Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/11

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

Using an image taken by National Astronomical Observatory of Japan

I would like to use an image of an ultra diffuse galaxy in an article I'm working on. It was taken by the NAOJ. Looking at their copyright page https://www.nao.ac.jp/en/terms/copyright.html it seems the image I want to use falls under Scope of Free Use but nowhere in that page there's a legal code I can use in order to upload it to wikimedia. I'm sure more experienced editors have dealt with such situations. I would appreciate any help on the issue. DGSATI (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@DGSATI: certainly not OK for Commons. We accept only images that allow both commercial use and derivative works.

You don't say where your article is, but if it is on the English-language Wikipedia, then this might fall under their allowance for non-free content. - Jmabel ! talk 17:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Yes it's on the English-language Wikipedia. DGSATI (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright holder information location

Where on an image's file description page is the heading "copyright holder" for the addition of the information such as name or so-and-so's estate? IonaFyne (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@IonaFyne: Typically the "so-and-so" here would be the author (and credited as such). Anything beyond that can go in the "Permission" field of {{Information}}. - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Germany's TOO

Is File:FreieWählerBayernLogo2020.svg OK as licensed? It might be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States, but things aren't as clear with respect to COM:TOO Germany. If it's OK for Commons, then there's no need for en:File:Logo of the Free Voters.svg to be treated as non-free by English Wikipedia because the two logos are essentially identical. If the file isn't OK for Commons just because of Germany's TOO but otherwise is PD per the US's TOO, then the the file could most likely be reuploaded to English Wikipedia as Template:PD-ineligible-USonly, but the non-English Wikipedia would need to be dealt with separately. If it's not PD even per the US's TOO, then it would need to be reuploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free content. Once again, though, the non-English Wikipedia uses would need to be resolved separately. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion OK for Commons. Germany's threshold of originality is rather high. --Rosenzweig τ 01:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Please check the following

It's a little bit exhaustive list but please tell me if these are eligible for upload in Wikimedia Commons. All of them are from "Unsplash".

Haoreima (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Haoreima per {{Unsplash}}: "Therefore, media published on Unsplash from 5 June 2017 onwards is not considered to be freely licensed and can't be accepted on Commons. Files uploaded to Commons after this date should be subject to careful license review, verifying that the publication date on Unsplash is prior to 5 June 2017." Be sure that the image you're going to import here was published on Unsplash on June 4, 2017 or before. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I randomly sample visits to two of the files you posted. Image#5 is not OK because it was published on April 23, 2020, and Image#12 is not OK because it was published in January 2023. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I checked through all of them. Unfortunately none of them were uploaded before that date (the closest was #2 in Aug 2017) so none of them are eligible for Commons. S5A-0043^Talk 12:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Artwork images with possible copyright problem

User FromAbilityToNeed has uploaded three images (File:RAAAF - Bunker 599.jpg, File:RAAAF - Deltawerk.jpg, File:RAAAF - Still Life - Het HEM.jpg) as their own work, but per this convo, that doesn't appear to be the case. The user now claims that a permission was instead obtained from the copyright owner. I didn't want to propose these files for deletion yet, in case there's an easy fix. Can I just leave this here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The uploader has admitted they are not the copyright holder. The true owner/photographer needs to send appropriate permissions via COM:VRT/CONSENT or the images need to be deleted. PascalHD (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Convenience links: File:RAAAF - Bunker 599.jpg, File:RAAAF - Deltawerk.jpg, File:RAAAF - Still Life - Het HEM.jpg - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel and DoubleGrazing, the owner did send appropiate permission via the mentioned channel on my request, after which I uploaded the images, with a mention of the name of the copyright owner who gave me permission to do so. I have a forwarded email from permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, in which it is stated that the message granting the permission was received, with the following ticket number: [Ticket#2023032310009373]. My intention was to tag the images as being the 'own work' of the copyright owner, but this appears to have been a mistake on my part. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@FromAbilityToNeed: So change the license tags (presumably {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}) and follow the directions at Template:PP. - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Going to try that, thank you! FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Videos, abandonment of copyright

In his video (uploaded on 28 October 2023), Bilibili user "户晨风" announced that he "gave up the copyrights of all publicly released videos and live streaming footage, which can be reposted and distributed for profit on any platform by anyone". Is this a valid statement, meaning that the content he refers to is free? If so, then what copyright caption should be used in this situation. 源義信 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Assuming he is legitimately the copyright owner, yes. {{PD-user}} is probably appropriate, and the "Permission" section of {{Information}} should point to where the person who is verifiably the copyright owner made this declaration. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What's their jurisdiction? Giving up copyright isn't legally possible everywhere. –LPfi (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi: the wording of Template:PD-user already accounts well for that, almost as well as CC-0. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Restored Vigeland images

I may have not considered the U.S. copyright when I requested the undeletion of Vigeland images from Norway way back December 2020. Can anyone check the individual artworks of Vigeland so that those that show works still under U.S. copyright through COM:URAA can be re-nominated again for deletion? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Similar URAA concern mentioned: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-05#File:Oeuvre de Gustav Vigeland (4844240907).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems (according to the discussions and the Hirtle chart) that works published before 1928 (when he was 59 and the park had existed for some years already; 95 years ago) and those published after 2002 (70 years pma) are free. Publication can have been earlier elsewhere even for those now in the park.

There are no hints on year of publication in most of the images, but the bridge was the part first finished of the Vigelandsanlegget. Is it safe to assume that all parts of it were "published" before 1928? The fountain is in no-wp said to have been finished in 1924, but it is unclear whether sculptures were added later ("fikk sin endelige plass og form i 1924" but "Monteringen ble avsluttet i 1947"). For most other sculptures one must probably research their history one by one.

–LPfi (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright on a leaflet front page

Yesterday, in connection with an editathon I uploaded my photograph of a front page of a leaflet: File:Kun Folkets Vel er Landet Vel.jpg. While I would say I have no copyright (the photo is of a flat textual object), the question is if there is a copyright on the front page graphic. The front page has text (title, speaker, description) in a fairly standard layout. The only usual feature is vertical lines on the left side. File:Ligeløn Arbejderkvindernes Oplysningsforening.jpg was another photo uploaded during the event. Here there is hardly any graphics, see also File talk:Kun Folkets Vel er Landet Vel.jpg — Fnielsen (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Right. I added {{PD-ineligible}}. Yann (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I repaired the link to the other file. There the uploader claims "own work", which doesn't seem right (I assume they are just the photographer). –LPfi (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Help figure it out

Hello! I recently downloaded a file (File:Mavka.The Forest Song (frame1).jpg) that I found on the website of the Embassy of Ukraine in Poland. At the bottom of this page is the text: "All content is available Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license". Please, help me understand if I understood correctly that all the images on that page are free and can be uploaded to Wikicommons? Thank you! --Bon777 (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

An automated translation of that page into English says, "All content is available Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, unless otherwise noted." While there isn't a specific note on copyright, there are several corporate logos on the associated movie clip. I don't think there is sufficient evidence that the Ukranian Embassy in Poland has the right to license the content of a movie. The CC licence for the webpage is unlikely to apply to all of the images. If there is evidence that the movie was created by the Ukranian government, then that would change things. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore The production of the animated film was partially financed by the state - the Ukrainian State Film Agency. Taking into account all the changes, in general, the share of state participation in the production of the cartoon was 49,519,728 ₴, or 26.45%.

But will this information help resolve this issue? Bon777 (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Alonsa Guevara

Alonsa Guevara Aliaga (talk · contribs) uploaded sixteen images in 2015, all of them artwork by the Chilean painter Alonsa Guevara. They are all tagged "own work" and all remain uncategorised.

What's the procedure for asking for an OTRS ticket to confirm she was the uploader? Marnanel (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marnanel: She provided an email on her account and allows users to email her, so it should be pretty simple to contact her and request that. I'd be kind of astounded if they weren't legit, with the possible issue that she might not own the copyright on some of the photos of her.

I would say that if the reply email comes from her web domain the matter is settled right there, but if not then VRT (formerly OTRS) might be in order to prove her identity. Plus, again, the issue of copyright status on the images of her, which may need some sorting out. And we should certainly put the relevant images in a category and wikilink it via the relevant Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If the reply is from her domain, the issue is settled, but we still need VRT to document that. Do we have some template for requesting a confirmation of identity? –LPfi (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi: I doubt we have a template. It might be worth creating one. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it is quite common for an account to represent some person or entity, and using VRT to confirm that the account indeed is authorised to represent them copyright-wise seems the easiest way to handle such accounts and their uploads. The current VRT page doesn't seem to cover this. I would like second email template (i.e. boilerplate, not MediaWiki) for the purpose. –LPfi (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi, Jmabel, and Marnanel: We have {{Verified account}} for this, but (probably for privacy reasons) it does not take into account the domain like the legacy German-language de:Vorlage:Benutzerkonto verifiziert does. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to come up with one boilerplate for requesting this, because there are several different scenarios, but here's my shot. Please feel free to edit, but I reserve the right to accept or reject edits in this section, because this is my proposal.

For the email to send to the account-holder; adapt as needed.

Choose one:

Your account [account name] on Commons claims that you are [name]. In order to protect the rights of that person, we need to verify this.
Your account [account name] on Commons claims that you represent [name]. In order to protect the rights of that [person/organization], we need to verify this.
You have uploaded content on your account [account name] that appears to be copyrighted by [name] (plus, if germane or the heirs to their intellectual property). In order to protect the rights of that [person/organization], we need to verify [for individuals: that this is you or] that you represent that [choose one: person / organization] and are authorized to license copyrighted materials on their behalf.

There are basically two ways this can be done:

If there is a website or public-facing social media presence associated with [name], you can post a note there indicating that this account is [theirs/operated on their behalf], e.g. "The account [account name] on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects [choose one: is mine / is authorized to act on my/our behalf]. Any publicly visible place online that is clearly controlled by your organization is acceptable: typically this will mean either indicate domain if there is an obvious one, otherwise: your official website or a public post on Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/Flickr/LinkedIn or another similar site. Then put the URL of that public statement on your Commons user page so it can easily be verified by any other user.
Formally verify your account. The Volunteer Response Team ("VRT"; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team) is a small group of trusted users authorized to handle confidential correspondence. The number of active Commons VRT members is quite small in relation to the number of emails received, so there may be a backlog of several days or even weeks in addressing your case. There may be some need for a few emails back and forth. The process almost always goes more quickly if your original email comes from an email address that is published as yours, or from a domain obviously associated with the relevant person or organization.

Here's a boilerplate for the email to VRT, if you prefer that approach to a public posting on the web.

To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I am the owner of account [account name] and that choose one:

I am [name].
I represent [name of person or organization] and have been authorized to upload materials (images and/or other media files) for which they own the copyright, and to provide licences for said materials. Specifically, I have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I understand that all licenses acceptable for uploads to Commons grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license (which may include the requirement of attribution) and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to use of the content on Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that when materials are so licensed, I cannot withdraw the license, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[Sender's name]

[Sender's authority (if applicable. "Appointed representative of", etc.)]

[Date]

Please do write back if you need further clarification. If you go the public post approach, please let me know when your Commons user page has been updated accordingly; if you go the VRT approach, I'd appreciate being cc'd on the email, but if you are passing confidential information related to your identity, feel free to leave me out.

Thank you in advance.

Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Question about Swedish copyright law

Is the Unified Remote logo (see in navbar) above the Swedish TOO?

The examples don't make it awfully clear. Is it "unlikely that two persons would create" would create it "identically or similarly"?

That's very subjective. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it is ok. The second example on Swedish TOO is a way more complex. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Renewals

Earle K. Bergey died in 1952 (and thus, he clearly never released any images under Creative Commons), but the majority of his oeuvre was work-for-hire.

Does this mean that this image is still under copyright, or not? What about this one, or this one, or this one?

Does the statement here, about CBS renewing the copyright on all Popular Library content in 1977, mean that the image here (cover art published in 1948) is still under copyright?

What about this one: the original art on which the previous image was based? I'm reasonably confident the uploader was the artist's grandson; does that make a difference? DS (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, death date is irrelevant for U.S. images in that era. Present-day copyright would require that they were renewed, but if they were they have 95 years from original publication.

Copyrights might have been transferred to an employer (which would presumably have happened shortly after creation, so the renewal registry would typically let us know that). If not, then typically some family member would be heir to his intellectual property, and could offer a license. They should use an "heirs" template, but that isn't an absolute requirement. - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so 1952 is irrelevant here. What about the statements I linked? DS (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Provided the originals were actually works-for-hire (the artist was employed by the publication), the renewals on your first links mean the copyrights still exist, I would think, yes. If the copyrights were assigned originally, usually meaning the rights were purchased, then they would have reverted to the actual author after 28 years, and the original author (or their estate) needed to renew. Assigned copyrights could "vest" into the assigned part if the original author was still alive at the 27/28 year mark, depending on the original contract, but if the author died (such as in this case) then rights would automatically revert to the author's heirs, and could be re-sold. If the latter happened, then the grandson could in fact own the copyrights, and the CC license they gave could be valid. If the artist was truly an employee, then it was a work for hire and the company owned the copyright from the outset. A renewal in that case would mean copyright would last for 95 years and we'd need a license from whichever corporation ended up with the copyrights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by urbz

Over 3,700 images were batch imported from this Flickr account around 2017 (https://www.flickr.com/people/40444351@N04), and many of them look problematic from a copyright perspective. In particular, I see:

Scans and screenshots of newspaper articles, e.g. File:Newspaper Articles (4116283709).jpg
Photographs of contemporary artwork and photography exhibitions, e.g. File:Basel 2017 20170121 (32439382916).jpg
Plain text content, e.g. File:Feedback Irshad (23582342396).jpg
Potential FOP violations, e.g. File:Khotachiwadi Wall Project (4075411507).jpg

How do we handle these situations? The sheer number of photos is almost certainly too large to go through the standard DR process. Omphalographer (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

if they're that obvious, just tag them as copyvio? DS (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Because there's a ton of them. Tagging them individually would create a lot of work, both to tag the files and for admins to handle those tags; part of what I'm trying to ask here is whether it would be appropriate to perform a bulk deletion without going through a tagging process. Omphalographer (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't there always some kind of process involved since files can only be deleted by administrators? As pointed out above, you can tag the obvious ones for speedy deletion and then do COM:DR for the not so obvious ones. You don't have to do everything at once, though. You can work at your own pace according to your own schedule. You can also break down the category into smaller groups (e.g. by uploader, by problem, by file type) if that makes things easier. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

License tags for photographs of original works

I wanted to ask if someone could help me with the license tags of the following files:

They have license tags for the photo but not for the original art that was photographed. This is being discussed at en:Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Philosophy/archive1#Image_review. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The second work seems to be ancient and in public domain now. Ruslik (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ruslik0 and thanks for clarifying this. I added the tag "PD-old-assumed-expired". As for the first image, this page contains some information. The statue was put in the park 1956 and thus presumably existed before this date. It was created by the "sculptor Nicholas". If this refers to the sculptor en:Nicholas Stone, who made similar statues, then the copyright shouldn't be a problem. Is it reasonable to make this assumption? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

To me the website rather suggests that the statue was finished in or shortly before 1956. "Nicholas" is a very common name in Greece, and so the identification with a Stuart-era English sculptor is very hypothetical. In my view, the statue should be nominated for deletion as it is unlikely to be free of copyright in Greece. Felix QW (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I followed your suggestion. The deletion request is found at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aristoteles_der_Stagirit.jpg. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I did find a possible name of el:Νικόλαος Παυλόπουλος, who lived from 1909 to 1990 and seemed to be known by his first name in some references, but can't find confirmation he was the sculptor of the one in question. There is a youtube video here which shows around the park site, and does go around the statue showing the inscriptions on the front, side, and back, for anyone who can read Greek. The inscription with the sculptor's name seems to be the hardest to read though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

These are great finds. If the guess about Νικόλαος Παυλόπουλος being the sculptor is correct then chances are that copyright still applies. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Yes, it's definitely him. Right date, right style, right region (most of his works are in Macedonia). And he tended to sign his sculptures with only his first name. Compare the signature on the Aristotle statue in Stageira (taken from the YouTube video you linked) with the signatures of other works on this page. The quality of the YouTube screen grab is pretty horrible, but I don't think there's any doubt. Choliamb (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Kissa laila majnu images.pdf

Hi, This looks like old enough to be on Commons, but the license is wrong. It doesn't look Hawaiian language, as it is an Arabic script. Can anyone help please? Yann (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone here work out whether this is Arabic, Persian, or something else, and just what the document is and when it dates from? - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dyolf77, can you help out here? - Jmabel ! talk 22:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is not Arabic, probably Persian (or Urdu). — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 07:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Satdeep Gill: I'm guessing you can at least say which of those two languages this is. - Jmabel ! talk 15:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel This is Punjabi language in Shahmukhi script and this edition was published in 1931. Satdeep Gill (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

We should import a higher res version from Internet Archive though as this is not readable. Satdeep Gill (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Yann in case he didn't notice that this now has a real answer. - Jmabel ! talk 03:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Times of India

I want to use a photo from this article by Times of India. According to TOI’s T&C

TIL grants you permission to only access and make personal use of the Site and You agree not to, directly or indirectly download or modify / alter / change / amend / vary / transform / revise / translate / copy / publish / distribute or otherwise disseminate any content on TIL’s Site / Service, or any portion of it; or delete or fail to display any promotional taglines included in the Site / Service either directly or indirectly, except with the express consent of TIL. However, you may print or download extracts from these pages for your personal / individual, non-commercial use only.

So, does this using this photo in a wikipedia article qualify? Afterall it is for non-commercial use. If not, what are any good websites to get non-copyright photos of Akash Banarjee?

Thanks for the help - Rasalghul1711 (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

All WMF sites require every photo to be free for anything including commercial use (except those cases for fair use) so basically no. S5A-0043^Talk 09:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia in question accepts fair use, you may be able to use the photo. Many Wikipedias that do accept fair use have a redirect to their fair use policy at [[Project:EDP]]. If applicable, the photo must be uploaded to the Wikipedia, as Commons does not host fair use content. –LPfi (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Commercial use of photos outside of Wikimedia Commons without releases

I am having difficulty reconciling how generally photos containing images of buildings and other property uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with licenses allowing commercial use are considered fine (unless local law somewhere says otherwise) for others to download and use, but if you look at stock sites like Alamy or even free sites like Unsplash they indicate such photos can only be uploaded for commercial use if the photographer has appropriate permissions in the form of property releases.

Note that I am aware that a Creative Commons license only addresses permissions for a photograph itself and not any additional rights held by third parties for what is depicted in a photograph. I am also aware of Freedom of Panorama and what it applies to and what it doesn’t in the United States where I am located.

I would really like to understand why everywhere I look everyone seems very cautious about licensing photographs potentially having third-party rights while Wikimedia Commons seems less concerned about it. What am I not understanding? Is there really nothing to worry about regarding how people outside of Wikimedia Commons may be using photographs for commercial uses because it is only those using photographs that are on the spot for making sure they have all the necessary permissions and not photographers? David Ratledge (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(Just my two cents) "Nothing to worry about" => I haven't heard of any of our reusers being sued over this; after roughly 2 decades, that would suggest they have little or nothing to worry about. Any evidence to the contrary? I'm guessing the other sites are being over-cautious. Either that or theirs is a different meaning of "commercial" (e.g. use in advertising, which does raise other issues). - Jmabel ! talk 16:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons does not warrant that its images are free to use for advertising (known in industry jargon as "commercial use"). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons is primarily only concerned about copyright -- so the "commercial use" you see is only in respect to the copyright license. Otherwise, if it's legal for us to host (and it's usable in an educational context), we'll host it. If a particular use of the image might violate some other rights, such as trademark or publicity rights, those rights must be obtained separately. In many contexts, "commercial use" is more of a trademark concept, or when it comes to pictures of people, publicity rights (using them in advertising). Those rights are not given here at all. We do have templates like {{Personality rights}} or {{Trademarked}} to warn about other rights which could well apply given some potential uses. In all cases, the Commons:General disclaimer applies. We strive such that using images here, provided the terms of the license are followed, should mean you can't be guilty of copyright infringement. Any other type of infringement, that is up to the re-user to obtain any necessary rights for. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Violation probably

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spiritual_Exodus.jpg is meeting conditions for CSD F1 (Copyright violation) or F6 (license laundering)? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion Leoneix (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Leoneix: File:Spiritual Exodus.jpg has already been tagged as a copyvio thanks to From Hill To Shore. Please use internal links. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Philippine street signs

File:Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) sign.svg, File:Quezon Avenue sign.svg, File:Balete Drive sign.svg, File:QuirinoAvenueExtensionStreetSign.png, File:Legarda Street sign.svg, File:Andaya Highway Sign.svg, and File:Senator Miriam P. Defensor Santiago Avenue Sign.png all have user copyright license templates on them, perhaps as user-generated graphic renderings of street signs. But per COM:CRSM#Road signs, these may be ineligible for copyright – even copyright claims by uploaders. Should I revoke the licensing templates of these files and slap these with {{PD-ineligible}}, to comply with the Image Casebook rules? Ping the users who made these files @TagaSanPedroAko, HueMan1, PengualaHeadphones, VertaxApolinariax, Korean Rail Fan, and Dingo1234555: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say {{PD-ineligible}} is correct. - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Since it appears the {{PD-ineligible}} tag is more compliant with COM:CRSM#Road signs and that there is no clear objection, I may close this thread now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Amendments Introduced in Article 24 of the Georgia Law on Copyright and Related Rights.pdf

Is this document really showing the proposed amendment to the freedom of panorama clause of the copyright law of the Republic of Georgia?

Google Translat-ing the entire document only shows the non-commercial condition still intact. The translation may be wrong though, but I doubt Google Translate makes obvious errors in translation. Can anyone confirm this? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this astronomy picture public domain?

Concerning NASA Telescopes Discover Record-Breaking Black Hole at nasa.gov. I would like to use it to illustrate UHZ1. Normally, I would assume NASA images are public domain {{PD-NASA}}. But this has some individual authors listed and the Smithsonian Institution is involved (they operate Chandra Observatory), and SI has its own copyright stipulations. I'm not sure if it can be hosted on Commons. - Bri (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The credit lines start with NASA/. Therefore the author of this image is NASA and the image is in public domain (per category:Chandra images). Ruslik (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As even per title "NASA Telescopes Discover Record-Breaking Black Hole" and "this discovery was made using X-rays from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory (purple) and infrared data from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (red, green, blue)" the intellectual property for the file belongs to NASA, so no copyright issues here as NASA files are in PD. Юрий Д.К 23:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

License template for Three D Scans

Hi folks!

Which license template suits best for files from https://threedscans.com/ (https://threedscans.com/info/)?

Thanks! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be no free license offered, so either these are PD or they don't belong on Commons. I would think these are in pretty much the same category as a photograph of a sculpture: the underlying sculpture may be PD, but the photo is not automatically so (so we can't host it). But I could imagine a case that there is no originality here, so nothing eligible for copyright; I really don't know. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The info page states that:

All scans can be downloaded and used without copyright restrictions.

which is a public domain release.

So if the underlying work is also in the public domain, you can freely upload it here with a public domain tag. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: @PantheraLeo1359531: QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will abstain regarding the upload to Commons, but if the upload is okay, anyone is free to do so. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Threshold of originality for buildings in Italy

The discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Santa Giulia Billiart (Rome) - Exterior seems to be stalled out without consensus. We all seem to agree that the issue is whether or not the building is above the threshold of originality for copyright in Italy, but not about whether the building is above that threshold. - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

BAnQ "unassessed copyright"

The Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec website holds some photographs, the copyright information for which they say they "has not been assessed." The description further says "You have the right to use the work in any manner permitted by copyright and related rights legislation applicable to your use." Here is an example of such a file. I'm wondering whether such files are safe to use on the Commons. I know there is a whole BaNQ project but the Discussion for that Project Page is empty so I didn't think it was any better to bring this question there than here. Denniscabrams (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not a license. They just say that they do not know the copyright status of those image. So, you need to do your own copyright assessment. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Pictures by the government of Canada would be OK if older than 50 years. But these seem to be from April 1976, so not OK until 2027. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada for details. Yann (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this scan of a sticker on a $20 bill free?

This PMG release has scans of a $20 bill with an unusual error – there's a PLU sticker on it, and the serial number is printed over it, indicating it was put there before the bill left the mint. Enwiki has an article about this bill which would benefit from an illustration. I'm wondering if this complicated art just happens to be free. There's a couple of authors here:

The Del Monte banana sticker, with their 1991 logo. A very similar logo is on Commons as PD-TOO/TM (and is used on 7 wikipedias), but the same image is on enwiki under fair use. The rest of the sticker layout looks PD-TOO, and though it says ECUADOR on it, I don't believe that they actually print these in Ecuador, or that it matters if they do.
The $20 bill, from 1996, PD-USGov-money.
The placement of the sticker on the bill, put there by accident or on purpose by a mint employee (PD-USGov-Treasury?) or by nobody in particular. I'm assuming that this is still 2D art with the sticker on it.
The scan of the bill, by PMG in 2021, which would be PD-scan, but what about the cropped version on the page? Is the choice they made of where to crop enough work that I can't just upload that exact image?

I'm still a bit new to Commons and I figured that this one is too complicated for me to try by myself, so I appreciate any help! 3df (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated File:Logo Del Monte.svg for deletion, as it will be good to have a verdict on that either way. Note that that file is an SVG tracing though, which may have an impact on its copyright situation. Felix QW (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This banknote should be OK for Commons, as any copyrighted element in the Del Monte banana sticker (if any) would be de minimis anyway. Yann (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Newspaper

Hello, could someone do a double check for a copyright for this link? I checked the masthead on page two which doesn't indicate a copyright, as well as the last couple of pages. A search on the Copyright Catalog says that the newspaper registered copyright in 1979, but for December 4, 1979 (the newspaper linked is from January 6, 1979). Just want to make sure before uploading. Thanks. reppop^talk 04:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

For 1978-1989, as long as they registered for a copyright within 5 years of publication per COM:Hirtle, it would get a copyright. So I'm afraid that would be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. reppop^talk 20:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Reppop: The copyright registration only includes the one issue, so it wouldn't cover any other issues. Contrast the Pacific Daily News copyright record with a New York Times copyright record from the same year, which lists 365 issues. I also checked the Pacific Daily News issue and found no copyright notice. But what specifically are you planning to upload? A newspaper issue is a compilation of many different works, some of which may have tricky copyright issues. Toohool (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It was a photograph of Junko Ohashi that was in this story. reppop^talk 07:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Reppop: That photo is iffy. It looks like a publicity photo or file photo from some other source, rather than a photo created by the newspaper. A work published without copyright notice was injected into the public domain only if the publication was authorized by the copyright holder. We would need to know something about where the photo came from and how it was distributed. Also, it's likely that the photo was first published in Japan, so even if the publication in Guam without copyright notice was authorized, the copyright may have been reinstated by URAA restoration. Toohool (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Output of Winver

Hi!

I found the file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winver_output.png. I wonder if the file meets the COM:TOO. I think not, at it is only descriptive text and the simple Windows logo. In this low resolution, its readability is not very high.

Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that is not copyrightable in the U.S., and presume that is the only relevant jurisdiction. - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I share your opinion :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Philippines Memorandum Circular No. 021 of 2023

The Memorandum Circular No. 021 of 2023 just came into effect here, establishing Implementing Rules and Regulations for copyright terms as well as public domain works.

From the look of relevant part for PD works (Rule IV), there seems to be no mention of government works. Government works are mentioned at Rule V, whixh states that these are subject to the rules of Memorandum Circular No. 024 of 2020. While no copyright indeed subsists in Philippine government works subject to the copyright law (Republic Act 8293), the rules now imply that no copyright does not necessarily mean such works are automatically in public domain. Perhaps a government work may be in public domain if it has been dedicated to public domain.

Ping Filipino users @Engr. Smitty and Pandakekok9: who participated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jessie Lacuna 2020.jpg regarding a Philippine News Agency photo by a Philippine News Agency employee. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping also those who participated at various threads at Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov: Filipino users @Sky Harbor, Blakegripling ph, and Higad Rail Fan: , and foreign users @Thuresson, MGA73, Liliana-60, Stefan2, User 50, Martin H, Clindberg, P199, Jameslwoodward, Psiĥedelisto, 1989, and King of Hearts: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for the ping. For some reason the links did not work for me but when I tried on https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/administrative-issuances/ the links worked fine. But nevermind.

2023-021 rule V says that "No copyright subsists in any of the works of the Government of the Philipppines. The application of this rule is governed by IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No. 2020-024, and its amendments and supplements."

2020-024 defines what works of the Government is. For example it is only a work of the Government if it is made by an employee as a part of their normal duties (4.1). It also states that prior approval is needed (4.3)

I think it is a bit unclear what the meaning is. Does 2023-021 remove the copyright and the requirements of permission stated in 2020-024? If not then I do not see what the purpose of 2023-021 is. --MGA73 (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@MGA73 2023-021 IRR provides rules and meanings for the copyright term and public domain provisions of the copyright law. The copyright terms are not relevant because the Philippines follows a shorter posthumous term of 50 years, which Commons cannot accept as the U.S. law provides longer, 70 years term (for all eligible international works, including all Filipino works, made after 2002 as per Hirtle chart).

The rules on public domain may be relevant for Commons, as well as the rules provided by 2020-024. Perhaps a few more Filipino shows can be hosted here (provided these are in public domain before 1996, the COM:URAA date for Filipino works). But possibly, there is a danger for several Filipino buildings being removed here as the IRR does not take into account the loophole of Act 3134 of 1924 (the copyright law of the Philippines before 1972), which is the lack of mention of architectural works in the 1924 law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

But I think the Act 3134 of 1924 is clear that architectural works are not protected, and that the copyright laws of post-1972 era are not retroactive, so pre-1972 Philippine buildings currently hosted here should not be affected by this IRR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

JWilz12345 My comment was only related to government works. The rest is okay / clear.

I agree that there is a risk that some files will be deleted because some users like to look for files to delete. Personally I prefer not to look for files that are PD in the Philippines and have been on Commons for many years. --MGA73 (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@MGA73 PH government works remain unclear actually, despite the present consensus treating the restrictions on commercial use and distribution as COM:Non-copyright restrictions. Due to unclear provisions both in the law and the 2020-024 IRR which governs the government works provision of the law, it is not surprising that several government websites here tend to make their content unfree and slap with "all rights reserved", most notably the website of the state news agency w:en:Philippine News Agency. The News and Information Bureau claims the PNA copyright claims are in accordance with the law, and the public can only freely use contents for personal purpose and for informatory purposes on Facebook and other social media platforms. Due to possible takedown strikes from PNA sometime in the future, I created this category to keep track of possible deletion reqhests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

PD in Egypt, but is it in the US?

Hey, folks. I cannot quite understand whether (and how) File:609 - Jerusalem - Church of the Virgin.JPG is in public domain in the US. The uploader appears to have scanned a postcard produced by en:Lehnert & Landrock, who are named in the file information. The eBay seller of the postcard does not have it on their profile anymore, but I included a link to the profile of another seller of the same postcard. (I am not sure if that is even helpful.) Lehnert & Landrock closed their business in 1930[1] so the postcard must have been created earlier than that. Lehnert died in 1948. I am not sure which, if any, of the US PD criteria listed at Template:PD-Egypt/en this file is supposed to fit. Note that there are other photos in Category:Jerusalem photographs by Lehnert & Landrock. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Lehnert & Landrock is only the publisher here, so the author is anonymous. {{PD-1996}} should be OK. Yann (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Original uploader here. If I remember correctly, it was PD-1996 (as mentioned by User:Yann) that I thought of as the reason why it should be OK to have it on Commons. The fact that the template wasn't there must have been a mistake on my side. However, I saw that it was added now, so the article review can proceed further, I think. Furthermore, even if the author was known, I think it would fall under A: Non-creative photographic or audiovisual works with 1981 as the cut-off year, because it's just a "documentary" type of photo without any creative input to the scene itself. - Anonimski (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Media published by press services of Ukrainian military

A user from Russia has systematically tried to delete photos made by Ukrainian troops and published by Ukrainian Armed Forces brigades' press services.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files with fake "Mil.gov.ua" license 5

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the main reasons Wikipedia sticks to free images policy is for a very grounded reason: Wikimedia does not want an owner of the media to sue Wikimedia.

In light of that, Ukrainian military shows its clear intent to share images under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license:

Ministry of Defence - https://www.mil.gov.ua/
- ArmyInform (official press service body of the Armed forces) - https://armyinform.com.ua/
Ministry of Internal Affairs - https://mvs.gov.ua/
Intelligence - https://gur.gov.ua/
Security Services - https://ssu.gov.ua/

My proposal is: consider the media published by press services of Ukrainian military in social networks (like Facebook, Twitter) is distributed under the same license as their commanding body. I.e. published under CC BY 4.0. Because:

Ukrainian military clearly shows it shares images under free license;
images published by press services are taken and shared as a part of that persons' official duties.

PS. I'll invite participants of the recent discussion @Kursant504, VictorAnyakin, HeminKurdistan, and S5A-0043: . VoidWanderer (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The first three DRs were started by Anahoret, whereas Commons:Deletion requests/Files with fake "Mil.gov.ua" license and the current one were started by Kursant504. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Yet, here's the system I'm talking about:

VoidWanderer (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

For you will not think that I see such problem only with ukranian fotos - I also create DR's for unfree foto of russian troops, like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Fotos_taken_not_from_Mil.ru and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:A-davydov.jpg (posters with foto of russian soldiers of war in UA). Kursant504 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

By this DRs from Mil.gov.ua - i just took a category "Mil.gov.ua" and started to check all photos by the alphabet. And start to create a "little" mass-DRs for administrators was easier to check them. Kursant504 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This reads more like a user-conduct issue than a mere copyright matter. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 107#Kursant504. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
By the way, there is a good example of the fact that Ukrainian government departments use different licenses on different web-sites (photo from the website of the President of Ukraine with NC-license). And two other: one soviet photo was already deleted by the administrators because it really violated copyrights, and the second one - is derivative work of soviet with NC-license. I don't understand what problems you saw here.Kursant504 (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't agree with you. It is obvious to me that not all military personnel who conduct filming in a combat zone do this as part of their official duties and automatically transfer the copyrights to these materials to their military department. It means that MoD of UA can publish on their social media a non free content, that they take from web. Also as MoD of Russia do: on mil.ru media is free (publish own unique materials), on youtube, VK and Telegram - is not (often they publish foto and video from social media). That's why free license is used only to media from Mil.gov.ua. If some press services of Ukrainian military troops are really published their own free content - they put such license in description, like some military troops do (see "Template:Mil.gov.ua KPSZSU Twitter" and "Template:Mil.gov.ua 831stTAB FB" for example). Kursant504 (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kursant504: I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that a lot (if not all) of the media you filed for deletion is really the work of corresponding press-services that was intentionally shared with the rest of the world. It is their own work and not republished content from 3rd parties.--vityok (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It is wonderful that you can say this so confidently, but I am not inclined to share such an optimistic point of view. After all, without a corresponding statement about a free license, these are all just our guesses. But we mustn't violate the copyrights of photographers. Even if the photo is their official duty (here it’s easy to remember army's military photographers during the Second World War - a lot of their photographs are still protected by copyright). Kursant504 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

File:8432 A Trans-Canada Hwy (1970 2013) (9542746563).jpg

C vio .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission

I'm a bit confused about File:Sheldon L. Rittmer - Official Portrait - 79th GA.jpg, the template Template:Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission says "low-resolution portraits [...] may be accessed and used by the general public", but I can't find that formulation on https://www.legis.iowa.gov/. Are official state portraits usually copyrighted? Is the higher resolution I found of the photo and uploaded a copyvio? Is this clarified in the VRT? Can we downscale the larger image I found or do we have to use the one with weird contrast? Beao (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I presume that the license was given in the VRT communication indicated by the VRT template that is there. If you stray outside those parameters (i.e. using a high resolution image) you can't rely on that license. I think there is a VRT noticeboard if you need any clarification -- nobody else can see the contents, so we can't answer here. Works done by state governments are usually presumed copyrighted by default, yes. I can't imagine there would be a problem scaling it down to match the resolution that is on the site, as the bad contrast was likely caused by bad conversion tools of the era, but unless the better version is actually on that website it's technically outside the bounds -- but within the spirit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Photos by Brazilian Gov in Flickr under CC BY-ND 2.0

I saw there were 7k photos in Wikipedia by the President's photographer uploaded from Flickr. Category:Photographs_by_Ricardo_Stuckert

I wanted to upload this photo, but I received the message it was under CC BY-ND. So, after checking why the previous photos were able to be uploaded, I noticed that photos taken before July 27, 2023 were under "CC BY 2.0", and after that under "CC BY-ND 2.0". Frustrated, but I still wonder if I could upload it under Template:PD-Brazil-Gov. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Real-life challenges to {{Non-free graffiti}} in America

I stumbled upon these sources while expanding w:en:Freedom of panorama#United States. All of these report or discuss some recent cases involving street art or graffiti. While there is no finality to these cases (as all of those were settled outside the court), these could change the copyright landscape and may give illegal art legal copyright protection.

This and this are about General Motor's use of a graffito by Adrian Falkner (a.k.a. Smash 137); the latter article mentions a settlement between the two. The latter article also mentions a separate case involving Mercedes-Benz's use of another graffito.
This and this are about the legal battle between clothing firm H&M and renowned graffiti artist Jason "Revok Williams, over H&M's use of Revok's Brooklyn graffito as a backdrop of their ad campaign.

These and possibly other recent cases involving graffiti and street art in the United States may challenge the legality of what {{Non-free graffiti}} says. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Addition: the website of our leading broadsheet also discusses the issue (focusing on Revok vs. H&M case): the article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not to comment on the cases directly, but I've always thought Commons should be more cautious when it comes images of graffiti in the United States where it's signed and by a well known graffiti artist. There's at least a couple I think of off the top of my head that use well pseudonyms that are connected to them IRL and I don't see why they couldn't make a case their work is copyrighted in those situations. I don't think the illegality of the artwork argument is that compelling in most cases either since a lot of graffiti artists either have permission from the owner of the property or are creating the graffiti in a well known, designated area just for street art. Like there's a few places where I live that the police take a very hands off approach to since they are well known places for tagging and it's better to allow graffiti there versus more public places. Commons could definitely take a more conservative approach to it and not allow images by established artists where the graffiti was created in a non-illegal or borderline illegal place. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, several African countries may even define folklore stuffs as copyrighted, so why graffitis may not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree our guidelines and templates should be revisited. Should we have an RFC about COM:GRAFFITI and {{Non-free graffiti}}? Nosferattus (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nosferattus I agree to have a new RFC for COM:GRAFFITI, specifically the part stating that artists of illegal graffiti may have diffficulty in enforcing copyright. This is the very same argument used by H&M in lambasting Revok, when his lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter to the famous clothing and fashion retailer to stop using his graffito painted on a Brooklyn wall as a background in their ad campaign. Yet H&M suffered serious damage to public image after street artists' groups urged the public to boycott H&M products. H&M later withdrew their legal action against Revok, and the two sides eventually reached a settlement (outside the court) in favor of Revok. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Still another addition, this 2019 online article by HFG Law and IP lists some other notable instances of graffiti artists' lawsuits against commercial users, mostly due to the works being used in advertisements or ad campaigns. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Such graffitis are legal graffitis. But {{Non-free graffiti}} says illegal graffitis. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow at least in one case in the U.S. (will try to find that reference, it seems involving one of the cases I added in the English Wikipedia article), a court granted the artist of an illegal graffiti to sue a user of his "illegally-painted" work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Any chance you'd be willing to do an RFC since you know the background to this and whatnot? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Upload vs license date on COM:FOP Vietnam

From what I can glean here, Vietnam recently changed their copyright law so that new images of sculptures and buildings cannot benefit from Freedom of Panorama. This took place after the start of 2023, so new uploads are not allowed. I think I understand this. My question though is this: Why can't we allow images that were uploaded after this date as long as they were licensed earlier and this is verifiable (e.g., Flickr images)? The date clearly matters since the law is not retroactive and we're not deleting pre-2023 images. (pinging User:Krd, User:Materialscientist, and User:A1Cafel because they closed and/or nominated the relevant deletion requests; e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tallest building in South East Asia in Ho Chi Minh City (49381642302).jpg). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I would think we can. It shouldn't revoke any license for a picture that was already licensed. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

We must not have a situation where existing pre-2023 uploads on Commons are allowed, but new transfers of pre-2023 Flickr uploads are not allowed. If pre-2023 uploads are only allowed to stay on their original website (whether that's Flickr or Commons), then the license is not truly free, and the pre-2023 Commons images must be deleted as well. (Note: I am not making an absolute statement about which interpretation of Vietnamese copyright law is correct; I am making a conditional statement that we cannot keep our existing images if we don't also allow images uploaded to Flickr under the same conditions.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Uploading pre-2023 FoP-Vietnam-related files to Commons. If the file doesn't violate copyright on Flickr then I don't understand why it would violate on Commons 🎪🤡. First of all, we should pay attention to the date when the image was uploaded to Flickr, not Commons. The upload date on Commons isn't genuine in this case. Юрий Д.К 02:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue is what "not retroactive" means in this case. User:King of Hearts is right in that being allowed to keep the images isn't enough, distribution (etc.) must also still be allowed. For this we need more info. Still, if we decide that the images need to be deleted, it is important to keep enough information that people following a reuser's link back here don't get the impression that the file was a copyright violation already when it was copied to there. That reuser doesn't need to be allowed to redistribute the image for new uses. –LPfi (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems better to ask the relevant copyright office of Vietnam, a Vietnamese legislator involved in the copyright law, or a Vietnam-based lawyer to clarify the issue. @Alphama, Băng Tỏa, and Violetbonmua: , Vietnamese participants of Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/10#Updated copyright law of Vietnam and no more FOP?. At worst there should also be an opinion from the copyright office, legislator, or lawyer if Vietnamese FoP was really free for commercial use from the start (that is, the pre-2023 FoP of Vietnam). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

user:Stepro/DFB

There are 1094 files tagged with User:Stepro/DFB. Are these files really compliant with Commons licensing policy which states that all files must be able to be used unrestrictedly, commercially or not? Jonteemil (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We had this topic already several times. Please read and understand User:Stepro/Missverständnisse, first passage. Available in German and English. Stepro (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds pretty much just like {{Personality rights}}. The problem is using the phrase "commercial use" in a strictly copyright context (like we do), where elsewhere it means use in a publicity rights scenario, which is an entirely different thing with no correlation. If the copyright license prevents commercial use, it's a problem for upload here. If any other legal right prevents commercial use, it's not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"the photographer is providing the work under the terms of a Creative Commons license which allows commercial reuse" - copyright is not restricted and allows commercial reuse
"Due to brand and personality rights" - restrictions are only because of brand and personality rules, not because of copyright
"commercial use" has two different meanings: We understand this in a way, that somebody earns money with it. Such organizations don't understand commercial newspapers and so on as "commercial use", they mean to use it on T-Shirts and other merchandise stuff, or commercial advertising. That's why they allow "editorial use" without further asking, although for us in paid newspapers and so on this is "commercial use". For them not.

Stepro (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you, in case that wasn't clear. :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

So I misunderstood you there. :-) Stepro (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

copyright and US governmental works

I've stumbled upon a Commons contributor whose perception of copyright and public domain are wildly different than anything I've seen at the English Wikipedia or the Commons in the last 19 years. At these two deletion discussions (one and two), Feoffer (talk · contribs) has suggested that the US government's use of third parties' works places them into the public domain essentially by virtue of republishing them. My understanding it that, if the US federal government publishes the otherwise-copyrighted work of a third party, as they can do under the fair-use doctrine, it doesn't place that original author's work into the public domain. I really just want to double-check whether I'm correct, or am I way off base, and the FBI's use of third-party materials actually does strip the copyright from the original authors and place the photos/videos into the public domain? I don't want to be arguing from the wrong position, and I can't find a specific Commons page that would clearly and succinctly support or disprove my understanding. Much thanks, Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Fourthords: I believe you are correct, the FBI doesn't steal copyright like that. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: That's certainly what I thought, but is there a Commons policy or explanation page that backs up that position? It's been my experience both here and enwp, but I don't know of any FFDs that explicitly deal with the contentions being argued at the discussions I linked. Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Fourthords: Legally, we can host it under fair use. But doing so would be against policy because it's not free enough for our policy COM:L. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 18:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate Fourthouds' comments and wow, I had no idea they had been here for 19 years! Thank you for the wonderful project you helped create, it's an honor to be a part of it. They mis-state my views a bit, so I don't mind JeffG disagreeing with their claims of what I'm arguing -- I'd disagree with that too! I never say the original work loses its copyright, but decades of Wikipedia precedent shows the US federal court dockets, congressional records, and federal agency publications are always PD-USGOV.

So far as I can tell, FBI suspect photos have always been classed as PD-USGOV, going back more than 19 years! I've never seen copyright asserted to limit the distribution of a FBI suspect photo before, has anyone else? Feoffer (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair use publication by the FBI does not change the status of the photo (or they would, effectively, have the right to steal anyone's copyright).

Some of these images are PD (a photo by a fixed-position surveillance camera; a prior federal mugshot), others are not.

Yes, you can redistribute a wanted poster, but as I understand it using a copyrighted photo extracted from the poster for other purposes would be on a fair use basis, so it's sort of like an ND condition. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you fully, can we use a concrete example? File:Fbi wanted.jpg is a PD-USGOV poster of James Earl Ray created and published by the FBI in 1968. Are you suggesting that it would become a copyright violation to crop a public domain image? Feoffer (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Pre-1989 (and especially pre-1978) U.S. copyright law is quite different. Authorized publication of an image without a copyright notice was sufficient to put it in the public domain. So, if the first two images here were mug shots (which they look like), it doesn't matter what jurisdiction they were from: they passed it to the FBI to use, FBI published without copyright notice, boom: public domain. Since 1989, that doesn't work. - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's presume that Ray in the Tux is a photo that was not owned by the FBI -- obviously the original high resolution photograph of Ray in the Tux, wherever it is, is still covered by copyright. Meanwhile, the wanted poster has never had its copying and distribution limited under US Law.

Is you assertion that CROPPING a public domain image can somehow lead to a non-public domain image? If we cropped the wanted poster to show JUST the tux pic, would that transform it from Public Domain to Copyrighted? Feoffer (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. The poster makes proper fair use of a copyrighted photo. here is no legal problem with the poster. However, Commons does not allow images to be here on a fair-use basis, and the use of the photo is much to prominent to be de minimis. So while there is no question about the legality of copying and redistributing the poster, it does not conform to Commons criteria, which allow derivative works. The poster is basically in the same status as (for example) an en-wiki article that has a fair use image as it lead image. We could not host a screen-grab of the first page of that article on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't bring up my time here to make hay of it, but to explain why I would seek clarification from others. We're not trying to "limit the distribution of a FBI suspect photo" because it isn't an FBI photo; it's some third party's photo that the FBI used. Yes, the actual work created by the federal government (e.g. the words written in this document by an agent) is automatically in the public domain; yet if they use the whole or portions of others' works (e.g. the Parler video frame), that use isn't de minimis and does not follow the surrounding work into the public domain. Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

de minimis doesn't apply to the Feds, their use doesn't have to be "fair" in the same sense of an ordinary private citizens. When a murderer is on the loose, the feds get to publish pictures of the man and we're all allowed to distribute them to alert the public.

does not follow the surrounding work The 'surrounding work' is the full conversation that was witnessed by Federal Agents intercepting suspect communications undertaken via a now-defunct smartphone app; and whatever copyright it had before, it still has.

But as to the "wanted poster"-stle image released by the FBI, which is being continually published by the FBI and the US federal courts system, it has literally entered the public domain, like all images of its class. It is no longer a violation of US law to share that image freely. Like every other FBI suspect photo, it is now PD-USGOV. Feoffer (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The federal government is as liable for copyright infringement as our reusers: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes-3-5m-for-using-wrong-statue-of-liberty-on-a-stamp/ The FBI's use of third party photographs is fair use, and English Wikipedia could justify the same under fair use if they changed policy to allow wanted posters. Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow fair use so we have to get permission from the actual photographer and the FBI using a third-party image doesn't make the photograph enter the public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The USPS is not the same as the Congressional Record, a federal court docket, or the FBI's most wanted. Can you show me any prior examples of FBI publications including subject photos that have been denied PD-USGOV categorization? Feoffer (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Two deletions I've done Commons:Deletion requests/File:GadahnBeforetheBeard.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dzhojar Tsárnayev.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay! Sincerely, good answer. People online ask for source all time and then skip over a response when sources are provided -- sincerely, thank you. I completely disagree with your interpretation and find it at odds with both my understanding of US copyright and decades of wikimedia policy, but I deeply appreciate you tracking down those deletions for me. Thank you. I will note, both proposed by the same user, less than two months ago, no objection from any other user, so.. not a STRONG precedent, but still very sincerely appreciated. Feoffer (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

See w:en:Zapruder film. Publication of frames under fair use. Government seized the original film, but had to pay Zapruder heirs $16M, and did not get the copyright. Glrx (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a yuuuuuge stretch -- the FBI never published any suspect photos from Zapruder, they just seized and held the film, and so of course he got his film back. If the FBI had zoomed in on someone in the Zapruder film and chosen to publish that image on a wanted poster, then everyone in the US would have been free to share the wanted poster. Feoffer (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

everyone in the US would have been free to share the wanted poster As fair use. Again, Commons does not accept content on a fair-use basis (with the sole exception that de minimis is a special case of fair use that we do allow). - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Not as fair use -- we have thousands of wanted posters and subject images tagged as PD-USGOV, going back DECADES. "Under Copyright" means you can't reprint them in the US, and there has NEVER been a time when you couldn't reprint FBI wanted posters in the US. That's what PD-USGOV means -- the Gov published an image for public distribution and anyone can distribute it. Same goes for Congressional records and white house record and court records. In the US at least, Federal publications are PD. Feoffer (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"In the US at least, Federal publications are PD" - This is simply untrue, as others have attempted to explain above. You appear to conflate federal publication (which is not even a word that appears in the oft-referenced {{PD-USGov}}, let alone the relevant code section) with federal authorship (the actual criterion). 17 U.S.C. § 105, the basis for that template, sets forth "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (underlined added) Your claims are without basis, and the notion that federal publication renders a work public domain is contradicted by 17 U.S.C. (again, "the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise"), at least the Fourth Amendment, plain reading of the relevant law, and indeed common sense. Эlcobbola _talk 21:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going on what longstanding Wikimedia precedent has been. Can you cite any FBI suspect image, prior to two months ago, that was denied PD-USGOV? Feoffer (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

No, you're not genuinely engaging with other's comments, and making vacuous OTHERSTUFF allusions. The onus is on you to support your positions, not me or anyone else to disprove them. If appeals to the "longstanding" are what interest you, consider reading the "Common misconceptions" section ("Government hosting") of Reviewing Free Images dispatch from 15 years ago. Эlcobbola _talk 21:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I may not have been here 19 years, but I've been here long enough to AGF. Pretend I'm from Missouri -- if Wikipedia really no longer allows FBI images to be published as PD-USGOV, there should be a slew of precedents to support your argument. Right now, I only see precedents that support mine. Feoffer (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

But not to have read it, apparently; I see no comments about your intentions. Images authored by employees of the FBI are public domain; one presumes we have many such images. Images not authored by employees of the US federal government that appear in FBI publications are not public domain by the latter alone; one presumes we also have many such images--feel free to nominate them for deletion. Эlcobbola _talk 22:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If I started nominating every PD-USGOV FBI image of unknown secondary provenance, I would be rightfully warned for disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Feoffer (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I promise I'm not trying to be POINTY, but it really is standard procedure to upload the full criminal complaint so our readers can verify it without leaving the project, so I've done so. Because this image is a crop that document, it seems obvious I should disclose that upload to the discussion here. Feoffer (talk)

@Feoffer: No, as far as I know that is not "standard procedure" at all. (FWIW, I'm an admin here and on en-wiki, and a 20-year veteran of the latter.) What is the basis of that claim? - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I apologize if it should not have been done, but I see countless examples that led and lead me to believe it's pretty standard really. take a peek. Feoffer (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

PD-USGov is for "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties". See Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. That is the only way to get PD-USGov status. It cannot have its copyright status changed by someone publishing it alone. That may have been arguable before the 1909 Copyright Act, but even though that law (superseded in 1978) defined a "publication of the United States Government" as being free of copyright, that law also noted: the publication or republication by the Government, either separately or in a public document, of any material in which copyright is subsisting shall not be taken to cause any abridgement or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such copyright material without the consent of the copyright proprietor. Since 1978, a government work is explicitly just those done by government employees. In the United Kingdom, before 1988, it was possible, if first published by the government, for it to "take over" a copyright as Crown Copyright there (which has different terms, but was not public domain). Since 1988, their definition is similar to the one in the US.

A photo's use as part of US Government business greatly expands the fair use scope, so republishing those would generally not be illegal, though some derivative works could be an issue. Before 1989, published photographs needed a copyright notice, so many photographs before then were public domain before the US Government used them. If someone consented to the government publishing them before 1989, and there was no copyright notice, they would also likely be public domain. So many old ones would be PD-US-no_notice instead of PD-USGov, which are still fine. Very occasionally, people publishing images through the government are made to understand they are placing them in the public domain (such as the bottom of this page). The issue is mainly for newer images, and then only because of site policy (no fair use) rather than being actual copyright infringements. That unfortunately gets into theoretical problems unlikely to ever be an issue in real life, but it is policy. One last possibility is using the {{De minimis}} tag -- we have several works which unavoidably contain a copyrighted work as part of a photo of a wider subject; cropping out just that one element could be a copyright violation, so we don't allow those, but we do allow the wider photo with that warning. That is not obviously applicable to a case like this, where photos are a small part of a much larger document -- probably not strictly legally de minimis or incidental. It would more technically be fair use, even though it seems somewhat similar. Whether that crosses the policy line, may be up for debate. But the logic that they become public domain, is definitely not true. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the specific image that prompted this discussion would certainly qualify as fair use, and presumably the larger government document from which it came is still PD-USGOV, but it sounds like the large specific image may have to be removed from Commons? Thank you for typing all this out. Feoffer (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Bharat Broadband Network logo.png

File:Bharat Broadband Network logo.png was uploaded as "own work" which it most likely isn't per bbnl.nic.in. The question is whether it's too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:TOO United States and COM:TOO India. If not, it should be deleted if this copyright statement is insufficient for Commons purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

License changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Multiple images with issues because of lack of FoP in Greece

File:20090802 distomo05.jpg was just withdrawn from Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list because it got multiple opposing votes because of the lack of FoP in Greece. Unfortunately, it is an image that is used on several wikis. In addition, multiple other images in Category:Karakolithos National Resistance Memorial must be suspected to be not acceptable for Commons. What is the appropriate course of action to deal with these issues? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robert Flogaus-Faust: So nominate them for deletion on the grounds of COM:FOP Greece with "<noinclude>[[Category:Greek FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>". — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robert Flogaus-Faust just like what Jeff G. said, nominate for deletion is the key. Should there be dozens needing nominations, it is fine as right now (as of this writing), opened French FOP cases number more than 40, and opened Ukrainian FOP cases number about 50 (many are involving sculptures, started by me). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Already made the nomination myself. Note that there may be other problematic images of Greece that needs removals. No choice, Greek law only allows "occasional reproduction" by mass media, and does not allow free uses by those engaged in tourism or website development. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Is Esteghlal Fc Football Club.png freely distributable?

File:Esteghlal Fc Football Club.png gives permission as {{talk quote inline|باشگاه فوتبال استقلال تهران}} [Esteghlal Football Club of Tehran] The original uploaded didn't request permission as far as I can see. Is there permission on file? Should this have a {{PD-Textlogo}} and/or {{Trademark}}? Should it be deleted as copyright violation? Thanks Adakiko (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Oops - nowiki the template & contents. Adakiko (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely follow that. I assume from source "Template:Talk quote inline [Esteghlal Football Club of Tehran]" was mean to read as "باشگاه فوتبال استقلال تهران [Esteghlal Football Club of Tehran]". I don't know what to make of "the original uploaded". I'd guess "the original upload" or "the original uploader", but neither of those makes sense here either. - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. I had to leave in a hurry and didn't check my work. I nowiki-ed out the templae. Adakiko (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm adding {{Trademarked}}, which is obviously the case. I see no basis to believe the claimed license. Given Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iran#Threshold of originality it is above the Iranian threshold of originality, so it presumably should be deleted. Pinging @Amirmahdi Saadati as uploader and Erfe356785 who uploaded the current version: do you have any evidence that the club issued this license? Otherwise, this should be deleted as a copyvio. - Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Another Campbell's Soup Cans image issue

I was here last month with some issues regarding w:Campbell's Soup Cans image issues at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Additional_images_at_w:Campbell's_Soup_Cans. I got a lot of help from a host of discussants: @Verbcatcher, Felix QW, Glrx, Ellin Beltz, and Jeff G.: . It has been brought to my attention that the source link at File:Campbell tomato soup ad 1968.jpg is dead. Does that affect opinions about the licensing status of this image.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: why would that matter? In 1968 in the U.S. there would have had to be a copyright notice on the ad to get a copyright. Clearly there isn't. - Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The copyright notice could be on the back of this poster that we just don't see when we go to this file page. Realmaxxver (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is not a poster but an advertisement printed in a newspaper, which promises obtaining the poster when sending in a coupon. This seems to me an inherently single-sided publication. Felix QW (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Realmaxxver, Felix QW, and Jmabel: My understanding is that as long as this was a single-sided publication printed without a copyright notice, and the current licensing is considered valid. Is there a way to amend the source link?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- The source link doesn't matter much when the evidence is part of the upload itself. If there is a web archive link, switch to that, otherwise not much we can do (though should keep the link). The upload should probably use {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} to be a bit more specific. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Here, another ad for the same image. Also, this one identifies the artist. DS (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Good find! I have had it archived by the WayBackMachine, so that the situation does not repeat itself. Felix QW (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thx. I have added {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}-TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Video call: who owns the copyright?

A videographer usually owns the copyright of their work – right? When you participate in a video call, that would presumably remain true; it's your camera that is recording you and you thus hold the copyright for your feed. If so, that would preclude somebody from publishing a recording of a video conference call under a license suitable for Commons, unless of course all participants have agreed to this. I tried to find something about this in copyright pages but drew a blank. Could we please get this clarified, and then document the situation? There are some news outfits that publish their conference calls with interviews on YouTube under a free license, and I'm doubting that they can do that. Schwede 66 01:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Ownership of the camera has nothing to do with copyright. Ruslik (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you please expand on your answer? I’m not talking about ownership, but rather being the operator of that camera. Schwede 66 05:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the copyright holder is the one doing the recording. For a visioconference (with Zoom, Skype, etc.), it creates the weird situation that the same session will have different copyright holders depending on who does the recording. Yann (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a bit of an error here in thinking of a recording of a zoom call as a compilation or collective work, composed of independent works that are each subject to their own copyright. The feeds of different sides of a conversation are not independent, they are intertwined and inseparable. The recording has to be seen as a single work. In the same way you wouldn't look at a movie and try to separately determine the copyright owner of every scene.

This leads to the next question: Who is the author of that recording? The author of a work is generally the "mastermind" who controls the overall work and causes it to come into being. (Not simply the person making the recording; the author of a movie is generally the producer and/or director, not the camera operator.) In this case, the "mastermind" would seem to be the news organization, which arranged the interview, selected the topic, drove the conversation, and edited it together.

An alternative theory would be that the interview was a work of joint authorship, with the interviewee as a joint author. This seems unlikely, but could be the case if, for example, the interview was conceived as a joint project between the news organization and the interviewee. (See jury instructions as a reference.) But if it's a joint work, then it seems that either of the two authors has the right to license the work, without the other's consent. Commons:Joint authorship has some discussion on whether Commons should allow works under that circumstance. Toohool (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. In addition, copyright only concerns tangible assets. Zoom doesn't record anything by default. It only sends the video over the Internet. So there is no copyright in a Zoom session until someone records it. Yann (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

CC0 documents Dutch House of Representatives

The Dutch House of Representatives has implemented the Dutch Open Government Law by having CC0 as the default license for its documents. Because there are a few exceptions and multiple ways these documents are published, it's not always easy for Wikimedians to ascertain that CC0 applies. I have asked the House of Representatives for clarification, which has resulted in this template with documentation. The clarification and other steps leading to the template are on its Talk page. Are this template and its documentation fit for use? MarcoSwart (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Swedish Portrait Archive

There is a very good deal of files here, taken from this website: [2] and so on. Meanwhile, if we open https://portrattarkiv.se/about , we can find there the following: All portraits and user-submitted information are free to use with the Create Commons BY-SA 4.0 license if not specified otherwise on the portrait page. Okay, let's omit the mistake - Create instead of Creative. The problem is that the hyperlink this fragment of text contains, leads to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ - to the incompatible license: [3]! Has this been discussed before and is there any decision been made regarding this? Komarof (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd either ignore the bad link or inform them of it, but it doesn't change the meaning of the text on the page. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that there is a green logo at the bottom of each picture page (the ones I checked, anyway), which does lead to the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. I would be careful of this though in those cases where it is implausible that the uploader is the copyright owner and there is no evidence of permission from the copyright owner either, as for most of the historic portraits on that site. Felix QW (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Felix QW: you see, fellow commoner Janee have found one more page concerning this: [4] - All portraits are licensed under the Create Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 if not specified otherwise on the portrait page, so it doesn't seem like this issue can be simply ignored. --Komarof (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there any portraits though on which it is "not declared otherwise"? All the ones I have clicked through so far have the green logo with the CC-BY-SA link. Felix QW (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Given all these inconsistencies, this green seal does not seem to be such an unconditional and accurate indication of a specific license. I would ask the archive administration to dig into the issue, understand the difference between these two licenses and clearly explain their position. --Komarof (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, given that we have {{PD-Art}}, I would be less concerned about the licensing on the page and more about the copyright of the underlying portraits. I am so far unconvinced that the contributors to this Facebook group are actually the copyright holders for all those portraits. Felix QW (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the situation again, and I don't think we should be using any files (and particular entire encyclopedia entries!) from there that are not known to be public domain. It is simply not believable that the uploaders have copyright to both images and encyclopedia entries, many of which are signed or initialed, and nowhere on the website does it say that uploaders must actually assert that they are the copyright owners of the material. Of course, sifting through 20,000 images, many of which will be PD, is not easy, but I don't think just pretending everything makes sense is responsible. Felix QW (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've come to a conclusion that won't be enthusiastically received by the local community. Unfortunately this discussion has not attracted the attention of at least a few admins to suggest that your findings will have any consequences. It’s unlikely that anyone would be willing to sort through a category, containing dozens of thousands of files. Especially since many of them are old enough to be tagged as PD-old. --Komarof (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Josve05a and Thuresson: as mother-tongue speakers, could you please help clarify this? --Komarof (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Jag har mailat Svenskt porträttarkiv om stavningen av ordet Create och Creative, inväntar svar Janee (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Janee: Det är inte så viktigt. Det spelar roll vilken licens de installerade: CC-BY-SA eller CC-BY-NC-SA. --Komarof (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't had reason to use SPA much myself but as far as I can tell all photos of Swedes are public domain because of age, proper license template would be {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. The Creative Commons license is nonsense of course and SPA do not own copyright to any of the photos. I was recently involved in a deletion request concerning one photo from SPA uploaded with a Creative Commons license without attribution to the photographer; that photo was, according my own research, taken before 1890 (deletion request). Thuresson (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thuresson, thanks, yes, most of them, but not all (for example, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Aina Eriksson-Enckell). I think, the text at the top of Category:Swedish Portrait Archive should be replaced by the direct indication that the license specified at the archive website cannot be relied upon. --Komarof (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The SPA would have been better off using "no known copyright restrictions" which we have accepted from institutions in the past. We accept Flickr Commons images under "no known copyright restrictions". I don't see any utility in adding "This file may not have the correct information on its copyright status." to all the images as was done here. In both Sweden and the United States you can't copyright basic factual information. We have ruled in the past that a simple funeral notice or even a curriculum vitae listing basic birth, education and death information is not creative enough to garner a copyright, two independent people writing the funeral notice/curriculum vitae would generate the same content. A longer prose obituary is more creative, which you can see by comparing two of them. --RAN (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to revert the template if you think it is unhelpful. The template page advised that this was the correct template to use if a freely licensed file may in fact be PD; At least I did not feel sufficiently confident that this was below the ToO to add such a tag myself.

Regarding "no known copyright restrictions", I do think there is a difference between an archival institution which actually has access to the original objects and some record of their provenance and a website that is based on a Facebook group accepting open uploads.

Otherwise I agree with Komarof and Thuresson that most images will be in the public domain. My initial issue was rather with the textual component of files such as this one, an initialled full encyclopedia entry. Felix QW (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
With "This file may not have the correct information on its copyright status." it isn't clear if you were arguing for a more restrictive license or a more liberal license. I see nothing wrong with replacing the the CCs with PD-Sweden, or adding both. Almost all the entries use that curriculum vitae style biography, facts and dates, lacking commentary. --RAN (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Topo symbols for climbing routes

I have been updating en:Topo (climbing) on en-WP. There are 30 standard symbols that the UIAA recommend (they didn't make them, as climbers have used them for decades) for making topos route maps. These symbols are not copyrighted or protected by the UIAA. They are used in many climbing guidebook without attribution, for example here by German climbing gear manufacturer Orthovox, and are also customized and amended by guidebooks, for example here by US online database, OutdoorActive.

Someone has uploaded loaded half of these UIAA recommended symbols to Commons into Category:UIAA Topo-symbols, but the de-WP version of the Topo (climbing) article (de:Topo ) has all 30 of them. I notice that half the de-WP article symbols are from Commons, but the other half were uploaded directly as files unto de-WP with a notice on the files that they are not to be imported into Commons without an "individual review". Given that nobody has ever copyrighted these symbols, that they are used widely copyright free in guidebooks (and amended), and that they are simple symbols, is it possible to get these German files uploaded into the Commons category? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If they originate from Europe, no "copyrighting" is needed for them to get the copyright. That was an American thing. They might be too simple (at least some clearly are) or too old for there to be any copyright restrictions, but that should be stated explicitly, so that it can be challenged. Do you know how long these have been in use? Are the ones in de-wp significantly amended from the old ones? –LPfi (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that is was not the UIAA who specifically developed or designed these symbols, they had been used in guidebooks for decades as shorthand for features on routes (I can't find any origin or "first" use - they probably were added one-by-one to the system). The UIAA just gathered them at a point in time and formally listed them as being the "consensus" for each definition. That is why I don't think there is copyright here - i.e. nobody (UIAA included) ever claimed/or implied any "ownership" of them.

That is why I can't see anybody challenging us for copyright on these symbols, as nobody (not even the UIAA) can claim ownership of them? And hence why the table of symbols on the de-WP had remained unchallenged for over a decade now. The symbols themselves are less in use now as modern technology has made them more outdated, but I think it would be nice to preserve them in the topo article if possible as a full grid. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"The UIAA just gathered them at a point in time": roughly when was that point in time? - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright could be claimed by anybody who created the first version (or any significant enough changes) of any of the symbols, given that it reaches the threshold of originality (which one could argue none of these does). If the origins are from before 1946, they would mostly be free also because of age: 1996-50 for the formerly typical anonymous publication term not restored by the URAA. –LPfi (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The German-wp "Topo" article has a reference to a UIAA document in 2010 ("UIAA Guidebook Standards") but the link no longer works, and the UIAA have nothing on their site (nor on the internet). I have guidebooks from the Alps from the 1970s that use these symbols (none reference the UIAA). Any references that I find on the wider internet to these symbols alludes to them being "recommended" by the UIAA (i.e. here, here). This book by German equipment manufacturer Ortovox list them here but gives no attribution/mention to the UIAA. That is why I think these symbols have no "owner" (they are too simple, and have been in uses informally for decades). many thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

These look to me like they would be below COM:TOO at least in most countries. - Jmabel ! talk 15:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there countries with low threshold that are probable origins to the symbols? Otherwise we should probably import also the rest, with {{Shape}} as licence. If some of them are borderline cases, either leave those unimported (like some very cautious user previously seems to have done) or add some warning to their permission field. –LPfi (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If we could import them all (with the correct license/caveats) that would be great. As I said above, modern climbing "topos" are so detailed now (i.e. complete move-by-move videos of even large routes) that these old symbols are less in use, so would love to preserve them in the en-Topo article. I don't think anybody is going to come asserting copyright on these (too basic, and too much in common use and without attribution by climbing guidebooks/websites), so if we could err on the side of importing them all, that would be great. Thanks for all your help, much appreciated. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi, do you think we can import these remaining symbols from de-WP now? (I think it needs a commons admin to do it). thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether they are simple enough for PD-shape. I think they might be, but I have no expertise in judging the threshold of originality of shapes, even less in an international context. –LPfi (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, understand, and thank you for your comments and input. Would anybody else know? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Any expert opinion to be had here? Issue is German TOO + U.S. TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

IMO nothing in Category:UIAA Topo-symbols has a copyright. These symbols are too basic to create a copyright anywhere. Yann (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

All symbols in that category are below COM:TOO Germany in my opinion. And below COM:TOO USA as well. --Rosenzweig τ 08:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds good. Could we import the balance of the outstanding symbols that were uploaded as files to de-WP (they can't be moved to Commons without some kind of an administrator approval)? If they could all be gathered under Category:UIAA Topo-symbols, that would be great. thanks for your consideration. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Photographs by "Staff of Rep" (US)

There are 23 files (filetype:image "staff of rep") authored by "Staff of Rep" for various US representatives. They are all marked {{PD-USGov}}. Sources are twitter, facebook and house.gov. I'm not sure whether these files are actually in the public domain. Are staff members of US representatives employees of the US government, or are they employed by the representative? @Tym2412 who uploaded most (all?) of these photographs. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, these are probably not OK. Feel free to start deletion requests. Yann (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Commons:Deletion requests/Image by "Staff of rep" Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Congressional staff are US-Gov employees, paid with the budget of the Congress. --RAN (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The actual name of the staff member should be here as Author per COM:EVID. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 21:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Reps may have staff other than those working in Congress. Davidships (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status' of Illustrated postmarks

I was thinking about uploading some images of illustrated postmarks like these ones from Japan, but comparing the licenses on similar images from different countries the licenses seem to be all over the place. Some are licensed with templates for stamps, which just seems wrong since that's not what they are. I'm not really sure what other license would apply though. Probably not "PD-Text Logo" since they aren't simple shapes in most cases, but then it also seems weird to hold them to the same standards as normal works due to their simplicity and the fact that some are released by countries were stamps or government works are otherwise in the public domain. But at least in Japan a lot of illustrated postmarks are created by known people. So I don't know why the artists wouldn't be the copyright holders in those cases, if not in others. I'm interested if anyone has any thoughts about it or knows differently though. Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD-AR-Photo

Hi. We need more eyes on the the discussion of the US status of Argentinian photos per Template talk:PD-AR-Photo#Public domain in US. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 21:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Testimonies at US congress

when a person, who's not a us govt employee, speaks at the us congress, is his speech in the public domain? like all the hearings when such people are called to testify. examples: File:Andrew Puzder Workers' Forum with Carl's Jr Employee Lupe Guzman.webm File:Fred Rogers testifies before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, 1969.ogv. RZuo (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The copyright starts when the speech is recorded, unless there is a prior written note. Yann (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There is also the copyright of the text of the speech, which the writer holds, and the copyright of the vocalization of the speech, which the speaker holds. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is a copyright on the vocalization. Copyright only concerns tangible assets. So if a speaker only answers questions without prior notes, s/he doesn't hold a copyright on the speech. Yann (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yann is correct, copyright requires something tangible. Copyright required a physical copy deposited with the Library of Congress when copyrights were first recognized. If someone makes a speech in the woods and no one records it, it is not copyrightable. --RAN (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Yann: Sorry, I was getting ahead of myself. The recording party gets the copyright to their recording of something due to RIAA clout. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

the nuance i wanted to ask about is, can people republish these speeches in textual form (e.g. a book or wikisource) claiming they are pd?

obviously their speeches are not recorded by them, but "fixed in a tangible medium" (in video form, or in textual form as in the congress transcripts) by us govt employees, whose works are in pd.

i feel weird about this "fixation" criterion. does it mean that, if someone gives an impromptu speech (not written down previously), then the person would not have the copyright of the speech, but the person transcribing or videotaping it would have the copyright of the text? RZuo (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

CC-BY license on YouTube videos by Disney Channel Israel

I have noticed that most videos uploaded by the Disney Channel Israel YouTube channel starting with "דאנסטורי | על הספה עם צ'רלי כרמלי - אלעד" on November 27, 2018 were released under YouTube's "Creative Commons - Attribution" license. Although this channel is a verified affiliate of the U.S. Disney Channel, is this CC-BY license valid enough for these videos (and derived audio excerpts, video clips and screenshots) to be suitable for Commons? --JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is. If the copyright holder released it, it counts. —MATRIX! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 21:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Are the people running the Disney Channel Israel page actually able to release these things? Is Disney's EMEA subsidiary actually the worldwide copyright holder? I find that a bit doubtful. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's Israel-specific content, then I would say it's OK. But if it's American/international content that's only being distributed by that channel, there is precedent from Disney Channel Canada that it's not OK since they may not have actually gotten permission from corporate to release the content. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a major difference between Disney Channel Canada and Disney Channel Israel. The Israeli channel is fully owned and operated by the Walt Disney Company, while the Canadian channel is operated under license from Disney. --JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't mess with Disney's lawyers. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I would say this case is similar to when Nickelodeon released renders of several elements from SpongeBob SquarePants on YouTube under the CC-BY license (see File:SpongeBob BingePants Podcast Trailer.webm and File:Voice Acting Tips with Tom Kenny.webm). It was even decided last month that those videos' licenses were determined to be legitimate, and derived screenshots/character renders could thus be hosted on Commons (see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-10#A few files from CC-licensed Nickelodeon videos). --JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

So these videos would be okay to upload as long as the {{Trademarked}} template is added to the file description page? --JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Tasnim

A change in Template:Tasnim is proposed, I invite users interested to participate in the discussion at Template talk:Tasnim#Proposing a change in the template. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:City street in moonlight.jpg

There isn't a date for the painting and the url is for a different work. There are a lot of other paintings by Louis Eilshemius uploaded here with date and source info. Should this one stay? APK (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

According to this source, the painting is from 1908 and now in a private collection. If it was published in the sense of contemporary American copyright law by 1928, or if any of the other cases of the Hirtle chart hold, it is now in the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. APK (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this sufficient credit for AI picture?

Hi, I uploaded this picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PredatorSpaceMarine.jpg - is credit sufficient? Clemenspool (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Clemenspool: See Commons:AI-generated media#Attribution. Nosferattus (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Donald Duck copyright

Hi, I feel the copyright on Donald Duck is not really enforced, although there is no doubt about it. Previous discussions: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/09#Donald Duck in The Spirit of '43, Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/02#Disney characters deletion requests, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Duck. Specifically, there is no warning in Category:Donald Duck, and there are numerous violating files in this category and subcategories.

Also, when does this copyright expire? No mention about this in the English WP article. Yann (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yann according to this article, the earliest version of Donald Duck will fall public domain by 2029. However, it is likely the most famous version that we're familiar with will still be under copyright, just like the case of Mickey Mouse, whose original version in the Steamboat Willie will only fall out of copyright weeks from now (on January 1, 2024). Same case for Winnie the Pooh whose first version fell public domain recently. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Accd. to en:Donald Duck he first appeared in the 1934 cartoon The Wise Little Hen, so that copyright will expire at the end of 2029, and it will be free starting January 1, 2030. The current version apparently first appeared in the 1936 cartoon Moving Day, so its copyright will expire at the end of 2031. --Rosenzweig τ 14:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. My question is related to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hueyline. When these files could be undeleted? Yann (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Commons:Character copyrights will answer all of your questions. Nosferattus (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: I know this page very well, and it doesn't answer my question, since this page is actually wrong (see Rosenzweig's answer above). Yann (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: It looks like there is a "Donald Duck" that appeared in 1931, but it was a completely different rendition.[5] The Wikipedia article was corrected on November 10th. Serves me right for blindly trusting Wikipedia! Thanks for the correction. Nosferattus (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this image indeed copyrighted?

Hi all,

this is about the photograph shown at https://www.tate-images.com/DK0260-A-very-rare-photograph-of-Leon-Trotsky-in-white.html. It has been taken in 1924 by an "Unknown photographer". The company, Tate Images, claims to have the copyright on this photograph as any other in their stock, see https://www.tate-images.com/faqs.asp. In my understanding that claim is not founded as it is an old orphan work and on January, 1, 2024 has been created more than a 100 years ago.

Is my assumption correct, that I am good to go uploading the file to the Commons regardless to Tate Images' copyright claim? Your advice is appreciated. Denis Barthel (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The page containing the image says it was purchased by Tate Images from David King. The question is if he or anyone else had published it anywhere before Tate Images bought it. Otherwise, I assume it will still be copyrighted since it looks like an amateur photograph. As in, not taking for a news article or the like. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

As an anonymous work of that era, it's in the public domain in most of the world. In the US, it might depend on where it was published, but it seems quite unlikely it was still copyrighted. Unless it was first published in Mexico or Colombia or Spain, it was out of copyright in 1924+70+1=1995 and hence not eligible for URAA restoration. (I'm not bothering to look up rules for those three nations, but I think it might have been PD even there.) Certainly Tate Images and David King have no right to it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Under US copyright law, this would seem to be an unpublished anonymous work, unless some evidence can be found to show that it was ever published under authority of the copyright holder. According to the Hirtle chart, unpublished anonymous works are protected for at least 120 years from creation, i.e. until 2045. Toohool (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Painting copyright Q

I just wanted to ask the folks here if I've correctly identified a painting as being in the public domain. Hilma af Klint (d. 1944) painted two versions of the Tree of Knowledge series from 1913 to 1915, and the works were never exhibited or published in her lifetime. She gifted one version to a philosopher and one stayed with her estate. Each would presumably have been a separate copyrightable work as they were paintings, not prints. The version that she gave away was then "rediscovered" in 2021, per the gallery that handled its introduction to the public and eventual sale to Glenstone. As far as I can tell, as the artist died in 1944 and the works were never published until after 70 years pma (first published formally in 2021), they legally fell into the public domain. Is that correct? Or could this work still be copyrighted? Thanks! I've uploaded a picture I took of one of the paintings, wanted to be sure it wasn't still in copyright. 19h00s (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds correct. The painting can be tagged as {{PD-old-auto-unpublished|deathyear=1944}}. Alternatively, it's possible that giving the painting to another person constituted publication under US copyright law, in which case it would qualify as {{PD-old-auto-expired}}. Toohool (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Character copyright redux

See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kirk Alyn as Superman in a publicity still from 1948.jpg for character copyright debate. This will also affect the Donald Duck discussion above. The issue is whether images that have entered the public domain can be clawed back because of "character copyright". RAN (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this Pewdiepie Video Copyrighted Free Use?

So I was checking at PewDiePie's Bitch Lasagna music video, and in the description Felix states that "Feel free to use this track (within reason), it won't be claimed", also in another video he clarifies that anyone who remixes or uses the MV can completely go for it without issue. So it would fall under Template:Copyrighted free use? Hyperba21 (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "it won't be claimed" is strong enough to be considered a free license. Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

And "within reason" is also so vague as to be useless for our purposes. If someone would like to upload this track, I think they should contact the rights holder and clarify that indeed he intends to release the video under a free license. I am not sure whether YouTube still has a mechanism for doing that, but he could simply alter the description and give an explicit free CC license. Felix QW (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

From that wording, I perceive that he is simply allowing other YouTubers to use his song in their videos and he won't claim their videos for revenue. Definitely not a release of Copyright. PascalHD (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No known copyright restrictions

There are a number of files on the State Historical Society of Missouri's archives that I would like to use, which are marked as "no known copyright restrictions". This link is one example. I'm very much a novice at copyright; can I use these images and, if so, what licence should I upload them under? A number of the photos (for example) are from the subject's papers and are unlikely to have been published until they were donated to the historical society on her death, if that changes the answer. Sammielh (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The photograph appears to be either from the 1920s or 1930s. I think we could use {{PD-US}} in this case, or a {{PD-Because|1=State Historical Society of Missouri says no known copyright restrictions}}. Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If they were truly unpublished, and the informal ones taken directly from the archive could well be, they would still be copyrighted until 120 years after their creation or 70 years after the death of the photographer (See the top rows of the Hirtle chart). So I would hesitate to assert {{PD-US}} myself on those pictures. If we trust the State Historical Society of Missouri to have done due diligence, {{PD-Because|State Historical Society of Missouri says no known copyright restrictions}} seems like a better option. Felix QW (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we accept Flickr Commons images under the same "no known copyright restrictions" from archives under the same assumption, that they have performed their due diligence. If they withdraw the license and delete from Flickr Commons, we generally also delete. --RAN (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Ernie Pyle bust by Jo Davidson.jpg

I thought since the artist died more than 70 years ago, this was in the public domain. Did I not add the right licensing template or am I completely wrong about the PD? APK (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We need a license for the photograph as well since it is a 3D artwork. Also, this is a 1944 American sculpture and for works published before 1978, publication is what matters, not artist life time. Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: although it is unlikely anyone renewed copyright on the sculpture in 1972, so probably the sculpture itself is PD. Needs research, though. And, yes, the photographer's copyright is a separate matter. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: @Jmabel: I took the photo. APK (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@APK: , Then you need to decide which license you want for the photo. Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: Ok, thank you. That gets me back to the original question. Which license should I be using so it isn't deleted? Sorry if this is a newbie question, but I don't recall this happening in the past. I thought the PD tag was sufficient. APK (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a decision that you as the copyright holder of the photograph need to make. Generally, the default license for own works is {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}}, but again it depends on whether you want reusers to have to license it comparably or not. COM:L has a very general overview of licenses we use. Abzeronow (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I thought it was something to do with the other licensing template. Thanks. APK (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Who is the author of an illustration

Hello. This question regards File:The Kid.jpg. Also viewable at WP's: en:Paul Martin (illustrator). It's the fourth picture down from the left side. Who should be the author under "Summary." Should it be Fisk Tires (or more properly, Fisk Rubber Company) or Paul Martin. Is it incorrect, as currently stated? Martin was commissioned to create the character for Fisk. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The author is the individual who created the work (where identifiable) or "unknown" (where not identified). The company may be the owner of the copyright but they are not the author. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So I will leave it as is. His signature is on the drawing, so it falls into the first (or identifiable) category. JimPercy (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sand sculptures' copyright statuses

There is a discrepancy in the closures of deletion requests involving sand sculptures. In some cases the sculptures are kept due to being temporary and not creative enough (like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sand sculpture at Carnac.jpg‎ and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rousse Sand Fest (18621688978).jpg), but in other cases the images got deleted citing lack of commercial or existing freedom of panorama legal right, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:White sand beach, Boracay Island - panoramio (1).jpg (from our country). There should be some discussion to determine if sand sculptures are indeed acceptable here on Commons or not.

In my opinion, temporary works are covered by creator's copyright, unless the copyright law of a country specifically does not recognize copyright of works made on temporary medium (like paper, sand, charcoal art, or protesters' tarps and paraphernalia). There is no such clause in the copyright law of the Philippines as far as I know.

Ping participants of three mentioned DRs @Ooligan, A1Cafel, Yann, Mike Peel, Ikan Kekek, StanProg, 廣九直通車, SHB2000, and King of Hearts: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I hold no particular firm opinion on this issue and am willing to let those who are more knowledgeable than me on this one. Thanks for the ping, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any expertise on Filipino laws. I do think, though, that sand sculptures are permanent for the life of the sculpture, unless they are expected to be actively destroyed by a person, just as is true of marble sculptures that can eventually be eroded, toppled or destroyed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. But that depends on legal definitions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems most natural (and safest) to assume, if the law is completely silent on the transience or lifetime of copyrightable works, that temporary works would be protected like any other work. Put another way, if no carve-out is made for a particular kind of work, the general law that applies to all works will apply to that work. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, the defense of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rousse Sand Fest (18621688978).jpg using Freedom of Panorama has things backwards. If FoP only permits the photography of permanently fixed objects, and sand sculptures are not permanently fixed, FoP does not permit photography this sculpture independent of the sculpture's copyright. The sculpture's own copyright applies to the photo. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@BMacZero Bulgarian FoP is not relevant anyway, because Bulgarian FoP is non-commercial just like France and Ukraine. But nevertheless the sand sculpture may not be photographed for commercial CC licensing purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

IMO sand sculptures which is artistic enough should be protected by copyright. In some countries, anonymous works are also protected by copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Unrelatedly, here is a previous discussion concerning snow in the United States: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Winterfest in Denali (d09c5a23-b358-4e1f-80fe-2bf12d2dc29d).jpg. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@BMacZero, your snow sculpture link above is temporally related. You commented at that time, "That lends credence to snow sculptures not being eligible for copyright, though example of fireworks is certainly far more temporary that a snow sculpture."

Depending on specific conditions, generally, a snow sculpture lasts longer than a sand sculpture.

I am pinging (@Jmabel, @Ellin Beltz, @Clindberg) the others involved within your above referenced link, because sand sculptures are related to snow sculptures by their temporary existence. --Ooligan (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

True; I considered it unrelated because the primary question was about countries with no "temporary work" exception, but that discussion was about the interpretation of US law, which does have such an exception. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the closure of 2 DRs mentioned above. Thanks for mentioning this issue. Yann (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Please can you consider just undoing your closure, and leaving the discussion open? Flipping from keep to delete as a result of this forum shopping is not OK, it would be better to leave the discussion open for longer to get input there. Mike Peel (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Peel this is not forum shopping. It is better to have some discussion first as I see several inconsistencies regarding the matter. Accusing the discussion I opened as forum shopping is very inappropriate. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Maybe not the intent, but in practice a discussion here changed the outcome at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sand sculpture at Carnac.jpg‎ with *zero* discussion there. A discussion here leading to clearer documentation somewhere that could be used in that deletion discussion would be OK, but that isn't what has happened here. Mike Peel (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Each close only relates to that exact image. In this case the close was for "no freedom of panorama in (countryname)" - cut, dried and closed. Someone have any other nominations to talk about, we can discuss each one at their nomination page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Reichenau Primer

We already have File:Reichenauer_Schulheft_1v_2r_kl1.jpg, which appears to be identical to the low-res photo from here, top right. The Primer is 1200 years old. Is there any reason I shouldn't upload the hi-res versions over the top? Marnanel (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not see any reason either. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Done I also created Category:Reichenau Primer. Yann (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I also uploaded the rest of the manuscript. Yann (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright on satellite images?

The copyright claim on image File:Sabah Al Ahmad Sea City Satellite Image.jpg (and indeed all uploads by that user) look unlikely to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sabah Al Ahmad Sea City Satellite Image.jpg. All small size images taken with high-end cameras, but I can't find any copy online. So I also let a message requiring explanations. Yann (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Atoll K (Utopia)

Hi, What is the copyright status of this movie? English WP says that it is in the public domain in USA due to lack of notice, but the film was made in France with a French director and an American director. It it not in the public domain in France, but seeing the complicated release history I wonder what is the country of origin. Yann (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd guess UK, but given the Wikipedia claim that it didn't release in the US until three years later, it's not the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, so Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Atoll K (film). Yann (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

About the PD-Uruguay template

Does the {{PD-Uruguay}} template serve any purpose that it is not fulfilled by {{PD-old-auto}} now that they extended copyright protection, and retroactively to boot? Lugamo94 (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Steamboat Willie.ogv

The file File:Steamboat Willie.ogv will become public domain on 2024/01/01. But at what time on that day? It is an US movie. Does that mean it becomes PD at 0:00 US Eastern time? or Hawaiian time? Or is it 0:00 UTC/GMT? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a specific rule for this, so I can only guess. The copyright law in question is federal, so I'd assume Washington DC time, i. e. EST. --Rosenzweig τ 10:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, that would be a problem: The file is supposed to be on the main page as MOTD on 2024/01/01 0:00 UTC. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

So we need to put that off for five hours. Can we swap it for the MOTD on 2 January? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There already was a MOTD proposed for 1 Jannuary (by me), but it was replaced by Steamboat Willie. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I imagine it becomes PD locally, time zone by time zone, as the year changes. Laws apply based on the location of use, when used. Though I can't imagine filing a copyright infringement lawsuit based on the last hours of the copyright's existence like that. I don't think it would be PD in most of Europe for a long, long time yet -- Walt Disney died in 1966, Ub Iwerks in 1971, and Wilfred Jackson (credited for both music and animation) in 1988, so 70pma could last until 2059 in many places (if they don't use the rule of the shorter term, or use 70pma and the old copyright treaties with the US are still in place, which is true in most of Europe). Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Work for hire in Afghanistan

Does anyone know the situation regarding work for hire in Afghanistan? I'm talking to someone about uploading for-hire photos they own that were taken there, and I wonder whether I'll have to know the photographer's name. (As I understand it, under US law, I don't, since the employer is considered the author.) Madeline (part of me) 20:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's a true work for hire, then correct the term is based on date of publication, not the author's lifetime. But the author is helpful to know, since many other countries would use that date, and the employer would get the copyright term based on their lifetime (rather than being anonymous and based on date of publication as well). But really, if we are getting a license from the copyright owner, I don't think it's a requirement (though nice to have). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

registration of copyright

In the USA, I know that copyright automatically inheres in newly created copyrightable works, but that you need to register your copyright if you want to be able to do certain things, relating to e.g. infringement lawsuits. I imagine many people who upload their own original photos to wikimedia commons, or who edit articles on wikipedia, etc, are not registering their copyrightable material simply because either they don't know about the registration rules, don't want to put forth the effort of registering, or so forth. I also had the thought today that the Wikimedia Foundation may sometimes find itself in situations where it would be in a better legal position (e.g. it's in a lawsuit and wants to be able to point to a copyright registration to support its legal argument) but since it's not the original copyright-holder, it can't directly register the copyright on some individual item. Does anyone know anything about Wikimedia Foundation policy on this general topic, and if so, can you point me in the right direction to learn more about how it's handled? I have yet to find anything directly on point, although it's possible I overlooked something. (I also know that the legal regime in other countries may differ, so maybe I am not using the best search terms to find relevant info, for this or other reasons.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Passepartout (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@J. Passepartout: you are confusing the laws that obtained at different points in time. For works published after 1 March 1989 there is no requirement for registration. For works published before that date there is no longer any opportunity to remedy the situation. - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any confusion there -- there is no requirement for registration, but it's still required to file a lawsuit in the U.S. (for U.S. residents anyways), and there are benefits -- if someone infringes a registered work, there are automatic penalties, otherwise you are only entitled to actual damages (thus it's possible to sue for infringement, and win but get $0 in damages). There was no real requirement for registration before 1989 either, at least until you wanted to renew -- and you could file the registration with the renewal. The part about lawsuits and damages was also true before 1989. You can always register a work, within the copyright term, to get the better protections.

As for the original question... the WMF probably is somewhat limited in what it can do, since it does not own any of the copyrights. For the GNU software project, the FSF does require people to assign the copyright in submitted code for that reason. But there are also many many open source projects which are basically in the same boat -- the copyright is owned by the contributors, and it's hard to impossible to ever change the license. I would imagine the WMF would be a co-owner of the copyright for any Wikipedia articles its employees have contributed to, so possibly could participate in some lawsuits, but not for images uploaded to Commons usually. It's up to the individual copyright owners to enforce their rights, including registration. I doubt that situation will change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: thank you for the correction. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, something of which my lawyer never advised me the several times I've pursued a case over copyright infringement. All were settled satisfactorily, so I guess the issue never arose. - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

17 USC 411 is the requirement; confirmed in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com. Here is one case (among many) which was dismissed for failure to register first. Well, some circuits had let you file once you actually applied, but that Supreme Court case says you have to wait until you get the registration back -- that decision then applied to that court case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all for the responses! I suspected the answer might be along these lines, but thought it would be interesting to see what was actually the case if the policy differed... J. Passepartout (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

A series of questions about Public domain tagging

Hello all! As you probably know, we are working on improving the current user experience with UploadWizard. As part of the work we are doing on revamping the license step, we have some clarifications to ask the community regarding the Public domain tagging of media.

We split the topic into three sub-topics to help focusing on each case we've encountered. We thank you in advance for any help you can give us in solving these doubts. -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Usage of {{PD-US-expired}}

When the media is tagged as “First published in the United States before 1928”, {{PD-US-expired}} gets assigned. However, there is a separate tag for sound recordings {{PD-US-record-expired}}. Should we be using the more generic tag for all media, or have specific ones for different media? -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

PD-US-record-expired is for sound only. It occurs 100 years after publication, while PD-US-expired is for everything else, and 95 years after publication. Yann (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would make sense to split the US options into

"Not a sound recording and first published in the United States before 1929": assigns {{PD-US-expired|country=US}}
"Sound recording first published in the United States before 1924": assigns {{PD-US-record-expired|country=US}}

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be nice if choosing "First published in the United States before 1928" meant that the assignment were {{PD-US-expired|country=US}} to suppress the warning about needing a US license. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Usage of {{PD-old-70}} in connection with other PD tags

When the media is tagged as “Author has been deceased for more than 70 years”, {{PD-old-70}} gets assigned. However, on the page it says “You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States”.

Would it be acceptable anyway if only one template was added, based on someone's upload (for example {{PD-old-70}})? Or is it necessary for everyone to choose both a U.S. template and a home-country template, when it's not a work first published in the U.S.? -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

PD-old-70 (and PD-old-100) is usually for anywhere except USA, since the US doesn't use post mortem auctoris, but the date of publication. And since all content must be in the public domain in USA, we also need a US tag. We can combine both with {{PD-old-70-expired}} or {{PD-old-100-expired}}. Yann (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, US copyright law has different rules for sound recordings than for everything else, so it would be a good idea to have separate options for sound recordings:

"Not a sound recording, first published before 1929 and author deceased more than 70 years ago": assigns {{PD-old-70-expired}}
"Sound recording first published before 1924 and author deceased more than 70 years ago:": assigns {{PD-old-70-record-expired}}

It would also be good to note that some countries, like Mexico, have a longer term than 70 years, and if the media is from one of those countries, the uploader will need to use a different tag. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before, but now that the topic has surfaced again, I'll bring it up. Does it really make sense to have the non-US version for public domain recordings based on death of author instead of basing it on publication date? From what I could see, the vast majority of the world uses the publication date criteria for musical recordings. Usually, additional copyright tags (even for United States recordings) are used to indicate the status of the lyrics and musical composition. Lugamo94 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember off the top of my head—does "Faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain because the artist died more than 70 years ago" assign {{PD-Art|PD-old-70}}? If so, I'd suggest changing the text to "Faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain because it was published before 1929 and the artist died more than 70 years ago" and the assigned template to {{PD-Art|PD-old-70-expired}}; and possibly adding a corresponding option that assigns {{PD-Art|PD-US-expired|country=US}}. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way it could take a death year of the author and use {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=19xx}}? I remind people, not for the first time, that the majority of people on Earth live in countries with copyright durations less than life+70, with China (life+50) and India (life+60) alone taking us a significant part of the way there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, this is making me think it would be nice to have a more responsive form:

Whether the work is a sound recording published before 1924 or not a sound recording and published before 1929.
Country of origin, if known. Maybe US/non-US, and if non-US, you can but don't have to fill in the country code?
Author's death year, if known.
For non-US works, option to say that the work is PD in its home country because the author died over 50/60/70/75/80/95/95/100 years ago (IDK exactly which options to offer); default to 70 and link Commons:Copyright rules by territory.

If the work is not a sound recording:

If death year is given, use {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=deathyear}}
For US works with no death year, use {{PD-US-expired|country=US}}
For non-US works with no death year, use {{PD-old-X-expired}}, replacing X with 50/70/100/etc.

If the work is a sound recording:

If death year is given, use {{PD-old-auto-record-expired|deathyear=deathyear}}
For US works with no death year, use {{PD-US-record-expired|country=US}}
For non-US works with no death year, use {{PD-old-X-record-expired}}, replacing X with 50/70/100/etc.

For works that aren't sound recordings, there could also be an option to say that the work being uploaded is a faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain which meets the preceding criteria, and if this box were checked, the template determined above could be passed in to {{PD-art}}.

Also, since Commons requires that all media be PD/freely licensed both in the home country and in the US, perhaps the title of this section should be changed from "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA" to "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA and the home country", and after "Wikimedia Commons is located in the USA, so the work must be out of copyright in that country." there could be an explanation of the requirement that works be out of copyright in the home country. This might be a good place to link Commons:Copyright rules by territory. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I often use {{PD-art-two-auto|deathyear}} for old art, it is short and easy to memorize. It provides the reader with the similar info such as

{{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=deathyear}}. When and why should we use the templates for the USA? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, is it better to add a country=US to the art licenses or is {{PD-art-two-auto|deathyear}} enough?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Having the standalone {{PD-old-auto}} is useful for media that it is public domain in its home country, but not in the United States, but still available here because of a Creative Commons license. A potential future example being the collection of photographs by Leo Wehrli in two years. Lugamo94 (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's a useful template! I'm not sure how it makes sense to handle that kind of scenario in the Upload Wizard. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Usage of {{PD-USGov}}

When the media is tagged as “Original work by the United States Federal Government”, {{PD-USGov}} gets assigned. However, on the page it says: “In order to avoid further crowding of Category:PD US Government (as of 2019), this template should not be used if the department or part of the federal government which produced the work is known”. But the alternative, i.e. providing a full list of tags, is also completely impossible to be included as is in the UploadWizard.

Should we allow more specific options than just “Original work by NASA”? If so, which ones? Are there top 3 agencies we should like to include in the list below? Do we need to have an open ended field for people to enter other agencies? -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand the idea to separate US government works by agencies and departments, but for non-US contributors, this is overly complicated. Some people have proposed to get rid of the various specific tags, and keep only PD-USGov. I don't have a definitive opinion about this. Yann (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a full list of every single option on the Upload Wizard. Perhaps the top 10 most commonly used US-GOV tags (Presidential, Military, DOD etc) instead of just NASA. Adding a few more options there will make categorizing somewhat easier and less crowded in the main category. Could also state somewhere a small blurb "For a full list of all tags see here". There are plenty of folks out there who would happily categorize files properly if it was presented to them at time of upload and they knew how to. PascalHD (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe the blurb for that section of the UploadWizard could specifically mention that it's better to use a more specific license tag than {{PD-USGov}} if possible, explain that some common choices are listed below, link to Category:PD-USGov license tags, and say that if you want to use a tag that's not one of the options below you can do that in the "Another reason not mentioned above" section. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As someone who lives in the United States I've always found the various PD-USGov templates to be completely unhelpful. At least on the federal level. Really, there should just be one single template for "government works." Like do we really need a specific template just for something built by the Architect of the Capitol? Probably not. I doubt most even know who that is. Let alone are they going to use the template if they upload an image of the United States Capitol Complex. There's no reason it needs to be that granular regardless though. Except maybe with the exception of the Military and NASA, but it's kind of obtuse even in those cases. Anyway, if it's obtuse to begin with it would certainly be way worse as a list or something similar in the UploadWizard. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The specific tags can be helpful in some cases, when there are certain things to look out for when getting images from that department or agency -- {{PD-USGov-NASA}} has lots of detail on specific situations beyond the normal PD-USGov, and {{PD-USGov-VOA}} does as well. I'm sure there are others. In most cases, yes they are just a more specific credit, which can maybe help searching for the original, and (much like subcategorization for large categories) break things up a bit. There's no harm in the more specific ones either. Someone can use PD-USGov, and someone else can subcategorize later using a more specific tag. Legally they are all the same licensing reason, but the US federal government is also a massive source of images, so it's not the worst thing to find some way to subcategorize them. Agreed most variants don't need to be in the Upload Wizard; a handful of the biggest ones (like NASA) could be fine, especially when they show specific warnings to look for. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but as far as I'm aware they aren't accounted for when someone searches for a specific term like NASA. Otherwise you have point. Perhaps someone with more knowledge then me can clarify that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be, since the tag text contains that word? Nothing stopping people from searching "incategory:PD_NASA" or "deepcat:Images_from_NASA" (since PD_NASA is a subcat of that) either. See subcats in Category:PD US Government. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess it just seems weird that if someone searches for "photograph" they would potentially get a bunch of results that aren't photographs just because the word is in some random templates. I guess people could use special filters like your suggestion though, but they shouldn't have to. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Deprecate Template:PD-BNF and Template:PD-GallicaScan

The templates {{PD-BNF}} and {{PD-GallicaScan}} were created in 2008 when the general assumption was that everything the Bibliotheque Nationale de France scanned for Gallica is in the public domain. As we know now, that is not the case, and the BNF has changed the rights remark for many of its magazine, newspaper etc. scans to ""Droits : Consultable en ligne" (rights: can be viewed online) - at least in the French language version; in the English version, you can confusingly still often read Rights: public domain for the very same magazine or paper, while the German version doesn't mention the copyright status at all.

Anyway, it should be clear that because some file is from the BNF or Gallica, that does not mean it's automatically in the public domain. So my proposal is to deprecate these two tags and mark them accordingly that they should not be used for new files. For new files from BNF/Gallica that are in the public domain for some other reason (because the author died over 70 years ago etc.), only the regular PD-old, PD-scan etc. tags should be used. If we don't do this, these tags will always come back to bite us in the a** because people will use them for new uploads. Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 10:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Mostly

Support. Wording of these templates in indeed a problem. It should be mentioned that there are not sufficient for Commons, that a verification of the copyright status and a proper license are needed. Yann (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Mostly

Support per Yann. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Admittedly I don't have much experience in the area, but the proposal seems reasonable from doing a basic glance at the templates and how they are being used. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've changed both templates so that they now say the file might NOT be in the public domain and might be deleted if not in the PD; also that other valid license tags should be used. To do this, I've created a new marker template {{PD Gallica warning}} (modeled on {{PD German stamps warning}}).

The specific wording could probably still be improved. Thoughts on that? --Rosenzweig τ 12:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. We have now 1,403,257 files with a deprecated template. How do we fix that? Yann (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

For a large-scale tag swap we'd probably need a bot. Anything from ca. 1900 or before should most likely be ok, so perhaps the license tags for these files could be replaced with a suitable PD-old tag by a bot? For anything newer (and that might still be a lot), we'd probably need a file by file manual review. And that would most likely take a long time, see the German stamps situtation still in progress after a decade. --Rosenzweig τ 13:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Precisely. We have 1.4 million files with a giant PLEASE DELETE ME sign on them, maybe some miniscule fraction of 1% actually might need removal upon request. Yes, the wording should be changed to the usual & much more neutral "... has been deprecated. This template should be changed to ..." like these things normally have.

Absolutely, though, the shift will require bots and we shouldn't be going out of our way to encourage removal of the files until such bots are available. This cart got waaaaaaay out in front of its horse. — LlywelynII 04:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw,

Strong oppose until this can be handled better and less disruptively than what's currently going on. I've spent multiple weeks of my life on editing and research for several hundred of the files badly impacted by this. Others are doubtless in the same boat. The way we handle PD-Art would've been a much better way to handle this: "...please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States..." Simply changing the PD license to PD-Old etc. will remove the previously provided links to the BNF files.

@Yann: @Jeff G.: @Adamant1: Those arguments might not cause you to change your vote ("might as well get started & the links don't matter") but, given how this has shaken out in practice, do you have suggestions for minimizing the damage and disorder this is going to cause? Are there any mass-PD-editing utilities similar to HotCat for categories to speed this up? I have to edit everything here through a series of proxies to get over the Great Firewall & going file by file would be a vastly prohibitive waste of time. — LlywelynII 05:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to look into how the review of German stamps was handled after they were found not to be PD. Which, as Rosenzweig has pointed out, still hasn't been fully dealt with 10 years later. So I don't think you have to worry about all the files being immediately deleted. Nor does anyone expect you to deal with it on your own. Let alone at all. Just as long there's a consensus about how to handle it and basic things being done to move in the direction of reviewing the files at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Did those stamps come with 24+ point text "warning" that the files "could" be deleted at any point? I'm dubious. — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No, but neither does anything having to do with have such a warning either. If you look at the template for German stamps though it says "this file is most likely NOT in the public domain. It has been marked for review, and will be deleted in due course if the review does not find it to be in the public domain. Which I think is totally reasonable. If you look at Category:German stamps review there's still upwards of 8 thousand files that haven't been reviewed. That's just ones that are included in the category to, but there's others. With German stamps specifically, they are only being reviewed now because I've been slowly going through them over the past year. There's no one gunning to delete anything in mass though. So your assertion that the files will be immediately deleted the second we implement this is clearly hyperbole. Really, probably no one is going to delete the files. Let alone any time soon or in mass. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: So what is your proposal for the wording of the templates? And how do you think should we prevent them being used to upload copyrighted files, as some users are doing now? If we don't stop that, the amount of files will only get larger. And as Adamant1 pointed out, nobody in fact proposed to delete over 1 million files. Right now it says that the files might not be in the public domain and might be deleted. --Rosenzweig τ 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're curious, in toto, this seems like a (bad) answer searching for a (miniscule) problem. The template was largely fine and helpfully included a link to the BNF that the current solution will just delete. The things that shouldn't be uploaded shouldn't've been uploaded with or without this template's existence. They can be uploaded with or without this template's existence. The template could be rephrased to only cover the appropriate material. The problem would be exactly the same and it wouldn't be putting 1.4 million valid files at risk.

At minimum (as already explained above) the language of the edit should be more neutral, more in keeping with similar templates like PD-Art, and simply request that separate/additional licensing be provided. — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: "has been depreciated": I presume you mean "has been deprecated". (Normally I'd let is slide, but since this appears to be a proposed edit…) - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: "Normally I'd let is slide": I presume you mean "I'd let it slide". (Normally I'd let it slide, but since this appears to be needless snark... Yes, if the normal phrasing is slightly different, sure, use some version of that instead. Neither here nor there. Still, do kindly leave some notes on the merits of what we're talking about. It's possible I'm just completely wrong in thinking that the current phrasing will cause a much bigger problem than the original issue. Some of the original posters hadn't even noticed that 1.4 million files were affected, though.) — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: "included a link to the BNF that the current solution will just delete": Which "current solution" do you mean? All links to BNF in the file descriptions are still there, none were deleted. And yes, when replacing the PD-GallicScan tag with an appropriate PD-old tag, another template with just the link (like {{Gallica}}, which does that without any claim of public domain) will have to be added at the same time. --Rosenzweig τ 07:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the templates a bit so that the collapsed section with the deprecated tag is now expanded by default. --Rosenzweig τ 08:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

We need a wording saying these are not eligible for a mass deletion, just to prevent fear and conflicts. There are a lot of cases where the BNF doesn't claim a copyright, although it could, e.g. File:Portrait Roi de france Clovis.jpg. Would replacing the current template by {{CC-0}} be OK? Yann (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of {{PD Gallica warning}} so that possible deletion is now mentioned in the last paragraph. @Yann: What do you mean with your CC-0 proposal? Insert CC-0 in those cases you mentioned "where the BNF doesn't claim a copyright, although it could"? You mean in addition to a PD-old template for the underlying work? --Rosenzweig τ 13:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes, in addition to a license for the content itself, we need a license for the picture when it is not 2D (i.e. when PD-Art/PD-scan doesn't apply). Yann (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Does the BNF explicitly refer to CC-0 somewhere, or is this some other declaration that they don' claim such copyrights? Or is it just implicit / assumed etc.? Even if it is "only" implicit, we can most likely still find a way to express that, but we should try to get it as correct as we can. For the coin image you linked, the BNF now says "Droits : Consultable en ligne". Is that their new default? --Rosenzweig τ 17:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

May be. BNF doesn't use CC-0, but there is usually a "public domain" mention. I wonder if we should use PD-self or CC-0, or something else. There are a number of cases where they said that the pictures are in the public domain, and later changed their mind, e.g. File:En attendant Godot, Festival d'Avignon, 1978 f22.jpg. Fernand Michaud donated all his pictures to the BNF, and they were available with a public domain notice, but that was later changed. Yann (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe create something under Category:No known restrictions license tags? - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, there were no new contributions here (or in the parallel COM:VP discussion) for a few days now, so the initial fears of imminent mass deletions seem to have died down. There was no bot mass-tagging files as missing license tags because of the tag deprecation, and nobody was launching mass deletion requests because of it.

So the task at hand is now how to replace the bulk (hopefully) of the PD-GallicaScan and PD-BNF license tags with better and more fitting tags so only a small percentage (hopefully very small) of them remain to be examined if they have to be put through the deletion process.

I've looked at various categories and files both here and at the BNF web site, and I've noticed that we really cannot rely (anymore, if ever) on what the BNF writes on the file description pages as far as copyright is concerned. In the French description, for all files at which I've looked I found "Droits : Consultable en ligne", regardless if it was a map from the 1600s or a magazine from 1970. In the English description, they say "Rights: public domain" for the very same files, 1600s map as well as 1970 magazine. In other languages (German, Spanish, Italian, Russian) I didn't see anything about copyright in the descriptions. Given that situation, what the BNF writes on its file description pages about copyright has become meaningless, and it really was about time that we retired and deprecated those tags.

Now what the proper replacement tags for PD-GallicaScan and PD-BNF are depends on the individual file. For those with named authors it would be some variety of PD-old or PD-old-auto, plus a tag like PD-expired or PD-1996 if they're also in the public domain in the US. I don't know how well a bot could do this, maybe better if the file description page uses a specific {{Creator}} tag for the author. For files with no named author, but a date older than 120 years, PD-old-assumed(-expired) could be a solution.

I've looked at some press agency photos from the Rol and Meurisse agencies we have which usually came from Gallica. The usual rationale here is that these agency photos are collective works accd. to French copyright, and {{PD-France}} applies if they're older than 70 years. I've tried to change some tags with VisualFileChange, and changed the tags of 200 files or so in Category:1927 photographs by Agence Rol and Category:1926 photographs by Agence Rol. Namely those that simply used {{PD-GallicaScan}} without any parameters, and I've changed that to {{PD-Scan-two|PD-France||PD-US-expired|}}. Stuff like that – very similar files which all take the same relatively simple license tags and are already grouped in categories fitting for the task – could be done without bots with the assistance of VFC, somewhat reducing the overall usage of the deprecated tags. Besides the press agency photos, are there any other suggestions for similar cases?

While VFC can help somewhat, a large number of file description pages will probably have to be changed by bots, especially those where the tags have parameters, which may not be what one excepts (like {{PD-BNF|{{ARK-BNF|ark:/12148/btv1b53184933b}}}}, combining two tags that probably weren't meant to go together). Those are probably too complex to be cleanly replaced with VFC. What do you think would be the best way to proceed with this? Simply turn up at Commons:Bots/Work requests? Ask somewhere else? Gather more details first on what exactly should be changed, preferably not here but somewhere else where it won't be archived after a week of no new contributions? --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Without very specific parameters, I would not want to touch this as a bot task. I don't read French. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: I'm not grasping why you think VFC wouldn't be the main tool for this. Admittedly, I've never taken on something this large that way, but the key to using VFC effectively for this sort of thing is usually to start by a well-chosen search to find a set of images whose tags you want to change in a particular way, and I suspect that a lot of progress could be made reasonably quickly in that manner. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: We'll see. I've now discovered that a huge lump of the 1.4 million files (about half) are in Category:Manuscripts from Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) uploaded by Gzen92Bot, so uploaded by a bot. There are subcategories there for the works, containing the files for the single pages, and while some only have 2 files, others have over 500. Most are probably somewhere between those two. Per Category:Manuscripts from Gallica, many have less than 10 though. I've changed the tags in a 500+ category already with VFC, that went well I think, and by concentrating on the larger categories one could get down the number of template usages fairly quickly. Until only the smaller categories are left to change, and those would be more tiresome. Maybe the bot operator who uploaded these files could help out. --Rosenzweig τ 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and PS, not every search can be used as a basis for VFC unfortunately, as I found out. You can search for "has template XYZ" and everything, but VFC then won't accept that search, or more precisely, you're not even offered to use VFC then. --Rosenzweig τ 22:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't get around to try replacing more tags with VFC, but will try to do so tomorrow. --Rosenzweig τ 20:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: You can instead search for "insource:{{XYZ}}", with quotes if necessary. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've done some more both in the press agency and the manuscript categories, several hundred files. I'll probably have a bit more time to dedicate to this task over the holidays, so we'll see how many files can have their tags replaced in the near future. With just under 1.4 million files still left it will still take a lot of time until it is done. --Rosenzweig τ 23:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Down to slightly below 1.29 million files now, so a bit over 100,000 files in 6 days (my edit count here at Commons has certainly gone up dramatically). I didn't work full-time on this, but it certainly took quite a few hours. It works quite well for files uploaded by a bot (like the Gallica manuscript files) where you can expect a certain uniformity of the file description pages. You need to find some specific phrase that reliably (!) identifies a large subset of Gallica files (more than just one category), then go through all the VFC hoops like having to load "more" files several times to really get all of them. Even then, you won't get all (at least for some of the larger chunks) and will have to repeat the task two or three times, I guess because the servers/API take some time to really find all of the files. Also, some files will fail with API errors when processing several thousand files, so to catch all of them you need the repetition. I was able to process some larger chunks of 8,000 to 9,000 files that way (like archival records of the Comic Opera in Paris), but that is probably the upper limit of what can be accomplished with VFC. Other chunks were several thousand files. Once all the bigger subsets are processed, it will get more tedious, so this will take a lot of time as predicted. Looking at the template transclusion count, I noticed it going down slightly every now and then even when I hadn't processed any files with VFC, so maybe some users are actually replacing the deprecated tags. --Rosenzweig τ 13:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I was mostly busy with undeleting files freshly in the PD over the last few days, so I didn't get much done here. Still down about 20.000 files to below 1.27 million now. --Rosenzweig τ 21:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)