration-brahmi fr.png is translated into French, and according to the image description got the numeral images from Datta and Singh (1935) History of Hindu Mathematics which according to w:History of Hindu Mathematics and IA is in the public domain (I am not sure if that is accurate; the copyright page of these scans says "all rights reserved"). I can't immediately tell if this is true and the uploader user:Piero remade the image, or if this was also just scanned from Menninger then overwritten with translated labels, but either way this diagram is too closely based on Menninger's diagram to not be a clear-cut derivative work, and it's especially shady that there's no attribution to Menninger. This was then translated back into English as File:The_Brahmi_numeral_system_and_its_descendants.png by user:Tobus. Again Menninger is not credited, and this one has a description page which no longer makes any claims about where the glyph images come from.

It would be nice if someone would redraw an image that is not such a blatant ripoff. The wide use of these images across Wikimedia projects testifies to their importance. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 23:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Not obvious to me that there is anything copyrightable there. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The precise layout, labels, and content of a diagram are assuredly copyrightable. The generic idea of drawing a tree is not copyrightable. So if you take the raw data for the chart (collection of re-drawn glyph shapes, historical connections between sets of numerals) and then hand it to someone who never looked at the original and ask them to draw a new diagram, what you end up with is going to look substantially different from the original, and should be free and clear. But just directly duplicating someone else's diagram without attribution is (a) very likely copyright infringement, and (b) unethical plagiarism. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 08:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
No, these are not original enough to get a copyright. These are factual descriptions, and only a few words. Yann (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you @Jmabel or @Yann a copyright lawyer/expert, or just laypeople speculating based on personal desires? My somewhat experienced layperson's understanding is that the "factual description" part is not copyrightable, but the choices made in the diagram (how to lay out the numbers, how to lay out the boxes, the choice of labels, the precise choice of examples to use, the specific drawings of the numerals, the choice to put a vertical divider between 1–5 and 6–0, the style of the arrows, etc. isn't something you can just copy wholesale and then pass off as your own original work. It's extremely unlikely that someone will sue Wikimedia in this case, since it's an 89-year-old diagram by an author who has been dead for 60 years, which has been widely copied in the mean time, but that's a different question than whether the work is copyrightable or not. But it also shouldn't be hard for someone to draw a new better diagram, especially anyone willing to do some additional research to find better examples; I'd recommend e.g. using colorful backgrounds instead of solid boxes, arranging the numerals in 2 rows for each set, adding a couple of other examples of further evolution of the Sanskrit numerals to make the diagram less Eurocentric, etc. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jacobolus: I'm not a copyright lawyer, and in my experience there are probably a dozen, maybe two dozen, people on Commons who are more expert than me on copyright (most notably Carl who replies below), but I'm certainly more than routinely knowledgeable. I don't particularly feel like rattling off credentials and history here, but since you raise the subject: are you a lawyer, and if so in what country, and do you have any particular specialization in copyright? - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
No I am not a lawyer, that's why I say "my layperson's understanding". I'm not trying to be passive aggressive. Copyright law is just somewhat tricky. I think Wikimedia should err on the conservative side, absent specific legal advice. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 21:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The 1934 original appears to be here, on page 233 of Zahlwort und Ziffer. Our graphic is pretty clearly a copy (using the same exact glyph drawings) with the Shang numerals added at the top. Our image was copied directly from here (same faded lines on the top box), an article called The Evolution of Mathematics in Ancient China by Frank Swetz, on page 31 of a book called Mathematics: People, Problems, Results edited by Douglas M Campbell and John C. Higgins of Brigham Young University (each article had a different author, dozens of them). It was published in 1984 and has a copyright notice by "Wadsworth, Inc.". The article says If one views a popular schematic of the evolution of numeration and places the Chinese system in the appropriate chronological position, an interesting hypothesis arises, namely that the numeration system commonly used in the modern world had its origins 34 centuries ago in Shang China! (and no further credit that I see). So, the Shang element at the top was an addition by that author, with the rest a direct copy. Unsure if it was (and is) considered a "popular schematic" such that it was commonly copied and considered general property, or not eligible for copyright in the first place, or only because the original book was probably public domain in the United States at the time.
It was obviously copied. But, none of the numerals or labels would have a U.S. copyright. It would come down to "selection and arrangement". They are arranged chronologically, which is not original, and vertically, also not really original either. The placement of the East/West Arabic, bit more likely but extremely thin. The choice of which ones to include, the "selection" part, may have a bit more merit (especially the ones at the bottom). It's not all that many elements though. Certainly the original upload, with an "own work" claim which was clearly a scan, and with no credits or context, is bad. It would be an extremely thin copyright, protecting mostly exact copying, with almost any other variation not being derivative. And it's possible this diagram was routinely copied. Still, it rubs me the wrong way that we have an exact scan from still-copyrighted works, where there is a slight question of copyright, when it would be rather easy to make an original representation showing the same idea, or copy a similar comparison from an out-of-copyright work such as this or here or I'm sure many more (those cite some others). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Popeye cartoons under character copyright?

We have quite a few Popeye cartoons that presumably were not renewed in their own right, but due to Commons:Character copyrights, shouldn't these be under perpetual copyright? Popeye's first appearance was in a 1929 comic, which presumably is PD next year, and his first appearance in film was in a 1933 Betty Boop cartoon which I believe was renewed. Although I doubt his appearance in either matched his appearance and likeness in 1936 and beyond, so I think it's safer to undelete them later than 2025...

Here's the ones I could find that probably need to be assessed based on similarities to previous likenesses of Popeye:

@Yann: How do you make one to nominate several at a time? SnowyCinema (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@SnowyCinema: Hi, and welcome. Please see Mass deletion request (manual tagging for standard deletion of a mass of files), which links to VisualFileChange AKA VFC (semiautomatic tagging and other operations for 1 or more files).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to add to this. I did some research on Popeye about a month ago, and it seems like his status is a bit more in-flux than assumed.
It seems he was first introduced in a weekly comic strip entitled Thimble Theatre, which was published in The New York Journal. However, I could only find one renewal for Thimble Theatre from 1956-1958, the 27-29 year range from 1929. This renewal is for a 1930 contribution. Additionally, I did a more broad search through the logs for "king features syndicate" which the copyright is attributed to, and I found no renewals for a 1929 work. Again this was only for 1930.
The original strip from a publication in a syndicated newspaper does feature a copyright notice physically, but without a registration he might never have been under copyright at all.
As for his shorts, the first cartoon was produced in 1933. That short was renewed in 1961. So honestly, I would consider the cartoon Popeye to be a derivative of the 1931 short. So those later shorts should be held off until at least 2027 when the short will be public domain. @Yann@SnowyCinema@Jeff G. SDudley (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Ambigious PD-animal situation

These photos were taken by the rats pushing the button on the bottom of the frame, making them arguably PD-animal. However, in the only precedent I know of (the monkey selfie, of course) the situation was far less engineered than this one. Lignier picked the camera angle, not the rats, and the box was specifically designed to get the rats to take these pictures. There's also no precedent at all in France. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't strictly matter whether or not there is precedent in France — both because of how the French legal system works, and because Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States, not France. (Compare PD-Art and, in effect, PD-algorithm.)
Anyway, I do not think there is any human authorship here. The entire content of the images is determined by the rat positioning itself and pressing the button at a time not determined by the human. The presence of the button at the bottom is not enough to put human authorship in the image. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This could be interesting. Per court cases the copyrightable aspects are generally the framing of the camera, possibly the posing, maybe the lighting, maybe the timing, and other effects under control of the photographer. Who presses the shutter does not necessarily matter. But, most of those aren't done by a human here. A human did set the camera framing, but it's pointing straight at a blank wall -- might be a non-created framing and positioning given the rest of the setup. Humans did set up the lighting. A bit different than the monkey selfies, where the camera was also held by the animal so there could be no claim of framing (and it was natural lighting outdoors). Not sure authorship could be claimed here either, but it's a tiny bit closer than the monkey selfies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Town Meeting TV

Recently I was reviewing from the YouTube channel of Town Meeting TV, a public broadcaster, and although the videos have the CC-BY 3.0 license when reading the description of a video I found the following text:

This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

It is also present on other random videos from the same channel that I opened. Their official website http://www.cctv.org has on the footer also the CC-BY-NC-SA symbol. I guess they selected the "Creative commons" license in YouTube assuming they could pick any of the CC licenses. As there are a lot of images involved I would like to ask for opinions before opening a DR. Günther Frager (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The licenses are both valid. The videos are available under both CC BY 3.0 unported and CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Yes, they're mostly redundant, but there is no valid reason to delete these items. We can acknowledge the additional license offered in addition to the CC BY license. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Copy Rights

Good Morning I am trying to find out what we need to just show the dvd Patch Adams at our booth at a health and wellness shows in Wisconsin. My boss has the DVD and would like to show it but do not know if we need anything to say we have the right to play it. I would apricate if someone can help me. Thank You Dawn DawnTurnKey (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Not something we can really help with, as it's outside our control.
That said, something like that DVD will be the publisher's copyright and you will need their permission to either watch it yourself, to show it 'publicly' (as here) or to hire it out like Blockbuster used to. If you read the small print on the DVD, it will usually tell you. Typically this includes the right to watch it privately (they'd not sell many otherwise), clearly prohibits rental for reward, but the rules for a free showing in a space that somewhere between private and public will be complicated and you're going to have to read that particular disc's licence statement. I'm afraid that's as much anyone outside the publisher can really tell you, speaking generically. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
In the US, the first sale doctrine gives you the right to watch it privately or rent it (Blockbuster just had to buy normal DVDs in the US), but showing it publicly is going to cost an extra penny; I've heard that they sent a bill of $300 for a PTA to entertain kids with The Lion King while running a fundraiser for their parents. MPLC looks to be a good bet in the US for proper commercial licensing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

How does Google Images determine the copyright status?

Google Images allows users to filter for images available under a Creative Commons license. But how does it determine the copyright status of the image?

For example, this page showed up when I applied the Creative Commons filter to my search results. However, the page in question does not seem to mention any sort of free license. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If you click on each article, you'll find links to the source of the image, and all three are under a free license. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh I see. I was searching for "Creative Commons" on the page. It seems Google checks for image attribution and follows any links to their sources. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Swedish FoP

Hi all,

As a representative of Wikimedia Sverige, I've had the opportunity to participate in a public inquiry convened by the Swedish government, to review and propose modernizations of the exceptions and limitations within Swedish copyright law. Such inquiries are the first step of the Swedish legislative process. One of the key areas under review is the freedom of panorama provision, and today, the proposal was handed over to the Minister for Justice. The proposal is available here.

The proposal contains several aspects beneficial to the Wikimedia movement. However, one significant obstacle remains with regards to freedom of panorama (regrettably, I'm not the sole representative involved in the inquiry… :/ ). While we intend to keep advocating to eliminate this obstacle throughout the political process, I'm eager to hear your thoughts, and particularly your arguments that could be employed to continue the fight within the parliament.

The proposal permits the use of all kinds of works permanently placed on or next to public spaces for reproduction through any means, including 3D digitization. It specifically highlights that Wikimedia platforms should be allowed to organize and structure databases of public art, such as the Offentligkonst.se project that Wikimedia Sverige managed.

Nevertheless, the proposal is restricted for some cases of "förvärvssyfte," a Swedish legal term that should be understood as using something to make financial gain. That is, the provision prohibits the reproduction of works permanently placed on or next to public spaces for financial gain, similar to the Danish and Norwegian Freedom of Panorama provisions. Presently, Danish and Norwegian Freedom of Panorama is not accepted on Wikimedia Commons.

The proposal acknowledges that all commercial uses are not excluded, permitting both businesses and private individuals to use these works, even for commercial purposes, as long as financial gain is not the general purpose. Determining the threshold for financial gain is obviously challenging, but the committee report submitted to the government emphasizes that this restriction is vital to adhere to the 3-step test.

Several Swedish lawyers I've consulted with are perplexed by how Wikimedia Commons can allow Belgian public art but not Danish and Norwegian. The Belgian provision replicates the second step of the 3-step test verbatim, which according to these lawyers also should effectively prohibit economic exploitation of such works. One lawyer even saw the Belgian provision, with the wording from the 3-step test, could be more restrictive than restriction for "förvärvssyfte".

I'm keen to hear your views on whether restrictions for "financial gain" are incompatible with Wikimedia Commons and CC BY-SA. If so, what distinguishes such restrictions from reproducing the second step of the 3-step test in the law? And perhaps further, how we can allow FoP works at all, when all exceptions and limitations, at least in EU law, are restricted by the 3 step test?

Any thoughts and input here will be extremely valuable as the process continues. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your message. Could you please explain, or link to an explanation about, the 3 steps you mention. Yann (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Of course, I thought I linked it! This is the English Wikipedia article on the 3 step test and here you find EU version. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Eric Luth (WMSE) regarding Belgian FoP, the latest version no longer contains what you said. For proof, see here. You may use Google Translate to translate Article XI.190 (2/1°). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Basically, the current Belgian FoP wording has removed the three-step test-like wording, making it compatible with free culture and commercial licenses such as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-zero, and PD. I have some reservation that too much adhering to three-step test may result to Sweden being one-step backward in terms of free appreciation and enjoyment of Swedish public monuments by anyone for any purposes. The Spanish FoP was almost revoked here because of two Court rulings that treated the three-step test as a restriction to commercial reuses of Spanish public monuments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @JWilz12345, this is very helpful. Do you have a link to the discussion on Spanish FoP? What I don't really understand in that regard is how the Commons community views the 3 step test in general? I mean, all EU countries are bound by the 3 step test in the Infosoc directive? Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Eric Luth (WMSE) it is at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#NO-FOP in Spain?. MarcoAurelio gave some insight regarding the Spanish FoP and the Three-Step test issue.
The application of Three-Step Test here is somehow controversial. This is because it can lead to courts ruling that all non-commercial uses are not allowed, directly conflicting COM:Licensing that is anchored on the Definition of Free Cultural Works, in which commercial uses should not be forbidden by law. This free cultural works definition is what essentially supports the mission of Wikimedia Commons of providing freely-licensed content that anyone in the world can be freely reused, not bound for copyright restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and for the links @JWilz12345, it is a very interesting read from @MarcoAurelio. I think that Marco Aurelio's wording under commercial use of media here is similar to what the lawyers referred to in their comments on Belgian FoP: that the second step of the 3-step test (especially the version in the InfoSoc directive (art. 5.5)) could be understood as very restrictive when it comes to commercial reuse, whereas the Swedish proposal outlines several ways in which commercial use would be completely legal, even though all commercial uses are not (depending on the purpose).
I am very well aware of Wikimedia Commons mission! But I suppose that my main question here is how to find room, given that all EU countries are bound by the 3-step test, for "enough" commercial use according to CC BY-SA, while still being compatible with the 3-step test? Providing such thoughts from the Commons community would be very valuable in my attempts to broaden the proposal and guarantee, to the extent possible, that the law ends up being compatible with CC BY-SA. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Eric Luth (WMSE) take note, the law should also comply to two most liberal licenses too: CC-zero and PD. Users may share images under {{CC-zero}} or {{PD-user}}. The law should not restrict any commercial uses that are permitted by these two most liberal free-culture licensing. If not, then the future Swedish FoP becomes incompatible. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Noted, but what would the difference be? Are there any differences in what commercial uses are allowed under CC BY-SA, CC BY and CC0?
The discussion whether CC0 is compatible with EU law is of course another story… Still, there is no proposal to add an attribution requirement in the exception, and definitely nothing amounting to to SA. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the FoP to be proposed should not prohibit the following free uses: post cards, calendars, tourism souvenir items, travel websites or travel portals, stamps, TV and Internet advertisements, commercial vlogs on YouTube or TikTok, and website development (if the websites are commercial; that is, they are supported by advertisments). Of course, unreasonable use is not allowed, just like German FoP's prohibition to alter or edit the image (to the point it no longer resembles the work seen as it is found by the Wikimedia/Flickr/500px/Pexels/Unsplash photographer) and Dutch FoP/Brazilian FoP's prohibition to edit out surrounding elements like the ground and the sky. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for this very concrete list. It helps a lot! But can you clarify how the prohibitions for altering or editing the image restricts commercial use?
In the proposal, it is allowed to use the artworks in any way (including everything you mention) but not for any purpose. Would your view be that everything on this list would need to be allowed freely (edit: that is, for any purpose)? In that case, do you have any thoughts on the compatibility of e.g. TV advertisements and the 3-step test? Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Eric Luth (WMSE) for both of your questions, I think I may call here three people who have sufficient familiariy on FoP: @Abzeronow, Clindberg, and Rosenzweig: . Anyway, other users should participate here, not just two of us with Nemo and Jeff G.. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for adding them here! I agree, it would be very useful to have a broad view from the community on these issues, for everyone I hope but for me in the legislative process that will follow in Sweden. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I generally agree with Rosenzweig's interpretation below, if Sweden explicitly has a noncommercial-only FoP, then we should regard Sweden as similar to their neighbors Denmark, Finland and Norway. I'll watch this discussion but I don't have much to add since I'm not a lawyer. Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The proposal is not a non-commercial only FoP, but an FoP with some restrictions on commercial reuse (when it is done for "financial gain"). I will of course try to broaden this proposal in the legislative process but I am trying to figure out if it is a matter of degree rather than kind before reaching a proposal that Wikimedia Commons would accept. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. "Financial gain" is nebulous sounding, but if legally interpreted as a non-copyright restriction like personality rights, I believe it could something workable for Commons. Hopefully WMF provides the necessary legal support to this. Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
For altering/modifying part, I think such acts damage the integrity of the artwork and may lead to artist filing lawsuit against the reuser. Of course it is more on moral rights but we generally respect restrictions to editing notwithstanding the demands of the free-culture CC licenses, and non-invasive edits like non-substantial cropping are tolerated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


(edit conflict) It's a reference to the w:en:Berne three-step test. The three-step test is problematic (it should never be enshrined into law), but it's also a kind no-op provision because it's required by the InfoSoc directive for all copyright exceptions anyway, and it would probably be harmonized by the CJEU where needed.
Eric, can you clarify whether a definition exists in law for "förvärvssyfte", whether case law exists for it, and how it would be interpreted in cross-border situations? Nemo 14:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
But more importantly, if those lawyers think the "förvärvssyfte" restriction is less restrictive than the three-step test, then they should advise to not add such a restriction at all in the law, given it would be redundant with article 5(5) of directive 2001/29/EC. Nemo 14:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no legal definition, but there is a lengthy paragraph in the constitutional commentaries. I can try to translate the relevant paragraphs, would that help?
In general, Swedish legislators tend to want to make sure that implemented laws already fulfill the 3 step test, so that users don't need to know the details of this abstract principle. So the idea from the lawmaker would be that a "translation" of the second step of the 3 step test in a Swedish implementation would be to restrict the exception with this "förvärvssyfte". Do you have any good ideas for arguments against that? My main argument is that it makes it much harder for a global movement, since all national or language based definitions make it much harder to understand laws across borders. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Has any court enforced the three-step test enshrined into law? If not, could we safely ignore it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Jeff G. Yes, Wikimedia Sverige lost a court case in the Supreme Court on Freedom of Panorama, where the supreme court says that courts have to apply the 3 step test when judging individual cases of use based on limitations and exceptions to copyright. But I don't think that any EU country can ignore the 3 step test? I see that Portugal, Poland, Czechia and Croatia, for example, all have implemented 3 step test verbatim in national law, but Wikimedia Commons still accept FoP from these countries. Do you know of any discussions on this here on Commons (that is, the compatibility of 3 step test and commercial FoP?). Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Here's the court case for reference, but unfortunately in Swedish: https://www.domstol.se/hogsta-domstolen/avgoranden/2016/36003/ Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Eric Luth (WMSE): Thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that each country can determine the "legitimate interests" of authors in their law. I think clearly the Berne Convention prohibits these copyright exceptions from allowing an outright copy -- a sculpture of a sculpture, or a photo of a photo or painting (cropped to the original) -- which would compete directly in the marketplace. But beyond that, countries may have a fair bit of latitude. For example, in the U.S., in USC 17 120 they explicitly define the scope of architectural copyright as not including pictorial representations of any building located in a public place. So, such photos are not part of the architectural copyright's "legitimate interests". There is no such provision for sculpture, but that may simply be a U.S. choice based on their situation with past "norms" on what people expect to be able to do, and not criminalizing them (given that the U.S. had no real architectural copyright at all before joining Berne and such photos were common). The U.S. though explicitly does not consider the text of the Berne Convention to be legally binding, while many other countries do (ones which permit self-executing treaties).
The way I have looked at it is that many countries have decided that in exchange for the notoriety and publicity coming from public (or maybe private) authorities choosing their work to be permanently in public, there is a certain limitation of rights which comes with that -- such authors should not gain rights over pictures of the public area as a result, really. I would think that any FoP provision would be limited to its depiction as seen in public; if you crop away or otherwise remove the public context then it would be more of a straight copy or "normal" derivative work which would indeed prejudice the normal interests in a work, if it had not been in public. Outside of that, countries seem to have latitude on how they treat them -- some disallow photos where a sculpture is the main subject (just allowing photos of the wider scene, similar to "incidental" inclusion) or disallow only commercial use, while others allow both -- at that point, that type of photo would seem to not be part of the "legitimate interests" of the underlying author. So to me, it's a matter of what a country's legislature and/or courts deems "right" or "wrong" for themselves. We would need to follow that per-country, of course. Ambiguous phrases like that tend to be interpreted different country to country (and even court case to court case), so not surprising to me there are disagreements. But I think it's within a country's right (such as the U.S. with architectural works) to define "legitimate" in some of these edge conditions. It may be considered a way to not dramatically increase an author's rights they gain by having it in public, really -- photos of a private sculpture are not going to happen nearly as often, or give artists nearly as many opportunities to file lawsuits, as numerous photos of a public work do. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I guess it's really a matter of how the limitations to FOP are interpreted and handled in each country. If commercial uses of FOP are generally denied by high-level courts because of the three-step test mentioned, I think we should disallow FOP images from those countries so that we can still comply with our free media only requirements. For Spain that was not really the case (if I remember it correctly) because there were only two cases from lower courts, at least that's how I interpreted it. I don't know about the situation in the countries that were mentioned (Portugal, Poland, Czechia and Croatia), I hope courts there don't interpret FOP in that way. If Sweden explicitly disallows some commercial uses right in the law, we might have to treat Sweden like Finland, Norway, Iceland and Denmark - FOP not applicable as far as Wikimedia Commons is concerned. --Rosenzweig τ 21:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Eric Luth (WMSE) both Rosenzweig and Abzeronow are right. Commons can only accept freely-licensed content. For me, commercial purpose and financial gain are just the same, no matter how Swedish lawyers and legislators try to differentiate both. A post card publisher that sells their post cards earns, so their commercial activity involves financial gain. Similarly, for-profit website developers who use images gain profit by embedding or adding advertisements. The same is true for travel portal websites. It is not logical to differentiate commercial purpose and financial gain.
If the restricted FoP pushes through and becomes part of the law, then we have no choice but no longer accept Swedish landmarks/monuments designed by architects and/or artists who died less than 70 years ago, depending on the outcome if the restriction applies only to sculptures/murals or extends also to architecture. It is also worth knowing if the restrictions are retroactive or not. In the case of Vietnam, they restricted FoP to non-profit or non-commercial use only by 2023, so new uploads from January 1, 2023 onwards are no longer allowed. Older uploads before 2023 are retained because the law is not retroactive. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
If I understood the limitations correctly it is more like limitations in the use of photos with people. Basically personality rights for buildings. If the limitations are the same we should also accept these photos. GPSLeo (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I must say @JWilz12345 that I disagree with your interpretation that commercial use and purpuse of financial gain is the same, and especially if the Swedish legislature by law differentiates between the two of them. The issue here is if a prohibition of purpose of financial gain still leaves enough commercial room. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Eric Luth (WMSE) you didn't specify what are the so-called acts of financial gain that are to be prohibited by the proposed change to Swedish FoP? Are those copyright-related or non-copyright related (like trademarks, personality rights, museum use restrictions, et cetera)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for these comments. Do I read you correctly, @Rosenzweig, that a FoP legislation needs to allow all commercial uses for FoP images to be allowed on Wikimedia Commons?
I'd like to reiterate here that I don't think that this is an issue of national courts in our case but the EU court and the mentioned InfoSoc directive. It would be interesting if someone could clarify how a fully commercial FoP provision would be compatible with the second step of the 3-step test in its InfoSoc version? Arguments along these lines would be very useful in the legislative process. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Eric Luth (WMSE): Per Commons:Licensing “Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. ” Therfore I don't see how anything that explicitly forbids some commercial uses can be acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 11:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
For curiousity @Rosenzweig, how do you read that in relation to restrictions due to trademark law? Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Just take a look at Commons:Licensing. The very next sentence there says “The use may however be restricted by issues not related to copyright, though, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and the license may demand some special measures.” --Rosenzweig τ 12:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
But if only content that can be used by anyone, anytime for any purpose is allowed, how come that Belgian FoP images were allowed when the 3-step test was part of the Belgian law? Or why are e.g. Polish FoP images allowed, that explicitly restrict purposes (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland#Freedom of panorama)? Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be good if WMEU could create a professional legal evaluation of this question. GPSLeo (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The InfoSoc directive is pretty much the same wording as Berne -- do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder. So what is a "normal exploitation" and what are "legitimate interests"? Those terms are not defined. For one example, there was the case described at de:Hundertwasserentscheidung -- that was a photo of a copyrighted building in Austria, taken from a private apartment across the street, and sold as a poster. Selling the poster was legal in Austria, but not in Germany which required such photos to be taken from a public place. If the three-step test was interpreted as not allowing commercial use at all, then the Austrian law is invalid. That seems to be a different dividing line on "legitimate interests" -- for Germany viewpoints of a building that everyone can see should not be part of the "legitimate interests" of the architect for making money. In Austria, any viewpoint of a public building would seem to not be part of their "legitimate interests". So each country seems to be able to define that for themselves. If the act of putting something in public dramatically increases an author's chances to make money, to the detriment of many other people, it may well make some sense to put some limits on that. I'm not sure that many court cases examine that three-step test wording in particular as they will usually go by the wording in the country's law, but the Hugenholtz and Okediji interpretation mentioned on the Wikipedia article seems way off to me. Obviously, you can't allow something that amounts to a copy -- that definitely interferes with the "normal exploitation" of the original work, before it became public. Beyond that, there is lots of gray area.
As for "commercial use", that can be a tortured term. As Commons uses it, it is strictly in relation to copyright -- things like trademark and publicity rights are considered non-copyright restrictions and are treated differently (it just has to be legal for Wikimedia to host the image, without worrying about how some uses may violate those other laws). So prohibiting "commercial use" in a trademark context is fine; that has a completely different meaning despite being the same words. Our question is if a possible commercial use (i.e. one that makes money in some way) could result in copyright infringement particularly. With photos of course, there is gray area there -- we allow de minimis inclusion of copyrighted works. If you crop an image to the copyrighted object, that ceases to be de minimis and would not be allowed. Same if something is "incidentally" included, like the Louvre pyramid in a photo of the entire Louvre plaza. So our policies have some leeway and interpretation. The question is more, is there a possible use of the photo exactly as uploaded, which could result in a copyright violation, per the copyright law, simply due to its commercial nature. If selling postcards of a photo of a sculpture or building is OK, it would seem to be fine. Moral rights are also considered non-copyright restrictions; we are more about the economic right in particular. I don't completely understand the limitation that Sweden is contemplating, and if that could result in a violation of copyright specifically or some other Swedish law (a very different situation for us). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
There are several differences between the 3-step test in the InfoSoc Directive and the Berne Convention – the context differs, where the former closes an exhaustive list of accepted limitations, and it also explicitly concerns applications of the limitations in the article and thus does not work as a general interpretation principle such as in Berne. This turns the InfoSoc 3-step test into a rather special version of the 3-step test. But you are right that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has not defined 'normal exploitation' and 'legitimate interests', giving some leeway for national interpretation (until the CJEU harmonizes these concept). My understanding is that the Swedish proposal perfectly allows users to add a CC BY or CC BY-SA license on reproductions of FoP artwork (as the proposal does not prohibit commercial use) but that does of course not mean that Wikimedia Commons accepts such FoP images. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think GPSLeo's formulation of "Basically personality rights for buildings" is on the mark. We're going to have to see where the courts actually draw this line. For example, we certainly accept that in the U.S. a photo of a person cannot be used to imply an endorsement they didn't make, and hence cannot be used in an advertisement without their permission. As far as I can tell, the same also goes for the use of someone's image on trading cards. It seems to me that if this turns out to be something like that, we should probably accept it on that precedent. I'm going to guess (though this is only a guess) that it will turn out to be fine to use these in any "normal" way in a book, magazine, website, etc., and that all that will be excluded will be directly monetizing the image as such, and I bet even a lot of cases of that will be tolerated. It's going to be interesting to see what they say about postcards, for example, or selling such an image as a stock photo. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel (also ping @Rosenzweig and Clindberg: here) will this have a bearing on our treatment on Norwegian and Finnish FoP for monuments? @Eric Luth (WMSE): basically says that the proposed Swedish FoP would be more or less similar to Norwegian and Finnish FoP here. But Eric may need to clarify if the Norwegian and Finnish FoP do allow commercial use of public monuments just like what Swedish lawyers claim (this is per what Eric said: "Several Swedish lawyers I've consulted with are perplexed by how Wikimedia Commons can allow Belgian public art but not Danish and Norwegian.") And again, the restrictive three-step test style in the Belgian FoP has been removed in the current version of the law, so the use of Belgian FoP here as an example is now moot. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I think we have taken Norway's law to mean you can't sell a postcard if the sculpture is the main subject of the photo. It's OK if it's part of a wider scene, but we typically allow that type of picture anywhere as I don't think we have been shown a court case from any country which has ruled a photo like that an infringing derivative work. Finland is pretty much the same -- buildings OK, sculpture not, with the same qualification. That would still be an improvement on the current situation in Sweden, where it's clouded by that court case. Non-commercial use where the statue is the main subject is fine without permission, so it would be legal for Wikimedia to host. If that is the distinction -- photos where the sculpture is the primary subject versus photos which included it as part of the scene -- then no change. I'm only going by the English translations though which may miss nuances in the original language. If there is an implication that the "for gain" or "used commercially" in Finland/Norway's laws more refers to using it in advertisements only as a form of publicity rights, then less sure -- but if using it in advertisements is a copyright violation of the economic right as a derivative work, with the full penalties which come with it, still not sure it would be OK as that is a restriction based on copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all for these insightful comments. This conversation is helpful to me, and for the continued legislative process.
I am not an expert on the Danish, Norwegian and Finnish provisions, so I don't know exactly to what extent they allow commercial use. It would require looking into court cases and legal commentaries from the respective countries. There is an extensive amount of court cases in Sweden that tries to establish the scope of "purpose of financial gain", and from what I understand from the lawyers I am talking with, courts have tended to limit the scope, meaning that more and more commercial uses are seen as falling outside it. I initially proposed that "marketing purpose" would be better from our perspective, but was advised that in contrast, courts have tended to widen the scope of "marketing purpose", meaning that marketing can be pretty much anything, the result being that Sweden would likely end up with a more restrictive limitation if it used "marketing purpose" rather than "purpose of financial gain".
I think you are right @Clindberg that this is a question of nuances, which is difficult to transfer between languages (and to English). What I am trying to understand is if there is a way in which a restriction of "purpose of financial gain" can still be compatible with Wikimedia policies. If there is, I am optimistic that we can get improvements in the political process to that end. If the Wikimedia Commons community, on the other hand, is convinced that there is no such way, then we would need to initiate a political campaign for a completely different proposal, which is perhaps less likely to be achieved and with the risk of losing other potential improvements as per above. So it is somewhat of a strategic choice here to be made. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
It's important to mention too that this restriction does not apply to buildings, like in other Nordic countries. Buildings are completely free to reproduce (according to the proposal). Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Eric Luth (WMSE) I hope for the successful endeavors of your Wikimedia chapter. The ball is now on the legislation of Sweden if the proposal would continue to classify Sweden as a yes-FoP country for permanent outdoor works or not (yellow in map, meaning only architecture is allowed).
But just a note, not all Nordic countries. Iceland, which is a Nordic country too, severely restricts anything. Even buildings there cannot be freely distributed under commercial-type Creative Commons licenses or PD-user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
That is very good for buildings, which is by far the most aggravating part of FoP when it comes to deletions here. But if there is any other restriction on sculpture (other than say attribution type stuff), enforced via copyright law, it still may not be "free" -- as the law would clearly be treating the two types of works differently for a reason, and there are different allowed scopes. If a law does not distinguish between types of work, we generally assume that it applies the same way to *all* types -- so if there is no FoP, that applies to architecture too since there isn't anything explicit in Berne which treats them differently (and which the case in Germany showed is in fact possible). I don't recall anything in the EU directives treating them differently either. So if a country has the right to make photos of buildings completely free to reproduce, they should have the same right for photos of public sculpture if they so choose. It's certainly a valid choice to not 100% allow sculptures (the U.S. does the same thing). If there is no way to get the conditions on sculpture the same as what is currently proposed for buildings, then it may not be worth it to fight. Using a term which is defined more narrowly by the courts will help practical usage in Sweden -- which is probably more important -- even if it doesn't attain our theoretical "free" threshold. And given that Finland and Norway have similar criteria, it seems understandable the sense of "right" and "wrong" would be the same in Sweden, too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Eric Luth (WMSE): an important question is the retroactivity of the proposed changes in Swedish FoP for sculptural monuments (if ever passed). If not retroactive, the restrictions only cover future uploads from the date of effectivity of the proposed revision of the copyright law; but if retroactive, then the restrictions also cover all existing uploads of copyrighted Swedish public monuments here, from around 2002 (the beginnings of Wikipedia, if the files were later transferred here to Commons) up to the date a day before the proposed revision to the law became effective. See, for example, COM:CRT/Eswatini. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Giuseppe Castiglione painting A Hundred Horses

A mid 1750s Qing Dynasty treasure, 12 picture folio of 3' x 25' scroll painting scanned by me and reassembled. My version is much improved from the one in the artist's wiki. I have several resolutions available and would like to know what is preferred and how to donate it. Dave42Hasse (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dave42Hasse: Hi, and welcome. Please see COM:HR re resolutions. Artwork from the mid 1750s Qing Dynasty should be PD. You are welcome to upload (and to improve en:Giuseppe Castiglione (Jesuit painter)#Style and techniques and similar sections), but please do not overwrite File:A Hundred Steeds.jpg per COM:OW (although you may copy from the file description page and link the two images). Any donation has to comply with COM:L.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting licenses?

If someone's userpage says that all their images are available under CC-BY-SA, and then subsequently they add that none of their images can be used for commercial purposes, but "CC-BY-SA" is still on there, which license takes precedence?

And if it's the latter, do we need to delete all the images they've uploaded since adding the 'no commercial use' statement to their userpage? DS (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Neuroforever: Please explain.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Is this a hypothetical, or are we talking about a particular user? Presumably, someone cannot retract an irrevocable license they have already issued by writing something on their user page. Otherwise, any user could trigger the removal of all of their original work from Commons by making a note on their user page. - Jmabel 20:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned, it's user:Neuroforever, who last edited 7 weeks ago, and who uploaded +1800 high-quality images of ancient artifacts after making his statement of "no commercial use". Do those all need to go? DS (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Noting DS also alerted the user in question User talk:Neuroforever#Commercial use. DMacks (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Anything submitted under a CC BY-SA license is still valid, notwithstanding any contrary conditions offered by the uploader on other pages. As the license itself says:

For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License.

Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

PD-old-70 and Cc-pd-mark-footer

From Template_talk:Cc-pd-mark-footer#PD-old-70

{{PD-old-70}} includes the well-known requirement You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. It has long been a requirement that a tag like {{PD-US-expired}} must be added in addition, or else material is subject to deletion despite being PD in its home country (and for once, without involving URAA).

Yet {{PD-old-70}} also includes {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}} https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ which places such content into Category:CC-PD-Mark. Yes, they're both PD. But their semantics are different.

So is that requirement no longer in force? Is {{PD-old-70}} alone sufficient? Either the template message should be revised, or {{PD-old-70}} should not imply {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}}, or at the very least we need to stop doing DRs for either missing a {{PD-US-expired}} or for {{PD-US-expired}} being later than 1929.

File:Avenue de Stalingrad with railroad bridge near Place Lamartine, Arles PK-F-EAB.2005.jpg as an example. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing that since most PD-old-70 files are also PD in the US, that mark was added in preference to not adding it at all for those files, as there is no easy way within a template to find out if another US template also exists, and many files only have that tag for better or worse. The policy has not changed, but adding PD-mark is probably just an expedient as being "more correct than not", without a better solution being available. And really, the file would be PD in most of the world, which is what that mark is for -- our policy for keeping a file is PD in the US and in the country of origin, but that is not necessarily the same policy when it comes to adding PD-mark. And in fact, files we do keep per that policy may well still be under copyright in many other countries besides the two we look at, so as always you need to look at your own country's laws to see if a work is actually PD there even if it has that mark (or other PD tags). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Andy Warhol's films

Hi, I wonder what is the copyright status of Andy Warhol's films, i.e. File:Kiss (1963) by Andy Warhol.webm. I think most of them do not have a copyright notice, but were they published? Some of them were shown to a large audience, but what's the limit? (Kiss was shown as small TV-sized projections at the entrance lobby to the third New York Film Festival held at Lincoln Center.) See also en:Andy Warhol#Filmography. Yann (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I known nothing about the legalities here, but do be aware that the Warhol Foundation area roughly as litigious as Disney, so with anything about Warhol makes sure you are standing on very solid ground. - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Yann I think you need to delete this. Exhibition under the 1909 act is performance, not publication. The number of people who saw a film is not relevant to copyright status. Films became published because they were offered to theaters (that is, copies were offered to someone for distribution). If they were published (offered to theaters) without a notice, then they entered the public domain. A film that was shown to a large audience, but which never had its copies distributed, is not published.
A pre-1978 work would only have a statutory copyright (subject to the renewal requirement in 1963 and earlier) if registered with the copyright office. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
There is some info on this page, and court rulings on this page, about publication in motion pictures. That also mentions the first Compendium, which stated: Publication of a motion picture is generally deemed to have taken place when prints of the film are placed on sale, sold, distributed to the public, or distributed to film exchanges, film distributors, exhibitors, or broadcasters under a lease or similar arrangement. [...] Mere public exhibition or performance is not generally regarded as publication of a motion picture. They give some examples either way. It's not the size of the audience (broadcasting over TV wouldn't be publication either), it's more when copies left his control. By the above, not sure it was officially published. Was it registered for copyright, and if so what did they give as a publication date? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Registered 1990 (PAu001359108); no publication date given. 1963 is given as the date of creation. Unless you have evidence that it was distributed without a notice (during the time period when that was still required), it can't be here. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, and when will it be in the public domain? Yann (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The "u" in the "PAu" prefix indicates it was registered as an unpublished work. A work created before 1978 but which was unpublished as of 1978 has a term of 70pma, so undelete in 2058. (There is a minimum term until 2048 if it was actually published between 1978 and 2002, but that's moot because 70pma is longer.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, deleted, and added in Category:Undelete in 2058. Thanks for the links above. I added one in Commons:Publication. Yann (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Aba-liga.com

This website says Legal notice: ABA League, in cooperation with its clubs, grants access to a number of photos from ABA League games, as well as some additional events, linked to the competition. These images are high resolution and downloadable directly from the the photo galleries. They are free to use for editorial purposes. Please, make sure to credit the authors of the photos with the source, signed beneath each photo in order to avoid undesirable legal consequences. Does this mean images from there are suitable for Wikimedia Commons? Radun Balšić (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

[8] --Radun Balšić (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Radun Balšić: No. "free to use for editorial purposes" is not a general license allowing derivative works and commercial use. - Jmabel ! talk 17:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Claire Mathieu

A picture of Claire Mathieu is here (bottom of the page) : https://www.irif.fr/users/claire/index

It is written "Libre de droit" (Copyright free).

It can be useful for this wikipedia article : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Mathieu

So, is it possible to add it to Wikimedia Commons ? Dubdub (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I would reach out to the institution or photographer first, who is named in the statement. It is better to confirm the copyright status than to assume it. PascalHD (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
"Libre de droit" perhaps is better translated as "royalty-free." That is a type of license, bjt we shouls really get a more specific and permissive license. "Libre de droit" doesn't necessarily imply the right to make derivative works. Can we send an email asking for CC BY-SA, CC BY or CC Zero to be applied? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Public domain?

Edward Ayearst Reeves via Getty Images, also available from [9]. BhamBoi (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In the US, almost certainly not, if actually taken in 1930. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Reproductions of 2D Public Domain Works in Germany

I recently stumbled across some scans of drawings of Alexandrian archaeological sites done by August Thiersch on a website from the Technical University Munich. August Thiersch died in 1917 so the original drawings are definitely in the public domain in Germany. However, the website lists the scans as being CC BY-NC-ND. Now, it's my understanding that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works are themselves not copyrightable under German law but I'm by no means an expert on the subject. I e-mailed the website admins about it and they pretty much ignored my question in their reply and simply restated that the images were subject to the licence listed on the website. Was hoping that either someone with more knowledge of German copyright law could chime in or that someone in a different jurisdiction (like the US, where these would absolutely be public domain) could upload some of these for me?

These are some of the works in question:

Not-A-Kitty (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You are right, as the author died more then 70 years ago, the images are in PD in Germany. Do you happen to know when these drawings were published? If these were published before 1929, the images are also in PD in the USA and you can use {{PD-US-expired}} when uploading the files to Commons. Ellywa (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
If they were published before 1964 and there was no renewal, or before March 1989 without following US notice requirements, they'd also be PD-US. Works from Germany by an author who died in 1917 aren't URAA-eligible. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@Not-A-Kitty: The three paintings appear to be preliminary proofs of illustrations for a work that may or may not have been published at the time. Do you know if they were actually published in any form before they appeared on the website of the Technical University of Munich? If not, that's a problem, because there is an additional publication right in Germany, separate from the original creator's copyright. The first publisher of an unpublished work (as long as that work had previously fallen out of copyright, as was the case here) gets 25 additional years of protection. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Related_rights and en:Publication right. So if the university library first published them on its website in 2015 (for example), they hold the publication right, the NC license is binding, and the images would not be eligible for uploading to the Commons until 2040. That, at any rate, is how I understand the current law. Choliamb (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, binding in Germany, anyway. However, a few considerations.
  • If first published online, we should just apply US rules (per our practice for simultaneously-published works). See Template:Simultaneous US publication. A work first published online, which is accessible to US internet users, is first published in the US (and simultaneously in other countries), even if the author wasn't and the publisher isn't American.
  • In Germany, this work would be considered in the public domain (that is, its copyright has expired), but protected by a related right (which is technically separate). Should we reject works protected by related rights but not by the copyright (which can only vest in the originator and heirs)?
  • Also, if the work is redistributable in Germany under a non-free (NC) license, but actually free in the US (being in the public domain), could that be fine to post?
In any case, the US copyright status is as follows, according to the actual date of first publication. This is relevant for English Wikipedia, at the very least, even if the work is not accepted by Commons due to the community rules.
  • 1928 or earlier: definitely PD-US-expired
  • 1928–1963: potentially PD-US-not renewed + PD-URAA (if no US-form notice+renewal)
  • 1964–1977: potentially PD-US-no notice (if no US-form notice)
  • 1978–1989: potentially PD-US-1978-89 (if no US-form notice and no use of curing provision)
  • 1989–2002: copyrighted in the US until 2048
  • 2003 or later: PD-US-unpublished
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! It took me a bit to research whether they'd been published before but at least some of them appear to have been published in 1904 in a book called "Zwei antike Grabanlagen bei Alexandria. Untersucht und beschrieben" by Hermann Thiersch. I have not been able to find a digital copy of the book (even though it, too, should be in the public domain by now) but some of the illustrations can be seen in this listing of a physical copy: https://antiquarisch.de/giaq/article/42609675-aegypten-aegyptologie-alexandria-thiersch-hermann-zwei-antike-grabanlagen-bei-alexandria#
I would need to find a digital copy to ascertain which specific illustrations were part of the publication, though. From photos in this and oher online listings of the book, I know that at least the following ones are included:
https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065643
https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065646
https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065645
http://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065644
Although in all these cases the published versions have been altered/cleaned up compared to the TUM scans (pencil notes and scribbles around the sides have been removed in the book versions). Also, in some cases there appear to be at least two separate versions of the same illustration that look almost identical at first glance but are definitely separate drawings/paintings as there are subtle differences in the linework, etc. Thus, since Thiersch was apparently very good at creating what are essentially carbon copies of his own work, it's theoretically possible that some of the illustrations that were published in 1904 are not the exact ones that the TUM uploaded here. (But I believe the ones I listed are - the only real differences I can spot in these are the removed scribbles around the edges and the colours having faded a bit over the last century. The question then would be whether these scribbles showing up for the first time in the TUM scans counts as its own original publication or whether it'd still be considered the same work published in 1904.)
In any case, perhaps the safest route would be to find a digital copy of "Zwei antike Grabanlagen bei Alexandria. Untersucht und beschrieben" and take the illustrations from that. That way I'll know for sure that I'm dealing with the published version and I'll also get copies with the original colours rather than the faded ones of the TUM scans. Not-A-Kitty (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, of course, I would succeed in finding it just after submitting. If anyone else is interested: https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/thiersch1904/0029/image,info Not-A-Kitty (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The TUM website entries seem to imply that some of the almost identical copies are prints which, I guess, he then drew and painted over. For example, this is apparently the original drawing of the Sidi Gaber cross section: http://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065638
The image quality is markedly better than the book scan (not least since the latter is a print with the usual printing artefacts) so it would be ideal if I could use this but like I said, I'm not sure whether the changes made for the book version mean that the TUM publication is technically the first publication or not. Not-A-Kitty (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
These are not distinct works of authorship from one another. They are different copies of the same work of authorship. You can upload either. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Another possibility for U.S. public domain: any images that were not published as of the end of 2002 would also be public domain in the U.S., because then p.m.a.+708 would apply under current U.S. copyright law. (If you don't follow that, look for "2003 or later" in the Hirtle chart.) - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Advise on uploading on someone's else work

Hi, Recently, I noticed a major change to the uploading template on Commons, and I've been struggling with uploading someone's work, although I've gotten permission to do so. Previously, we used to add "{{OTRS Pending}}" to notify the community about this type of upload. Unfortunately, I don't know where to apply the template now. Can someone help me? Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Olaniyan Olushola: I'm not sure what you mean by "uploading template". What tool are you using to upload? Special:UploadWizard or something else?
Please see Template:PP for the correct way to mark a file for VRT (formerly OTRS).
This can to pretty much anywhere on the file page; at the top is ideal. If you can't work out how to do it with the uploading tool, you can always add it by editing the file page immediately after upload. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Yes, i used the Special:UploadWizard. Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@Olaniyan Olushola: I don't much use the Wizard. But, as I say, once you upload, if it didn't produce quite what you intended you can just go in and edit. Again, please see Template:PP for the correct way to mark a file for VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 21:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Frederick Murray Trotter

I did a quick Google search for an image of Frederick Murray Trotter after seeing him on the front page of Wikipedia, and have found this image of him here, but I'm not sure of whether it's in the public domain or not. Presumably, if it depicts him in 1927, it should be in the public domain at least in the US, no? I'm sorry, I'm not very well versed in the public domain. Pineappman (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The main relevant factor for the US is when the image was published, not when it was taken. If it was published in 1928 or earlier, then it's in the public domain in the US. If it was only published afterwards, then it depends on when it was first published (and some other factors).
You can upload to Commons if the image is in the public domain in the country of origin (probably the UK) and the US. You can upload to English Wikipedia if it's in the public domain in the US even if it isn't in the country of origin.
Note that if the image is under Crown Copyright in the UK, then different rules apply. If you can find an image of Trotter which was created by the UK government, then it is in the public domain (if published over 50 years ago, or created before June 30, 1957). See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. This applies worldwide and any expired UK government work can be uploaded on Commons.
If you can't find a photo that is a government work, then here's how you determine the status. You may need to know the year of publication (different from the year the photo was taken). You also may need to know if the photo was first published in the US (which includes any instance where it was first published in both the UK and US). However, we can say that in all likelihood we can assume any photo wasn't first published in the US, so I'll give the rules for determining status in the US under this assumption.
  1. First published in 1928 or earlier?
    • Yes
      • {{PD-US-expired}}
    • No
      • Continue
  2. First published in 1929–1963?
    • Yes
      1. Is there a valid copyright notice and a renewal in the US Catalog of Copyright Entries?
        • Yes
          • Not PD-US until 95 years after publication
        • No
          • Continue
      2. Was it in the public domain in the UK on January 1, 1996?
        • Yes
          • {{PD-URAA}}
        • No
          • Not PD-US until 95 years after publication
    • No
      • Continue
  3. First published in 1964–1977?
    • Yes
      1. Is there a valid copyright notice?
        • Yes
          • Not PD-US until 95 years after publication
        • No
          • Continue
      2. Was it in the public domain in the UK on January 1, 1996?
        • Yes
          • {{PD-URAA}}
        • No
          • Not PD-US until 95 years after publication
    • No
      • Continue
  4. First published in 1978–February 1989?
    • Yes
      1. Is there a valid copyright notice?
        • Yes
          • Not PD-US until 95 years after publication
        • No
          • Continue
      2. Was it in the public domain in the UK on January 1, 1996?
        • Yes
          • {{PD-URAA}}
        • No
          • Not PD-US until either 2048 or 70 years after the author's death, whichever is later
    • No
      • Continue
  5. First published in March 1989–2002?
    • Yes
      • Not PD-US until either 2048 or 70 years after the author's death, whichever is later
    • No
      • Continue
  6. First published in 2003 or later?
    1. Is the author known to have died in 1953 or earlier?
      • Yes
        • {{PD-US-unpublished}}
      • No
        • Not PD-US yet
To determine the UK status, including the status on January 1, 1996, if relevant, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom.
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, that seems to be the only image online of him, so I'll look for where it's from. Pineappman (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
See also COM:Hirtle chart, probably the best summary of the interaction of authorship, publication date, etc. under U.S. copyright law. - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violation on the main page

The Merrie Melodies cartoon Fox Pop is on the front page, as File:Chuck Jones - Merrie Melodies - Fox Pop (1942) (restored HD version) (2).webm.

The copyright in the cartoon was not renewed. But the opening theme was separately published earlier (first in 1935) and is still under copyright. The file must be deleted until the opening theme is muted, at the very least (assuming for the moment that the visual sequence is not copyright protected, purely for the sake of argument — although it well may be).

cc @Yann since I know you deal with copyright in videos fairly often. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: Do you have details on that 1935 publication of the opening theme? It's also used in the closing. Is it listed on en:Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1929–1939)#1935?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The original song Merrily we roll along was by Eddie Cantor, Charlie Tobias, and Murray Mencher (words and music). Wikipedia article is Merrily We Roll Along (song); more info here. It was registered for copyright (E46607) with a publication date of February 15, 1935, and was published as sheet music (plus arrangement for guitar) by Harms Inc. There were three renewals for it all dated Feb 14 1962, R209953 (by Eddie Cantor, author), R209954 (by Charles Tobias, author), and R291199 (under the names of all three authors, specifically for the words and music and not the arrangement). I think today there is a royalty split between Eddie Cantor and Warner Brothers. Don't think it was used as the opening for the cartoons until later in 1936, which was a different recording at the least and maybe arrangement. But, the song is definitely under copyright until 2031. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the cartoons' theme music is derivative of this copyrighted song, and the theme music (the version in the cartoons) was likely first published in that arrangement by inclusion in the first cartoon that used it, which wasn't this one. And that cartoon (from 1936) remains under copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright relinquishment statement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g0j5oad2eo&t=110

he says "i've relinquished all copyright on it". is this a sufficient statement such that the video he was referring to can be uploaded to commons? RZuo (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC) (link corrected, sorry.--RZuo (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC))

If he really said that, then that is a public domain dedication. However, note that this doesn't apply to any content integrated into the video from a copyrighted source (that is, the things which were not created by him). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright issue: incorrect source image

(This_image) suggests that (this_PD_image) is the source image.

However, the actual source appears to be: | this image on a third-party website.

In relation to that, the author, the copyright and license of the image might all be incorrect. What should be done about this situation? Is there some suggested tag or review process to invoke in this case? The uploader seems unresponsive (| see this).

In short: what should be done to clear up this situation? Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The photo is in the public domain. The gradient pattern is ineligible for copyright. Even if it were, the source, File:RGB 24bits palette color test chart.png, is dedicated to the public domain. Putting this on a ZX Spectrum screen is not authorship of any kind. Dithering methods are not authorship. The notion that there is some copyright being infringed here is spurious, as Yann said on the other page you've linked to. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for partially clearing it up.
However, I've got two objections:
  1. The source is not File:RGB 24bits palette color test chart.png, as you claim. The gradients are similar, but not the same.
  2. "The gradient pattern is ineligible for copyright" - in which country / jurisdiction? Are you sure? Can you back up your claim?
Noone would be happier than me if your claims are correct. However, you haven't presented sufficient evidence. Why can't it be cleared up, why must there be doubt?
What's the process for clearing it up? Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
You haven't supplied any evidence that it is copyrightable, either. What expression do you think is copyrightable here, aside from the parrot photo? I don't see any difference at all in the gradients, let alone anything that could qualify for a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  1. The gradients are the same in terms of what they are; the fact that they are rendered without a black border is irrelevant. Even if they were appreciably different in any way, this difference is not reflected in File:Zx spectrum 8x2 attributes.png.
  2. This gradient pattern is virtually certainly ineligible for copyright in any jurisdiction. It is simply a light-dark gradient of red, green, blue, the CMYK colors, the CMYK colors' halfway points, a rainbow and a rainbow crossed with a light-dark gradient. This is a paradigmatic example of something that is not a work of authorship. You cannot copyright a spectrum. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
    My original question is (still unanswered):
    • What should be done with images that have source image incorrectly specified, in a way that could affect their copyright status?
    Unrelated, about copyright eligibility: I thought that test images (monitor test image, image quality test, and similar images) are eligible for copyright. For example: | this test image Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
If there is an attribution mistake, then fix it. The one you brought up however is not an example of such. There is no additional copyrightable expression in the image you linked compared to the source images named, both of which are far more relevant than the one you found (as they have the licensing documentation). The fact that someone else on the internet also combined two PD (or free images) in a similar way doesn't change that.
No work is automatically eligible for copyright based on its type -- there has to be an original amount of copyrightable expression in some aspect, be that drawing or textual or something similar. You can also have a "selection and arrangement" copyright, if you combine enough public domain elements together in an original way. Gradients are not copyrightable, and a basic stack is not a copyrightable arrangement. The selection of the RGB and CMYK colors is also not copyrightable. The test image you linked has a substantial amount of text, which is probably the only copyrightable thing there (though that is enough). Someone could copy the non-text elements and be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Where do you see any text? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
In this image that was linked in the immediately preceding question (NOT the same image as originally discussed). That has a copyright claim in it (though a claim doesn't always mean it's copyrightable, either.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Yes, that one has a copyright claim, although I doubt the copyrightability of this particular text in the US. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, that sounds as a reasonable explanation. As I have said, I'm not an expert on copyright, so I might have been wrong. Thanks for the explanation.
Which implies that @4throck is not guilty, except for some minor issues. So, sorry @4throck for the trouble.
As I'm not guilty either, I'm counting this as another failure of Wikipedia. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
No harm in asking questions, but speedy deletions should really only be when you're sure. That all said, looking at the main image in question, it should not have been an overwrite but rather a separate upload. That did violate the COM:OVERWRITE guideline. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Can I ask you for a small favor? Could you upload the source image to Wikimedia Commons, and set the proper licensing information? I can't do it, because I'm not an expert on copyright issues. The upload would clarify the entire situation. Then, I could easily do everything else. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point would be -- the image in question looks like it was showing how dithering worked on a particular device, using the parrot image and a color test image to show what they look like. We have the two original images on Commons already. That other image is the same or similar combination of the two images, but it's the same unoriginal combination (you can't get a selection and arrangement copyright by combining two things simply that way). It may or may not be the source for the dithered image, but it doesn't matter too much, since there is no copyrightable aspect embodied in it. Much like if we upload a PD-US-no_notice postcard -- doesn't much matter which site we found it at; if there was no copyright notice on the front or back (and those are uploaded) that's pretty much all we need. In this case, we need the copyright to the parrot image, and it's a good idea to credit the creator test pattern image too (it's possible in some countries there could be a copyright on it I guess, but even if not somebody put out the effort to create it). But there is nothing at all special about the combination of the two. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideas wanted to tackle Freedom of Panorama issue

Hello all! We are looking for ideas to tackle the problem of media deleted because of Freedom of Panorama-related issues, and we're looking especially for admins and people who are knowledgeable in this issue to intervene. If you are interested, please join the discussion. Thanks in advance! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hieratic glyphs reproduced by Georg Möller

Georg Möller, who died in 1921, faithfully reproduced many glyphs of the hieratic script as they were written on various papyri thousands of years ago, in works which were published in Germany in 1909, 1927 and 1936. Each glyph is "only simple text [or] shapes". Am I correct to understand Commons:Licensing and Commons:Threshold of originality as meaning that it's fine to isolate and upload images of each hieratic glyph? (Each image I upload would be similar to File:HER BA.jpg: a black glyph on a white background. I see someone uploaded one of his tables as File:Hieratic Table from Möller.png.) What licence template is most appropriate, {{PD-ineligible}}?
And is there a way (in the main Commons upload tool, or by using another tool) to set "creation date" and licence info for every file in a group, at once? If I do this, I don't want to have to input the same creation date and licence over and over, one file at a time, for several thousand files... -sche (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  1. The glyphs are not copyrightable. Even if they were somehow copyrightable, they were ancient, not Möller's original work. There is also PD-text. Either way, it is fine.
  2. Möller's works are in the public domain in Germany (because he died in 1921). All works by anyone published in 1909 and 1927 are in the public domain in the US. But also note that Möller's entire 1936 book is in the public domain in the US unless it was published with a notice and had a US copyright renewal. This is because Möller died in 1921: his works were already in the public domain in Germany on January 1, 1996, and so are not subject to URAA restoration.
And yes, you can copy the metadata to all files using the Upload Wizard (or PattyPan).
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Fantastic, I appreciate the confirmation that these are uploadable. How do I copy metadata (besides licence/copyright) to all the files? I see where I can set licensing info for all the files all at once, but it looks like I have to input a creation date for each one individually (with UploadWizard; I will try PattyPan next). It would also be helpful if I could put them all into one category at the same time, rather than having to input the same "hieratic glyphs" category for each one individually. As long as I'm asking questions (and getting helpful answers, which I appreciate) : what creation date should I input? A date very very vaguely corresponding to when the glyphs were written, thousands of years ago? The date Möller's work (reproducing them) was published? The date I isolated the glyph (removing surrounding text) just now? -sche (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@-sche: I suggest you use VFC to make the changes after upload, and specify all three dates using <br /> if you can.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Algorithm-specific template split from AI-related works

Maybe this is impossible to do at this point, but... I feel that we should have a separate template from {{PD-algorithm}} for non-GPT-related algorithms, such as QR codes or bar codes or other algorithmic products that just don't involve neural networks. The legal disclaimer we use right now really only applies to AI art, and doesn't apply to computer-generated codes and the like. Maybe this could be accomplished with a parameter to the PD-algorithm, like "disc=no"? SnowyCinema (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

... or like "disclaimer=no" so people like me don't spend 20 seconds going "What does this have to do with a disc?" - Jmabel ! talk 07:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Absolutely not! Then it wouldn't be confusing enough.
Well, anyway, I was bold and put in the parameter functionality, which is pretty straightforward and an easy fix. Now, the disclaimer will not show up if someone says "disclaimer=no", but it'll show up on otherwise. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Supreme Court conference photos: public domain?

Per {{PD-USGov-Judiciary}}, "work[s] of a United States federal court, taken or made as part of that person's official duties" are public domain. Is it safe to say that photos posted on the Supreme Court's website about a conference (photos show up in the archived copy, there seem to be some display issues with the live site) are as well? Trying to replace this image of Judge Dan Polster that's so low-quality it's practically pixel art. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No, you can't use this image. If it were produced by the Supreme Court of the United States, or any other federal court, it would be fine. You've linked to the site of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and since this is not a federal court, the work is not PD-USGov. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Ack, of course. Saw "Supreme Court" and didn't even notice the "of Ohio" part. Thanks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeking Guidance on Adding a Logo to Wikimedia Commons

I'm new to adding logos to articles on Wikimedia Commons and would appreciate guidance. I found a charity logo on their website that I'd like to include on its article page, but I'm unsure about its eligibility and the proper procedures to follow.

The logo is associated with the charity and appears to be copyrighted as their trademark, but I lack detailed information. While the design seems simple, I'm not an expert and seek help and guidance.

Any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated. Accuracy-searcher (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You need to actually link us to the logo, or else it's impossible for us to give an opinion. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
AIDS Committee of Ottawa (ACO) website: http://aco-cso.ca/
Logo: http://aco-cso.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ACO_2005-copy.jpg Accuracy-searcher (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
PD-textlogo in the US, for sure. Probably fine for Canada too. You can upload the logo. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Should I be using Special:UploadWizard to upload the logo? Are there any specific instructions I should be aware of to ensure a smooth upload without errors? Accuracy-searcher (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Or do I use this? Special:Upload Accuracy-searcher (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Description Logo for the AIDS Committee of Ottawa.
Date
Source http://aco-cso.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ACO_2005-copy.jpg
Author AIDS Committee of Ottawa
Permission
(Reusing this file)
Public domain
This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD § Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.
  • Just noticed: The 'Licensing' field under the summary section offers the option 'Logo with simple text (wordmark).' I believe I should use this instead of adding PD-textlogo to the 'Permission' field in the summary. Accuracy-searcher (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Accuracy-searcher: I don't see the file in your uploads. Are you saying you couldn't upload successfully? Special:Upload doesn't normally care how you fill out the form, it just uploads (though if you didn't use the separate licensing field I believe it does give sort of an "are you sure you know what you are doing" warning).
    Also: are you saying the logo specifically dates from exactly 1 January 2005? If not, please don't state a date with more precision than you actually know. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    I just uploaded it. I used the png file because the svg gave me an error, and I fixed the date. File:ACO logo 2005.png Accuracy-searcher (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: Does the logo comply with all rules and requirements? Is it suitable for inclusion in the article? I want to ensure I follow the correct procedures. Accuracy-searcher (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Accuracy-searcher: I don't have enough knowledge of Canadian copyright law to say whether it is over or under their threshold of originality. If your main purpose here is to use this in an article in the English-language Wikipedia, you may want to upload a copy there under their non-free content policy. But if you do that, make sure you are familiar with that policy and what you need to do. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, my primary intention is to use the ACO logo in an article on the English-language Wikipedia. I will carefully review the non-free content policy on Wikipedia, as you suggested.
    If there's anyone within the Wikimedia community who has expertise in Canadian copyright law, I would greatly value any guidance or recommendations they might have. Please feel free to pass along my contact information to them.
    Thank you again for your time and valuable assistance. I appreciate your time : ) Accuracy-searcher (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Ojai Tennis Tournament

The Ojai Tennis Tournament, often shortened to The Ojai, is an annual tennis tournament in Ventura County, California, headquartered at Libbey Park in downtown Ojai, about 80 miles (130 km) north of Los Angeles. The tournament is one of North America’s largest amateur tennis tournaments, with 1,500 tennis players, up from the 12 players in the initial tournament in 1896 and 500 entrants in 1949. Several winners had a professional career afterwards; some careers were notable enough to earn the tennis player an article on Wikipedia. The site of the Ojai features image galleries with pictures of the finalists. Several of them got a Wikipedia article without an image of the tennis player. Because of this, I reached out to the site owner, and I asked if I could use the images. I wrote

“Good morning, I am a user at Wikimedia Commons. At your site, I see a lot of images of notable tennis players; players who do not have a picture of themselves in their Wikipedia-articles (see for example the articles on Tim Pawsat, Eric Amend and Trey Lewis). Could I please be granted permission to use the photographs from your site to make these articles more complete? See also here'' Kind regards, Jeff”

As a reply, I got this message:

“Hi Jeff, thanks for your email. Yes, you can have access. But only as long as the caption on the picture links back to the Ojai or can be credited as the source. For instance, the image usual has a caption that says “Mike Bryan at The Ojai Tennis Tournament” with a link that takes people to the Ojai Wikipedia page.” Steve”

Now, what is the correct path to follow?

A) Upload the usable pictures on Commons, credit them to The Ojai Tennis Tournament, categorize these as “19XX Ojai Tennis Tournament”, make a separate category for cropped pictures, use these at the appropriate Wikipedia-article, and credit these again over there in the way Steve asked me.

B) Crop the appropriate picture for the appropriate English-language Wikipedia-article, upload the cropped picture, use them at the appropriate Wikipedia-article, and credit them again over there in the way Steve asked me.

Personally, I would prefer the first option, but I am not sure if I would violate some copyrights by doing so. What do the experts say on this? Kind regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that - obviously with the best of intentions - you wrote to them in those terms. Because we don't want "permission to use the photographs ... to make these articles more complete"; we want permission to host the images on Wikimedia Commons, under a licence that allows anyone to reuse them, even commercially. Please follow the process at Com:VRT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

ːːGiven the Ojai’s answer I assume the organization wouldn’t have liked it if it wouldn’t know where and how their images would be reused. So I think I should go for option B? Kind regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff5102 if you haven't already done so, you might want to read Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses and maybe COM:VRT so that if you try to do something similar in the future you know the right questions to ask the outside party. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel @Andy Mabbett I would sayː if you want to host the images on Wikimedia Commons, under a licence that allows anyone to reuse them, even commerciallyː the Ojai can be contacted here. I will leave contacting potential image sources like this one to the experts in the future.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this image public domain?

Moved from Commons:Help desk

Could the image of Bradley on page 68 of this USGS report be covered by Template:PD-USGov? BhamBoi (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@BhamBoi: my take (though you might want to seek more expert opinion at COM:VP/C) is that it would probably come down to the status of The American Journal of Science Bradley Volume (1960). As a U.S. federal government document, the USGS report is presumably public-domain when handled as a unit, but if the image in question is copyrighted then its inclusion in the document is somewhere in fair use territory (and we can publish the document as a whole despite its containing copyrighted on something along the lines of a de minimis basis). The image as such doesn't become public domain just because it is included in a federal government document. Otherwise, the government could take away anyone's copyright by publishing their work in a federal document. - Jmabel ! talk 05:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
By stating: "Photograph from the USGS Denver Library Photographic Collection, Portraits, in the “Last Name A–B” folder; published in The American Journal of Science Bradley Volume," I'm led to think that it was a USGS file, thus government PD, but later republished in the journal volume.
For reference, a link to the Bradley Volume is here, and the image appears in this article. BhamBoi (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
USGS having it in a collection doesn't mean it was taken by a U.S. government employee. Again, you might want to seek more expert opinion at COM:VP/C. - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I will. Thanks! BhamBoi (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Note that anything that was published before 1964 and first published in the US and did not have a proper notice and renewal is in the public domain, though. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Just an update, I have not gotten a response from this board yet but would the image linked above be okay to upload to Commons? BhamBoi (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@BhamBoi: I found no related copyright renewal records for "The American Journal of Science" or "The Bradley Volume" (the name of the book). So I think you can upload the photo under {{PD-US-not renewed}}. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 20:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
How does one go about uploading an image found in a PDF article? Screenshot?? BhamBoi (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@BhamBoi: Please don't screenshot it, you'll lose a lot of the quality of the image. Instead, follow one of the techniques at s:Help:Image extraction § Extracting images from PDF files. Let me know if you need any help. Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 10:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@BhamBoi: @Matrix: , I have uploaded the photograph as File:Wilmot Hyde "Bill" Bradley, American Journal of Science.jpg. I extracted via IrfanView and saved as a jpg because it's a photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
For some reason, I missed this message... But thanks a ton! I'll add this to his wiki article. BhamBoi (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiel van der Randen (fotograaf 1897–1949)

L.s. I downloaded high res photo's from Wiel van der randen from https://beeldbank.spaarnestadphoto.com/ and want to upload them on commons on the already existing Category:Photographs by Wiel van der Randen The pictures are somewhat protected in high res but still downloadable. Although they are trying to sell them they are published on their own website and since copyright is expired, is it ok to upload them on commons? Thanks, Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Timmietovenaar: Hi Timmie, since you have done a lot of work for Het Nationaal Archief, could you share your insides as well? Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds painful. And messy. Maybe Timmie could share their insights, instead? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Funny 😃 Missed that error. Thanks for correcting me. 👍🏻 Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Photos have to be in the public domain in country of origin and in the USA. Netherlands is {{PD-old-70}}, but for the USA part it's a bit of a puzzle. The pre-1929 ones are probably covered by {{PD-US-expired}}, the later ones are probably still in copyright because of URAA. Multichill (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Pre-1929 should be easy. U.S. law says anything published anywhere before 1929 is now PD; no need to show U.S. publication. But, yes, anything later is going to have to wait for 95 years from publication. If you like you can upload them and then promptly start a DR to have them deleted now and undeleted on the proper date. If you do that, mark them with the correct Dutch PD tag (presumably {{PD-old-70}}). It would be easiest if you would start DRs in batches by year of publication so each DR need only one "Undelete in" category from Category:Undeletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the info.
However i still have a related question. The reason why i am confused is multiple files uploaded by either co-workers of Spaarnestadphoto and/or Nationaal Archief with multiple licences. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kabinet_1948_-_SFA006001812.jpg.
Regards, Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
For the example you gave, it would seem to be PD in the Netherlands, but still under copyright in the US (post-1928 photo restored by the URAA to 95 years from publication). But it seems the Nationaal Archief owns that copyright, so they were able to make a free license on that remaining copyright, which is why we can keep it. The PD-old-70 tag applies in much of the world, so valid to add that too, but we need the CC license for the U.S. (which can also help in a couple other countries too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Ken&Den picture a Flickrvio?

File:Ken Thompson (sitting) and Dennis Ritchie at PDP-11 (2876612463).jpg
Ken&Den photograph

We have this famous historical photograph here, licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0, transferred from Flickr, where it was uploaded by “Peter Hamer” and marked as freely licensed. The image has since been deleted on the source Flickr page (but we have a Wayback Machine snapshot thanks to {{Flickrreview}} via the File Upload Bot). Now: Do we have any reason to think “Peter Hamer” was the real author (or copyright holder) of the photograph? All photographs on his Flickr seem to be normal family photos, nothing which would indicate any relation to Ken&Den, PDP-11, etc., AFAICT. (Disclaimer: I claim severe ignorance of computer history, it is completely possible “Peter Hamer” is the name of a well-known IT personality of that time, and I just never heard the name.)

Unfortunately, the claim that “Peter Hamer” is the author of the photograph (and the photograph is CC-BY-SA 2.0) is now everywhere on the web, so trying to find its real provenance is difficult, other than

  1. this is “a publicity photo from about 1972” [10],
  2. it appeared in Scientific American March 1999 p. 48 (so the author might be named there?) [11],
  3. Computer History Museum lists it as “early 1970's. (Property of Lucent Technologies)”, and “Credit: Courtesy of Gwen Bell”. [12]

I discovered the problematic image via a Law Stack Exchange post Finding the license for a widely-used photograph, which has already been noted at the file talk page (by User:EvergreenStereo).

I’d be inclined to delete the file as a Flickrvio, but… maybe I’m mistaken? Mormegil (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It is probably not by Peter Hamer. However, if it was published before March 1989 without a copyright notice (which includes publicity pictures which were distributed to papers without one, which is usually the case), then the photo is in the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I've spoken to a local library to find a copy of Scientific American from March 1999. Have to wait a day or two since they did not have it on site. Will update if anything comes of it. PascalHD (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Better would be to find a copy of the photo as published in the 1970s or 1980s, which could demonstrate that it is in the public domain via publication without notice. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Also located a copy of the photo online from 1999, which claims Copyright to Lucent https://web.archive.org/web/19991130154207/http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/pdp-11/real_programmers.html PascalHD (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Here I found a digital copy of this issue of the journal. The photo note on page 49 reads "COURTESY OF BELL LABORATORIES, LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES; PRENTICE-HALL". Therefore it is certain that the photo is owned by Lucent. 0x0a (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Great find. All photo credits seem to belong to Lucent or Bell Labs - the company itself. PascalHD (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 Info I see that the license tag was changed to {{PD-US-no notice}} "based on discussion". However, we have no proof it was published without a notice. All examples we have are from the 1990s and onward, in the Scientific American & online. I have opened a Deletion Request to further discuss it there. PascalHD (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
O.K. I will reach out to Bell Labs regarding the copyright of this photo. 0x0a (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01&oldid=850638337"