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.
(Commons has no involvement in this, but I'm answering here because I happen to know the answer.) @Marius F: en:File:Total War Saga Troy cover art.jpg is in the English-language Wikipedia under a non-free use rationale, explained on that file page by a use of en:Template:Non-free use rationale 2. To use that image in a different en-wiki article, you would need an acceptable rationale for that second use, which would also have to be stated on that file page (presumably also using a template). You'll probably want to read en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to see if what you have in mind is acceptable there. If you have further questions after reading that, you should certainly ask them on en-wiki rather than Commons. - Jmabel ! talk03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am seeking to upload the image located at https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C292398 to Commons so it can be used at en:Frognall, Melbourne on en-wiki. The image, created in 1944, is in the public domain in Australia (its country of origin) and is marked as such on the source website, but I am unsure of its copyright status in the United States. Specifically, it appears that copyright in Australia expired on 19 January 2014 (70 years after the photograph's creation; photograph has no identifiable author), which is after the COM:URAA cutoff date of 1 January 1996. Is the image in the public domain in the United States or would it still be in copyright there? Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually, the 1944 photograph's copyright expired in 1995 as copyright law was creation plus 50 years. Australia extended their copyright law to 70 years in 2005, but it was not retroactive. Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Copyright status of map I would like to upload
I want to upload a svg map of assembly constituencies of Odisha. Boundaries I mostly took from https://gisodisha.nic.in/Statem/AC.pdf (with me making small corrections to AC boundaries near Bhubaneshwar), while I resized the work and merged boundary paths to make it into a usable file. I also changed the colour scheme to match other AC maps. GIS Odisha is run by the National Informatics Centre, a government source, so copyright belongs to Govt of India. Can I still upload this map to Commons as I did modify it substantially? Or could someone contact NIC on my behalf to get their permission to use it? Thank you. C1MM (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
What to do with the file? I’m still a bit confused about the Commons URAA policy. It is stated that a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion; yet the template I added to the file page warns that unless a valid US PD tag is applied, the file will be deleted. Baffling, to say the least. --Geohakkeri (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Geohakkeri you are missing the previous sentence on that paragraph: files nominated for deletion due to URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under U.S. and local laws. The "mere allegation" means, you should not open a DR or an admin should not close a DR under the suspicion the image had its copyright restored by URAA without giving clear evidence. Many works had not their copyright restored. For example, a movie may be simultaneously published in the US, or the country of origin had different copyright duration in the past, etc. Also, some works are protected by copyright in the US, but not in its country of origin. Günther Frager (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so the files tagged with {{Unclear-PD-US-old-70}} are indeed deleted only after a careful evaluation and strictly on a case-by-case basis. Specifically, COM:PRP doesn’t really apply: an “unclear” file can quite well be kept unless proven to have its copyright restored. Right? --Geohakkeri (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see it’s spelt quite clearly in Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act: If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle. So even though each case must be examined thoroughly, it’s still not necessary to go extreme lengths in order to tell that a file should be deleted. --Geohakkeri (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Right. It usually takes a good knowledge of what the source country's law was on the URAA date, and whether copyright term increases were retroactive, etc. You can't necessarily assume that a current 70pma term was the same at that time, or that an increase was retroactive, so it can often involve looking back at historical versions of laws to find out what terms applied to the file in question. Finland did update their law shortly before the URAA date, as they had just become EU members, so it was likely a retroactive increase to 70pma, but that should be verified. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
So, when is it okay to use a picture of a sculpture?
Dear people of the Pump,
I'd like to add some images of contemporary sculpture, mostly from near where I live in Canberra, starting with the sculpture that lives on top of the Parliament, a treatment of our coat of arms.
But I understand there's an extra sensitivity here - that even if you have the creative commons permission from the photographer, that the artist behind the sculpture may have some kind of claim too? Or is that relinquished when a sculpture is public?
Feel free to point me to the most helpful article or essay. I struggled to find one.
What is the legal situation with medical images like ultrasound images? Just like the legal situation would be with any other photo in whatever country we are talking about? Like, copyright with the photographer (in that case, the doctor)? Or possibly the hospital that owns the machine may also claim rights? And what about the patient, does the image subject have personality rights that need to be respected when their insides are being photographed?
That doesn't look entirely wise to me. I'd say it is not clear that would be PD in all countries, and I certainly would not have removed the license that is clearly valid anywhere, even if I added a comment that it is presumably PD. - Jmabel ! talk22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I think I need help again in reversing the undiscussed licence changes by Kashmiri. I still don't have the tools or the time to mass-revert them all. Thanks in advance. --Minoa (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I am fond of our {{Licensed-plus-PD}} for this very purpose. Maybe it should be advertised somewhere more prominent as a tagging option? Note that I haven't checked at all whether in this particular case the PD claims are appropriate or not in the first place. Felix QW (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
A CC licence essentially means that a person claims copyright first and then licenses their work for public use. Sure the work can be reused, but can that person claim copyright in the first place? I honestly doubt when the underlying map (country outlines) has not been their work. PD-map indeed gives the US perspective, however it can be safely assumed that the vast majority of those claiming copyright for maps on Wikipedia are not located in countries where the sweat of the brow doctrine is in force; it's simply that this is the licence template suggested by the image upload wizard.
I simply find it unacceptable when someone takes a map outline, places a dot on it, and then claims copyright, later kindly sharing "their work" under CC. — kashmīrīTALK06:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Do we actually know where the map outlines are sourced from? Couldn't they well be copyrighted, for choice of projection and all that? Felix QW (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW: Come on, please. Most of my edits were to maps where the underlying map was PD, and the only work of the uploader was adding colour to a few countries. That's all. We're not talking cartographers who create new, original projections; we're talking an editor who uploaded hundreds of maps titled "Diplomatic relations of country X"[2][3] In a few cases, the original work was entirely lost because of subsequent edits (like here[4] where new editors completely re-coloured the map from scratch, thus nullifying any copyright claims).
I'm not at all convinced that using a different projection gives rise to copyright, as projections are generated electronically these days using country border delineation that are public property.
Sorry if there was a misunderstanding - I didn't mean to say that the uploader had a copyright claim (or not). I agree with you that they probably don't, and I would advocate replacing the pure license tag with {{Licensed-plus-PD}} and a PD statement. I just thought it was strange that the same editor who claimed copyright on their colouring to a map often did not credit the outline at all, which may (or not) be a copyright issue in its own right. Felix QW (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
German currency files without machine-readable license
Scan of an open letter published in The Times in 1971 and signed by 50+ persons
Hello, I have a scan of an open letter published in 1971 in The Times and signed by more than 50 people. Is there a specific rule in such a case or will it be in the PD 70 years after the death of the last signatory? Ayack (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
It is not necessarily a collective work, I don't think — or, at least, not necessarily the collective work of all the signatories. Signing onto an open letter (or petition, or the like) doesn't imply authorship. It depends on the actual facts. In any case, though, the copyright on this letter is nowhere near expiring in the UK (whenever it expires), nor in the US (where the copyright presumably expires in 2067). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both. I understand that I'll have to wait some years before uploading it to Commons... Ayack (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Kim Jong il Portrait-2.jpg
File:Kim Jong il Portrait-2.jpg is being used in quite alot of articles and it was previously discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Jong il Portrait-2.jpg. I'm not sure how {{FoP-North Korea}} applies to it and how this is considered acceptable for licensing verification. The uploader basically uploaded what looks to be a few selfies, an old photo of Abraham Lincoln and some portraits of deceased North Korean leaders. They haven't edited Commons or Wikipedia since July 2022, and were only a sporadic editor before that; so, it's not like they've established an impressive track record of uploadng content over a very long period of time. The permission statement eeems on the surface to check all of the boxes, but it also seems at the same time to be rather flimsy. Moreover, the uploader has signed his declaration as being "Jesse Charlie Photographer", but that would seem to imply this is photo of a portrait created by someone else, but there's nothing about the photographerd work at ll in the file's description. Does the FoP-North Korea license mean the uploader actually went there are photographed this portrait? Again, this seems a bit sketchy to me regardless of how many times this file is being used, but perhaps I'm just over thinking things and making too harsh of an assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
These portraits do seem to be displayed publicly in NK, e.g. [5][6], so it is possible that the Commons files are derived from FOP-eligible photos. Their upload File:Abe-link.png specifies that it's a re-scan, which maybe does imply that they took the NK photos. Consigned (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Licensing concerns for category
Hi! I don't know what I'm doing, but according to the page header this is a good venue to ask about copyright issues for specific files. My concern is with Category:Bobbie R. Allen (40), most / all of which have been uploaded by connected contributor User:Wdallen49, with the incorrect source {{Own}}.
Most of these materials appear to be US government public domain, with some other unclear bits. I'm so stupid at copyright I literally don't even know if US government public domain is the same as "free content". Can someone who knows better please have a look through this category? Folly Mox (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the contents of that category deserve thoroughgoing review. Quite possibly most will turn out to be U.S. government pictures in the public domain, but we can't just assume that. They also need accurate dates.
@Wdallen49: do you care to address this at all and explain what thought you were doing?
- Jmabel I obviously don't know enough about Wiki's source formatting rules to satisfy the circling sharks, but I'd be happy to address specific concerns if anyone is interested in furthering improvement of the article. Wdallen49 (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted characters from no-FoP states displayed as murals et cetera in yes-FoP states
I would like to have some change in the usual practice of applying FoP of a work's country of physical location, in terms of works that depict copyrighted characters originating from countries without FoP for public art (like U.S., France, Japan et cetera). A part of comment from D. Benjamin Miller regarding the Asterix case above (Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Belgian FOP and heavy retouching) seems convincing, to quote:
The US incorporates its own "source country" test into the URAA. Under that test (Copyright Office explainer), the (single) source country for non-US works simultaneously published in multiple countries is determined based on which country has the strongest connection to the work. Being exclusively created by French authors in France, and without any potential ties to Belgium other than (let's hypothesize, for the sake of argument) simultaneous publication there, the underlying work here[, a Belgian mural of characters of Astérix,] is a French one, not a Belgian one.
We may need to reassess multiple "kept" deletion requests of works physically located in China, Mexico, and other countries where FoP is adequate, yet the works show characters of cartoons/movies/anime/manga from countries with no FoP. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I do think all images falling within this situation must be removed, but you are taking the reasoning a bit out of context. To be clear, this US "source country" test has nothing to do with applying non-US law's copyright exceptions in the US, because such exceptions don't apply in the US at all. (The source country test is from a totally different provision of US law.) The Commons community's stance on Not-free-US-FOP files is totally inconsistent with US law (as I explain in the section above). I know you don't like that — but it's not a matter of liking or preferring some outcome; it's a matter of what the law actually is.
But, purely for the sake of argument, if foreign exceptions (such as FoP exceptions for artwork) did directly apply in the US (though they don't), and if these exceptions truly provided for these files being free (which, in the Belgian/2D case, I don't think they do, but they might in some other cases), only then might a country-of-origin rule matter, legally
Beyond the clear legal error of accepting Non-free-US-FOP files at all, and the arguable error (depending on the case) in accepting FOP files in many cases where FOP restrictions (such as prohibiting derivatives, etc.) make a file "non-free" (such restrictions vary depending on country)... the whole position of allowing these files is clearly and obviously wrong.
Additionally, Freedom of Panorama exceptions don't make the underlying works free, and extracting the works from their FOP context is not an acceptable thing to do under the laws of any country I know of with FOP. FOP is meant to allow for the accurate depiction of items as part of the larger public environment in which they are found, not to make anything found in a public space essentially devoid of copyright. (This is not the kind of freedom that FOP exceptions generally really provide for non-architectural works in any case, despite the false assumption by many Commons users that this is more or less what FOP does!)
But let's imagine there were a country called Panoramaland which really did have absolute freedom of panorama. In Panoramaland, there is an exception to copyright which says that if a copyrighted work of art is put up in a public place, then anyone can take pictures of it and reuse it freely, create derivatives, etc. Then let's imagine a picture of Astérix or Mario or some other copyrighted character were displayed on a billboard in Panoramaland. The position of the Commons community would be that, since Panoramaland provides for absolute FOP for 2D art on billboards, such a file is allowed on Commons (and the FOP applies in the US, too). But if this were true, then Panoramaland would just be a panorama-laundering paradise, because anything placed in a public place in Panoramaland would effectively enter the public domain. This is clearly not acceptable.
@JWilz12345 and D. Benjamin Miller: What is the source for the claim that "the (single) source country for non-US works simultaneously published in multiple countries is determined based on which country has the strongest connection to the work"? I don't see such a statement in the cited Copyright Office explainer. According to Article 5 of the Berne Convention, "The country of origin shall be considered to be … in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the [Berne Convention] Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection". This is also explained at Commons:Licensing: "In cases where a work is simultaneously published in multiple countries, the 'country of origin' is the country which grants the shortest term of copyright protection." Nosferattus (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
The only place where US law has a source-country test for copyright term is in the URAA rule of the shorter term provision. The URAA copyright restoration does not apply when the work was in the public domain in its source country (according to this test) on the restoration date (usually January 1, 1996). See Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. This source-country test is not the same as the Berne Convention's country of origin definition.
However, as I wrote above, this test is not at all relevant here, because the United States never applies foreign copyright exceptions based on the country of origin of a work (as determined by any test), and doing so would almost certainly violate the national-treatment requirements of the copyright treaties. So, again, to be clear, am NOT saying that this sort of test is legally relevant. I was only talking about if such a test were applied in an entirely hypothetical way, and JWilz12345 took what I wrote out of context. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree that extracting a work from its public context is never OK, even if there is FoP for the original photo. The Asterix extraction should be deleted. Similar for a photo kept under de minimis; if you crop to the copyrighted work then the result is no longer OK. FoP is meant to allow photos of public places, not a loophole to change the copyright of the underlying work.
For regular FoP photos, whether they would be free in the U.S. has not been tested in court -- probably not OK, and the one example we have of FoP laws in between countries (German case on a photo of an Austrian building) would tend to say photos primarily of sculpture would not be OK in the U.S. if the statue is still under U.S. copyright. It's still not definite though -- anyone putting a work up in such a country would know the laws there and would have to be OK with photos of it in the public context, and maybe a U.S. court would take that into account. The Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. case did use foreign law to determine the copyright ownership, though used U.S. law to determine whether infringement occurred and what the penalties are. So, it's not impossible that a court could consider foreign law under some circumstances -- if they think a FoP law spoke more to copyright ownership or whether the plaintiff had the right to sue in the first place, they might. The FoP wrinkle is something that was not at issue in that case. FoP may or may not affect a fair use evaluation, as well. Given the uncertainty, the community decided long ago to allow such works, for better or worse, even if it may be more likely than not to be a problem in the U.S. If we get an actual court precedent, that could change things. If you can convince the community to basically delete all sculptural FoP photos from Commons because they are not likely to be OK in the U.S., then OK, but not sure this argument is anything different than has been argued before.
As for the "source country" definition in the URAA, that is only for the URAA and not any other portion of the law. That is the country of first publication, and publication even one day earlier than another country would define it. For works published on the same day in multiple countries, only then you get the "greatest contacts with the work" clause. But that is only to determine which laws to use to find out if a work was copyrighted on the URAA date for restoration -- not any other copyright situation. So that is largely irrelevant for FoP questions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Just as an aside here: if it were to turn out that certain images prove to be legal for commercial use in their respective "source" countries and for non-commercial use in the U.S., then it remains a policy decision, not a legal decision, whether Commons continues to host them, since Commons itself is non-commercial. - Jmabel ! talk19:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no "non-commercial" exception in US copyright law. All copyrighted works can be used under he provisions of fair use. Whether or not a use is commercial can be taken into consideration, but it is by no means determinative either way — there are fair commercial uses and non-fair non-commercial uses.
More broadly, this entire debate highlights the incongruity of the application of FoP exceptions in the first place. Freedom of panorama exceptions are not hard and fast rules. And FoP exceptions, like fair use in the US, are use-dependent. Actually, in many ways, FoP exceptions can be more restrictive than the US' fair use provisions, since they are based on the principle of enumerating exceptions, while fair use is broad (and publicly displayed works could be photographed under a fair use justification, depending on the circumstances).
The issue here is that FoP has been wrongly interpreted by the commmunity as carte blanche to reuse an image freely, while, in fact, FoP is essentially like a specific type of fair dealing exemption, often with specific limits which make FoP files very much not free for reuse.
Many FoP clauses are indeed mostly carte blanche, for uses of the photograph, if it's reasonably a photograph of a public scene. Some are explicitly non-commercial, which we don't allow, though all have the "can't prejudice the normal exploitation" of the underlying work limitation. Germany has some limitations on where you can take the photo from, and the work must be "permanently" in public, but the law has no real limitation (beyond that Berne Convention one) on what use you make of the photograph itself. There was a 2017 ruling on use of photo of an AIDA cruise ship with copyrightable graphics, in advertisements for a cruise excursion company. Their main argument was that the ship did not count as "permanent", not the use made of the photo. The court ruled the ship was permanently in a public place, and the ads were fine. By that, it would seem selling a postcard of that image would similarly be fine. It is true that U.S. fair use is a lot more flexible, and will allow many uses not allowed in other countries, but is also not cut and dried over what you can do -- commercial use is one factor used in making the determination, but it is not decisive either way. Parody is a common commercial "fair use", while some non-commercial uses are not fair. I would say that FoP photos are pretty much free, but not when you start removing the public context -- at that point, you aren't making a derivative work of the photo, but directly of the underlying work, and I think you lose any FoP protection at that point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, I don't know what you take carte blanche to mean, but...
In many cases, there is some sort of integrity requirement. According to Commons' page on German law, Germany's FoP exception only applies when no alteration is done to the copyrighted work. Even some fairly simple edits have been found to violate this requirement. The same sort of requirement seems to be present in Belgian law, too. We don't count CC-ND licenses as free, either. And if an NC restriction makes a work non-free (it does), how does an ND restriction not do the same?
The main use of the photograph, in many cases, is to reproduce/depict the non-free work itself, rather than the object within a larger context.
Even fairly technically simple reproductions can be especially prejudicial to the author's rights for certain types of work (esp. 2D art), as I argue above. Even putting aside the (prohibited for integrity reasons) restoration, the full reproduction of the Astérix mural itself would be highly prejudicial — depicting the 2D artwork itself in a non-transformative way interferes significantly more with core exploitation than photographing a building or even a sculpture.
True, you can't make someone believe the work looks differently in public than it actually does. Those are akin to moral rights violations, which you can't make even on freely-licensed works -- the moral rights are usually not transferrable or voidable. It is not a ND restriction -- you can make many derivative works of the photo (cropping is fine etc.), but changing the nature of the depicted work is not allowed. I do agree, particularly for 2D works, that a FoP photo needs to show the public context -- the full mural (and cropped to just the mural) would also be a problem for me. Carte blanche may be a bad way to describe it, but the limitations are not based on what use you make of the photo, i.e. the context it is used in, unlike a U.S. fair use determination. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I would again like to mention this interesting essay (shared by @Ciell: [Dutch-speaking Wikimedian] in the debate here), which is essentially one statement from WMF in which in the age of Internet since 2020s, the "one-law applies to all" no longer works. In this context, Internet use and access transcends beyond the borders of the physical servers' host country. This means Wikimedia sites may need to comply with the varied laws of other countries, as Wikimedia's influences like its global outcreach programs, Wikimania conventions, Wiki Loves competitions (esp. Wiki Loves Monuments) have expanded beyond the administrative lines of the United States. Enforcing US-FoP only approach will only risk WMF in the face of the influential French organization ADAGP, which may lobby in the European Union to censor Wikimedia sites, enwiki included, in the EU bloc (if, hypothetically, enwiki's FoP-USonly rule begins to affect royalty incomes of architects of buildings found in France, Estonia, Greece, or Luxembourg). On the other hand, Wikimedians from countries like the Netherlands will be adversely affected, as they decided to deactivate most local uploading; they rely on Wikimedia Commons to host images of their post-1929 monuments. Note that the Netherlands was the first community to hold "Wiki Loves Monuments" (in 2010), which expanded to the entirety of Europe the next year and became international the following year (2012).
I would again like to reiterate that there are current efforts being made by Discott and other users from South Africa for the introduction of FoP there. Their main motivation to have FoP introduced there: for Commons to finally be able to host sculptures from South Africa like Nelson Mandela statues and artworks relating to the struggle of Africans during the apartheid and post-apartheid eras. Also, meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community (of which I am a member of) is making connections to several stakeholders here (see this), so that the thematic community can have the leverage in the legislature for the introduction of FoP reform in our country. And finally, the Wikimedia region covering the East and Southeast Asia as well as South Pacific (ESEAP) held their 2024 conference in Malaysia (a full FoP state up to 2D works), and a major segment of their conference was devoted to Freedom of Panorama movements in the Wikimedia region (meta:ESEAP Conference 2024/Submissions/Free the Freedom of Panorama in ESEAP), to gather ideas and initiatives on how to liberalize FoP in around 17 countries that still do not provide complete FoP up to sculptural monuments (the likes of Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan). A vision of many Wikimedians in ESEAP region is having liberal FoP – up to sculptures – in the entire ESEAP region. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)08:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but your interpretation of this essay is completely backwards. I have pointed this out in discussions with you elsewhere. There is no legal way for the WMF to ever ignore the requirements of US law. Any invocation of foreign law in the Wikimedia context means adding restrictions based on foreign law. Between the US and foreign law, the more restrictive rule would be followed. You are advocating for the less restrictive law to be followed. That's not how things work.
For comparison, Commons has a rule that everything must be free in the US and the country of origin. You're asking for the equivalent of free in the US or the country of origin. You cannot do that, because Commons is still hosted in the US.
That users outside the US might prefer if they had the ability to upload pictures that aren't free in the US cannot override the restrictions of US law. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Create custom template for images from MerrionStreet.ie Flickr account, mirroring Number-10-flickr
All the information featured on our website is the copyright of the MerrionStreet.ie unless otherwise indicated. You may re-use the information on this website free of charge in any format. Information and documents obtained from this website may be reproduced and/or re-used subject to the latest PSI licence available at www.psi.gov.ie.
As part of it's operation, www.MerrionStreet.ie runs a Flickr account, found here. Unfortunately for us, www.MerrionStreet.ie does not upload these images under a creative commons license. However, I believe they should be as part of the law stated on their own website. As far as I can see, everything created or upload by www.MerrionStreet.ie is a part of its purpose, which is entirely covered under the copyright section of their website. That section clears states it's all under PSI.
Have you contacted this agency about this?
I contacted www.MerrionStreet.ie directly several times in Spring 2023, both by e-mail and phone. While I was told that the agency would review their upload policy, they neither made any changes to the Flickr account nor informed me of a final decision. A classic case of kick the can down the road and hope it goes away. Look, the agency actually falls under the Office of the Taoiseach, the highest political office in Ireland, so it's likely extremely busy on a consistent basis and was never going to prioritise this request (sadly).
Recently, I've discovered the existence of Template:Number-10-flickr; a template which supersedes the stated license on Flickr and follows British Law/policy instead. Given the existence of Template:Number-10-flickr, there should be no problem creating the exact same kind of template for MerrionStreet.ie, which is an almost identical entity in Ireland.
This is my second time making this request; previously I made a request to Commons:Village pump/Copyright >>>here<<< but unfortunately did not get any engagement, which was quite disappointing.
A big difference though is that Number 10 Downing Street has this information in the about page of their Flickr feed, rather than on a website and in a wording referring specifically only to the website as such. I do see your point, but I think there should be slightly more engagement here before uploads are tagged with this new template. Felix QW (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the release on MerrionStreet.ie covers photos on their Flickr account. The copyright release specifically says All the information featured on our website (emphasis mine), so does not cover content published on other websites like Flickr. As Felix QW points out, Number 10 is a different situation, their Flickr page explicitly releases the Flickr content under a free license. Consigned (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
The lines are more blurred then they first appear; MerrionStreet.ie used to use Flickr as an image host. Images from the Flickr account would simultaneously appear on MerrionStreet.ie and the MerrionStreet.ie Flickr account. So for example, an image of Brian Cowen and Owen Patterson appears both here on MerrionStreet.ie and here on the MerrionStreet.ie Flickr account. It's the same government body uploading the same images to what is/was essentially two half of the same website.
If we go to https://www.merrionstreet.ie/merrionstreet/en/gallery/ there are explicit links to the Flickr account as well as the statement Double click on any photo to see text information about the event on the MerrionStreet.ie Flickr page…. In my view, the "main" site and the Flickr are clearly supposed to work in unison, not separately. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The https://merrionstreet.ie/en/copyright-and-disclaimer/ page also says This website uses non-government sites to make information and services more widely available. Sometimes we are directly engaging with you on these sites, sometimes we use these services because we want to be where you already are. It is important to remember that these are commercial sites and are not required to follow government standards. It’s always a good idea to be familiar with the privacy policies and rules of these sites. You can usually find links to policies at the bottom of the page (footer) or sometimes at the top (header). This is confusing because the first usage of the term "this website" is used to describe the merrionstreet organization rather than just the website. But still, this paragraph confirms that content on other non-government sites (like Flickr) follow their own rules (i.e. content on Flickr follows the licenses on Flickr). Consigned (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The painting is PD; the photograph (which includes the frame and a tiny bit more) you could argue is copyrightable. If you crop to just the painting, it's fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the notion that the non-painting parts of the photograph constitute an original copyrightable work in (pretty much any) country is pretty absurd, but ideally the photo would be slightly cropped to show only the painting anyway.
More generally, a lot of items on Flickr are listed as copyrighted but are in fact PD — or, in some cases, are listed as licensed when they aren't. This painting is certainly in the public domain; we can ignore the tag on Flickr if we know it's not correct. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
For sure, COM:LL can be a problem when it comes to Flickr, which one of the reasons the practice of doing what you're describing is often referred to as "en:Flickrwashing", and Commons can and does ignore an invalid claim of copyright in such cases. However, Commons does treat the frame in photos of framed PD paintings as a possibly copyrightable element per COM:FRAME; so, ideally it would be best to take a new photo of the same painting (if possible) minus the frame or find an existing photo that's frameless. There's also the option of using the template {{Non-free frame}} if the file has already been uploaded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think so, though it may be worth further investigation. I think we would need something that addresses the copyright a bit more -- www.eurekalert.org does seem to hint that usage restrictions can be changed, though those do come from the contributing entity. The source is discoverandshare.org, a blog of the Missouri Botanical Garden, but I don't see any copyright information on that website at all. The main Missouri Botanical Garden website has a regular copyright notice with no license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The terms and conditions spell out how the process works. In short: submitters grant EurekAlert a broad license, including the right to sublicense. But EurekAlert doesn't allow free use of the images. "EurekAlert! and AAAS encourage the broad dissemination of research news to strengthen science communications worldwide. However, no reporter/freelancer member may use or duplicate any Website Content or any User Submissions on other websites in a wholesale or "content aggregation" fashion or otherwise use Website Content or User Submissions in violation of these Terms of Service or the Other Terms. News releases on EurekAlert! are intended to support bona fide news coverage by reporters registered with EurekAlert!. You may not download, reprint, reproduce, republish, transmit, or otherwise distribute Website Content or User Submissions in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use, without the prior express written permission from EurekAlert! and AAAS." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
That helps some (nice find). It does sound like uploading parties must agree to the statement I certify that I have obtained in writing the necessary rights and permissions [...] to allow the re-use of such image and likeness as part of the Multimedia Content in news coverage and on social media according to the restriction I have selected. So there is some general permission, but I don't think it amounts to a free license. It also sounds like the uploaders had the explicit option to choose a CC license, and chose to state "Original Content" instead. So, the permission may be restricted to "news coverage and on social media", unless we get a more specific licensing statement. If someone wants to ask, they could go through the COM:VRT process to ask the institution to license that photo in particular, or at least get some clarification on what no usage restrictions means in their eyes. They would need to reply or CC directly to the permissions-commons address mentioned on the VRT page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, the contributors have to certify that they have the right to give permission, but EurekAlert! is given the authority to give sublicenses to the actual news users. However, as the contributors' license is non-exclusive, they can also give a separate license acceptable for use on Commons. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The original article is copyrighted by the publisher Elsevier. (Not sure if it includes this photo, access to the full article requires payment.) You could try to contact the corresponding author João Farminhão. Or the photographer Marie Savignac to check the copyright status of her photo. Marie Savignac is a freelance nature illustrator. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The Elsevier article includes different images, actually (I happen to have access via my university affiliation). Felix QW (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Copyright and commercial purposes
Hi all. I had a discussion on the following file File:Portrait de Océane Godard.jpg. This picture has been taken from https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr. The following part is quoted from Legal information. From my understanding, we cannot upload here the files due to being for commercial purposes. I am right about that ?
Original
Les documents « publics » ou « officiels » ne sont couverts par aucun droit d'auteur (article L.122-5 du code de la propriété intellectuelle). Ils peuvent donc être reproduits librement. C'est le cas pour les débats et les documents parlementaires. Les informations utilisées ne doivent l'être qu'à des fins personnelles, associatives ou professionnelles, toute utilisation ou reproduction à des fins commerciales ou publicitaires étant interdite.
Transalation
Public" or "official" documents are not covered by any copyright (article L.122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code). They may therefore be reproduced freely. This is the case for parliamentary debates and documents. Information may only be used for personal, associative or professional purposes. Any use or reproduction for commercial or advertising purposes is prohibited. Nicolas22g (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The statement can be a bit unclear, especially in this English translation. To clarify, this is what it is saying:
Official acts and documents — meaning the text of laws, court decisions, etc., but also parliamentary reports and debate transcripts — are in the public domain and can be reproduced freely.
Other information or files found on French government websites are copyrighted and not necessarily freely licensed. The ones covered by this notice aren't freely licensed.
The Assemblée nationale does, however, make some items available under an open license, and those files can be used in accordance with that license.
Hi, I need help with uploading a company logo. I want to add it to the article about the Polish branch of a company on Wikipedia. I don’t know how to add this logo to ensure it’s compliant with copyright laws. I don’t own the rights to it, so I can’t upload it directly. It redirects me to Wiki Commons. I have permission to publish it, but I don't have information about whether it’s under any license. I tried to find out how other brands upload their logos, but after clicking on them, it takes me to a page where there is no such information. Under the license heading, it says the logo is not copyrighted and the image is in the public domain. However, in the commons upload wizard in step 3 (release rights) at point 4, it is required to indicate that I am certain the image does not contain protected elements such as logos...
There are two questions here: The first is whether the logo is above the threshold of originality in the source country of the logo (COM:TOO). If yes, you can only upload it if you can obtain a free license from the copyright holder and prove it, either by the copyright holder marking the license on their website or by the copyright holder sending it to VRT. If no, then you can upload it yourself, since it is free of copyright. Felix QW (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Bonnjourr: further, you don't say what language Wikipedia this is about. Many of the Wikipedias have provisions to host low-resolution versions of non-free logos themselves (not involving Commons) when needed for articles. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for the relevant policy for the English-language Wikipedia; for other Wikipedias that have policies for that, the policy pages are linked from there in the usual manner for interwiki links. - Jmabel ! talk17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Should it be for the Polish Wikipedia, then there are indeed no local uploads or fair-use provisions though. Felix QW (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@Pragdon: The first might well have copyright issues (I can't read Farsi, so I cannot tell whether the source page offers a license). I fail to see the issue with the second, can you please spell it out? - Jmabel ! talk02:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
There are a bunch of files on Commons that are listed as government works that are from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory website, which is a government contractor, and I think does not automatically release its images into the public domain. I found this CC-BY-NC-SA notice, which I think means the photos aren't in the public domain. I tagged those (this and this one). The problem is, this geese image and this lab image got posted on the US DOE flickr account (geese image post) (which apparently exists) as "United states government works", which I infer are free from copyright (the lab image at least must be taken by an LLNL employee since it's in the lab). Does anyone know if I'm just wrong on how government contractor copyright works? Also, does that count as the DOE releasing the images? Even more than that, LLNL has its own Flickr account and posted the same geese image as "All Rights Reserved". I'm feeling like it needs to be deleted, but I'm not sure. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a case of mis-interpretting a lay-language phrase. The "United states government works" tag on Flickr does not appear to mean the work is literally a creation of the US government (with its intrinsic PD nature as {{PD-USGov}}). Instead, that phrase links to https://www.usa.gov/government-copyright, which reminds that one site might incorporate content from some other party, which does not entail making a PD release on that third-party content (only hosted by not created by). DMacks (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
That probably makes the most sense. The website linked does use the language "Not everything that appears on a federal government website is a government work (something created by a U.S. government officer or employee as part of their official duties).", which I think implies government works are intended mean the public domain ones, but it seems likely that they're just posted with an incorrect understanding of the license. I'll nominate these for deletion. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Phrasing of photographer permission
I'm polishing the essay en:Wikipedia:A picture of you a little to make it clearer what a person has to write when sharing an image on social media, if they want it to be uploaded to Commons.
If a person has a photo taken by a professional photographer and has that photographer's permission to freely licence it however they like, what advice should we be giving that person? Would a social media caption of something like I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence. Photo taken by John Smith, copyright transferred to me. be accepted at Commons, that we'd take the subject's word for it? Or would we want the photographer to share the image somewhere instead? Belbury (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This is just my opinion, and I don't know what the policy is, but maybe it would be best to just get a statement from the photographer? They don't necessarily need to share the image. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Email permission from the photographer per COM:VRT is always an option, I'm specifically curious about the most streamlined advice we can give to a non-Commons-user who's sharing a photo on social media (and who may not be engaged enough to agree to pass an email template to a photographer with instructions to send it on to a particular Commons desk, particularly if that photographer is just a non-professional friend). Belbury (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The caption you give as an example is an unambiguous, clear and acceptable license statement. Statements don't have to be so verbose, though; as long as the meaning is clear, and they refer to a valid license, then it is fine. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that without VRT or a posting by the photographer, we have no way to verify that the photographer (who holds the copyright) gave permission. What we have is the subject's assurance, not a statement from the photographer. That provides no reuser with any relevant evidence if the photographer sues them for a copyright violation. "But the guy in the photo said you said he could grant a license from you" isn't going to cut it. - Jmabel ! talk18:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
If the copyright was assigned to the subject (as the statement given above says), then it's the subject, not the photographer, who owns the copyright, and the photographer wouldn't even have the right to sue (not being the copyright holder).
It's not that uncommon for the copyright in headshots (and commercial photography) to be assigned to the subject/client (although it's not universal, either). When the copyright has been transferred (or when the work is a work for hire), the client (who may be the subject) is the copyright holder, and the only one who can give permission for the work's use.
There is no way for us to definitively demonstrate who owns a copyright in 99.9% of cases, because we almost never have access to the contracts assigning the copyright (or not). For that matter, we can hardly definitely prove that John Smith or the like is the actual photographer, or that photos on Flickr don't come from a stolen hard drive or SD card that someone found lying around.
The word of the client of a commercial photographer saying that a work has been licensed by the photographer or that the copyright has been transferred (esp. when dealing with the original source of publication, rather than some random third party) is one on which you can normally rely, unless you have reason to believe otherwise. If the client falsely represents the content as freely licensed, although the photographer did not agree, the downstream recipient (us) who relied upon the reasonable belief that the content was released with a valid license is at most an innocent infringer — being a person who was "not aware and had no reason to believe his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't say the copyright was assigned, it says the photographer gave a permission to "license it as you like." As I understand it, VRT pretty routinely don't consider that adequate, and want to see a copy of an overt written transfer. The only exceptions I've seen them make are for established institutions such as major NGOs, arts organizations, or corporations, not individuals (including not individual politicians, musicians, etc.). This is just what I've observed: I have no knowledge of the inner workings of VRT. - Jmabel ! talk02:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The hypothetical caption states that the copyright was assigned. This is not the same as implication of the previous phrasing used by @Belbury, but I'm addressing the case mentioned in the caption. For what it's worth, the VRT instructions also say using VRT is unnecessary when "The image was first published on [the uploader's] website, or on [the uploader's] own space of a shared website." I'm also certain that many such cases have not gone to VRT to begin with. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if the the subject's own site or social media presence is first publication, we generally take their word, though I've certainly seen it challenged on the basis that they don't have any evidence of owning the copyright; that seems particularly the case for bands. Again: just reporting what I've seen.- Jmabel ! talk03:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Reliability of the gov.uk copyright notice
I thought I'd try to add a few ([7][8][9]) of the gov.uk images because the copyright disclaimer below said that they were all licensed under the OGL (Open Government License), but I'm not sure that it's accurate. I've seen at least one stock photo up there (specifically, this one appears on stock websites), and several produced by a non-governmental organization. I'm pretty confident in the Gauld photo being valid, but the Bee Network one was taken by Transport For Greater Manchester, which is an arm of a local combined authority, and I haven't been able to figure out whether local government is covered by crown copyright, or whether voluntary associations like that are exempt. Does anyone know whether these images' copyrights are valid? Mrfoogles (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The "water sector" one seems more likely to be copyfraud by the stock websites than by the government. It's on several government sites. - Jmabel ! talk18:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Policy and laws
I'm sure the following remarks with particular reference to several recent discussions (how to handle FoP in origin country vs. U.S.; some issues about how we determine whether and when a work of art in the early 20th Century was published; etc) will be controversial, but I think it needs to be said.
While we certainly need to try to make sure our policy conforms to laws, especially U.S. laws, it is not part of our precautionary principle to always opt for the most restrictive imaginable interpretation of laws in matters where we do not yet have clear legal precedent. Even for those of the participants in these discussions who happen to be lawyers, unless you are from the legal department of WMF, Wikimedia is presumably not your client. Of course your informed opinions are welcome, but you should not expect to have your legal advice accepted as if we were your client.
I wish I were in a position to quote individuals in what I am about to say, but I'm not. Two different people from the legal department of WMF have remarked to me that in general they find Commons' interpretations of copyright law overly conservative and restrictive. I for one keep that in mind when people suggest tightening down even further. I realize the rest of you have nothing here to go on in this respect but my word (though I'd greatly appreciate it if others could weigh in and say if you have also heard similar things informally, or if you have heard anything to the contrary).
Policy should be set to be good policy. If we are inclined to tighten our policies because we fear current policies may not be legal, it seems to me that we should be seeking advice from the lawyers who have a fiduciary responsibility to the Foundation, not taking quasi-legal advice from lawyers and non-lawyers with no fiduciary responsibility in the matter.
Note that these remarks are strictly about setting policy, not about discussions of individual photos, text content, etc. I would not expect WMF Legal to get involved in such small matters unless there were an actual case at hand in which the Foundation's interests arise.
I don't want to get dragged into an argument here. I've said my piece and I will not comment further on this thread unless pinged. - Jmabel ! talk18:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I actually mostly agree with you: I think that many of Commons' rules and many common Commons community interpretations are actually much stricter than the law requires and there are some related rules I think are bad ideas. For example:
I think the policy that all Commons files be free in both the US and the country of origin (rather than just the US) is a bad idea.
Commons is based in the US, as is enwiki, and enwiki hosts PD-US-only files. There's no legal difference between hosting them on Commons or on enwiki. It makes little sense, in my view, to kneecap ourselves by voluntarily adding another set of restrictions on top of US law. Of course, there are some things that are not in the PD in the US which are in many other countries, but US law giveth and taketh away. On Commons, though, it really only taketh away, and I think that's a foolish choice for a free media repository. (I know this is unlikely to change, but it's just my opinion.)
The way in which "country of origin" is interpreted on Commons doesn't really make a lot of sense sometimes, since simultaneous publication is a thing. (This applies especially for anything originally published on the internet/Commons.) There are a lot of things out there that were simultaneously published in the US and some other country, and at least some have, I imagine, been passed over for upload (or deleted) because the US is not the country in which the work was created, even if it is in the public domain in the US.
The interpretation given of non-US law can be especially conservative, and, since a file being non-free in its home country makes it ineligible for Commons, a decent number of free files have been passed over despite being perfectly fine in the US. This applies especially to photos of non-US architecture. Since it's acceptable to take non-commercial photos of buildings even in the vast majority of "no-FoP-architecture" countries, I find the mass deletion of photos of modern buildings from many countries around the world to be foolish — and certainly not required by US law.
The claim that hosting pictures of French buildings is likely to lead to a lawsuit and get Wikipedia/Commons blocked in France is beyond absurd to me... especially as enwiki already has photos of those buildings.
See also: deletion of files that become non-free in their country of origin when that country abolishes or modifies an exception or passes a retroactive term extension.
The Commons community can perhaps interpret the threshold of originality as being unreasonably low.
It was taken on faith by many that UK law in fact would grant a copyright in a photo of a painting, for instance — see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. But UK courts have since held such reproductions to be ineligible for copyright (THJ v. Sheridan), and there was case law which arguably laid the groundwork for that conclusion even then. The fact that the claims of the NPG were accepted by so many as authoritative at the time (in the UK, if not the US) — and, let's not even imagine how it would be if Bridgeman v. Corel had not already been decided — is a sign of just how low a bar some would think there is for enclosing the public domain.
Many countries with (supposedly) low thresholds of originality have many PD-textlogo (and other simple files) removed. (Even if you accept a trivial TOI, which leads to its own absurdities, there is reason to think that many of these files posted on the internet could be considered simultaneously published in the US.)
See above point about accepting the restrictions of stricter non-US copyright laws.
Many other issues, e.g., in some cases, people can adopt interpretations of CC licenses which would imply that they restrict the use of even non-copyrightable content, etc.
When it comes to actual determinations on legal questions and the adoption of a substantive position, I certainly agree that WMF Legal should be involved. (And, of course, the actual law is decided by courts and legislatures; Commons deletion discussions have no legal or precedential value.)
That being said, Commons and WMF policies are intentionally stricter than the law requires. So compliance with WMF policies — or the policies of Wikimedia projects — often requires going above and beyond what the law itself would allow. There would be no impediment to us hosting CC-ND licensed files here — but we choose not to because that license, while allowing for redistribution of a file, is not free in the sense required by the licensing policy. Along similar lines, the English Wikipedia's NFCC are significantly stricter than US fair use doctrine allows. This is, of course, on purpose — because the goal of the project is, to some extent, to be free content, and not just content. There have been some real upsides to that — and the WMF hosts a lot of really great stuff — but there are some debates you could have about some of those choices, too. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller@Jmabel may I ask that before making substantial changes to FoP policy of Commons, a proper consultation with Wikimedians from 80+ countries be made first? For example, Wikimedians from Singapore, Malaysia, and Brazil, if they are willing to have non-incidental (non-de minimis) images of Merlion and Christ the Redeemer to be taken down, as these are legally unfree in the U.S. (post-1929 sculptural monuments, covered by URAA so they won't be restored even during the lifetimes of most of the current members of Wikimedia communities in Singapore and Brazil). This shift – only to please U.S. law and obligations at U.S. courts/legal system – at the expense of the rights of Wikimedians in 80+ yes-FoP countries to host their numerous post-1929 sculptural monuments will certaibly have drastic consequences that will certainly affect Wikimedia movements on arts and culture in those countries. It will also be put into question if Wiki Loves Monuments will be viable once only U.S. FoP is going to be respected. Again, it is not U.S. Wikimedians that initiated it, it was Dutch Wikimedians that launched it – way back in 2010 – to cover photography of their buildings and monuments that are part of their heritage. It was expanded the next year to the entirety of Europe, and only reached overseas (including U.S.) in 2012. Photography and sharing of images of monuments through WLM and other photo competitions is one part of the Wikimedia movement that will certainly be affected by this shift to U.S. FoP law.
I will certainly Oppose any attempt to change to U.S. FoP rule-only policy, unless most or all of Wikimedians from Brazil, Singapore, Netherlands, Belgium, U.K., Malaysia, etc. agree or concede to agree that only U.S. FoP law needs to be followed and that their hundreds of post-1929 sculptural monuments should not be hosted here anymore and the existing non-de minimis images of their monuments be removed from this site. Also, it means that South African, Philippine, and ESEAP FoP initiatives become pointless. For instance, Nelson Mandela and anti-apartheid monuments from South Africa won't be welcome here anymore, even if FoP is introduced in South Africa. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)23:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no question that US law must be followed. There is no choice of following US law vs. not following US law. There is only the choice of following US law or following US law plus additional restrictions. The community can choose to make rules which are more restrictive than what US law allows — it cannot create new exceptions to the law. The question is what US law actually allows.
Hopefully, WMF Legal can give an interpretation of what US law allows and doesn't allow here. It's not up to the community to determine what the law requires. I have my reading of what the law says (not what I'd wish for it to say). But I'm not WMF Legal — it's up to them to decide what US legal position the WMF is willing to defend.
But also, "pointless"? Wikimedia Commons is not the only site on the internet. Wikimedians from (say) the UK cannot upload works by authors who died in 1953 but which were published in 1950 and aren't in the public domain in the US — even though they are in the UK, for instance. But they can host them in the UK or other countries where such works are in the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller re: "pointless", Wikimedia Commons is the only site where Wikimedians may be able to share or host their monuments, inclusive of post-1929 sculptural monuments, to widely disseminate their cultural heritage to the widest possible audiences. No other media repository site can do the same feat or achievement that Wikimedia Commons already did. We here in the Philippines do not have any local repository site, as many upload their photos through U.S.-hosted Instagram and Facebook. For sure, Singaporeans or even Malaysians do not have their media repository sites (that can rival or even surpass Wikimedia Commons) where they can freely share Merlion and other post-1929 sculptures. And note, the prime motivation for South Africans to introduce FoP in their country in the first place is for them to finally share their images of anti-apartheid monuments and Nelson Mandela statues on Wikimedia Commons (they have more heritage in statues and public sculptures than on their contemporary architecture). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)00:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It's true that Commons is the largest site. But it's not the only website in the world. And you can start a site hosted in (for example) Germany or Canada fairly easily. But even if that's a huge inconvenience to non-US users, that doesn't have any impact on what US law says. It's irrelevant to the interpretation of US law.
Although you've said many times that the WMF can choose to ignore US law, this just isn't true, and it doesn't become true just because you'd like it to be or because it would be nice. (It might be nice if Golan v. Holder had gone the other way, too, but it didn't!) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll probably type out a lengthier explanation of my thoughts later, but I generally agree with Jmabel in that we are very conservative when it comes to copyright, and we can (if the community choses) expand on some things. I essentially believe our Yes-FOP is a de facto EDP as the community has chosen the additional burden of respecting non-American laws when works are not American, and I reject calls for US-onlyFOP rules. I agree with D. Benjamin Miller that the community can choose to allow non-commercial FOP because Wikimedia Commons is not a commercial site, but that would have to be something the community would clearly chose. We are a media repository, and eventually we'll have to reckon with governments and creators that may increasingly insist on non-commercial only licenses because of late stage capitalism and AI. Abzeronow (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with D. Benjamin Miller that the community can choose to allow non-commercial FOP because Wikimedia Commons is not a commercial site
I must clarify that, if this is your position, I don't think you agree with me. My interpretation is:
For architecture: broad exemption exists in US law. Thus:
Buildings in US and FoP countries: perfectly OK to upload (and this is of course the rule already).
Buildings in No-FoP countries: would be legal to upload (US site), but we have chosen to make a rule against it (which I think is a bad idea, but just my opinion).
For non-architectural works, where the presence of the work is not de minimis: no broad exemption exists in US law. Thus:
Sculptures, etc., located in the US: already blocked.
Sculptures, etc., located in countries with an exemption: allowed in practice — but I don't think this is broadly legal. The US has no FoP exemption for such works; there is only the more general fair use exemption. The fair use exemption does not allow for all non-commercial use.
To be totally clear, when anyone talks about my position on following "US-only FoP rules," know that it is the following:
I suggest allowing photos of buildings, even from countries which don't have FoP for buildings, because US law clearly allows this. That I think is definitely a choice the community can make (and compare PD-Art; I also think the arguments against both may be based on very conservative interpretations of non-US countries' copyright laws).
My position on non-architectural FoP, on the other hand, is that US law (fair use, since there is no specific FoP exemption) doesn't make any blanket allowance for it (even when non-commercial).
Crucially, I think that the "pros and cons" list presented by @JWilz12345 at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/04#Pros_and_cons_of_mandating_U.S._copyright_law_sitewide presents these two issues as though the choices were connected, which makes no sense, because these are not connected at all. Whether or not you think US law allows for (foreign and/or non-commercial) sculptural FoP has nothing to do at all with whether you think we should choose to reject photos of buildings in countries where there is no architectural FoP.
I think the question is what constitutes publication under US law is a significant policy question, and I'd like WMF legal to get involved in it, because there's clearly (a) significant disagreement, and (b) very broad implications. Stated policy is restrictive, but de facto policy is permissive. This is not a good situation. grendel|khan07:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Can anyone verify when was the mural here painted, and if the artist's bio can be traced (when did he/she die)? Google Lens image searching did not yield results that would have been useful to know the authorship or date of the work. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)00:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
it says "Materials from the Alex North Music for Documentary Film, Theater, Dance, and Concert are governed by the Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17, U.S.C.) and other applicable international copyright laws." It talks about the music, I don't think it says anything about the image. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Image is credited as "Alex North Papers, Music Division." I'd still research if the photograph was published in 1986 or published later. Abzeronow (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Public-submitted images on NWS websites
Hi all; a few days ago, I learned that the US National Weather Service websites host images not only created by their own employees (obviously {{PD-USGov}}) but also images contributed by members of the public. At least some of those images are in the public domain because since at least 2009, the NWS has had a process through which images become part of the public domain.[10]
I am currently involved in a deletion discussion about one such image (as the nominator) because I don't think we can be sure exactly which images of pre-2009 weather events are covered by this, based on the fact that we don't know when this process was first put in place, and generally don't know when images were submitted under it.
For a very long time, the Commons has assumed (based on the research or rationale behind this template: {{PD-NWS}}) that all public-submitted images to the NWS had gone through that process, at least since the process was put in place. That is, any image hosted on any NWS website and credited to a member of the public was in the Public Domain (see the language of the template).
However, as I was doing some further research to see if we could better pin down the start date of that process, I discovered that the NWS actually has a few different submission processes, not all of which have "release to the PD" as one of their conditions, and that some of these processes are still active in 2024. For example:
this process and this process only require that the owner give the NWS permission to share the photo
this process requires that the owner gives the NWS, NOAA, or "anyone else" permission to share the photo specifically "for lightning safety and related uses"
Neither of which puts the image in the PD, or licences it under anything compatible with CC.
Then we also haveː
this process that says that submissions become part of the PD, but also allows submitters to set a condition that credit is required with each use, so the resulting copyright and license status is unclear.
(My understanding at this point is whether or not publicly-submitted images hosted on NWS websites are in the PD or not hinges both on when the image was submitted, but potentially also which NWS/NOAA office it was submitted to; note that the various processes linked above come from different regional offices).
This obviously has an even broader implication than just images of pre-2009 events. My question isː where to from here? Should Iː
introduce this new information into an already pretty convoluted deletion discussion
withdraw the current nomination and start a different, broader discussion about publicly-submitted images on NWS websites (and if so, where)
COM:TOO UK is very low, so I would say the En Wiki reasoning is correct. The Commons file should probably be deleted. PascalHD (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The work must have the characteristics of ""uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability", which I think is not present in this stamp. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. These are designs created by the private companies Euro Special Note and Euro Note Souvenir. These companies are, as far as I understand, using the base design of Euro banknotes under the provision allowing for the use of the design so long as it is not confused for real currency. But these designs weren't created by the ECB, and so whatever permission the ECB has given doesn't apply to the original designs created by those companies. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm not a regular on Commons, but think I may have stumbled across a rather large issue. While doing an FLC image review, I found File:Malha Wells, Sudan by Planet Labs.jpg from the company Planet.com. They take satellite imagery, and this photo was stated to be under a CC-4.0 license. However, it cannot be found in their gallery. While searching for it, I noticed that every other photo in their gallery is licensed as CC-BY-NC, a license we do not accept on Commons or Wikipedia. We do have quite a large inventory of Planet Labs images here on Commons, at Category:Images by Planet Labs. Some of these are marked on the image as CC-4.0, but many are not. I suspect that the majority of these will need attention and may need to be removed because of the incompatible license, and wanted to make some more experienced Commons users aware of this. Thanks! Fritzmann2002 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Fritzmann2002 It is very possible at the time of upload, the site offered the images under a compatible CC-4.0 license and have since changed it to a more restrictive CC-NC license. If it was licensed under the claimed tag, CC licenses are non revocable so we can keep them - but not add more. Pinging @Ras67 whom uploaded the file(s) in question. PascalHD (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
If you can find copyright renewals for the TV show on www.copyright.gov, then they are not OK. If you can't find them, it's probably fine. I would not take archive.org's word for it, but it's straightforward to disprove a PD-US-not_renewed claim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Marchjuly: I think the image looks rather distorted. If you put the time details of where it is in the film, then someone can try to readjust the proportions to make it look more natural. Ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: I didn't upload the file; I only came upon it by chance while looking at some other files. I can't figure out the copyright.gov site; so, I haven't been able to verify the file's licensing. It would probably better to figure that out first before trying to upload a cleaner version of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I checked 1984-1988 and failed to find any renewals for a motion picture or television serial called lock-up. All I managed to find was music under that name (by an Eddie Davis), but that seems to be unrelated. Felix QW (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article about the production company mentions that some shows are in the public domain, but without more information nor a reference. A search on cocatalog.loc.gov returns 1645 entries for Ziv Television, but apparently nothing for Lock-Up (alphabetically, the list passes from Laughing to Lodestone). -- Asclepias (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The source states the items are free of copyright under the New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 so you can upload the map with {{PD-US-expired| PD-New Zealand}}. --Geohakkeri (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Hyperba21 In a scenario where a few copies were distributed without a copyright notice between 1978-1989, it does not necessarily invalidate the copyright. The law at the time allowed minor omissions as long as most copies included a notice and reasonable efforts were made to correct any errors later on. Section 2203.4 states the following:
2203.4 Omission of Notice on Works First Published Between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989 The omission of a notice on a work published between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989 with the authority of the copyright owner does not invalidate the copyright, provided that one of the following conditions has been met:
• The notice was omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public; or
• The work was registered before or within five years after the publication without notice and a reasonable effort was made “to add notice to all copies or phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United States after the omission has been discovered;” or
• The omission was “in violation of an express requirement in writing that, as a condition of the copyright owner’s authorization of the public distribution of copies or phonorecords, they bear the prescribed notice.”
For example, some earlier copies could have been distributed without a notice, but was corrected relatively shortly after publication. Registration would still not be required as long as it was a 'small number' of copies. However, if a photo was published without a notice, and not corrected until after the 5 year window, it would most likely fall into the Public Domain. In this case though, it appears to have been corrected early on within the same year of 1985. I would say this photo is most likely copyrighted. PascalHD (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
1959 Yearbook portrait of Charles Edward Kerbs (MATT)
A US yearbook published before 1964 is in the public domain unless it had a copyright notice and a renewal was filed, which almost never happened for yearbooks. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
More than just this one...
Hi everyone, I just marked this image as likely being copyvio. The name of the photographer / copyright holder is mentioned (Pierre Montavon), but there is no indication of a permission, or that the uploader is identical with the copyright holder.
Only when I was finished doing that, I saw that practically all uploads by this user are images by this photographer. Now what? Do I have to mark every single one of these, or is there some easier way to do it? Can someone help please? Thanks, --2003:C0:8F12:CD00:30CB:A7B2:4CA1:F9ED18:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Quick searches don't show this image anywhere else on the internet. I think it's reasonable to believe that the uploader could well be Pierre Montavon, considering that they've only uploaded works by Pierre Montavon which don't appear to be online elsewhere. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
But the uploader wrote that the source is this book, published by Éditions D+P SA, so it would need a permission by the publisher or by the photographer, whichever owns the copyright. If someone wants to ask the photographer, his contact is there. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The photographer would normally own the copyright, but there may be other strings attached with the publishing that may not go together with a CC licensing.
The uploader, by the way, clearly is a company account ("company account" ≠ copyright holder) who tried to place their advertising on the German WP and did not disclose paid editing. I would have addressed him about this copyright issue on his German WP talk page, but he has not been active since 2022, so that didn't seem to make much sense. --2003:C0:8F26:1200:C53B:D20D:AE05:D06612:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Arial Bold (talk·contribs) is claiming ownership of File:Rogers Mall Plan.jpg. I know this is not their work, as it's a map I made way back in 2002 and posted on Angelfire. I have no idea how Arial Bold got a hold of it, as I took down the Angelfire page ages ago and I don't think I've ever shared the map publicly. For that reason, I think their other uploads should be scrutinized as ewll. TenPoundHammer (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the user does not understand what "own work" means, since File:Rogers Homested.jpg, for example, is (probably accurately) dated 2 January 1900, but claimed as own work, with a license offered using {{Self}}; there is approximately no chance that the user could possibly own a copyright for this image and be in a position to offer a license. But I don't think COM:VP/C is particularly the place to discuss this at any length. It looks like no one has engaged them on their user talk page or DR'd any of these images (some of which are probably OK if the right PD tag is used). @TenPoundHammer, do you want to start that discussion at User talk:Arial Bold, or would you rather someone else did? - Jmabel ! talk04:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I strongly think 74.204.120.66 and Arial Bold should be blocked. The former just seems to be Arial Bold logged out, and their talk page is full of negative comments toward me. Between that and the constant copyright problems, they're contributing nothing here. TenPoundHammer (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer: that is not an appropriate topic for this page. If you want to bring that up, it would be a matter for COM:AN/U, and don't forget to notify the user if you are bringing a complaint there. - Jmabel ! talk21:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
While developing the enwiki article for said individual, I see that a photo of them has recently been uploaded by a user account named in such a way as to suggest they may be related to the late subject. However, they have declared the photo as "own work", without indicating how this is the case. I have queried this with them but had no response. I wonder if they believe that simply having possession of the photograph, or being the nearest decedent entitles them to the copyright. The subject died nearly 50 years ago and looks much younger in the photo than the age of their death, so while it's plausible it could be PD, I am unsure how best to proceed or verify the claimed status. Bungle(talk • contribs)17:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, it could be the user's own work, if the user is old enough to have taken the picture.
Being in possession of the photograph has nothing to do with owning the copyright, but being the nearest descendant of the creator of the photo often does. Of course, even if the uploader is related to the subject, that doesn't indicate any relation to the photographer. On the other hand, the photo could be in the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The image does not appear online, so that is a strong suggestion that it derives from either their own collection, or a family member took the image. We do have {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} as the preferred license when a family member has taken an image. and the uploader is claiming to be the heir to the copyrights. We are are not forensic detectives, so we rely on good faith and due diligence via Tineye and Google Image that no one else is making an active copyright claim. --RAN (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The image shows the subject looking very similar, and indeed with the same attire, as he did when winning the 1946 FA cup (of which an image can be found on google). It also, in my opinion, appears to be a professional looking photo, rather than one from a family album. The uploader also uploaded a cigarette card, File:Jack-nicholas-cigarette-card-1.jpg, and also claimed this as own work and as the license holder - are you also prepared to believe this to be true as well, D. Benjamin Miller and RAN? I think my query is fair, and also that the uploader has no other track record we can refer to. Bungle(talk • contribs)19:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Excellent research, add the link to the new image taken at the same event. Now it would fall under PD-UK, I believe we have made a reasonable enquiry to see if anyone was named as a copyright holder. --RAN (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Except, {{PD-UK}} is not a valid license, so we'd either be looking at {{PD-old-70}} (if the author is/was known and deceased prior to 1954) or {{PD-UK-unknown}} (more likely) if the original author cannot be determined. I am making a reasonable assumption the photo in question was taken c.1946 but only based on similar appearance from an alternate dated photo. I asked here to seek some further insight on the best way to proceed, in the absence of acknowledgement from the uploader. Bungle(talk • contribs)20:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
When downloading an image, what do I need to include?
Hello, I am writing a "guide to growing roses". I am downloading images to compliment the text. I have other sources for images, but some are difficult to find. My understanding (from what I've read) is that the images are free to use as long as I credit the original contributor. I'm try to figure out what I need to include. I've copied this by clicking on the download link:
The only alterations I might make is size. The image will NOT be altered other than that. Can I just add the Attribution to the credits or do I need to include the 2 links as well?
Also, do I copy & paste the image into my ebook? The download link just gave me the above information.
@Merlin&Mommy: The credit as cited above is fine. I took the liberty of adding line breaks. You should probably link the page; it's not necessary to separately link the file, since that can easily be reached from the page.
You download the image itself exactly like any other image in a browser. Typically that is a right-click and "Save as...". - Jmabel ! talk20:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Is File:Theodore Simon ACERVO CDPHA.jpg OK for Commons? It was uploaded in 2013 and was being used as the main infobox image in en:Théodore Simon until quite recently, when it was replaced by a local non-free file uploaded to English Wikipedia as en:File:Simon Théodore.png. The Commons file, however, still is being used by other non-English Wikipedias and Wikidata. If the licensing of the Commons file is OK, then it would be really hard to justify the non-free use of the local English Wikipedia file; on the other hand, if it's not OK and can't be kept, then a non-free could possibly used on English Wikipedia.
It's also not clear whether the non-free uploaded to English Wikipedia really needs to be non-free. There's relevant discussion related to it at en:User talk;Non-free rationale for File:Simon Théodore.png, ut basically the provenance of the file is a bit unclear, The uploader states they got the photo directly from the Binet-Simon Society and agreed to only use a small part of the photo on Wikipedia. The file's description, however, states it was taken around 1905 and the uploader states the photo shows the subject when he was about 20 years younger than the Commons photo. So, there's a good chance the photo is within the public domain and thus would be OK for Commons. It also seems that whatever the agreement the uploader entered into with the source would be a COM:NCR type of arrangements that's not related to the file's copyright status.
Finally, there's another photo of Simon (at least I think it's of Simon) found online here which might also be PD. If it is, then it could used if the other two aren't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Your question is basically, "Is a PD-old-X tag sufficient, or must there be another tag relating to the digitization of the item?"
Anyway, the answer is that a PD-old-X tag is sufficient. The other wrappers are used for clarity in some situations, but they have never been mandatory. There is a reason why, for instance, they are not included as part of the upload wizard.
PD-scan explicitly says it is only for limited use: "This tag is designed for use where there may be a need to assert that any enhancements (eg brightness, contrast, colour-matching, sharpening) are in themselves insufficiently creative to generate a new copyright. It can be used where it is unknown whether any enhancements have been made, as well as when the enhancements are clear but insufficient."
PD-Art, in my personal opinion, should only really be used when there is a claim of copyright in the digitization from the source which we are explicitly rebutting. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Why do you think PD-old-X is sufficient? It applies to the original work (painting, photograph, etc.), but we have a digital copy of it. That's a very similar, but different work.
The fact that we always did something in way doesn't mean that it's the best way. We can improve things. We also allowed {{PD}} and later realized that was not a good idea and split it out in clearer templates. Multichill (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
"That's a very similar, but different work." No, it's not a distinct work, at least not usually, and that's my point.
In the vast majority of countries, there is a standard of originality which precludes mere digitization from giving rise to a new copyright. Even the classic example of what Commons users would often cite as a "sweat of the brow" country, the UK (and it was hardly clear even at the time of the NPG controversy), has clearly rejected the notion of copyright in non-original reproductions in recent case law. The EU copyright directive in 2019 prohibited the recognition of copyright or related/ancillary rights in faithful reproductions, too.
PD-Art is mostly used for paintings. As someone who happens to do some reproduction photography for work, I know that it can sometimes be technically difficult to photograph and reproduce certain objects (such as paintings), even if there is no creativity involved at all. But for book scans, the situation is even clearer. Frankly, if we are talking about "sweat of the brow," scanning on a flatbed (or similar) is extremely easy and simple; it is an activity which doesn't even generate a drop of the proverbial "sweat." After all, the basic questions of positioning, camera settings and so on hardly enter the picture at all. When I use a flatbed scanner, I can choose very little more than what bit depth and format my output will be.
PD-scan is about where adjustments have been made to the digitized file, but where these adjustments are unlikely to contain enough new matter to be considered a copyrightable work — much like how I can adjust various camera settings when photographing a 2-D object. That, I think, is a fair thing to clarify.
But to even acknowledge a claim of copyright on mere conversion to a digital format itself (as in, a normal scan) seems wrong to me. I don't think any country really does recognize a copyright on such scans (and certainly I'd say none should). And giving even the slightest validation to such frivolous claims strikes me as improper. It implies to the user the potential of an latent "infectious" copyright arising from any break in the chain of custody from the first digitizer to the final user — really, it calls into doubt the existence of any digital public domain in the first place.
I don't think any country has such a law (i.e., one which would imply independent copyright exists in all digitizations qua digitizations), but any country that did, and which took it seriously at all, would be one whose policy is so diametrically opposed to the purpose of this site or any other public domain media repository that I don't think it would be worth giving the honor of a mention on our pages. Just my two cents.
Also, to give an analogy, if you think that a new copyrighted work can arise from putting a piece of paper on a flatbed scanner and pressing a button, then I don't see any reason why having imagemagick convert a TIFF to a JPEG wouldn't result in a new copyright, either.
I corrected the template as I did before in similar cases.
I am with Aristeas, the institution claims copyright sa-by, which they have not, clear copyfraud, as many institutions do e.g. Alte Pinakothek. The few correct licenses are used now by Gemäldegalerie und Städel, by the way many user-photographers also claim copyrights of faithful 2D reproductions, which they have not and I'm tired by correcting. Oursana (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
No, despite the fact that the principle that reproductions shouldn't generally be copyrightable, if there is a free putative license, don't remove it. As Licensed-PD-Art says, in many countries, there is no copyright, but in a country where there might exist such a copyright, the free license is a fallback: "In many jurisdictions, faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are not copyrightable. The Wikimedia Foundation's position is that these works are not copyrightable in the United States (see Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs). In these jurisdictions, this work is actually in the public domain and the requirements of the digital reproduction's license are not compulsory." Even though reproductions are clearly not copyrightable in Germany now (since such ancillary copyrights in reproductions are invalid under the new legislation), the additional license is still of (theoretical) use to a user in another country. There is no reason to remove this, even though, as Licensed-PD-Art says, this is now even more superfluous than before. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I think I largely agree with D. Benjamin Miller. "Work" implies copyrightable material; it's a term of the Berne Convention. Things which are not "works" are not copyrightable (or at least are not governed by that treaty). Our PD-Art policy is basically that a photographic reproduction of a painting is not a separate work but a copy, regardless of laws elsewhere which may be different. I typically will use that tag if it's not my photo, i.e. someone else made that photo. Given that law elsewhere might be different, it's good to emphasize that for re-users, or authors of the photo wondering why it was uploaded. Licensed-PD-Art is also useful, if applicable, in case there are jurisdictions which are different -- the US (by court decision) and EU (by directive) now explicitly say no, but that's far from being worldwide. I don't think lack of PD-Art is a problem; it can always be added if it's more precise. The only copyright our policy really cares about is that of the painting (or other underlying work), and PD-old covers that. If it's a photographic reproduction taken from a distance, it's always fine to add the PD-Art tag.
PD-scan I typically only use when it seems like an entity is claiming copyright on a scan, possibly with non-copyrightable enhancements/fixes, and we want to point out why we would disagree with such a claim. It's also making a copy with no new expression, though unlike photos it should be valid basically anywhere in the world. It usually does not need to be emphasized if nobody is trying to claim a copyright on it. Making a print from a negative is not a copyrightable act, neither is scanning it, neither is converting file formats, neither is scaling down. We don't need to constantly point out that basic manipulations don't generate new copyrights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
As both the PD-scan template itself and Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs make clear, simple photomechanical reproductions (e.g., flatbed scans) wouldn't have qualified for copyright even where faithful reproduction photos did.
Also, besides the US, EU and UK, many other countries' thresholds of originality make it clear that faithful reproductions wouldn't qualify for copyright. Also, I would surmise that the majority of PD-Art template invocations are probably on images digitized in the US, EU or UK (given how many items are held by institutions there). The whole idea behind PD-Art to begin with arose when the NPG (UK) accused Commons of copyright infringement. As more recent case law has shown, claims to copyright in reproductions are unjustified under UK law, too, but the whole idea behind the template was to be a special warning/disclaimer/clarification at least mainly related to images digitized by entities that might make an actual claim.
I'm not saying we need to mass-remove PD-Art templates. But we should also probably acknowledge that they are a lot less practically necessary as a clarification for images digitized by institutions in countries where there is no possibility of copyright in faithful reproductions — including the US, EU and UK. Even if it might theoretically be possible to sue for infringement in some (hypothetical) country where reproductions are per se copyrightable, I would be shocked if any institution in a country where such reproductions are not copyrightable at all actually did that. This is different from talking about term length variation; works that are expired in their country of origin are often still valuable in other countries and the copyright holder will often still pursue cases. But where there is no work potentially subject to copyright at all in the source country, that's a different story from a practical perspective. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Suing in another country would depend on how much money was at stake, usually. If it's enough and they could, they would (and which countries it makes sense in could be different in a few decades). It may be less likely if they don't expect a copyright in their home country, and unsure if rule of the shorter term could also come into play in that situation, but it is possible. Some countries have treated that type of photo differently than a scan in the past, so it's possible they could again down the road (though hopefully will continue to coalesce around them just being copies). Agreed that recent law changes have made the distinction much less likely to matter, but laws can change the other way too. And some people naturally think they own the copyright in their own photos, without thinking that there are edge cases where copyright may not exist, so the tag can also be useful from that educational standpoint, if photos of that type get uploaded here without the photographer's "permission". The idea over PD-Art started with the Bridgeman case actually, where the first decision actually did use UK law, and while the second one did not, it still referenced it and made arguments based on it, which then led to further opinions from UK entities (which also differed). The template existed here well before the NPG case. The WMF policy also slightly predated that lawsuit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, you're right about the history of the template. I'm certainly not saying it's wrong or can't be educational — just saying it is less useful. Especially considering how tenuous the copyright claims are in the first place in most countries, I would be shocked if such a lawsuit actually happened. I'm not saying that it's any less theoretically possible in this hypothetical scenario — just that I would be very surprised if it happened. I would also be shocked if countries moved towards giving a copyright to faithful photos of 2D PD artwork. Things have globally moved only in one direction for a reason. And the internet is, I think, a large part of that. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a sculpture authored by w:en:Bumpei Akaji, in which the involved image is under a non-free tag at English Wikipedia. However, the sculpture's date is 1968. If 1968 is found to be the sculpture's date of public display, it may be P.D. courtesy of {{PD-US-no notice}} (as a pre-1978 work), but I need more third party opinions regarding this (especially if it might be under sculptor's private hands and was only publicly-displayed in the Hawai'ian museum after 1990, which may make it not OK for Commons if ever). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)03:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
For artwork later than 1978, and photos focusing on the artwork itself, probably. Most of the photos directly in that category seem fine, though the subcategories less so. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Greetings,
Currently there's a large NFCC debate on enwiki regarding en:File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp, a photograph taken by journalist Evan Vucci and published by the Associated Press and Business Insider.
Due to the historic nature of the event and the composition of the photo, it's been immediately dubbed "iconic" and "historic" across social media and enwiki editors agree, therefore touching off the NFCC debate: can we use this photo despite its copyright and licensing status?
But I'm curious about another approach: how difficult is it for a WMF representative to approach the copyright holders and obtain a free license for such media? Is this a difficult or unfeasible proposal? It seems that rather than twisting ourselves into knots to justify non-free usage, if the copyright holder just grants a Creative Commons license in the first place, we put it on Commons and be done forever.
In these days of social media, the cat's already out of the bag--any memed photo is circulated endlessly and copyright be damned. It almost seems worthwhile, in an exceptional case like this, for the author and copyright holder to put it in our hands and acknowledge that this information is already "free" anyway. Elizium23 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Given that it was a professional photo taken by a journalist working for a newspaper/agency, I think it's incredibly unlikely that the photographer or agency would release it under a free license. A news agency wouldn't give up commercial rights to such an important photo. Fortunately ENWP is able to get educational value from it via Fair Use (depending on the outcome of the discussion - I expect it will be kept on en:Trump raised-fist photographs). Consigned (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
That's a strange way to phrase it -- they wouldn't be giving up their rights, they'd be granting that right to everyone else whilst retaining it for themselves. But that's how it feels, isn't it?
I may have failed corporate capitalism in 7th grade, but I honestly can't discern how someone like the A.P. could lose money by granting a free license on a single photo. I suppose that, within Vucci's lifetime, they could put it in 50 museums and millions of tourists would flock to those museums to see a photo that can't be had anywhere else.
I have an alternative plan, though. Let's build a time machine, put the photo on a USB, and send Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger back to 1954. He'll assassinate Vucci's parents, and smuggle the photo back into this timeline as public domain.
Alternatively, we could select a time traveler to somehow manipulate Vucci into working for the White House Press Corps, thus guaranteeing the Public Domain status of his future photo.
Seriously though, someday there will be a maverick news agency who decides that the cachet of "our photo illustrates a very important encyclopedia article" is worth granting a free license to a few bits of media. Unfortunately, since we prohibit any promotional activity, nobody would notice. Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the time machine plans would meet COM:L, I'd say go for it! AP would lose money because instead of everyone paying them to print their photo in articles, books, etc, they could grab it for free from Commons. If they were to donate a photo for educational/historical reasons, I imagine it would be for noncommercial use only, which wouldn't be allowed here. In a perfect world something like WikiNews would be able to send a photographer up there with the pros to capture important photos with free licenses. There are a lot of professional photographers who take great photos of major events and post them here - I remember seeing a bunch of great Eurovision photos - but unfortunately none of these folks were next to Evan Vucci a few days ago. Consigned (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Adding to my comment, I agree with Jmabel below that the photographer is entitled to make a living from their work. Even if a Wikimedian took this photo, it would be completely understandable for them to want to retain rights (commercial or otherwise). Consigned (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
There's that "retain rights" phrasing again. What rights do you believe they're relinquishing with a free license? Because Creative Commons are still "copyright, all rights reserved", while still licensing those rights to others. So perhaps you're thinking of "exclusive rights" or the right to earn $X.00? I'm confused. Elizium23 (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elizium23 for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses, those are not of "all rights reserved"-type. Those are rather "some rights reserved"-type, since by allowing images to be licensed in a way that commercial uses are permitted without permission, a major right has been relinquished. See the templates like {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} that indicate "some rights reserved". Better worded: "@2024 JWilz. Some rights reserved." JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)14:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
By retain, I mean retain exclusive rights, rather than relinquish (edited). Effectively, granting a free license to Commons gives anyone in the world commercial re-use rights, severely impacting the photographer's ability to make a living from the photo (though, as Jmabel can attest to based on his userpage, many commercial re-users still engage in commercial licensing for photos that have been released under a free license). Consigned (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
As nice as it would be, the odds of the photo being freely licensed are slim to none. AP and Evan Vucci would not want to give up the full rights to such a photo. You can try reaching out though, wish you luck. PascalHD (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
WMF's interests in the matter as an institution are presumably met by the ability to use it on a "fair use" basis in en-wiki, etc.
I'm all for the "free culture" movement, but I'm also for having people who make a living as a photographer, writer, etc. It is not reasonable to approach someone who, in the line of their work, has stumbled onto a very valuable asset and expect them to give it away. - Jmabel ! talk03:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The answer is simple. By default, there are no free licenses, and all reuses of the work (which don't fall under exceptions such as fair use) require a paid license. Once you grant a broad, free license, including one such as CC BY-SA 4.0, a paid license is no longer required so long as the conditions are complied with — which, in many cases, is trivial. Of course, the CC BY-SA 4.0 licensor doesn't give up the copyright, and still has the right to make other license arrangements, but the paid licenses which are the core of the AP image service's business would be required in far, far fewer situations. The value of owning a copyright in an image, for a normal business (which is what AP is), is generally defined by the profit that can be made from licensing. This applies especially for a press photography service — these businesses are mainly concerned with selling photo licenses. Other businesses often release some items under a free license, but, in those cases, the licensing of the images is not the main business model. In any case, it's the AP you need to convince, not any of us.
But to answer your original question: "Is this a difficult or unfeasible proposal?" It depends. Releasing this kind of image under a free license, especially at the peak of its newsworthiness, just because someone asked very nicely, is beyond-pipe-dream-level unrealistic. It is so far-fetched that I find it hard to understand how you might think it would happen. But I will actually will (sort of) disagree with @Consigned here; it's at least somewhat plausible to imagine the AP giving up rights to this photo. And the photo could even be released under a free license! All it would take is a tremendous amount of money to buy the copyright to the photo from the AP. Of course, the photos are not really "for sale" in the normal sense, but everything has its price, and I suspect that if you offered a sum that went far beyond the potential lifetime revenue from licensing the photo (I say "far" in order to factor in the cachet of being on record as owning an iconic photo) that the AP might take you up on your offer. Just send an email to AP President and CEO Daisy Veerasingham (her address can be found online) about your big-money offer and let us know once you've closed the deal. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Lojas com História logo
I want to ask whether the logo for Lojas com História seen here would fall below COM:TOO Portugal under PD-textlogo. it is composed of text but it is stylised.
if so, I would go ahead and ask the graphics team for an SVG version, including without the plural S, as seen on specific shops such as here. Juwan (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
No, the UK's current TOO would not be the same as South Africa's, since, during its membership in the EU, the UK abandoned the "skill and labour" test in favor of the "independent intellectual creation" (InfoPaq) test. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
It is fairly low, but there are still arguably limits. I have strong doubts about the copyrightability in SA of the letters DFA in a standard text font. Some reading: 1, 2. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Old newspaper letter to the editor
I have a photocopy of a letter to the editor of a newspaper that was written by one of my relatives and published in the newspaper in a small town no later than 1954. Is it safe to assume that it isn't under copyright? Bubba73 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
It depends. In what country? What was the newspaper? If it's a small-town paper in the US, then it's probably not in copyright, since there was probably not a notice, or, if there was, there probably wasn't a renewal. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The U.S. The newspaper was probably the Atkinson County Times, in the small town of Pearson, Georgia. I doubt it was renewed. Also, it was a letter to the editor - could the newspaper copyright that - they didn't create it. Bubba73 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
They would not own the copyright, but the newspaper's copyright notice would have preserved the copyright for the owner (for 28 years anyways). But yes, your relative would have had to renew the copyright most likely for it to still exist. For good measure, that newspaper is not listed in UPenn's periodical renewal page. So it should be fine. In many other countries though (and for U.S. letters to the editor published today), the copyright would last for the author's lifetime and 70 more years, so something from 1954 would likely still be under copyright. And while the U.S. copyright would have expired, there are likely some countries where your relative's letter still has a copyright. But it'd be fine to upload here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know when it was published, but the letter says that the town has a post office. But the post office closed in 1954, so it is no later than 1954. There is a good chance that the writer has been dead over 70 years. Bubba73 (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I certainly agree with your general point that actual research should be conducted before slapping on a {{PD-US-expired}} tag, and that such a tag is clearly necessary.
Regarding specifically Henry Clive's Sultana, it seems to have originally been commissioned as calendar art, and seems indeed to have been published by the Louis F. Dow Calendar Company upon completion in 1925 (cf. this gallery page). Felix QW (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the evidence should certainly be included on the page; perhaps one could use the "permission" field in the information template for this purpose? Those using the {{Artwork}} template can make use of the "exhibition history" field as well. Felix QW (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd be more comfortable if it was part of the license tag in some way. The situation can be pretty complicated, and I'd like to be able to deterministically scan for files with incomplete copyright information. grendel|khan17:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, we usually indicate the evidence for the license separately from the actual license tag, probably just because it can be pretty complicated. The only "deterministic" method is to look for files with no US copyright tag whatsoever; for everything else, one has to check the file page itself more closely. Felix QW (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it is complicated. For non-US works, it depends on the definition of publication in the country of origin. I think that in most cases, if a painting was displayed in a place accessible to the public, it counts as publication. Also when a gallery displays works of art, it usually also publishes a catalog, so the works are also printed. Yann (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Catalog, yes; public exhibition, no. This is counterintuitive, but see en:Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication as pointed out above; US copyright law and the Berne Convention agree that, in short, "A work is published when tangible copies of it are made available to the public at large.". Exhibition or performance alone do not constitute publication. grendel|khan18:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Presumably, the US definition matters for the US copyright and the source country definition matters for the source country copyright. According to COM:Public art and copyrights in the US, the definition of publication seems to has changed in 1978, with the previously adopted concept being significantly more liberal. According to the commentary on the page I just mentioned, this includes exhibition without preventing copying, or sale of the original. For post-1978 publication events, neither of those acts seem to suffice for publication. Felix QW (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Grendelkhan: I believe in the era in question, in the U.S., public display was considered publication, even if that is no longer the case. Could someone more expert please weigh in on that? - Jmabel ! talk19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
https://chart.copyrightdata.com/c01B.html says that in American Tobacco Co. vs Werckmeister 207 U.S. 284 (12-2-1907) (be careful with that; the plaintiffs and defendants apparently went back to the courts several times) the court ruled that display without stopping copying would have made the painting published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
The current definition of publication only started in 1978 (as it came with the 1976 Copyright Act). Before then there was no definition in the law, and courts had to come up with some definitions. As mentioned in the Werckmeister case, the judges hinted that exhibition with no attempt to stop copying (by photography or drawing) could amount to publication. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Selling the painting may also qualify. (The dividing line between limited publication which did not lose copyright, and general publication which did, differed between judicial circuits so there are few clear-cut lines.) Most works are made to be published, so we often do assume publication near the date of creation, unless there is some evidence that shows that may have been delayed (such as the painter kept the painting themselves, or remained in the family for a long time). COM:PRP is for significant doubts; long-delayed publication is theoretically possible but less likely than under today's rules. We don't delete under any theoretical doubt; there should be some indication that this work had something a little abnormal happen to it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
No, for these old non-US paintings, the date of publication (under US law) should not depend on the definition of publication under the laws of the country of origin, but only the definition under US law. Additionally, since we are only speaking about pre-1978 paintings, only the pre-1978 definition of publication is relevant, as Clindberg says. American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister held that (under the pre-1978 definition) paintings and drawings, unlike books, are published by inspection and observation, and public display without a copyright notice or measures to prevent any copying constituted publication. (Additionally, this case specifically had to do with an exhibition outside the United States.)
The correct conclusion is that, as @Prosfilaes and @Jmabel say, pre-1978 exhibition of a painting or drawing constituted publication, and that such publication, made without a proper copyright notice (and renewal, if necessary) would put the painting in the public domain. Even if there were a notice, though, any painting published (so, exhibited without such measures taken to prevent copying as to preserve its common law copyright as an unpublished work) in 1928 or earlier, anywhere in the world, is in the public domain in the United States.
Most paintings were displayed publicly, and in most cases there was not this kind of rigid enforcement preventing copying which would have prevented publication. (Remember, also, that nobody needs to have actually copied the painting at that time; the important thing is that there was no systemic prevention of observation close enough as to allow for copying.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This would be extremely convenient, but it doesn't match up with existing policy as written on enwiki or at COM:PUBLISH. The interpretation that the pre-1978 definition applies to pre-1978 paintings (and the pre-1978 definition itself) does not appear on these pages.
Furthermore, we can't just assume that, say, a 1928 painting was never published. Given the explicitly started rules, if it was painted in 1928 but first published in, say, 1931, it would still be under copyright under US rules. (Non-renewal was mentioned elsewhere; that's only relevant if the author is American.) Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US is the work of one intern, and seems to apply only to permanent installations, and contradicts the main page on publication.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am, so is our documentation on copyright law. At best, it's contradictory, and we should make better sense of it. grendel|khan09:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
There isn't really policy as much as legal opinion on these copyright matters at Commons. As far as policy goes, it essentially boils down to "should be in the public domain in both the US and the source country". And while COM:PUBLISH should probably be improved, at least it does contain a link to COM:Public art and copyrights in the US. Apparently, that page was actually originally written by an attorney interning for the WMF, which may be as close to a professional statement on the matter as we at Commons are likely to have. Felix QW (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
As @Felix QW says, publication is determined by what the law says, not what COM:PUBLISH (a simplified summary of the law) does. I don't have my citation handy, but the old definition applies to pre-1978 publications. More broadly, the 1976 Act was not supposed to alter the terms of pre-1978 works — as retroactively seeming them unpublished would have. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
You are right, of course, that being created in 1928 or earlier does not imply publication in 1928 or earlier. I was talking mostly about paintings which are very old (think 1700s) but which have no US tag. A 1928 painting could have not been published until 1931 and could still be copyrighted.
As an aside, renewal is not only relevant for works by American artists, but also works first published in the US (per US definition) and works which were in the public domain in their source country on the URAA date (usually January 1, 1996). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
We certainly have to care about the paintings being in the public domain in the United States. But most of these paintings are clearly in the public domain in the US — just not tagged properly. The lack of a proper US tag is a problem, but not a huge one. It's a more general problem, actually; lots of old items are just marked "PD-old" without a US license, including (for instance) items published in books in the 1800s which are in the public domain in the US without question. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller: Hi, I don't understand why for a European painting published in Europe, we should use the US definition of publication, but I otherwise agree with your reasoning. Yann (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The US definition of publication determines whether or not an item was considered published according to US law — whether that publication took place in the US or abroad. For example, all works published in 1928 and earlier are in the public domain in the US, whether published in the US or abroad; the same definition is used to determine whether a work is published or not, wherever that act might have taken place. For instance, if Country X defined performing a play as publication, this would not matter for US law, since, under US law, performance of a play was not publication. See, for example, US cases of that era dealing with when foreign (usually British) plays were published; they apply the US law definition of publication on the basis the actions which took place outside the US. Of, course, the definition of publication in British law (or whatever country's law) would be used for determining whether or not publication took place according to that country's law, and this could determine the copyright status of the work in that country. But, except in circumstances where publication in the source country determines whether or not the work was in the public domain in its source country on the URAA date, the copyright status in the home country (determined by publication or other factors) doesn't determine US copyright status. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not "clear" that these works are in the public domain in the United States according to stated policy. That's the whole problem. Now, maybe the policy as written should be changed to reflect a different interpretation of the law, like "for pre-1978 art, public exhibition counts as publication for US copyright status, and we assume in the absence of contrary evidence that paintings were exhibited within five years of completion". It's certainly not being followed as written, and people elsewhere seem to take the stricter interpretation seriously.
So, should the stated policy at COM:PUBLISH be rewritten to reflect that for pre-1978 works, for US copyright status, public exhibition counts as publication for our purposes? grendel|khan07:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Some groups take a conservative interpretation to be absolutely sure. The group you links takes publication more than 95 years ago as the rule. However, it could be published without notice or published with notice and failure to renew in the US, or published without notice or with failure to renew outside the US by an artist who died before 1926 (life+70 nations) or 1946 (life+50 nations), or never have been published before 2002 by an artist who died more than 70 years ago, and therefore be in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not at all safe to assume that any given painting was exhibited publicly within some arbitrary timespan from its creation. Many paintings are given as a gift, sold as a commissioned work, kept by the artist, offered directly for sale to a known patron, or otherwise not made available to the public. To assume, without any specific facts, that a painting was published, is not in keeping with the precautionary principle.
Any artworks with a PD-US assertion based on publication before 1978 should really be accompanied with some citations to confirm when publication occurred. But the vast majority of them are lacking those citations. I've often thought that we should have some template to point out that a PD assertion is lacking in supporting facts, like a less harsh version of {{Disputed}}, so reusers would be on notice to take the assertion with a grain of salt. Toohool (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that there is no reason to assume exhibition within an arbitrary timespan. However, in many cases, it should not be necessary to establish the exact date of first publication in all cases. In particular, since exhibition can be continuous, an old painting which is known (or, from particular circumstances, can be reasonably understood) to have been exhibited at some point over 95 years ago is in the public domain, even if the exact date of first exhibition can't be established.
Also, any work that was published via public exhibition without restriction (or publication in print without notice, etc.) at some point before 1978 (before March 1989 for print copies), anywhere in the world, and which was in the public domain under the laws of its source country as of 1996, is in the public domain in the US due to URAA ineligibility, even if not published in 1929 or earlier.
So, what do you think the specific policy should be? We appear to currently base this on a vibe of "eh, good enough, it's probably okay", and while that's convenient, it's certainly not defensible or repeatable. I could be wrong, but this looks like a major gap in our policy. COM:PDis official policy, and it refers to en:Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks, which is a "content guideline" rather than a "content policy", and states that "Artworks are likely to remain unpublished long after their creation date. A date of publication must be ascertained to establish PD status." Is this incorrect? Are we explicitly ignoring or contradicting this? grendel|khan23:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe this has already been covered somewhere else and I just missed it but what actually counts as "publication" for a painting? For maybe a similar example, "raw" photographs pretty routinely get deleted due to being unpublished works. So I could see it being impossible for us to host any image of a painting created after the late 1800s depending on the definition. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Pre-1978 publication in the US is murky, but it's generally defined as when a work is made available for the public to make copies, but there is also caselaw that says when a painting was sold, it was published according to the law of the time. Abzeronow (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. But how are we realistically suppose to figure out on our end when a painting was first sold? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably more important is that case law suggests that pre-1978 in the U.S., exhibition constituted publication.
Here: File:Osho Drive By.jpg is one photo from the 1980's with the same common source has a total of 49 photos- many not yet uploaded. I want to upload the remaining photos, not already uploaded, if the reasoning to support this license is still valid. In 2021, the license was reviewed by User:廣九直通車, but I just wanted another opinion as I not familiar with this source type. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that's fine. If someone wanted to be a stickler they could argue that "use freely" is a bit vague compared to a CC license, but it seems to me that the intent was clear. Plenty of images that were uploaded to Wikipedia in the same timeframe (2003, Wikimedia Commons did not yet exist) was no clearer than this about licensing, and in general we've kept those. I can't see how we would hold another site to a higher standard of license specificity than ourselves. - Jmabel ! talk03:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Dear all, I've stumbled upon the image File:Bubba Raceway Park.jpg which is a screenshot of a Google Maps map. This seems like a copyright violation to me... Can anyone confirm? Then I would nominate for deletion. Kind regards! Fallen Sheep (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. You can even see the uppermost part of the Google logo at the very bottom of the image. I've marked the file for speedy deletion as a copyvio. Regards --Rosenzweigτ13:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Which expiration date should the copyright of this image take?
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:1962《阿诗玛》封面.jpg
First, the work was published in 1962. According to the copyright law of the PRC, some people believe that the work belongs to a corporate work and should enter the public domain in the PRC in 2013. Due to URAA, the image entered the public domain in the United States in 2058.
On the other hand, some people believe that the creator of the work died in 2023. For personally created works, it should not officially enter the public domain until 2074, but due to URAA, it will enter the public domain in the United States 16 years earlier than in the PRC.
As for the time point for the image to enter the public domain, should it be 2058 or 2074? Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Works enter the public domain country by country. It's common to have works still under copyright in one country, and public domain (or at least copyright expired) in another. The Commons rule is that a work must be public domain in the country of origin (China it sounds like), and also the U.S. So it would be the later of the two dates, 2074 it sounds like. The fact it would be copyrighted in Colombia for 80pma (until 2104), or some 70pma countries (ones which don't use the rule of the shorter term) until 2094, would not have a bearing on uploading it here (though you would still need to get a license to make use of the work in Colombia or those other countries until it expires there). So Commons would use the later of the U.S. date and the country of origin date. If the PRC law states that it expires in 2013 there, then we'd just have to wait until 2058. en-wiki uses only U.S. law, so it could be uploaded there in 2058 regardless of the PRC copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I rarely second-guess Carl, but:
Became PD in PRC if considered a collective work: 2013
Becomes PD in the U.S.: 2058
Becomes PD in PRC if considered a personal work: 2074
So it will be eligible for Commons either 2058 or 2074 depending on whether it is considered a collective or individual work, respectively.
Carl, I didn't see anything in your comment about the individual vs. collective aspect. Your "2074 it sounds like" seems to presume it is eligible for Chinese copyright as an individual work. Any basis for that? - Jmabel ! talk05:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I did not give an opinion on that -- if that was the question, then not sure. I can't see the image. If the book cover was a derivative work of a painting, and the painting lasts for 50pma, then even if any other added expression became PD in 2013, it's still a derivative work of the under-copyright painting. If the book cover was a work for hire by a particular artist and not derivative of an existing work, then I'd say it did become PD in 2013 in China, and the undeletion date should be 2058. By my reading of the law's translation, the human author retains moral rights in a work for hire, but the economic right owned by the employer would expire 50 years after publication. I'm not sure which applies here (pure work for hire, or derivative work of an existing drawing/painting). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
File:King Charles III of Australia official portrait.jpg
[11] excepts "content supplied by third parties" from the CC license. And [12] says the portraits of king and queen "have been provided to the Australian Government by Buckingham Palace". Which would be such a third party I guess. --Rosenzweigτ12:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Adding / updating images from english wikipedia to other wikipedias
Can I upload images from the english wikipedia to add or update images that aren't available in other language's wikipedias? Or there is something about copyright or something like that which explain why I can't do that? Catwalk0337 (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Catwalk0337. You can only upload such images if they clearly meet Commons:Licensing. Many files uploaded to local Wikipedias are considered to be "non-free" or "fair use" content, and such content isn't allowed to be uploaded to Commons per COM:FAIR. If you're not sure about the copyright status of the file you want to upload, then you probably should ask about it here first. Lots files cross-wiki uploaded to Commons end up being deleted because their licensing doesn't meet Commons licensing requirements. Those who do that too many times might end up being warned or perhaps even blocked by a Commons administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Kim Jong-suk politician photo.jpg
For context: this is sort of continued from the English Wikipedia. Anyway, there's a file I uploaded whose copyright I'm uncertain about. As the subject is (presumably) alive, the photo fails en:WP:NFCC#1. Should the image be considered public domain or have a completely different license altogether? - OpalYosutebito (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999 I don't see any difference with respect to the intended meaning. DarwIn made a substantial change in 2017 by adding a summarized version of the Brazilian courts' regulation on Brazilian FoP. The regulation itself, IMO, is parallel to the regulations imposed by Belgian and Dutch FoP rules. Per COM:FOP Belgium, the image should depict a Belgian building or monument as it is found there, and reusers should not edit out the surroundings like the sky and the grass/ground/part of roadway. Per COM:FOP Netherlands, Dutch legal literature and jurisprudences tend to be strict in the three-step test: an edited image of a building or statue that crops out the entirety of the surroundings is already a breach of the FoP privilege and is already causing undue damage to normal economic exploitation rights of the artists or architects. Same goes to the Brazilian FoP: the listed cases at COM:FOP Brazil show that courts tend to declare guilty verdicts to re-users if they edited out the surroundings. Worse, a guilty verdict awaits to the re-user if he/she/they did not made an effort to cite the name of the sculptor/architect/whoever was the author of the involved landmark/work. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)14:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999 in my opinion, "accessory" here does not mean "de minimis" or "incidental"; rather, it means the work should just be a component of the image, not the only component of the image. Other components like the sky and the ground should stay, not edited or cropped out. Very similar to Dutch and Belgian versions, implementing the Berne three-step test. Perhaps DarwIn may provide more comprehensive explanation though as they are very active in content coming from Portuguese-speaking countries like Brazil. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)14:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Meteoro de bruno giorgi.jpg is compliant IMO, as the elements/components like the building at the background and the water are still there. Remove those through image manipulation – so that only the sculpture remains – and you can no longer be "defended" by Brazilian FoP in accordance with existing Brazilian jurisprudences. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)14:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a conflict between the two. They're consistent in that an element cannot be detached from its surroundings and used by itself, but anything other than that is fine. I find that a large majority of the Meteoro pictures are fine. File:Meteoro de bruno giorgi.jpg is probably borderline but I feel like most judges would find it to be OK (even more so considering it's government property, in this case). I think that the template and the information page are both consistent with law and jurisprudence here. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I entirely subscribe and defer to @Rkieferbaum opinion, who is from and lives in Brazil, and due to his professional activity is very familiar with FOP use in the country. DarwinAhoy!16:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Rkieferbaum "an element cannot be detached from its surroundings and used by itself," or to simplify, the copyrighted work (an architecture or a sculpture) should be depicted in the image as it is found on that place, not to be submitted under digital editing or manipulation to crop out surrounding elements like the sky, grass or ground, and (if it exists) water or moat. This resembles COM:FOP Belgium ("provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there"), disallowing "isolation" of a work (removing surroundings) especially through digital means. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)17:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: the law and jurisprudence in Brazil don't provide a clear-cut definition of isolation. There are nuances. For two-dimensional artwork, it can often be easy to see what constitutes a "reproduction". For three-dimensional works like buildings and sculptures, the definition becomes tricky. You don't need to digitally remove the surroundings to breach Freedom of Panorama (FOP); a close crop can suffice, as seen in several judicial cases. There is a grey area where the outcome would be uncertain in court, as should be expected, given the complexity of the matter. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
@Sirberus: Could you be more specific about what you tried to do that isn't working (and what exactly failed, e.g. error message, etc.)? - Jmabel ! talk19:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I cannot get the public domain nature to register on the upload process. It locks up on the license aspect - how do I put this PD nature in so I can upload the photo? Sirberus (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Sirberus: You don't mention what upload tool you are using, and they vary for how you indicate a license or PD tag, but the relevant tag is {{PD-FLGov}}. If you are using Special:UploadWizard (which I'll admit I never use myself so I might be wrong here) say it is not your own work. From what I've seen, it is overly rigid if you say it is "not protected by copyright law", but if you use "Enter a different license in Wikitext format" you can enter a tag like this.
Pinging @Sannita (WMF) (or really anyone else who uses this tool routinely): does that seem to you like a correct understanding? In particular, am I correct that if you say it is "not protected by copyright law" there is no way to add a specific tag like this? It's certainly not immediately apparent. - Jmabel ! talk03:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Sirberus The way to indicate this in UploadWizard is:
Click on "This is someone else's work and is free to share"
Click on "Enter a different license in wikitext format"
Actually, the tag should be {{Attribution-FLGov-PhotoColl}} (which is specific to Florida Memory)... there is a specific clause of Florida state law that applies to that collection, separate from the "general" release of Florida government works. Talk about obscure, lol. Jarnsax (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ooligan: Yeah, Florida Memory is an odd (and AFAIK unique) case... the normal FL-Gov tag applies to works of the Florida state government (the "sunshine" law) but Florida Memory (the "State Photographic Collection") holds a lot of works that were created by someone else. They are "PD" because the state owns the copyrights (for stuff that isn't PD from age) and pretty much specifically says so... they ask for attribution, but that's probably not an enforceable "license". Jarnsax (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel It would in case is PD-old (first published in USA before 1929 or author died since 70+ years), PD-USGov, and PD-NASA, which we determined were the more frequent. All other PD versions are to be put in wikitext format (there are just too many PD templates, and listing them all would have been unfeasible). Sannita (WMF) (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel No, they don't. If someone selects "not protected by copyright law", they would be given the possibility of indicating something that is PD-old, PD-USGov or PD-NASA. For all other cases, they would have to choose "Enter a different license in wikitext format", and then manually inputting the template. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Sannita (WMF): I think that wording is a bit problematic. Although many Commons users colloquially refer to something like {{PD-FLGov}} as a "license tag", it is not a license. It is a tag expressing a reason for being in the public domain.
I can see two ways to solve this. One is that "not protected by copyright law" could still leave the option open of selecting any of the tags that start with "PD". The other is that we would say "Enter a different license 'or PD tag in wikitext format" (emphasis here for discussion, not intended for the UI). I don't think we should expect end users to be aware of a verbal shorthand specific to this project. - Jmabel ! talk19:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I had tagged these uploads as "permission missing" yesterday and also, on the German WP, asked the user with the photographer's name if he had given his consent. This user is currently not verified yet as being the photographer himself, but that's in the making.
He denied that the uploading account is his, and said that the images were uploaded without his permission. So this seems a pretty clear case.
https://0x0.st/Xp_0.png this image is taken from a book which is copyrighted and claims all tables/images are copyrighted to them unless stated that the copyright belongs to another publisher/person. But I believe (but am not certain) that this image being of chemical structures does not qualify as meeting the threshold of originality and should be fine to use. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
All (or most of) the files in Category:European Union license seem to be licensed as "European Union Government." Although the category seems to be full of random photographs. Whereas the license is based on the 2011 European Union Commission Decision which reading through it only seems to for the reuse of Commission documents. Per the Commission decision " This Decision applies to public documents produced by the Commission or by public and private entities on its behalf." Perhaps it's different for the European Union, but what most governments means by "documents" is laws, government press releases, and other forms of informational text. Not photographs. So I'm wondering if the license is invalid for most, if not all, of the photographs in Category:European Union license. Adamant1 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
For the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply: (1) ‘document’ means: (a) any content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording); (b) any part of such content; moreover, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legal-notice/en/ talks about textual data and multimedia items which specifically includes photographs. --Geohakkeri (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Photos from InciWeb
Hello! I came across Category:InciWeb photos, which contains images uploaded from InciWeb, a website created by the United States Forest Service (USFS) to share data about ongoing wildfires. At first glance, it might seem any photos from this site fall under {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}}, but I believe that may not always be the case. InciWeb appears to gather data and images from local, state, and national agencies, meaning not all photos on it are taken by the USFS and its divisions/employees. Additionally, another exciting twist in this is that InciWeb seems to have changed domains once or twice, and pages for old fires/incidents don't seem to last, making source/copyright verification difficult. I feel like there should be a better way to assess and tag these files, perhaps similar to the processes for Flickr and iNaturalist uploads, with templates like {{iNaturalist}} and {{iNaturalistreview}}. I welcome thoughts on the copyright status of InciWeb photos, ideas for better categorization/tagging here, and anything else you all might have. Thanks! Bsoyka (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
As a note, apparently even the unit designated on InciWeb for each incident doesn't necessarily specify who took the photos. For example, the "Fire Activity on I-84" image here was actually taken by a railroad employee. Bsoyka (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a famous photo snapped by Paul Hoffman, photographer for the Elkhart Truth. It was uploaded from NOAA.gov and claimed to be licensed as {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. The license had been challenged by a user, but most chose to trust NOAA's declaration. During that time, I inquired with NOAA about the copyright status of this photo. A staff member later replied that he is unsure if it's in the public domain and will remove it from their website when it's migrated to a new platform. He said they had removed a large number of images because the old site manager was rather lax in terms of the uploads. At his suggestion, I later emailed the newsroom and a managing editor of the Elkhart Truth to request for a free license but never received a reply. Recently, it struck me that it might apply to {{PD-US-no notice}} while reading a deletion request, and I found it subsequently in a 1976 newspaper without a copyright notice; see [15] and [16]. So I'd like to hear your opinion on revising the license to {{PD-US-no notice}}. 0x0a (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I guess the question is if the Elkhart Truth had a copyright notice for the newspaper as a whole -- it did not have to be adjacent to the photo. That newspaper did not renew any copyrights so issues before 1964 are OK, but 1965 would depend on if they had a copyright notice or not in the issues which printed the photo. It could be on the cover or inside, usually where they have the editor and printing information. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Is this image, a submission from Wiki Loves Africa 2024 (Nigeria), a truly own work of the uploader or not? The speech balloon at the upper-left corner somehow disturbs me but, I would prefer a third-party license reviewer to "triple-check" this file. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Wondering whether a simple flag work by artist David Hammons meets the standards for copyrightable material. Hammons created African-American Flag in 1990, it is a direct facsimile of the American flag but with the colors changed - red, white, and blue become red, black, and green, the colors of the Pan-African flag. Obviously the American flag design itself is public domain, but do the remixed colors make it sufficiently original to gain copyright in the US? Thanks for any insights! 19h00s (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Is there a proper way to note that an image on Commons contains artwork that is claimed to be copyrighted but is actually public domain? There are severalpicturesof this work on Commons, want to be sure they don't get deleted based on the museums who own the works claiming they're under copyright by the artist. 19h00s (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
One could certainly augment the uploader's licence tag with a PD tag that expresses specifically that the flag is below the threshold of originality. That should at least make people think twice before speedy-ing it as a derivative of a copyrighted work (and at DR I am pretty sure it would be kept in either case). Felix QW (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Public domain claim for company logo
The uploader of the Andamiro company logo has listed it as public domain due to text only and no creative content, which I think is utter nonsense. Can someone have a look, and update the license on that page if appropriate? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, uploader here—happened to stumble upon this thread very coincidentally and wanted to try to clarify. This logo seems to be very far below the "threshold of originality" needed for copyright, particularly in the United States. You can browse through more examples at COM:TOO US, many of which are arguably far more complex than this logo and are still considered below the threshold. Because of this, I firmly believe the logo falls into the public domain. Hope that sheds some light here—apologies for any confusion. Bsoyka (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Evisu's "seagull" design, which is below the TOO in South Korea@Marchjuly: Yes. An example at COM:TOO South Korea is the logo of Evisu, which features the "seagull" design shown to the right; that design was found to be ineligible for copyright. Additionally, typefaces are not protected by copyright per COM:SIG South Korea. The Andamiro logo is very similar to a combination of these two marks, with only a wordmark and a crescent shape that is even simpler than Evisu's design, leading me to believe it's ineligible for copyright protection in South Korea. Bsoyka (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kakan spelar: Where exactly do you get that "Information and education only"? I don't see that phrase on the linked page, nor on the one linked as a source for the photo.
@Marchjuly Ok, I uploaded a copy locally to enWiki. The file is also used on deWiki, but they're going to have to sort that one out for themselves because I don't speak German. It turns out that permission is kinda-sorta-maybe possible for this file; the user who uploaded it appears to have a relationship with the company. However, the nature of the relationship was never fully disclosed, so as far as we know it could have been an over-enthusiastic intern with no authority to release the company's intellectual property. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
And, while I'm here, what's the Commons etiquette for adjusting the author parameter/licensing of works like this? The original uploader claimed Own Work (very dubious) and I know I need to correct that; what's the best way of making sure I attribute their scan while making authorship of the coin clear? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good! The own work license is still very valuable, because photographs of coins can exceed the threshold of originality and attract independent copyright. We have {{Licensed-PD}} for this purpose, which I would use as {{Licensed-PD|1={{PD-Seychelles}}{{PD-US-URAA}}|2={{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}}}.
PS. Somehow, the formatting is a bit off on the GFDL template when inserted like that; it works better with {{self|GFDL|migration=relicense}}, but I guess that's not entirely accurate. Felix QW (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW That set up looks great; I'll add it in! Yeah, the entire photographing of a PD 3d work is one of those areas of copyright that gets super complicated, super fast, and I have to confess I'm more than a little scared of it. Even if the author got a bit confused about what counted as own work, I'm still happy they uploaded the picture. And thank you for responding so quickly! And thank you, Seychelles, for only joining the WTO in 2015. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The information boards seem OK to me, as they present only some non-creative text. The mural might be problematic, but I would prefer to hear other opinions --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Is there a possible problem in the description which is a verbatim reproduction of the description on Flickr? Although we commonly understood that the free license on the Flickr upload also extends to the descriptions, this concern may need to be addressed or reassured.
If this is true, then we may have been "license washing" through verbatim copying of such Flickr descriptions in the first place, since the years when I wasn't yet a user here. This may need some discussion as one important claim was made which may impact hundreds of thousands of Flickr imports, such as the image file I cited here (imported by @Hariboneagle927: )
Deletion of logos and flags of designated terrorist groups
What I'm confused about is why do the logos and flags of designated terrorist organizations get deleted? Because of the terrorist designation they are unable to fight in U.S. courts and many of these countries including Syria and Iraq don't have their copyright recognized in the United States. My main question is wouldn't the copyright of said organization be null and void? RowanJ LP (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
We don't only demand works to be free in the US, but also in the country of origin. So even if countries such as Iraq and Syria do not have copyright relations with the US, we still ensure that any work from those countries is out of copyright in its hone country. Felix QW (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
We've taken it upon ourselves to respect the copyright laws of the countries that these flags come from. And sometimes, copyright law can be used to censor groups that governments don't like, but we generally don't pick and chose which copyright laws of Iraq or Syria to uphold, we uphold all that we reasonably can per the COM:PCP principle. Also, in general, we abide by the principle that every person deserves equal protection under the law, and that includes terrorists and their copyrights. Abzeronow (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Question about Barbados newspaper photo copyright
I've found, as far as I can tell, the only known extant photo of a 1951 protest that happened in Barbados. The photo appears in a 1951 issue of the daily paper Barbados Advocate, and is not credited to any particular author/photographer. On the Digital Library of the Caribbean, the rights are listed as "Copyright Advocate Co.. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder."
My chief question is as follows: could this photograph be uploaded on Commons and used in an English-language Wikipedia article? If any clarifications are needed just ping me. Many thanks in advance for knowledgeable Wikipedians' thoughts. SunTunnels (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I should clarify that as far as I can tell, because it's a photo with unknown author, the Barbadian copyright would've expired after 2001. It's more the US side of things (URAA??) that I'm concerned about here. SunTunnels (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, I believe this would still be copyrighted in the US due to URAA. The URAA restoration date for Barbados is 1 January 1996, so it would still be under copyright on that date. Therefore, the US copyright term is 95 years after publication (Hirtle chart) which would expire on 1 January 2047 (1951 + 95 = 2046; term extends to the end of the year). Anon126 (✉⚒) 04:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The seal is public domain obviously, but the photo may have a copyright. Even though it's mostly 2-D, I think our policy is that photos of coins may still have a copyright (and that is similar). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyright status of literature by Yakub Kolas post-1928
Hi, I am relatively new to most things related to managing content on Wikipedia and its other subsidiaries, so I apologize if any of my questions seem uninformed.
That being said, I felt inclined to resume a personal project involving translations of Belarussian writer Yakub Kolas, only to find that File:Drygva_1934.pdf was recently removed along with a set of books authored by him subject to deletion due to copyright concerns. The deletion request suggests first that these titles were not in the public domain as per Law No. 370-XIII of Belarus of May 16, 1996 (with revisions) on Copyrights and Neighbouring Rights presumably because the author died in 1956 and that the works were not PD in Belarus in 1996, even though the posthumous 50 year extension would indeed transfer the works into PD in 2006.
I've also been struggling to find a source that ties books by Yakub Kolas post-1928 to any sort of US copyright as the deletion request suggests, in part because I have not been able to reliably use the US government's copyright database. Nevertheless, I am surprised that US copyright claims exist for a series of books that have never been translated to English, and whose closest lendable Slavic equivalent written in Polish resides six thousand kilometers across the Atlantic. Never mind that websites such as CoolLib distribute these copies online free-of-charge, I'm more curious about the legal issue surrounding the PD status of works like Drygva (1934).
So I come forward with three questions that at the very least should serve to correct me for skipping any details that the editors deemed sufficient for deleting Drygva (1934), among other titles:
See Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. By rules of the Berne Convention, the US had to restore copyright to non-US works that had lost copyright in the US and were still in copyright in their source nation. It's sort of the point of the Berne Convention that works that have no US connection still have copyright in the US. Since the US doesn't have the w:en:rule of the shorter term (and note that a number of countries are listed on that page as not having the rule), these works get the full 95 years from publication that any US work would get.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
E.g. Turkey is life+70 and the works of Yakub Kolas will be in copyright there for another couple years. This doesn't matter on Commons, as we only care about the US and source nation, but the end of Belarussian copyright didn't mean end of copyright everywhere, or even everywhere outside the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
The US law is called URAA or en:Uruguay Round Agreements Act which automatically restored U.S. copyright on all works that were still in copyright for many countries on January 1, 1996. URAA was the U.S.'s way of complying with the Berne Convention in regards to foreign copyrights (since before 1978, our copyright law required copyright notice and registration). Generally files deleted because of URAA are not restored by UDR until U.S. copyright has expired. Abzeronow (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the swift responses. It's unfortunate that these had to be removed, but I'm glad there is a valid reason for it. Cheers! JirroZ (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Can an administrator come figure out what should happen with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado just south of the Cedar River looking north.jpg. The deletion request was opened up on July 10, so it is over a week old. However, the main concern involves the actual PD-NWS and the deletion request nominator has stated up to maybe 150+ images are affected, including potentially an image uploaded by a Commons Administrator. I am posting here since maybe a single image deletion request isn’t the best method for this discussion. Or, maybe it is. I don’t know, but the discussion is very forum-like and needs solving or some level of actual administrator involvement. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Update: the aforementioned discussion has been closed as delete. There is a new discussion here to determine the future of the template. See that discussion. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
URAA-restored copyrights of old European postcards
Moved from General Village pump:
In response to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roermond 1931.jpg I would like to start a discussion on how to treat the many old European postcards, wich are dated between 1 jan 1929 (US:PD-1923) and 1 januari 1954 (PD 70 years Europe / PD-anon-70-EU)
Background: Most of the old postcards where published by big postcard publishers such as Category:Postcards published by Nels/Thill, wich mostly bought the works of local photografers or send employees to take pictures. If the photografers had some reputation the name is mentioned on the postcard (PD 70 years after death)(otherwise 70 years after publication). The original glass plates or negatives have almost certainly been lost, the same with the compagny records. The publishers at that time wanted recent images and not outdated ones. Glass plates took a lot of space and where reused. Celluliod negatives less so, but stil took space and effort to maintain for no commercial purpose. There was a lot of disruption during the Second World War (occupation, cessation of activity, employees fleeing or taking other occupations, destruction of buildings), so many archives where lost. If the picturearchives of Nels/Thill stil existed they would certainly be treasured and preserved. It is safe to assume that they no longer exist. If no name of the photografer is given it is imposible to research it. If the photografer still lives he could claim out of memory that it is his work, but for descendants this is imposible. Who would remember the many (commercial) pictures his father took? For any legal procedings there has to be some minimal element of proof.
There where also many small local publishers, wich only published local postcards. I always assumed that the publisher also took the pictures, so I treated them as such for licensing purposes. (70 years after death)
How do we apply this knowledge to the postcard URAA-restored copyrights
cases? My suggestion is to apply URAA to postcards where the photografer is known. The risk is small that someone will go to an US court for the license rigths of an European village picture postcard with no commercial value. (or very marginal one) But it still exist. In de anonymous cases the precautionary principle should not apply if there is no risk.
In the very unlikely event the authorship is claimed/or discovered and URAA applies, we delete the file.
there are no US connections. These are local images, taken by a local photografer. The photografer could later move to the US, but then this is no longer an anonymous case. (he/she has to make his name known)
there are considerable costs to starting an US legal proceding with foreign elements, for postcards wich may have historic value, but none or very marginal commercial value.
most old postcards are of low-quality and low resolution in black & white. Technicaly the use is limited. The value for Wikimedia is showing how things where.
for any legal procedings there need to be some element of proof. Otherwise everyone can claim rigths to the image. If there are no records or original material this becomes imposible. There is only one negative. Prints can be duplicated and have no proof value. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
PS: I have no expert knowledge how US law is applied in these European cases, so feel free to comment. (I suspect it is not as simple as 70 years becomes 95 years) Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Generaly the EU. (I dont think the licenses to change in GB with the brexit) But more broadly al countries with 70 year PD license conditions. I forgot there was a subsection for Copyright. I will move it there.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not agree that we should host items whose US copyright is known not to be expired and which is not under a free license, regardless of whether the original author is known or not. Photos can well be anonymous to the general public and still have active US copyright, possibly even with a known owner. For instance, the copyright of a work for hire (which would be the case for employees sent somewhere to take a picture), will rest with the publisher even if they don't know themselves which of their employees took the picture at hand. Felix QW (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Postcards are by definition published works (there are recent trends to make your own postcard, but we are discussing old postcards). Just as by other publications there are attributed articles/parts where authors keep their rigths independant of the publisher an parts where authors and other creative people are paid once for their work and the copyrigths go to the publisher. So for postcards without photographer attribution the copyrigths are by the publisher.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Per Commons:Licensing, Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. Regardless if the photographer (or author in general) is known or not. Which wouldn't make sense anyway, because the old US copyright terms (which are the type restored by the URAA) are generelly based on the date of first publication, not on the person of the author. Also, Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle lists several arguments of the type "we can get away with it" and clearly says that they are against Commons' aims. --Rosenzweigτ13:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused here. The way I see it, anything from 1929 from a country that gives 70-year protection to anonymous or corporate work would still have been in copyright in its native country through 1999, so URAA would have restored its U.S. rights in 1996, making them good through 2024. Similarly, anything from 1950 would have U.S. copyright through 2045. This would seem to preclude uploading to Commons at this time. What am I missing? - Jmabel ! talk18:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Not all countries already had the 70 year terms on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries). The Netherlands and Germany already had them, but France still had 50 years + wartime extensions (another 8 years and 120 days). See en:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights for a list. So a 1935 postcard from France might have escaped the URAA. --Rosenzweigτ12:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
If I read the en:Copyright Act of 1976 correctly, it gives a term of 75 years for anonymous, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire. (pre extention 1998). So if the URAA-restoration restored the 1976 rules it is 75 years after publication for postcards without attribution. The jurisprudence cases dont involve anonymous, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire.
The URAA restoration means it will be treated as a US work with notice and renewal, and it gets any extensions a US work would, thus 95 years after publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Not quite: the en:Copyright Term Extension Act does not work retroactively. All files wich where in the PD in 1996 remain in the PD. For postcards wihout attribution it makes no difference as 1996 - 75 = 1921. But for postcards with attribution it could in some cases be PD, as the 1976 rule it is the livetime of the author + 50 years.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
The US "lifetime + 50 years" (50 years pma) term from 1976 (extended to 70 years in 1998) did and does not apply to works published before 1978. For those, the old rules based solely on the year of first publication still apply. See Commons:Hirtle chart. --Rosenzweigτ00:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a good reason why there is no jurisprudence case which involves anonymous or pseudonymous works. The author(s) needs to make themselves known to make a copyright claim. Even if the authors makes themselves known now, they cannot claim a copyright in the country of origin, so it is very unlikely that they would claim a copyright in another country. IMO this is a good argument to accept old anonymous or pseudonymous works affected by URAA. Yann (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Without wide community consensus to do this, we would still need to delete because URAA automatically restored US copyrights of many European works, and these copyrights were still in force in 1996 even if nobody could enforce them. Abzeronow (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but this is not something completely new. There was a discussion about URAA 10 years ago with a wide community support, although it was later overturned. Yann (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
There are also many postcards coming from GLAM institutions/projects, with no mention of US-licenses. For example File:Station Roermond; circa 1900.jpg. In this case an US license can be added, but in many other cc-zero is unclear. The institution does its own copyrigth research but does not need to consider US licences. The projects work on the basis of trust.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
The old U.S. 75 year terms are likely irrelevant -- European postcards needed a copyright notice, and also to have been renewed, for the U.S. copyright to still exist normally. Both would happen almost never, though if by chance they did, the URAA date does not matter -- US copyright would be pre-1929 only, the full 95 years. Otherwise, it would matter what the copyright status was in its country of origin in 1996 for the URAA restoration. That varied in Europe -- while countries were supposed to have implemented the EU copyright extensions by then, not all countries did until after the URAA date. Italy was effectively 56 years (and 20 for simple photos), France 58 or 59, and I think Portugal was 50 years. Most later additions to the EU were also 50 years at the time. Spain was pretty much still 80 I think. en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights has some further information on that, but it does not always denote what the terms were on the URAA date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Is there some script I could use to add an US license to manualy selected postcards older than 1929?
Pretty easy thing to do with VisualFileChange, assuming you can sanely make a search that will turn up a reasonable number of such files. (You can select within the search result.) - Jmabel ! talk20:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
VisualFileChange is much more than a "mass delete script". In the upper left of the program you can choose what you want to do (which Action), and one of the options is text replacement. A few months ago I used VFC to change the license tags of roughly 200,000 files in a few weeks. --Rosenzweigτ10:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I watched several die shots now and am wondering now if they are copyrightable under some circumstances. Some may argue, this is only a scan or a identical reproduction just on a very smart scale (faithful reproduction), without own creativity effort. I am curious about this topic. What do you think?
I would say not. These are a simple utilitarian artifact of the design. They are not a creative endeavour.
Very high resolution images (which would have to be of tiny portions) might be regarded as a reproduction of a copyrighted work, at least in portion. But not whole-die shots for anything since the '60s. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
They are also not subject to the normal regime of derivative works and other things like normal copyright. It's a different form of protection entirely. The photo may still be copyrightable on its own, though. Far from guaranteed and could well differ by country, but we might treat it as like photos of coins, where we generally will assume a photographic copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Just a note about modern die. What you see in that example photo of the fully manufactured "chip" is similar to taking a photo of the icing on a cake. You do not see the cake's recipe and what layers lie below the icing. You do not see the many chip layers (there can be over 100) that are covered by other layers, insulating layers and those connections between various layers. -- Ooligan (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyright status of photos by French photo studio Harcourt
For a while now, photos by French photo studio Studio Harcourt have been frequently nominated for deletion (by User:Günther Frager, among others). I've noticed in recent discussions that there seems to be quite some confusion about their copyright status and wanted to discuss that here.
One fact that does not seem to be controversial is that several years ago, a French court decided that photos by Studio Harcourt are produced under such tight regulations that they are to be considered collective works as far as French copyright is concerned. Which means that they enter the public domain in France 70 years after first publication. In the US, the URAA restored the copyright for those photos which were still in copyright in France on January 1, 1996. Since France still had a shorter copyright term on that date (50 years + 8 years and 120 days of wartime extensions), Harcourt photos up to 1936 should be in the public domain in the US (as of 2024), while later Harcourt photos are still protected in the US.
In 1991, the French state (minister Jack Lang) bought 5 million Harcourt photos/negatives from 1934 to 1991, see here (article from Le Figaro). One claim that I have seen repeatedly, usually made by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), is that the French state released all of those photos under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. RAN added that claim to the Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt hereand again here and has repeated it in various deletion request discussions. The article from Le Figaro (which RAN also linked to) does not support that claim of a release under a CC BY 3.0 license (which could have happened no earlier than 2007 since the CC 3.0 licenses were introduced in that year). When I asked RAN (at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2023#User:Studio Harcourt) about evidence for his claims, he replied The statement is based on the license they were uploaded with. Which, from the context, apparently refers to several files uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt in 2010 (see Special:ListFiles/Studio Harcourt).
But User:Studio Harcourt is not the French state (but the studio itself), and the photos that were uploaded in 2010 were from the years 1998 to 2008, so not part of the 5 million photos bought by the French state in 1991. I fail to see how several photos uploaded by this user in 2010 with said license can lead to the conclusion that the French state released all of the 5 million photos it bought in 1991 under a CC BY 3.0 license. As I see it, there is still ZERO evidence for this claim, and it is just an unsubstantiated claim.
Another claim which popped up recently is that the Harcourt photos from 1934 to 1991 bought by the French state are not under copyright. This was claimed by User:Tisourcier and User:Ruthven, and User:Asclepias also seems to have adopted it. Apparently it goes back to a VRT ticket by User:Studio Harcourt. As [18] shows, there are two of those. The older Harcourt ticket (2010061710041251), according to User:Ciell, only covers files uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt (“I think it's safe to say that the images uploaded under the specific account are okay, and the release does not cover any future uploads beyond the ones made by User:Studio Harcourt.”), while the newer ticket (2020112910005534), according to User:Ganímedes, "only covers a specific file".
In that ticket ( which is apparently from 2020), a woman named Agnes BROUARD, working for Studio Harcourt Paris and Chargée de la valorisation des collections, writes (confirmed by User:Ruthven on their own user talk page here): « Il me faut vous indiquer que nos archives de 1934 à 1991 sont désormais propriété du Ministère de la Culture, conservées par une entité appelée Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine et diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais. Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial donc quiconque possède un portrait de l'époque 1934-1991 peut l'utiliser librement et vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet. » Which says that the Harcourt archives from 1934 to 1991 are now property of the French Ministry of Culture (as discussed above), and more importantly, that for that archive there is no "patrimonial right" (that is, the economic/proprietary part of copyright as opposed to the moral right to be named as author) and "that anyone who has a portrait from the period 1934-1991 can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet" (translation by User:Tisourcier on my user talk page). So basically she is declaring that there are no restrictions at all on Harcourt photos from 1934 to 1991 (except that you have to adhere to the moral rights part of copyright, which means among other things you have to name the author when reproducing the photo).
That sounds great. But is it actually a declaration we can use and rely upon? It is not in any way a formal declaration of the way we usually require for VRT permissions. It is more like just another claim, made by a Harcourt employee in 2020, almost 30 years after the 1934 to 1991 archive had been sold to the French state. Why should what a Harcourt employee claims be considered binding for photos that are actually the property of someone else, namely, the French state? The French state which does claim a copyright over Harcourt photos, compare [19] (there are many more examples)? That copyright claim may not be correct for any Harcourt photos before 1954 because of the collective work status, but taken at face value it is in direct contradiction of the claim made by Madame Brouard. So the "not under copyright" conclusion, based on what Madame Brouard wrote, is speculative and shaky at best. I don't think we can rely upon that for literally millions of images.
So my conclusion from all this is:
There is ZERO evidence for the "CC BY 3.0" claim.
The "not under copyright" claim is speculative and shaky at best.
We should not rely on either of them and instead only rely on the French collective works status plus PD-1996 (for the US) part, which would mean that as of right now, only pre-1937 Harcourt photos are ok for Wikimedia Commons (and, starting in 2033, photos from 1937, in 2034 from 1938 and so on).
We really ought to sort this out. Yann und Ruthven have started closing deleted requests as keep based on these dubious claims (I've explained why I think they're dubious). If we're keeping files, potentially very many of them (5 million photos ...), we ought to be sure about the reasons. At present, we are not.
Thoughts? --Rosenzweigτ09:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment Just to put in context: The quote comment is the answer to this question, nothing else. I didn't evaluate the CR status because I'm not French speaker and it was not requested anyway. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I had the perplexity when the DRs I opened were closed. Some were closed with the argument the French government released with CC-BY and others with they are in the public domain, even by the same closing admin. It is still not clear to me who is the copyright holder: Harcourt or the French government (i.e. was the rights transferred when buying the collection). If the latter is the copyright holder the ticket from Harcourt claiming they are in the public domain is void, and the claim that they have CC-BY is dubious as we don't have a VRT ticket from the French government. If Harcourt is still the copyright holder, it would be important to get the context of the email. Once thing is saying you can use the photo freely in your blog without problems (more on the fair use side), and another is you can compile a bunch of photos, create a book a sell it without paying them a dime. I'm not expert in French law, but is it possible to put a work on the public domain? (that is not the same as licensing under CC0). Günther Frager (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
To answer the French law-related question... if I recall correctly:
It shouldn't directly affect the legality of hosting the file, since Commons is based in the US, where public domain dedications are clearly possible.
As I recall, under French law, rights are separated into economic and moral rights, as is the case in many continental European countries. The moral rights are often inalienable (can't be given up), but the economic rights can be given up. (You'll note that CC0 contains a waiver of moral rights insofar as much as that's possible; that would depend on the country.)
It's often said that, because moral rights cannot be given up, that public domain dedications are impossible in France (or other European countries). But this is highly misleading. "Copyright" is, of course, a term of art in America, as is "public domain," and these concepts exist in slightly different forms in other systems.
Under French law, moral rights are not only inalienable, they're also perpetual. Anyone who says that the inalienable nature of moral rights under French law means that PD dedications are impossible would have to say that no work is in the public domain in France. But this isn't true; when we talk about the French public domain, we're talking about the expiry of economic rights.
An email which says that a work is in the public domain really must be interpreted either as a permanent waiver of the economic rights or, if not that, then an explicit and perpetual license to all the economic rights to the work — since this is what it means for a work to be in the public domain in France. While the CC0 terms are more detailed and clear, this doesn't mean that such a dedication or license isn't valid in France — except for the general limitation on waiving moral rights.
Also, French law provides for oral and even implied contracts to be considered binding. There's no reason to think that an explicit and clear "public domain dedication" would not be considered as binding. I honestly think that the whole notion that public domain dedications are impossible in many countries is based on confusion between economic and moral rights. Otherwise, you would have to accept that these countries only allow for copyright licenses to be made in a very specific form, above and beyond the formal requirements for other binding contracts or licenses, and that, failing that, the interpretation would be that there is no license at all — and I don't see any reason to believe that — or you'd have to believe that CC0 and other tools have no validity, even with fallback provisions.
Now, CC0 is a bit better, both because it is more explicit and because it contains fallback affirmations relating to non-exercise of waived rights (though these may mean nothing with respect to unwaivable moral rights). But that doesn't mean "this work is dedicated to the public domain; I give up my copyright" can't be interpreted as a valid license or dedication.
Of course, that is entirely separate from whether or not there was an actual message sent by the actual copyright holder to that effect. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I hadn't seen the second ticket from 2020, and that actually looks like a very interesting one. It is a forwarded email (and I prefer direct emails when working with permissions) but my reading from the exchange there (again, with my limited french knowledge) is that it support the statement as shared on @Ruthven's talkpage that you mention. The ticket #2020112910005534 was send to support the release of a single image as @Ganímedes mentions, yes, but with this more general statement in the mail it could in theory support the release for all images 1934-1991. Ciell (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Also: the issue of the French claim by photo.rmn.fr was mentioned, and links to a court case ruling from 2014. (and this absolutely goes beyond what I can read in French, sorry!) Ciell (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Here is what the Court of Appeals decided, with respect to the ownership of the works:
"[...] Most importantly, the Court held that the photographs bearing the Harcourt logo which had been made by the photographer must be considered collective works, for which the copyrights [droits de l'auteur], including moral rights, are owned by the studio.
"Concretely, the photographer is deprived of all rights to the works, and he is not entitled to anything except for the simple proportional remuneration which the studio agreed to give him upon the sale of his works. More importantly, the decision denied the photographer the moral right to attribution of which no author may in principle be deprived."
So the conclusion here was that photographs taken by an individual photographer working for a studio and, at least in this case, marketed as the studio's work, are collective works, to which all the rights only ever belonged to the studio, not the individual photographer. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
That was the court case which I mention in my very first bullet point above (“One fact that does not seem to be controversial is that several years ago, a French court decided that photos by Studio Harcourt are produced under such tight regulations that they are to be considered collective works as far as French copyright is concerned.”) Note that the case made that decision only for Studio Harcourt photos and not for any studio photo, which is sometimes also claimed (by User:Tisourcier for example in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tisourcier). --Rosenzweigτ16:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig I am not sure you are linking to the official French government inventory with the link above: here is the same image but in their "Médiathèque du patrimoine et de la photographie"/Open heritage Platform (nonetheless, also with a "C" in front of the mention of the Ministère de la Culture). Any reason why you link, to what looks to me, a third party/private vendor? Ciell (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell: rmn.fr is the en:Réunion des Musées Nationaux, the (public) agency mentioned by Agnes Brouard as the distributor of the photos (« diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais »), also at the gouv.fr website you linked to (diffusion GrandPalaisRmn Photo). I'm not sure why the photos are presented on two web sites. --Rosenzweigτ16:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Their open heritage platforms openend in 2019 (or that's what wikipedia told me), so maybe that's why. Ciell (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
But maybe you should try and reach out to the French government with your questions, if you doubt the analysis of the previous copyright owner, @Rosenzweig? I have to say it seems almost unfair to expect others to do so, when you think a statement from the original photograph studio is insufficient?
I am not one who wants us to host illegal content, but on the other side we should not want to take things down without having had a conversation with the current rights holder... (or the custodian, whatever you want to call them). Ciell (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll pass on that, if anyone wants to do this, it should be a native speaker, possibly also resident of the country. Though RAN had announced he'd get in touch if I remember this correctly. Maybe he did get a meaningful answer? --Rosenzweigτ18:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: @Ciell: I confirm what D. Benjamin Miller said about the French court case of PIERRE-ANTHONY X VS. HARCOURT linked above. The judges (the judgement has been confirmed by the court of appeals) mention interesting facts, namely:
At Harcourt, the photographers yield their copyright to the studio in exchange of 10% on the sales, in which the photo is sold as a collective work.
The photos published by Harcourt must be considered as collective works.
The moral rights of the original author do not hold anymore, as the moral rights are now owned by a group of authors.
This last statement may be a surprise, given all the discussions about CC0 in France, but it is justified by the French law 113-2 alinéa 3 of the Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle. A collective work can be initiated by a company (here it's Harcout), and the consequent publication under a collective name makes the work of the single photographer indistinguishable from the work of the group. --Ruthven(msg)15:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, why not let several French contributors involved by PD-France and Studio Harcourt case, precising the legal aspects and confirm the data about it ? The "collective work" judgement is one the main points, but the PD official statement by the author Studio Harcourt at the root as the author of these photographs (VTR), is clearly relevant to determine that those published between 1954 and 1992 are also PD-France too. Edit : copyright mentions of RMN website are not 100% reliable (copyvios). Tisourcier (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Tisourcier (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, more than unreliable, RMN copyright claims are copyfraud or completely absurd. RMN has never been the copyright holder of the documents they host, they are only the caretaker. Sometimes, they claim a copyright because they digitize the work, but it is not even always the case. They even claim a copyright on works digitized by other people or institutions. I once wrote to them about that, but never got an answer. Copyfraud is not punished by French law, so plenty people and organizations claim a copyright which has no value (i.e. copyright claims on old books recently reprinted, etc.). Yann (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not just RMN, it's also the Médiathèque du patrimoine et de la photographie of the French Ministère de la Culture, see the the link provided by Ciell above. And yes, we have seen some French institutions making dubious copyright claims, namely the Bibliothèque nationale. That does not mean that everything they claim is automatically false and can be disregarded. Both the RMN and the French ministry making these copyright claims is just another small sign, another piece of evidence regarding the question we have, contributing to the doubt about the “not under copyright” claim. --Rosenzweigτ17:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The statement by Harcourt is just that: a statement. A claim. An opinion. While Studio Harcourt can be considered the author of these collective works, they sold the bulk of their earlier production (5 million images from 1934 to 1991) to the French state. Presumably they sold them including the rights (copyrights, usage rights) to them, or else it wouldn't make much sense that the French state is distributing these images by the RMN agency. So the statement comes from an institution which authored these collective works, but (as we must assume) no longer holds the rights to them. The statement we're talking about claims that millions of images from the years up to and including 1991 are not under copyright, or « pas soumis à un droit patrimonial ». The only way 1991 portrait photographs can be in the public domain (or equivalent) in France is if the rights holder explicitly released them into the PD, put them under a CC0 license or similar. For such a thing, we require either a clear public statement from someone who is clearly the rights holder, or an explicit permission/consent text of the kind available at the COM:VRT page, something along the lines of I hereby affirm that I am/represent ..., the creator/sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work(s) as shown here, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: ... etc. etc.
Since this is about potentially very many images (5 million photos), we absolutely should have such a clear declaration. Especially for the protection of our re-users. But we have NONE of that here. There is no clear declaration of who the owner of copyright is, nor who released them under what license. There is just a vague statement that there is no copyright and anyone can use the photos freely, by a person of unclear legal status as far as the copyrights to the photos are concerned. That cannot be acceptable. --Rosenzweigτ12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but it would be much better if you stop making false statements. We have a declaration by a person in charge that these images are in the public domain. Why do you always say the opposite? Yann (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: Please refrain from such accusations. Accusing me of "making false statements" is basically calling me a liar, and I don't appreciate being insulted in that way. What we do have (in ticket 2020112910005534, the French text is above) is a claim, a statement by someone apparently working for Studio Harcourt in 2020, with the title or post of Chargée de la valorisation des collections. Valorisation translating to something like exploitation (in an economic sense) or promotion. So if she is “in charge” of anything, it's not copyright questions or legal questions in general, it's the promotion or economic exploitation of the Studio Harcourt collections. Which since the sale in 1991 do not anymore include the older 1934 to 1991 photos we're talking about here. It's in no way clear if she is in any way authorized to make copyright-related statements for Studio Harcourt, and it's not in any way clear if Studio Harcourt even still has any rights to those older photos. Though it must be assumed the French state acquired those rights along with the photos themselves, because why would you buy such a massive amount of photos without the proper rights to utilize them? Her text is also not a “declaration”, at least not one of the kind we require for VRT permissions (as outlined in my previous post in this thread). So whatever her statement is, it's not a sufficient basis to declare these 5 million photos to be in the public domain or “not under copyright” or « pas soumis à un droit patrimonial ». --Rosenzweigτ17:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: Who would be more knowledgeable about the copyright status of these images than someone working for Studio Harcourt? I am quite fed up with people (not only you) pretending to know more that the very people employed by the institution(s) concerned by the documents. Yann (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: That would be someone actually declaring that they are the owner/holder of the copyright and authorized to make such statements, as outlined in more detail somewhere else in this thread. Not just anybody working for a company which may or may not be still holding rights to these photos and vaguely saying that there is no copyright for them and and anybody can use them. You may think that is enough. I don't. --Rosenzweigτ12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
"why would you buy such a massive amount of photos without the proper rights to utilize them?" Presumably you'd acquire some sort of rights to reproduce, but not necessarily rights that were tantamount to owning the copyright. Plus, of course, eventually they will come out of copyright.
FWIW, it is pretty common for archives and libraries to acquire large collections without acquiring copyrights. I wouldn't presume anything either way about this case without some sort of evidence. - Jmabel ! talk20:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
While I agree with Rosenzweig that the situation is unclear, I would urge us not to rush to deleting, especially because it is such a large set - rushing into this will actually do more bad than good. As @Tisourcier mentions: please get French contributors involved to figure this out. Commons is not an island in the big wiki-ocean, and we as admins should not be tasking decisions (like deleting images at this scale) that effect the other projects lightly, but with due consideration. Ciell (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
"Presumably they sold them including the rights (copyrights, usage rights) to them, or else it wouldn't make much sense that the French state is distributing these images by the RMN agency."
OK, if that is what is happened, we would need a confirmation as well. Also a clarification who would actually be the copyright owner and who would be authorized to put the photos in the public domain (or equivalent, or under a free license) and if that happened. All clearly and unmistakably spelled out. We cannot keep so many (and potentially many more) images with just a "maybe, maybe not" assumption. Per the precautionary principle, such an unclear situation would mean the files would need to be deleted and no new uploads accpted. --Rosenzweigτ06:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Info The French Ministry of Culture bought in 1989 the negatives and client records from 1934 until 1979. Later in 1991 during the bankruptcy of Studio Harcourt the Association française pour la diffusion du patrimoine photographique (AFDPP) acquired the negatives from 1980 until 1991 [20]. The source gives very precise dates on the acquisitions, so it might even be possible to find public records about them. Günther Frager (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Günther Frager, beyond the acquisition: the question on the table now, is about the correct copyright status for all of these these images. Are the images Public Domain, available under CC BY-SA, or does the French state claim full copyright? Ciell (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ciell: yes, the main issue is determine who owns the copyright, but this information is still relevant. If the source is right, on November 14, 1989 Jack Lang and Studio Harcourt signed a document and we might get a copy of it and see whether the patrimonial rights were transferred or not. The other point is that the negatives form 1980-1991 were acquired during a bankruptcy and might have different conditions. I don't know about French intellectual property law, but in some countries intellectual property is treated as a normal asset when a company is liquidated. Günther Frager (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
One interesting fact in that text (thanks for the link) is that the current Studio Harcourt Paris company may be not identical with the "old" Studio Harcourt, but some succesor company (it's not entirely clear though, they call it le nouveau studio Harcourt-Paris). Which makes me wonder if the current company still holds any (intellectual property) rights to the assets of the "old" company, or not. --Rosenzweigτ06:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
About your second bullet point relatively to R.A.N., there is a misunderstanding by R.A.N. I had already replied directly to R.A.N. when he asked questions, there last year and here last month, including a link to the previous reply and a link to a detailed recap there (in French, but anyone can read it with machine translation). Unfortunately, either he doesn't read the replies to his questions or he doesn't care. I reverted his comment on the category page, to which you refer, but he reverted the revert. I'm not entering into an edit war with him. But that comment is still problematic for unsuspecting users and it would be good if someone volunteered to revert it again. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I see that Tisourcier is busy canvassing on various user talk pages in this matter. One thing he mentions elsewhere is that Studio Harcourt would still be the author as far as the moral right (to be named as author etc.) of French IP law is concerned. I agree, since the photos were declared by the court to be collective works, there is no human author, but this (corporate) collective author.
BUT we're not talking about the moral right here, but about the "patrimonial right" (that is, the economic/proprietary part of French IP law as opposed to the moral right). And that is still very much unclear until we get a clearly spelled out statement (as detailed elsewhere in this thread) by whoever is the actual owner of that right, or was the owner at the point in time when the claimed release into the public domain (or similar) took place. --Rosenzweigτ12:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, for any commercial and/or editorial reuse of images, please make a request to: mediatheque.patrimoine@culture.gouv.fr
Unless otherwise stated, MAP images are disseminated by the Photographic Agency of the Meeting of National Museums and the Grand Palais (Rmn-Gp)." (emphasis added)' -- Ooligan (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the link and translation. So they say that all images they show are the property of the state, which is basically what we already mentioned above. The question is if they're correct or if this is some sort of copyfraud as mentioned by Tisourcier and Yann above. --Rosenzweigτ06:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The ministry and the RMN claim that there is a copyright on everything they have in their collection, whether it's public domain or not. It doesn't matter how many times the quote by the ministry is repeated nor how it may be decorated with bolding and underlining, that still does not make it better. Take randomly any example on their websites, e.g. this image by Jean Bardin (1732-1809) (on Commons here), this 1903 postcard by Jean Giletta (1856-1933) (on Commons here), as well as the the pre-1954 Harcourt photos and thousands of other public domain images. If we applied the notice, nothing could be on Commmons. It doesn't mean that the notice is false, some items in their collection are copyrigted by someone, but the notice is only correct in the manner that a broken clock may occasionally give the correct time. The notice is useless to determine the copyright status of the items. The actual copyright status of the items must be determined by other means and other sources. In the case of the Harcourt photos, the best source would probably be the contracts of donation. We don't have that. The second best source, which we do have, is the statement by the Studio Harcourt. The owners of Harcourt, who acquired the Studio and the intellectual property of the trademark, are directly concerned, they must have examined the question of the copyrights seriously and, through the years, they naturally must have received many similar queries from the public. It would be irresponsible from them to give the answer that they give if it weren't true. Can they be mistaken? Yes, in theory anybody can be mistaken. Still, it's the best source we have. They can be assumed to have looked into this matter more in depth and to know more about it than we do. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that we should not trust when RMN states their own the copyright of a work, but it doesn't mean that almost all works published by RMN have no copyright. The analogy of the broken clock would be correct only if a high percentage of what RMN hosts is the public domain. What I don't agree with you is the other reasoning. Namely that we must trust blindly what an employee of a company that was bankrupt and passed hands a couple of times said in an email that was later forwarded to the VRT. I don't buy that a normal employee consult their legal team before answering a random email that probably is not going to generate a financial benefit. Even on the technical level there is no guarantee on the authenticity of the original email (Note, it is not something I'm doubting). Is the only evidence we have about the copyright status? Probably yes. Is is enough to host 5,000,000 images here? Probably not. If they made such statement in that email, it means that either they waived their rights in the past (presumedly before transferring the negatives) or they still hold the copyright and are fine with other people exploiting their pre-1991 work. In the former they should point us a legal document. In the latter, they should be able to grant an explicit free license as Rosenzweig suggested. Günther Frager (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Prelimary summary
So to recap the discussion as I understood it:
Nobody seemed to have a problem with the collective work status (in France) of the Harcourt photos. So any photos older than 70 years are in the public domain in France, and any Harcourt photos up to 1936 (before 1937) are also PD in the US and therefore ok for Wikimedia Commons.
Nobody came forward to support the released under CC BY 3.0 theory, not even RAN (though all relevant users were pinged and sometimes even separately notified by others). Asclepias specifically disagrees with that theory. So I think we can without any qualms declare this theory to be as dead as the dodo and completely debunked.
For the third point, the theory that Harcourt photos from 1934 to 1991 are in the public domain, we have exactly one piece of evidence: that a Harcourt employee claimed so in an e-mail that the VRT has in its system. Some people want to believe it, but there are no details how and why all those photos would be in the public domain, who put them there and where that would apply (France only or also in the US?). COM:VRT demands a rather detailed and outspoken declaration from anyone wanting to release media under a free license. I don't see why there should be a lesser standard for the Harcourt photos, especially considering how many images we're talking about here. Only a part of the 5 million images will be relevant for Commons, but as Harcourt was considered a celebrity studio, that might still be a few percent. Even 3 % of 5 million are 150.000.
Which means:
Harcourt photos before 1937 are ok for Commons as French collective works with PD-1996 in the US. Later photos are still protected in the US, they will expire there starting in 2033.
Only the files uploaded directly by User:Studio Harcourt in 2010 are licensed under CC BY 3.0, but not all photos which were acquired by the French state (as claimed by RAN).
All other Harcourt files are not covered by these two points and are here because they are claimed to be in the public domain, a claim that is only backed up by very little and vague evidence. My opinion is that for so many files, we should have a PD declaration which is at least as solid and explicit as those usually demanded by the VRT. What we have at present is nothing of the sort. And if we don't have such a proper declaration, the files should all be proposed for deletion and deleted per the precautionary principle. Anybody wanting to keep them is free to facilitate the sending of such a proper declaration (by whoever may actually be authorized to do so) to COM:VRT. --Rosenzweigτ19:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone else have another reply to the Harcourt photos subject? If there are no substantial changes, the next step would be a deletion request (or several, because there are hundreds of files) for any Harcourt photos not uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt or from before 1937. --Rosenzweigτ12:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Has Wikimedia France @Wikimedia France been notified or will they be notified about an issue that could affect many current files related to French culture on the Commons and possibly affect 10,000's future potential uploads related to French culture? (I don't know if that ping is effective.)
Additionally, since the Ministry of Culture of France[22] has a legal agreement (no agreement link) with Harcourt, will the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department be notified to see if they would be willing offer their support by only 1. requesting an official copy of this document, 2. Posting this agreement to wikimedia, if legally allowed to post it.
WMF Legal webpage does state, "Note: For legal ethical reasons we unfortunately can only represent the Wikimedia Foundation and cannot be the attorney for the community or movement organizations, though the legal team often provides strong support to the community in many ways consistent with Wikimedia Foundation goals." WMF Legal could "provide strong support" to the Commons Project, consistent with Wikimedia Foundation goals, through a request for a copy of the "Harcourt agreement" from the appropriate department of the French government and (if legally acceptable) post it to facilitate a future further discussion.
Of course, they would not give a legal opinion- just handle the request for the actual document that pertains to this discussion. With WMF Legal's "support," @Slaporte (WMF) the Commons would benefit by actually being able to read this agreement.
All I can say is that I did not notify anybody. A number of French native speakers and/or residents of France are involved here, they would be best equipped to do that if they want to. --Rosenzweigτ08:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
If there is no further input, I'll start categorizing the Harcourt files into ones which can stay (uploaded by User Studio Harcourt or from before 1937) and ones which will have to be nominated for deletion. Over the next few days or so. --Rosenzweigτ08:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
In France, we are in the middle of the national holiday period. Before making a severe decision leading to the deletion of hundreds or even thousands of files on Commons, I invite you to wait, to know the point of view of the French administrators and contributors involved.
The question of the PD concerning Studio Harcourt now extended to points relating to PD-France for collective, anonymous works named "oeuvres collectives", or whose author photographer is not identified by the publishing company or the photographic agency (URAA), requires at least an updated debate.
I myself launched the Studio Harcourt question for French speakers, here [[23]], a debate that is still ongoing.
Originally, the whole present talk about Studio Harcourt was triggered by mentions published by RMN (Réunion des Musées de France / Ministry of Culture) on the websites it uses. But we have been able to see that these allegations are not only unreliable, but even fall under the category of "copyfraud" as an official national report attests:
On December 17, 2014, this official information report filed with the National Assembly under number 2474, publicly reveals that RMN (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Ministry of Culture) commits multiple "copyfrauds" and that it is appropriate to put an end to them (page 42, proposal No. 9 of the official national publication, below).
For intellectual and industrial property in France, unlike the "copyright" of English-speaking countries, the "droit d'auteur", that is to say the recognition of the author of the work, can never be assigned. In this case, because the official "author" recognized by French regulations is not RMN (Ministry of Culture / French State) which manages this "patrimoine" (patrimonyy/legacy), but remains necessarily Studio Harcourt. The quality of author can never be granted, in accordance with French regulations.
Given that the Studio Harcourt company has never been put into "liquidation" (closeout) but has been taken over several times by various successive shareholders and that this company still exists today, the declaration it made to Wikimedia Commons confirming that all photos dating from before 1992 are indeed free of all rights, there is no valid reason for RMN or the French State to disclose a contractual document dating from the same period and covered by business secrets ("secret des affaires"). Since the official "author" recognized as such provides a declaration attesting that the Studio Harcourt photos from before 1992 are free of rights, is therefore clearly sufficient.
Furthermore, a court decision and case law have determined that the photographs and technicians who worked for this studio or for agencies of the same type, since they are not clearly cited and identified individually, are part of the collective work (Cour d'appel de Paris, 15 janvier 2014, #11/21191.). In France, this special status allows copyright to be released for works dating back 70 years or more.
Recently, the transposition of PD-France concerning this 70-year limit for collective works ("oeuvre collective") extended to Wikipedia Commons has been called into question on the basis of the URAA notion (1996). But concerning Studio Harcourt, the rights having been released in 1992 for photographs dating before that year, so the URAA restriction cannot apply.
In the event that a decision to massively delete several hundred photos (PD-France collective works) is nevertheless undertaken, it would be wise to plan for a migration time for these files which can then be hosted on fr.wikipedia.org. But all these major upheavals must be the subject of a technical and operational organization, requiring in-depth preparation on both Wikimedia Commons and French Wikipedia, if a mass “migration“ is needed. Tisourcier (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@Tisourcier: I don't see any new angle in your contribution, it's just rehashing and repeating points that were already extensively discussed before. Specifically, that what you call a "declaration" by Studio Harcourt is basically just a claim by an Harcourt employee in an e-mail that the VRT has in its system, which is in no way sufficient to serve as a proper VRT permission.
Yes, most of France is on holiday in August. But what exactly do you think will be different in September or at any other later point in time? --Rosenzweigτ09:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
We already pointed out a couple of official sources that claim Harcourt was liquidated in 1991. The current company, Studio Harcourt, was established in October 30th, 1992 [25]. The previous company, Studios Photographiques Harcourt, was established in 1980 and closed in November 7th, 1991 [26]. These two dates coincides with the two acquisitions that the French government made.You can also read the interview that Pierre-Antony Allard gave to Luxus Magazine in 2006 [27]. Allard claims that he purchased the Harcourt brand in 1992 on an auction for 421.000 francs and it didn't included the archives (le fonds Harcourt). The new company cannot make claims about the copyright of the old one unless it acquired the copyright of the photographs. Günther Frager (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry but regarding Studio Harcourt, a valuable reference is this book, published in april 2012 by Studio Harcourt and Editions Nicolas Chateaudun : "Studio Harcourt", by Françoise Denoyelle. ISBN : 978-2-35093+132-8. The complete history of the studio and its successives owners, sharehlders and associates is deeply explained.
And again you are making a confusion between "copyright" according to US laws and "droit d'auteur" according to French laws. Studio Harcourt is still the "auteur" of these pictures and also keep the "moral rights" for any exploitation. So your point of view is wrong. Tisourcier (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I pointed out to an interview to the owner of Studio Harcourt between 1992 and 2007 before Fancis Dagnan took over. What is the most authoritative source to know how he acquired it in 1992? Also the link from MPP that I provided and states Studios Photographiques Harcourt was put on receivership cites Denoyelle as source. That there was no "Harcourt" enterprise for a year is clear from the links I provided from the Annuaire d'entreprises. Also, I'm not talking about moral rights and it is quite clear on this thread that we are not discussing moral rights, so stop claiming or pretending I'm talking about moral rights. Günther Frager (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
All these discussions are initially based on the idea that the Ministry of Culture would claim copyright on the photos. But this is a misinterpretation of the indication "Droits d'auteur: Droits : Etat" ("Author'srights :Rights : State"). They (the RMN, an office of the Ministère de la culture) usually charge a fee for copy rights (paper, time spent to make the copy of the picture ou to developp it from a negative), and an additionnal fee for author's right. In the usual case, they indicates who the author's rights belonged to. (exemple). In the case of Studio Harcourt fund, whatever the date is old or not (cf. 1934, 1962), they mention "droits;Etat", which means that " le droit d'auteur est inclus dans le droit de reproduction"(the copyright fee is included into the copy fee") (cf. last line). To put it more simply, there is no copyright fee. And the reason is probably the one given by the employée responsible for promoting the collections : there is no more patrimonial rights (financial copyrights) but just the moral "droit d'auteur". I cannot see any reason to doubt of her comment, as it is her job. The fact she is a woman is unusually noted, but no reason either to think ths sould discredite the statement. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@Pa2chant.bis: It's a bit more complicated than that, see the whole discussion above. The French state may own some rights to the photos or may have licensed them (however the legal construct would be), or they may not and just claim so. We don't really know. For the other claim that all the 1934 to 1991 photos are free of (commercial / patrimonial) rights, it all comes down to this (rather casual I think) remark by the Harcourt employee Agnes BROUARD in a 2020 e-mail which the VRT has in its system. You say that you “cannot see any reason to doubt of her comment, as it is her job”. I say that a) we don't really know what her job is or was at the time, except that she was Chargée de la valorisation des collections. It's in no way clear if she is or was (as part of that job) in any way authorized to make copyright-related statements for (the current or former) Studio Harcourt, and it's not in any way clear if the current Studio Harcourt even still has any rights to those older photos.
Also, b) that remark is not in any way a formal declaration of the way we usually require for VRT permissions. Some people obviously want to believe it, but there are no details how and why all those photos would be in the public domain, who put them there and where that would apply (France only or also in the US?). COM:VRT demands a rather detailed and outspoken declaration from anyone wanting to release media under a free license. I don't see why there should be a lesser standard for the Harcourt photos, especially considering how many images we're talking about here (potentially hundreds of thousands, see above). --Rosenzweigτ19:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
IMHO you are just making a storm in a tee cup. Chargée de la valorisation des collections is exactly the person responsible for managing copyrights, among other tasks. I don't understand why you systematically wants to belittle the affirmation we got from the person in charge. It is difficult explain to you that there is no issue with Harcourt images which were acquired by the French State, as you don't even recognize simple facts. Yann (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to "belittle" it, just point out that it is not in any way a formal declaration of the way we require for permission declarations. We should have a proper declaration with all the formalities, not just an offhand remark widely open for interpretation. If we accept such a statement, why should we still bother with our detailed and outspoken legal VRT declarations? --Rosenzweigτ20:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Be sure I read carefully the whole discussion . But it is not very complicated to see that french Ministère de la Culture or its offices do not claim for patrimonial copyright. And if the declaration on VRT do not match the "detailed and outspoken declaration" awaited, could you please provide the accurate template, for I ask the company to fill it out ? If there is any, because the original declaration seems very clear. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
And the fact is they do not ask for author's fees.
About the template, the one in french you cite is the one for basic cases, when no rights have been sold or shared. One cannot seriously fill it out once a right has been ever shared. ("Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et ("AND") le titulaire unique et exclusif de l'œuvre ") The english version is more convenient, as one can choose to declare if they are ([choose one]) [creator] OR [sole owner] of the exclusive copyright of the media. In the case of Harcourt, they are the creator, so the only thing requested is that they choose a proper license, is that right ? (The wording is curious because let's suppose someone sold all their patrimonial rights with exclusivity, they are not anymore allowed to give a licence : I suppose it applies only when rights have been sold without exclusivity.) --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@Pa2chant.bis: We don't know who actually does (or did) own the rights. Whoever it is, that person or institution would have to make the declaration. If they have already released the rights to the public domain at an earlier point in time (that is a speculation, I don't know if this is what has happened), they would have to adjust the text acccordingly. --Rosenzweigτ07:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
My question was about the template. The english version asks just to state if one's is the creator of the media OR sole owner of the exclusive copyright. As they are the creator, my understanding is that they just have to choose this option for the VRT permission. I guess they adjusted the text previously (stating no more patrimonial rights exists), and this is considered not to be formal enough. That's the reason whyI asked for a formal template. The one provided (in english) does not require historical background or "ajustment" or anything else. If this formal template is not sufficient, it would be great to provide a relevant one. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@Pa2chant.bis: This is the standard VRT template, which is used for standard cases. I'm not aware of any others. For special cases, you'd have to contact the volunteer response team (VRT), explain the situation and ask what they think is the appropriate language then, what they would accept. I think the most important aspect is the clause and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. So if they are the creator, but have already sold the exclusive rights (or granted an exclusive license, or whatever happened) to someone else, they do not have that authority anymore, and we would need a permission by that someone else. If they did not sell the rights to someone else, but released the works to the public domain (or similar), they can state that. --Rosenzweigτ08:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. OR (to be chosen) "[if they] released the works to the public domain (or similar), they can state that" are the important points. And that the second option is exactly what they stated, saying there is not anymore patrimonial rights. Something else ?--Pa2chant.bis (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
No. The Harcourt employee remarked that there was no patrimonial right for those old photos. She did not write that Harcourt released them into the public domain, so it is still unclear why the photos would have no patrimonial rights. She also did not write that she had any legal authority to make such statements, so it is also unclear if what she wrote is more than just a remark. --Rosenzweigτ10:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Done in these edits. @Kashmiri: What were you thinking? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose any attempt to change to U.S. FoP rule-only policy, unless most or all of Wikimedians from Brazil, Singapore, Netherlands, Belgium, U.K., Malaysia, etc. agree or concede to agree that only U.S. FoP law needs to be followed and that their hundreds of post-1929 sculptural monuments should not be hosted here anymore and the existing non-de minimis images of their monuments be removed from this site. Also, it means that South African, Philippine, and ESEAP FoP initiatives become pointless. For instance, Nelson Mandela and anti-apartheid monuments from South Africa won't be welcome here anymore, even if FoP is introduced in South Africa. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Fallen Sheep (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&diff=prev&oldid=889911327){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diplomatic_missions_in_Somaliland.svg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Limited_recognition_(simplier_scheme).svg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Africa_independence_dates.svg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2CY654D/soldiers-stand-in-front-of-the-podium-with-portraits-of-north-korea-founder-kim-il-sung-l-and-the-late-leader-kim-jong-il-after-a-military-parade-to-celebrate-the-centenary-of-the-birth-of-kim-il-sung-in-pyongyang-april-15-2012-reutersbobby-yip-north-korea-tags-politics-military-anniversary-2CY654D.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Rhima_Boat.png){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bee_Network_Oldham_Bus_Station.png){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Josephine_Gauld_Sierra_Leone_British_High_Commissioner_2024.jpg){kind=link}
?file=Teletoon_old.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Jeanne_d%27Arc_et_Archange_Michel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Logo.png){kind=link}
_Logo.png){kind=link}
_Logo.svg){kind=link}
_Logo.svg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://www.weather.gov/images/iwx/events/1965/palmsunday/images/other/elkhart_truth.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Comment Just to put in context: The quote comment is the answer to this question, nothing else. I didn't evaluate the CR status because I'm not French speaker and it was not requested anyway. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Info The French Ministry of Culture bought in 1989 the negatives and client records from 1934 until 1979. Later in 1991 during the bankruptcy of Studio Harcourt the Association française pour la diffusion du patrimoine photographique (AFDPP) acquired the negatives from 1980 until 1991 [20]. The source gives very precise dates on the acquisitions, so it might even be possible to find public records about them. Günther Frager (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
