Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09

Copyright issue about works created for the Wiki Loves Monuments photograph contest

I know I'm not a registered user, but I just wonder to know what you think about this: If the newbie users of Commons who participated in the WLM, they had casually entered private area and took pictures without get the permission from property owners, or even barged into their buildings, then will you accept them as a competition work according to the rules of the WLM competition? If yes, please explain why. My viewpoint is that what their doing is illegal, so their works are not protected by copyright, isn't it?--125.230.85.17 06:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Trespassing is often a tort, not a crime, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with their works being protected by copyright. See COM:GRAFFITI for discussions of the copyright protection of graffiti--in short, it's unclear--and graffiti is clearly a criminal act, whereas again, trespassing is often not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. In most of the world, due to the Berne Convention, sufficiently original works are copyrighted as soon as they are fixed in a tangible means of expression. Non-copyright restrictions do not negate copyright.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It must be noted that the laws of some countries are, however, not allowed take pictures in private areas, and not even in schools that looks like a public space that's open to everyone. This case might be similar to what COM:FOP says: "in countries without freedom of panorama, Wikimedia Commons requires proof of copyright release from the copyright holder when hosting any images of those buildings". That is to say, participants/photographers basically need to go through the COM:VRT process to get permission from the copyright holder (is the property owner). The problem is that we didn't know if photographers barge into a private area, but they also won't admit that they had not got permission. Obviously, it is a flaw of the mechanism of Commons. If you don't think so, then let's bring the topic back on track. Some countries are not allowed take pictures in private areas. If a participant or a photographer has a legal dispute with property owner, regardless of the outcome of the court's decision, are their works still protected by copyright and accepted by Commons?--125.230.85.17 10:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, WLM-i organizer here. The issue you are presenting here is not directly related to Wiki Loves Monuments, but a question of decency and courtesy of any photographer. Trespassing is never allowed, not for Commons' photograph competitions, nor for any other of our Wikimedia projects and initiatives. A bit of friendliness goes a long way: this means asking the owner of the property if you can take the pictures (and walking away when they refuse) helps against potential take down requests.

We do not require proof to be send to VRT for self-taken images unless there is a dispute on the matter. Please do not create work for our volunteers where simple common sense, decency and assume good faith are the baseline attitude in participation. Ciell (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@125.230.85.17: No, the property owner does not normally own a copyright on a building; where such a copyright exists, it would normally belong to an architect or other designer unless explicitly transferred.

And while we do not encourage people to trespass, unless the photo violates copyright laws or privacy rights, we would not generally delete a photo over claims of trespass. I'm sure we have many photos of building exteriors where someone stepped onto private property to take the photo, or where someone photographed non-copyrighted content in a museum without proper permission from the museum; that is not our problem. - Jmabel ! talk 16:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The property owner is not the copyright owner -- owning a physical object is completely separate from the copyright in that item, which belongs to the author (the person who actually created it). For a building the copyright is actually owned by the architect, unless transferred via contract (or by being an employee of a company, in which case the company owns the copyright). The licensing rules here are very much specifically about the copyright -- so for a photo of a statue, we need permission from the sculptor, not the person who owns the statue, most likely. Photos of a building are not derivative works in the U.S., so photos of U.S. buildings usually don't matter, but in some countries it does. Restrictions based on laws other than copyright are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and fall outside of our licensing policy. Those restrictions can be very real, but it is up to re-users to follow those. For things like house rules on photography, the photographer themselves is most at risk -- they would still own the copyright, but if they are breaking any laws by taking the photograph, or alienating people or institutions they have a relationship with, only they can really weigh that. So, we often leave that up to the photographer. Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum_and_interior_photography has some information on that. Photos which violate someone's privacy (generally people in situations with an expectation of privacy though the specifics can differ by country) will be deleted, as those can be illegal to simply host here. WLM may want to have photos deleted if there was a specific complaint or some discourteous act involving a particular photo -- I'm sure they would not want to get a reputation of having that type of thing happen. Other situations can be case-by-case -- if community consensus is that we don't want to host a photo obtained by dubious means, that can happen in a deletion discussion. But strictly speaking, property owners generally do not own any copyright of photos taken on their property, so they are not involved with the licensing part of policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Uploading movie poster

how can we upload a movie poster, i get copyright violation. how can we add the credit and correct Creative Commons license? Bfilmy (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bfilmy: Hi, On Commons, you need the formal written permission from the copyright holder for a free license. But you can upload it locally on the English Wikipedia (and some others) under a fair use rationale. Yann (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

thanks dude... Bfilmy (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Image of polytope copyright

I'm trying to add this gif to an article: https://polytope.miraheze.org/wiki/File:975-Sisp.gif

It is technically copyrighted, but it says it can be used for any non-commercial purposes.

"This file (or parts of it) are copyrighted by Robert Webb.↵↵The copyright holder of this file, Robert Webb, allows anyone to use it for any non-commercial purpose, provided that the name of the software used (Stella 4D), along with a link to the website https://www.software3d.com/Stella.php are given." Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-commercial licenses are not acceptable on Commons. Trade (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, see COM:LJ.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Video game screenshots

At what point are video game screenshots considered PD-text/PD-simple? See Category:Japanese-language video game screenshots for examples Trade (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Very hard to imagine anything copyrightable there.

Warning to anyone clicking through: possibly NSFW text. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct templates for illustrations from UK-1849-book

Hello! I am somewhat at a loss as to which copyright-statements I need for the structured data (Wikidata) of illustrations taken from a book published in 1849 in England (see my User-page for more. I am uploading using OpenRefine. A test-image (about 1900 images will follow as a batch-upload) can be found here. The previous discussion can be found in this Help Desk-Thread. Right now, my OpenRefine-Schema uses the following:

• "copyright status" = Public Domain = reconciled with Wikidata as 100 years or more after author(s) death (Q19652)
• "copyright license" (1) = {{PD-US-expired}}, reconciled as published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828)
• "copyright license" (2) = {{PD-scan}}, reconciled as countries where faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art do not have additional copyrights (Q80258411)
• "copyright license" (3) = {{PD-old-100}}, reconciled as 100 years or more after author(s) death (Q29940705)

I can upload the file, and the structured data for these licenses is visible at the Commons-page of the above file, but these are listed with a "!" (= Potential Issues). Am I doing something wrong? Note: The Copyright-information section of the above file has this: {{PD-scan|PD-old-100|deathyear=1891}}. Can anyone tell me, what I should use in the Commons-information and as the structured data? Thank you in advance! CalRis25 (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Context: This has already been discussed at some length and I would suggest that anyone responding might first want to read my remarks there. - Jmabel ! talk 12:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Anything published that long ago isn't really in question. Technically, the policy is that something needs to be PD both in the country of origin, and in the US. For the UK, PD-old-100 is the tag. For the US, technically it's PD-US-expired. {{PD-old-100-expired}} is a combined tag which is what most would use for simplicity. Or, {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1891}}, which chooses the correct PD-old-xxx based on the death year (but 100 is pretty much the current maximum, so PD-old-100 is fine). PD-scan is usually not applied to self-scanned works -- only from scans taken from other sites where the scanner appears to be claiming a copyright on it. See Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. It's not incorrect, but taking that out may simplify your situation.

As for the structured data, I really don't know a lot about that. Looking at examples, it would seem as though that distinguishes between files still under copyright but which are licensed (which uses the "copyright license" field), and ones which have expired (which use a "copyright status" (P6216) of "public domain" (Q19652), then a "determination method" (P459) using instances of "copyright determination method" (Q61005213), such in this case "100 years or more after author(s) death" (Q29940705) and "published more than 95 years ago" (Q47246828). Whether upload tools know about that distinction, or the desired usage of the structured data has changed over time, no idea. Questions on this topic may be better asked at Wikidata. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Carl. Thank you for the information. Based on it, I uploaded another image. I removed the PD-scan-tag. Your suggestion also solved the problems with the structured data. It seems that the copyright license makes sense only when copyright status is not "Public Domain". So I removed the copyright license-instances and moved PD-US-expired and PD-old-100 to the copyright status-instance, in exactly the way you said. And lo and behold, in the "Structured data"-tab of the new image there is no longer any warning about potential issues. Thanks to everyone who has helped me! CalRis25 (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@CalRis25: Glad that helped. One question though -- why is creator "unknown" in the structured data, when there is a named author in the Information template? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The creator of the illustrations in the strictest sense is "unknown" in the structured data because the engraver is unknown. I put Anthony Rich into the Commons-field Author because he is the author of the book, created many of the original drawings/tracings the engravings are based and supervised the creation of all engravings (see second paragraph on page x of the Preface to the Illustrated Companion). Was I wrong to do so? And which one would be more correct? CalRis25 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

If the author of the book was not the engraver or the person who made the original drawings the engravings are based on, then technically they are anonymous. PD-old-100 is fine for something published in 1849 -- it's pretty much certain either way and any PD distinctions are technicalities. But, technically, {{PD-UK-unknown}} would also apply at that point. If Rich did make the original drawings, then that is at least part of the copyright, and he would be an author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will keep PD-old-100, because I feel that it makes the method of determination more clear, and, as you say, at this stage these are mere technicalities. As for the author I will err on the side of safety and switch the Author in the Information-Template to {{Anonymous}} so that it agrees with the structured data. CalRis25 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. CalRis25 (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

De minimis?

File:Civic Boulevard Entrance, Syntrend Creative Park 20220806.jpg

There's a deletion request on this file due to NoFoP, and while I believe the contents of the file fall under de minimis, the nominator does not. I'm forwarding this here for more information because I'm not an expert. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say not de minimis. The main interest of the photo seems to me to come from the copyrighted elements. - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree. The image description provided by the uploader primarily describes the advertisements surrounding the door; that leads me to suspect that they are the focal point of the photo, not the architecture of the building. Omphalographer (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this belongs but...

I uploaded these images and the author did in fact said he was fine with his images being reused. However the only evidence I have is an email. What do i do to confirm that the author did in fact was fine with his images being reused? Hydrogen astatide (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• They need to fill out a Commons:VRT form and send it to the Commons addy. --RAN (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• And, in case it is not clear, only the copyright holder can do that, though you probably should have them cc you on the email. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Understanding copyright renewal

Hi all. I’m wondering if I could trouble someone to explain to me how one might go about determining a copyright was not renewed, as is indicated on File:Sylvia Plath - The Boston Globe (1953).png for example. I read the linked Hirtle chart and copyright logs but I’m sorry to report for the latter I’m still not sure what I’m looking at. Thanks for the help! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): to search for 1953 copyright renewals, you'd want to check the 1980 and 1981 copyright catalogs to see what the Associated Press had renewed. AP generally did not renew copyrights on photographs. Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah good to know. Thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• To start you can look up The Boston Globe in Wikidata then look for "online books" which takes you to https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/globemaboston which says that "no issue renewals found in CCE or registered works database" The newspaper never renewed any images or issues, which takes us to 1964. They did renew at least one article on "May 7, 1940", it can be fun to look up and see what that article was, I have a list somewhere of what articles were copyrighted in papers and it is always a guest writer who may want to include their essay in a book at a later time. For instance in 1927 several papers ran a first hand account by Charles Lindbergh that he later included in his biography. According to the Library of Congress, the Associated Press did not copyright or renew images, even their most iconic ones. Some local papers never included a copyright symbol in the masthead or on the second page that lists the publisher and editors and the address to write the paper. After 1989 those formalities of registration, renewal, and copyright symbol were no longer needed, everything creative was automatically copyrightable. People would still mail in copies to the USCO to get a date stamp, especially for songs, to show priority, in case someone else claims that they wrote the song first. --RAN (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Fascinating, thanks so much! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Bultaco logos

File:Bultaco logo black bacground.jpg and File:Bultaco logo.png both probably need a closer look because both of them seem to be potential copyvios. The first file was sourced to this Flickr page and looks to be a photo someone took of en:Boltaco's official logo (offcial website). Since Spain's TOO seems to be fairly vague per COM:TOO Spain, I'm not sure it can be stated with any degree of certainty that this logo would be {{PD-logo}} in Spain even if it was considered to be PD in the US per COM:TOO United States. So, that would seem, at the very least make the Flickr photo cited as the source, a case of unintenional COM:LL that can't be kept by Commons. The png file seems to have bascially been created based on that Flickr image, which again seems (at least to me) to be a copyvio; even if，however, it wasn't, the copyright status of the logo itself would need to still be considered if this png is expected to be treated a true and faithful recreation of the logo, which means (at least to me) that it too probably can't be kept if the original logo isn't PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Nigeria national anthem Nigeria, We hail thee midi.mid

I'm not sure that the licensing of File:Nigeria national anthem Nigeria, We hail thee midi.mid is sufficient given the source being cited. Hamienet.com appears to be some kind midi/mp3 hosting site which seems to make no claim of verifying the copyright status of the content it hosts, but instead places total responsibility on the uploader of the content. Given that a musical performance of a national athem could be eligible for copyirght in its own right even if the musical score itself is now within the public domain, it seems like this particular performance would need to be treated as an anonymous work since the author is unknown per COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings, which means it's probably not even close to being old enough to be PD and OK for Commons. The {{Cc-by-2.5}} certainly seems incorrect given that the author is unknown. Can this file be kept by Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Feastogether brand logos and threshold of originality

Note: I cross-posted this to en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Feastogether is a Taiwanese company, meaning the applicable copyright rule for is Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan. The page says, "Note that any work originating in Taiwan must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Taiwan and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons."

1. I plan to upload Feastogether brand logos that are in the public domain in both Taiwan and the United States to Wikimedia Commons.
2. I plan to upload Feastogether brand logos that are in the public domain in the United States but not in Taiwan to the English Wikipedia.

Which of the Feastogether brand logos in https://www.ieatogether.com.tw/admin/upload/website/kv/20240430114655_PC-KV.jpg^{Internet Archive} (linked from here^{Internet Archive} and also available at https://eatogo.com.tw/zh-TW^{Internet Archive}) meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan? Which meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan but not the United States?

Here is my assessment:

1. A Joy (
   中文：饗A Joy
   ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
2. Inparadise (
   中文（臺灣）：饗饗
   ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
3. Sunrise (
   中文（臺灣）：旭集和食集錦
   ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
4. Eat Together (
   中文（臺灣）：饗食天堂
   ): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the blue-green drawing at the top.
   • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
5. Fruitful Food (
   中文（臺灣）：果然匯
   ): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the plant drawing at the top.
   • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
6. Little Fuli Spicy Hot Pot (
   中文（臺灣）：小福利麻辣鍋
   ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
7. Kaifun Together (
   中文（臺灣）：開飯川食堂
   ): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the pepper drawings at the top.
   • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
8. Siam More (
   中文（臺灣）：饗泰多
   ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters. However, I am uncertain because the "Siam More" part of the logo uses script that appears like an elephant. Is this enough to make it meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan?
   • Can upload to English Wikipedia. But can I upload it to Wikimedia Commons?
9. Zhiyun (
   中文（臺灣）：旨醞
   ): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the pink and green drawings at the top.
   • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
10. Doricious (
    中文（臺灣）：朵頤餐廳
    ): The logo does meet the threshold of originality because of the illustration at the top.
    • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
11. Feastogether Corporation (
    中文（臺灣）：饗賓餐旅事業
    ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
    • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://eatathome.hoyastore.com/uploads/images/202303/4f941f99ca0585f0d058e3cc2c340002.png^{Internet Archive} (linked from here^{Internet Archive}).

1. Eat@home (
   中文（臺灣）：饗在家
   ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://web.archive.org/web/20160322003020im_/http://dacoz.com.tw/images/logo.png (linked from here):

1. Dacoz (
   中文（臺灣）：大口吃
   ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://play-lh.googleusercontent.com/bRVFib-dahozjAjk5gcQgh1zsZ09AlAtI-h3b4vIWY0FBVR-vc0FVasZ3kXhJ2ML5z4=w480-h960-rw^{Internet Archive} (linked from here^{Internet Archive}).

1. iEat (
   中文（臺灣）：iEAT饗愛吃
   ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Commenting only on Siam More: I believe it is over COM:TOO-US. Glrx (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Persée

Hello, what is the copyright situation of articles that were uploaded to Persée site (Commons category)? Can I take an image from an article and upload it to Commons?

I'm asking because I want to upload the cylinder seal that appears here Pl. XV (an article in Syria by André Parrot, appears also here), but I would also like to get a more general answer about this website since I often find there images that can contribute to Wikipedia articles. פעמי-עליון (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Are we allowed to copy descriptions from Flickr?

Tools like Commons:Flickr2Commons import Flickr files along with descriptions. Flickr argues that copying captions would potentially violate licensing as there's no license for metadata on Flickr [and that only the files are licensed] and copying them to Commons requires a CC0 licensing. Aren't those captions/descriptions "unstructured text" which we share under CC BY SA 4.0 but not "structured data" under CC0? Even so, is copying a violation of licensing / Flickrwashing? (My query is only limited to CC BY 2.0, etc.,. limited licences and not PD works such US-Gov.) -- DaxServer (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If these descriptions are copyrighted and are not licensed at all, then it doesn't matter that we treat them as CC BY SA 4.0 rather than CC0, it would still be a copyright violation.

I don't really know what to make of this. We have been copying Flickr file descriptions for close to two decades and I've never heard of any Flickr user objecting. Flickr themselves don't own any copyright on this content so it's not really their affair. In my experience, most of these are too simple to be copyrightable in any case, but of course some are complex enough to be copyrightable, and for those I guess they have a point, especially given our precautionary principle.

We might want to have some more specific policy here, but certainly it would have to allow for copying over descriptions that are below the threshold of originality. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

AIUI, User:Alexwlchan does not represent Flickr, so you are wrong to attribute his views to that organisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

According to the @Alexwlchan's userpage, they work as the Tech Lead at Flickr Foundation. Surely not a legal representative, but we can assume that's what Flickr thinks of the descriptions -- DaxServer (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes; and "Flickr Foundation" is not "Flickr". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I can count on one hand the amount of times I've had to change a description because it copied and pasted too much from Flickr. So it's possible that there are some that probably need editing, but I don't see it as a major issue for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I already posted a similar question here but no one answered. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the descriptions would have the same license as the user specified and which is set for the file. Captions may be more a problem than anything else and I think just having description may even be better (they could and should start with a short description). Moreover, the reality is users don't care how their little descriptive text is licensed...this may be different for very long descriptions where users put a poem or things of that sort. I think the descriptions should be imported to the descriptions field. People often copy parts of the description to the captions (and this may be the best way these are populated) so this would be a bigger issue than just about flickr. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Memorial to Louis J. Robichaud.jpg

Can File:Memorial to Louis J. Robichaud.jpg be kept as is or does it also need {{FoP-Canada}} for the photographed work per COM:FOP Canada? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Accd. to [1], this is a 2005 work by visual artist Luc A. Charrette, and it definitely looks copyrightable. So adding the FoP tag along with information about the artist and year of creation would be a good thing IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 10:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect propositions in the official policy

Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Examples contains several strings like this: If the photograph itself is demonstrably old enough to be in the public domain, use {{PD-old}}. For me, this looks fundamentally wrong: even if something looks old, it doesn't mean it's author died over 70 years ago (this PD rationale is exactly what {{PD-old}} claims). This leads to numerous unfounded uses of this rationale in uploads where the author's name is not specified. Is it possible to clarify this? Quick1984 (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not factually wrong. But may be it should specified that on which conditions a picture is demonstrably old enough to be in the public domain. Or just a link to COM:HIRTLE? Yann (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If the author of the underlying work is not known, or known when they died, then it's probably if {{PD-old-assumed}} can be applied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Would this be suitable here?

The cover of this album appears to be a mere crop of this image, which was taken by the US government, and is therefore in the public domain. The edits done to the photo are minimal and the only copyrightable portion of the image would be the graphic at the corner, which I assume would fall under de minimis given that it doesn't take up most of the image.

Would this be suitable to upload to Commons? I'm only considering uploading the cover btw, I won't upload any of the songs. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That image is uploadable. There is no copyrightable material added to the original PD photo. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright :) AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"Steven Universe" and Image Problems

Not so long ago, I tried to upload to Wikimedia Commons an image of the screensaver of the cartoon "Steven Universe Future" for the article of the same name in the Russian segment of Wikipedia. However, I can't do that. The image is deleted all the time due to copyright infringement. Please tell me how to solve this issue Протогеобиолог (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We cannot accept it on Commons without VRT permission from Rebecca Sugar or Cartoon Network. I don't know if Russian Wikipedia accepts non-free files but if they do, you might be able to upload there if it's to be used for the Steven Universe Future article. Abzeronow (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow and @Протогеобиолог: They do like the English segment per ru:Википедия:Критерии добросовестного использования, but restricted to administrators, uploaders, eliminators, and file movers.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Протогеобиолог (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Протогеобиолог: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Images without valid source

The uploader, KOKUYO is a good contributor but he probably didn't know that Commons cannot accept images with invalid sources. He has some photos uploaded eight years ago, their source is no longer the webpage originally seen by the uploader, so the authenticity of the license cannot be confirmed. For example,

• File:王院長會晤歐洲議會波特林議長.jpg
• File:王院長接受華生主席國賓及歡迎蒞臨歐洲議會方問.jpg
• File:立法院台商之友會及東南亞各國友好協會.jpg

If the source is valid, then we can see information that might be useful for images. Especially the description, we can find more information through the source and then to help it get exactly described, even get properly categorized. But he uploaded images without valid source makes them suspected as copyrighted and is not useful for education.--125.230.65.194 18:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It is too bad that these were not license-reviewed in a timely manner, but what makes you think the URLs given as sources were not valid at the time of the upload? - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You'll know a link is broken when you click on the link in the source field and you come to the web page. Because it shows the main page on the web site.--125.230.65.194 20:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You know it is broken now, but that is not reason to think it wasn't a valid link at the time. Links "go dead" continually. I had to deal at one point with the Seattle Municipal Archive rearranging their URL scheme and invalidating about 2 or 3 thousand links we had. Fortunately for me, they were aware of my work here and got hold of me to work with them on how to migrate links on Commons and en-wiki, but usually that doesn't happen. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't become a invalid source just because the link goes dead. It may make it hard/impossible to do a license verification though, which should have been done. While this page in particular does not seem to have been archived, other similar galleries were, and the copyright terms page also was -- this seems to be the copyright terms from around when the uploads were made. We probably should copy the license text over. The Google Translate seems like they should be OK, but probably needs a Japanese speaker to say for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Yasu: can you help out here? - Jmabel ! talk 13:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Anyone who speaks Chinese would be better. Unfortunately I don't have much knowledge of the language... Yasu (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Yasu: my apologies, I didn't even look at the file names again, I just saw Carl's call for a Japanese-speaking admin. - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

King of Hearts (talk · contribs) could you have a look, or suggest who else could? - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The license is basically a custom-worded equivalent to CC-BY, with several key features such as ability to use, copy, and modify without restrictions, irrevocability, and requirement of attribution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A Pocket Guide To The Middle East: What is its copyright status?

I have a copy of the booklet: "A Pocket Guide to the Middle East", published in 1962 by the US Armed Forces, Information and Education Department of Defense. It's alredy published in Google Books, you can find it here. Since this is a publication of the US Armed Forces, is it correct to say that it is in the public domain? Would it be eligible to upload part or all of it to Commons? Thank you for your feedback. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 16:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the expert in US copyright but it seems {{PD-USGov-Military}} is enough as in page 159 it clearly states it is an official publication of the Department of Defense. Günther Frager (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks really safe as PD: if somehow it were not entirely US-government-produced, it still lacks the copyright notice that would have been required to secure U.S. copyright at that time, so it would still be PD. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Protest against Kolkata rape-murder.jpg - DW or de minimis

Before I nominate the File:Protest against Kolkata rape-murder.jpg for deletion, I want to clarify if the photograph of the person is de minimis or above the threshold that it is considered derivative work - given that the primary subject of the photograph is the candles and the photograph of the person, the background has no relevance at all. Thanks for your opinions -- DaxServer (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You can send it to DR. (Make sure to not use speedy deletion for photos taken in a public place - COM:CSD#F3 specifically prohibits it because of exactly this situation since it is not always obvious whether a photo containing a publicly visible subject is a copyright violation.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'll use the DR as I'm not sure if it is DW with no doubt -- DaxServer (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This ended up kept with a Gaussian blur. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Extracted audio from a CC-BY-ND work

Resolved

I’ve extracted audio (the Saturn and Neptune movements) from a CC-BY-ND work (specifically, the complete performance found here) at IMSLP. I have not altered it in any way. (In my view, as long as I attribute the National Youth Orchestra of Toronto, CC’s answer to this FAQ applies.) I have already uploaded the MP3 files onto the Commons and intend to use them for illustrative purposes on English Wikipedia’s page for The Planets, the same reason the USAF Band’s extracts are on there. Is this an acceptable idea? Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jarrod Baniqued: You can't upload those files, please read COM:L#Acceptable licenses. Also you haven't actually uploaded any MP3 files to Commons and you can't because you're not autopatrolled. Indeed, the abuse filter prevented you from uploading the MP3 files. If you can find a freely licensed audio file, you can pop in my talk page and I can upload it for you. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I use the Commons infrequently enough that I didn’t even know the Commons doesn’t accept ND licensed files. I don’t think I can find a freely licensed audio file, so expect no such uploads in the future. Honestly I’m disappointed that the entirety of Holst’s suite isn’t on Wikipedia, but someday soon it might. Thanks. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The new NC Commons project acepts both CC_BY_NC and CC-BY-ND files. It is however not yet integrated into the rest of the Wikimedia projects. Martinvl (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m heartened to hear that. When might the integration happen? Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have been pressing the administrators of that project about that point for a few months as thre are a number of images that I want to load, but I don't want to spend time loading them until I am certain that mm efforts will not be wasted. Martinvl (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jarrod Baniqued @Martinvl

To be clear, NC Commons is totally independent website and not a Wikimedia project. It has nothing to do with Wikimedia and has no affiliation with Wikimedia. It is run by WPMEDF, which, while independent of Wikimedia, is recognized as a "thematic organization" that supports work on Wikimedia projects. That work supporting Wikimedia projects does not include NC Commons — and, arguably, by running NC Commons, WPMEDF is working against the goals of the WMF (on free content) even as it may work to improve free medical information at the same time.

The goals of NC Commons are so completely and diametrically opposed to those of the Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy that there is no possibility that NC Commons will ever be integrated into a Wikimedia Project, unless the Wikimedia Foundation were to totally abandon its position on free licensing. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Let’s hope the latter is the case in the near future. That would entail a wider variety of works being added to the Commons, a championing of accessibility.

Again, is it too much to ask for Holst’s Saturn and Neptune movements to be on Wikipedia? Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I would certainly hope the latter is not the case. The most important thing about Commons is that it is only for free content. By the way, I work at IMSLP, and we no longer would accept these recordings under such a non-free license — and for good reasons.

It has nothing to do with Holst. It has everything to do with allowing non-free files (in this case, the recordings) on the site. Arguably, one of the greatest things about Wikimedia is that it has encouraged the creation of genuinely free files. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for your insight Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, as it says literally at the top of this page —

One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.

Anyway, there is an early recording of The Planets (published 1923 by Columbia) which is in the public domain and which I'll upload. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, I was a bit naïve here Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

See: File:Holst - The Planets (Columbia 1922-23).flac D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I’ve extracted the Saturn and Neptune movements. I’m about to upload them. Wish me luck. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Policy clarification - Prohibiting AI/LLM training with a user's uploaded file

I suspect I know the answer, but I wanted to toss the question out there: If I am uploading a file I created (ex: photo I took), I can't try to prohibit a specific use, while allowing all others; as this isn't a truly free file; it'd be 'some rights reserved' and thus not complying with Commons:Licensing policy.

Example: 'File/work not authorized for use in AI/LLM model training; all other uses, including commercial, allowed.'

(Aware this isn't legal advice, looking for confirmation on Commons policy.)-- The Navigators (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Commons content needs to be freely licensed - "usable by anyone, anytime, for any purpose". I understand where you're coming from, but usage restrictions are usage restrictions. Omphalographer (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, suspected this was the case.-- The Navigators (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The question is if the conditions of the license you are granting allows it. I think you are free to express your POV that it doesn't.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No free license can prohibit use in AI. It arguably might require that the AI be under the same license or carry attribution, and if it creates derivative works, those will be controlled by the license (though that has little to do with whether it was used as input to train the AI), but it can't prohibit it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you have a good sample of AI doing such attribution and licensing.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR there is an ongoing battle on whether AI output is derivative of everything it was trained on. Commons weakly agrees that generally it isn't - Gabuxae (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Without addressing that question at all, even if we accepted that generative AI works are derivative of all training materials, that wouldn't violate the terms of any free license (so long as attribution and, where applicable, copyleft requirements were followed). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

If the AI output is a derivative work of works that have conflicting copyleft licences, then the output cannot be legally distributed. E.g., the CC licence allows attribution by any appropriate means. If another work requires the attribution to be in a specific form, then that's a forbidden additional restriction. –LPfi (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

HathiTrust logo

Are the images (especially the old logo) in Category:HathiTrust under TOO? They're also tagged as CC0, which I can't find evidence of. Nardog (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think these are simple enough and the licensing is dubious. These should be deleted Bedivere (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The elephants are above COM:TOO-US. Glrx (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The elephant is not below the ToO in the US. Unsure where the CC0 license comes from, but that is not a ToO-related claim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all, I've nominated them for deletion. Nardog (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

JSaB and Copyright

Hello. I am thinking of getting some images from the game Just Shapes and Beats It will be primarily for the eponymous Wikipedia article but may be useful to other projects. I am considering posting such images here because images some of the characters may be free to use due to not meeting the threshold of originality. The characters in question are:

• The four player characters (each a single geometric shape)
• The first appearance of The Boss in Long Live the New Fresh (a pink circular ring with a small circle inside and two trianges on the outside)
• The first phase of another boss in Barracuda (a pink triangle with a black circular ring in the middle)

According to a quick Google search, Berzerk Studio (the development company) is based in Canada. I am hoping that, if these character designs are too simple to be protected under copyright, then they can be used on any project page about the game without having to meet strict fair use guidelines. QwertyForest (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@QwertyForest: sounds reasonable. At worst they will end up deleted if there is a copyright problem. - Jmabel ! talk 14:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Recruitment flier images

Can Commons keep File:Ow-1989-mit-recruitment.png and File:Ow-1989-mit-recruitment2.png as licensed? Both files are sourced to tech.mit.edu/V109/PDF/V109-N43.pdf but the link is dead, and an October 2013 archived version does not seemed to be released under a {{CC-zero}} license. Given the source was published was published in October 1989, it would seem that everything in the paper would be protected, at least in principle, until January 1, 2085; however, I'm wondering whether the individual advertisement/flier itself could possibly be relicensed as {{PD-scan}} plus {{PD-text}} since it's basically nothing but unoriginal information and not creative prose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd guess there isn't even anything copyrightable there. I'd consider {{PD-ineligible}}. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Realistic to get permissions for press kits?

Hi!

Companies like AMD, Intel or NVIDIA offer product or press images of their computer hardware. I would like to have some opinions whether there is a chance to get permission to upload images from there to Commons. AMD had a free copyright policy, but this was many years ago. Thank you! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@PantheraLeo1359531: As you probably know, it's not a matter of "permission to upload images from there to Commons," it's a matter of getting those images free-licensed. If they aren't already free-licensed, you presumably could try to request such licensing. Commons:WikiProject Permission requests looks rather dead, so you might have to take that initiative yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for my unclear language, yes, I meant the free license :D. Sad to hear. Maybe I can give it a try when I have more free time. Thanks :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I also recently found out that Commons:WikiProject Permission requests may be quiet, but it's not dead. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Presidenza della Repubblica

Hi, we've been in contact with the press office of the Italian President via VRTS in ticket:2024090610008572.

They explicitly stated that the intend to forbid "commercial usage of the images of the President and of the Quirinale Palace", basically nullifying the previous permission granted in 2006. On the other hand, the legal notice on the website says the same: no commercial use [2]. I suggest to "freeze" the template, and stop uploading on Commons images from www.quirinale.it starting today. However, we can keep the previously uploaded images because there was a VRTS permission, and the template for historical/archive reasons. Ruthven (msg) 07:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthven: I agree, though we should probably also reword the template to say that it is not valid for uploads after 2024-09-10 (or earlier date if the message was sent earlier). - Jmabel ! talk 11:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel Sure! (the answer is from this morning) Ruthven (msg) 12:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthven: I took a shot at it in the layout and in the English and Spanish texts. Ruthven, or anyone else: please have a look at whether you think this is the correct approach before I roll it out to more languages. - Jmabel ! talk 12:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Italian  Done. Ruthven (msg) 13:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

So pity. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

We could still use translation of that expiration information into:

• Finnish
• French
• Japanese
• Polish
• Portuguese
• Russian

Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Persée

Hello, what is the copyright situation of articles that were uploaded to Persée site (Commons category)? Can I take an image from an article and upload it to Commons?

I'm asking because I want to upload the cylinder seal that appears here Pl. XV (an article in Syria by André Parrot, appears also here), but I would also like to get a more general answer about this website since I often find there images that can contribute to Wikipedia articles. פעמי-עליון (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

FIle in Commons are "Free to use". The only restriction that appears on some of them are that developer's recognition is required. In the case of the Persee Logo, yo are required to give recognition. If the image appears on other Wikipedia sites (eg English Wikipedia), they might be subject to a "Fair use" clause. Martinvl (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

We can't give a general answer, as it depends on the authors, but unless they died more than 70 years ago, it is probably NO. André Parrot died in 1980, so his works are under a copyright until 2051. Yann (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In French Wikipedia I was told that a photo taken during an excavation campaign and nothing allows its author to be identified, we are in a situation of a collective work, and the protection is 70 years from the publication. So it should be released 70 years after 1954 – next January.

Regarding the cylinder seal, it is a technical photograph of a 2D object, which in itself does not give copyright to the photographer (there is no composition likely to manifest its own personality, unlike landscapes and group photos).

Does all this apply to Commons? פעמי-עליון (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There are three questions here. Remember that, in order to be posted on any Wikimedia project, an item must be in the public domain the US. Commons, by rule, also normally expects an item that was first published in France to be in the public domain in France.

1. Is the photograph copyrightable at all? (This of course may depend on the country.)
   • In the US, the most relevant case is Bridgeman v. Corel, which held:

     There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection. "Elements of originality ... may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved." But "slavish copying," although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify.

     The position of WMF counsel is that photographs of coins can be subject to copyright due to the potential for creativity in the way the coin is lit. The same principle applies for this seal, which is a slightly 3D object, much like an ancient coin. While I think there's a potentially reasonable argument that this photo still doesn't have enough creative content to meet the threshold of originality in the US, the WMF interpretation would be to assume it does, since it is at least a minimally three-dimensional object.
   • In France, the law must follow the EU directive that specifies:

     Member States shall provide that, when the term of protection of a work of visual art has expired, any material resulting from an act of reproduction of that work is not subject to copyright or related rights, unless the material resulting from that act of reproduction is original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation.

     I'm of the opinion that there is a reasonable probability this photo would not be considered sufficiently original in France to get its own copyright, since the author's contribution (the direction of the lighting) is minimal, and cases where there seems to be more originality have been found not to meet the threshold by French courts. (However, since we have to follow the WMF interpretation of US law, this doesn't matter.)
2. Assuming the photo is copyrightable, has the copyright expired?
   • In the US, the copyright term of a photograph published in 1954 depends on a number of factors. There are various formalities which would need to have been followed if the work had first been published in the US (including simultaneous publication), or if the author were American or in certain other cases. However, my understanding that there is no reason to think that that this journal was first published in the US. (Annoyingly, it seems that the frontmatter is not accessible on the site.) If published outside the US, even without complying with formalities, the photo won't enter the public domain until 95 years after first publication, and is thus still under copyright.
     • Exceptionally, if the photo's copyright had expired in its country of origin as of the URAA date (January 1, 1996), the photo would be in the public domain in the US, provided that there was no valid notice and renewal. If the photo hadn't been subject to French copyright to begin with (which is not something I think we can actually assume here for a photo of a 3D object, despite my interpretation), it's not clear whether this would mean it would be considered not subject to URAA restoration in the US.
   • In France, an œuvre collective is indeed subject to a term of 70 years from publication. However, I don't think the photos in this article are an œuvre collective at all, since the first page of the article specifically identifies the photographer.

     Cette année nous amenions trois collaborateurs nouveaux; le Dr F. Benezech, spécialement chargé du travail photographique; [...]

     I'm not sure who Dr. F. Benezech was, but he must have been alive in 1953 during the excavation, and so his copyrights were certainly active in France in 1996 (meaning URAA restoration would not have been impossible due to expiration), and, while I don't know when he died, I suspect it was afterwards, and so the French copyright wouldn't expire until 70 years after F. Benezech's death.
3. Is the photo released under a free license?
   • If you click to download the PDF, it is indicated that the article contents have been made available under a CC BY-NC-ND license (although it doesn't seem to say which version). In any case, CC BY-NC-ND is not a free license acceptable for use on Wikimedia Commons.

My conclusion is that you cannot add this photo. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the points made by DBM above, I'd like to add one more. You write Regarding the cylinder seal, it is a technical photograph of a 2D object, which in itself does not give copyright to the photographer. That's not true: The cylinder seal is a 3D object (check the meaning of the word "cylinder"), and so is the impression made from it. And a photograph of a three-dimensional object does create a new work, with the copyright owned by the photographer, even if the object itself is in the public domain. Crawdad Blues (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't read DBM's comments carefully enough; I see that he did indeed cover this in point #1 of his comments. I will only add that a cylinder seal is not just "slightly 3D", like a coin, but fully 3D, like a soup can, or a lighthouse, or any other cylindrical object. Crawdad Blues (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While cylinders are three-dimensional objects, cylinder seals do not contain fully three-dimensional sculptural works. The purpose of a cylinder seal is to roll an impression of a "slightly 3D" work onto a flat surface. The work contained within the seal is not distinguishable from the work which is pressed onto that surface. (One of the photographs in question shows the impression of the seal onto a flat surface.)

The soup-can comparison is apt. While a soup can is a three-dimensional object, the pattern on the label is two-dimensional, and rolled onto the soup can. Unrolling a soup can's label does not create or destroy any three-dimensional work; the rolling or projection onto the can doesn't create any new copyrightable matter.

Photographing a three-dimensional object does not generate a new copyright simply because the object has three dimensions per se. It generates a new copyright because the photographer has the ability (and in most cases the necessity) to introduce creative choice into the photograph by choosing how the lighting and positioning/angle used, etc., and because these have a significant impact on the final photographic work. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about Denys Vasyliuk (cropped).jpg

Hello,

I was adding Wikidata items on articles missing them on en wikipedia. The page for Denys Vasliuk used (I removed it from the en page's infobox) the image here on Commons: File:Denys Vasyliuk (cropped).jpg.

The info says it came from Pravda, which says at the bottom of the page: ©2000—2024, Ukrainska Pravda. Please add a reference (hyperlink for online publications) when using our publications.

I'd rather be wrong and add it back into the en article than not take it out based on the copyright notice on the page. Is this okay to use? Does the second sentence indicate some level of Creative Commons licensing, or is this fully under copyright? OIM20 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The image is not even from Ukrainska Pravda. It's from the 831st Tactical Aviation Brigade and was merely reposted on Ukrainska Pravda's website. (The second sentence doesn't indicate any free license, but it also doesn't matter, since it cannot apply to content that Ukrainska Pravda just pulled from a Facebook post.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Pro Wrestling Illustrated

I've just created Template:Pro Wrestling Illustrated. I don't have much experience in creating templates here on the Commons so could a veteran editor please just double check that the rendering/wording is correct and that there's no technical errors with it please? Thank you very much CeltBrowne (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

No major issues I can find, although I made two small changes: (1) I simplified the code with {{Other License-Layout}} and (2) I changed the wording at the end from "license" to "reason" because public domain isn't a license. (The exact wording I used comes from {{PD-Art}}.)

The only other thing I would suggest is adding some basic documentation at Template:Pro Wrestling Illustrated/doc (using something like {{TemplateBox}}).

Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 09:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Screenshot of a Celeb's Stories

Hi I d kike to upload on Common Screenshots of a Celeb's Stories which shows illegal Ads. Can I do this on Common? What do I register as? If not where else? It is to illustrate the controversy of a otherwise praised Celeb. Cheers Forward Forward umbrella 2024 (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Forward umbrella 2024: Almost certainly not. It is pretty unimaginable how such a thing could be free of copyright, or how we could get a free license from the copyright-holder(s) if it is not.

You don't say what language Wikipedia you are writing in. Some Wikipedias have an "Exemption Doctrine Policy" that allows them to host certain non-free content. See meta:Non-free content for a language-by-language set of links to such policies. - Jmabel ! talk 08:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

How do you find copyright information about an image?

I'm wanting to post an undated photograph of John Wayne Gacy victim Robert Piest standing with his sister and an unknown man at an undisclosed event (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9c/8b/b8/9c8bb8a2828a91316f79cad4572c181b.jpg) on a draft I've been working since a couple months ago, but most information about it has been completely lost to me. I've seen cropped versions of it used in a number of Sun articles (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16536930/victim-of-john-gacy-revealed/), someone's personal blog (https://theshadowreports.com/2011/02/07/exclusive-find-the-bodies-if-you-can-should-the-john-wayne-gacy-case-be-reopened/), and if my memory serves me, Paul Bentely's 501 Most Notorious Crimes book (https://www.amazon.com/Most-Notorious-Crimes-Paul-Donnelley/dp/0753717670). This particular version though was originally shared in the first episode of Netflix's Gacy Tapes docuseries.

Thus, I'm not at all certain on the image's original source, but my assumptions is that it might've been shared with by Piest family with the investigators. As a quick question coming from someone that knows nothing about the original source and the general subject of wikimedia's copyright policies, how do you find copyright information about a photograph? Randomuser335S (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Randomuser335S: my first thought is, "that sounds like a really tough research project". I assume the photo if from the U.S. I take it you do not know who the photographer was. Looks like 1970s. Do you know when it was taken? The Sun story there gives no date and does not credit a photographer, so there's a fair chance they just took a "publish and be damned" attitude.

You might be able to get some information from someone who previously published it, though probably not the Sun. - Jmabel ! talk 08:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Files in Category:Miniatures games

• 
• 
• 
• 

Hello, I think we will have to delete quite a few photos in this category because they depict copyrighted miniatures and game designs. What do you think? Thanks, Gnom (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, see COM:TOYS. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks – I just filed a deletion request on these (we do have a VRT permission from Games Workshop, though). Gnom (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

May I publish photographs of Italian municipal flags or not?

I had uploaded more than 60 of own photographs of Italian municipal gonfaloni (official flags), mainly for use at the Armoriale_dei_comuni_della_provincia_di_Trento page. I was planning to upload another batch soon.

However, according to this discussion these may not be published here, because some people, including administrators (@Ruthven and @Krd) think that these would be derivative works.

Most of them were deleted after tagged with {{subst:dw-nsd}}.

1. I take issue with this stance, because none of the involved people have spelled out,

• who exactly would be the author or the one who holds the "copyright" (in Italian case "diritto d'autore") of the flag/gonfalone that I had photographed
• when this copyright would expire, i.e. when these would be in the Public Domain
• if there are (or not) special rules for municipal/provincial/regional symbols (flags or coats-of-arms)
• how to handle modern symbols derived from or modernized from ancient ones, involving (among others) issues with threshold of originality

2. I take issue with the procedure of deleting these photographs after 7 days without any proper discussion. Sorry, folks, this is not okay! It is not okay to use the {{subst:dw-nsd}} tag without examining the points above and clearly stating the results of the examination. Generally speaking, copyright issues are usually not easy and straightforward, and have to be examined carefully. Sukaq (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

One must check the Italian law on copyright. On inspecting [Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy], I found the following:

• National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense, as are private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies.[633/1941 art. 11] Copyright on such works expires after 20 years from first publication. Copyright on writings (communications and memories) published by academies lasts two years, after which the rights revert to the author.

This tells me that the copyright on coats of arms created for Italian provincial and municipal administrations are copyright for 20 years, so if you can show that they have been in use for more than 20 years, your should be OK and shoudl be tagged with "PD-ItalyGov" which generates

Public domain	This work was created by or on behalf of either the government, the former national Fascist Party, an academy, or a non-profit organisation of Italy. It was published prior to 1976, and has no known US copyright registration associated with it. It is now in the public domain in Italy and the United States and possibly elsewhere because its copyright term has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941, revised by the law of 6 February 2016, copyright in works created and published under the name and at the expense of national, provincial and communal governments shall belong to the relevant administration; the same right shall also belong to private legal entities of a non-profit-making character, as well as to the academies and other public cultural organisations (Art. 11). The duration of the rights belonging to the government, the former national Fascist Party, academies and non-profit or public cultural organisations shall be twenty years from first publication, whatever the form in which publication was affected (Art. 29).	Italy
	This may not apply in countries that don't apply the rule of the shorter term to works from Italy. In particular, these are in the public domain in the United States only if: wasn't in copyright in the United States due to being registered for copyright there (see Commons:Copyright tags#United States for most cases) and was created prior to 1976 and published prior to 1978 — then it was out-of-copyright in Italy on the URAA date of restoration (January 1, 1996) (17 U.S.C. § 104A) (in most cases; for all cases, see Template:PD-Italy/US). If so, please add {{PD-1996}} in addition to this copyright tag. If the image was created on 1976 or later, please add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}.

. Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

However, according to the template, this only applies to works created before 1976 and published before 1978 (otherwise they cannot be uploaded to Commons as per the URAA restoration). In any case, proof of the date must be provided by the uploader. Arrow303 (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

National Weather Service images

Should we remove the part on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States where it says that images submitted to the NWS have been explicitly released into PD? See this RFC. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, we clearly should. - Jmabel ! talk 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well I’m removing the mention of NWS images explicitly being released into the public domain. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've updated the US templates list to reflect the ongoing discussion around {{PD-NWS}} and to link the two newer templates. Berchanhimez (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC -- second call

Hi all -- the RfC on third-party images published by the National Weather Service has been open for a couple of weeks now, and most of the activity was on the first couple of days. The outcome of this RfC impacts a few hundred files currently on the Commons, plus how we handle files from weather.gov in the future. Broader community input would be great! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rlandmann: I have opposed each of the statements as unreliable. We have no proof any of that third-party content hosted by NWS is free enough for Commons.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Eintracht Frankfurt Logo.svg

Can anyone give this file a suitable German and US license based on the two deletion requests in which it was kept. {{PD-textlogo}} is obviously incorrect. Jonteemil (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

1. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eintracht Frankfurt Logo.svg (Withdrawn.)
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eintracht Frankfurt Logo.svg (Kept as a derivative of an old coat of arms.)

Image is derived from page 25 of https://s.bundesliga.com/assets/doc/440000/434069_original.pdf

CoA may be ancient, but this may be a modern derivative that would have its own copyright. I would delete based on COM:PCP unless date of origin can be shown.

Glrx (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Adler klein.png claims that this logo version is from 1911. I don't know if that is true. --Rosenzweig τ 19:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Date of logo is 1998: https://1000logos.net/eintracht-frankfurt-logo/ Glrx (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Or 1999 per [3]. Not 1911 anyway, that looked different. See also [4] and [5]. --Rosenzweig τ 19:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Below ToO mod of 1970. Glrx (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to reply. For it to have its own copyright, copyrightable elements need to be added to the work of which it's a derivative work. I don't really see that. But nevertheless, this is not a deletion request, if you think it should be deleted you may nominate it for the third time for deletion. All I'm asking for here, is for someone to license it correctly, with the two already kept deletion requests as basis. Sorry if this came off as harsh. Jonteemil (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

From the above material, there is not a correct license. Glrx (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Nominated both files for deletion. Glrx (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

PD-AR-Photo + Berne Convention

I investigated the history of Argentina implementation of the Berne Convention and I wrote my finding in Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina#Berne Convention duration for photographs. My conclusion is that clause 7(4) that establishes a minimum protection for photographs was never implemented in Argentina. This effectively shrinks the period of URAA restoration by 5 years. People interested in Argentina copyright or URAA restoration may want to provide feedback on that thread. Günther Frager (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There are no objections from my part so the explanation has been very clear and descriptive enough. As the template {{PD-AR-Photo}} is currently blocked, a request to an admin should be done to change the license information there. Fma12 (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

On the talk page of the template, request a specific edit. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Aufinity symbol: threshold of originality?

Does the aufinity symbol - the stylized A designed to evoke an infinity loop here: https://palpablenotion.tumblr.com/post/163346287820/some-people-expressed-interest-in-an-inclusive - meet the threshold of originality? (And does it matter if it's the all-black version vs the rainbow gradient?)

I'm not asking about the image that has the text using it to say "Actually Autistic", just the stylized A on its own. Thanks! Intervex (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Intervex: Certainly OK in the U.S. (just a stylized letter). Any idea of its country of origin? - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like United States! Thanks! Intervex (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Intervex (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Derivative of Commons CC-BY-SA files uploaded to Commons without correct attribution

Hi. A Commons user has taken two CC-BY-SA photographs of mine from Commons, applied a mask to separate the subject from the background and then uploaded the results to Commons. They have noted them as "own work". They have provided a link back to the original Commons files but I am not credited as the original author on the file's page. How do I help the uploader (who was acting in good faith) correct that? Here's an example: File:Vickers_anti-aircraft_predictor.png
Quilt Phase (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Quilt Phase. Assuming that you're the person who took the original photos that were posted to Flickr, then files aren't the other uploaders "own work". They really shouldn't be claiming them as such just because they removed the background; instead, they should be using something like {{Retouched picture}} or {{Derived from}} and attributing themselves as the "modifier" and you as the "original author". Have you tried asking the uploader to properly attribute the files to you and fix the files' descriptions? The links back to the original files might, in principle, be sufficient for Commons purposes, but I can't see why adding your name to the files' pages and cleaning things up should be an issue for the uploader. FWIW, I guess that anyone technically could add the attribution and fix this if it really came down to it, but it would probably be better to ask the uploader to do so first. If the files are being used outside of Commons by others on third-party websites as well, then that's not really something Commons can take care of as explained in COM:ENFORCE. In that case, you might try and contact those websites directly yourself and ask that they fix the attirbution; if they can't or won't, then a DMCA take down notice might be your only option. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Marchjuly. Both I and the uploader are technically unsure of how to do this, ie exactly what to type in the Summary section such that the uploader and I are credited correctly. Quilt Phase (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Quilt Phase and Mummelgrummel: May I take the liberty to edit File:Vickers anti-aircraft predictor.jpg accordingly? It's much easier than explaining in the abstract. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do! And many thanks. Quilt Phase (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Except the two files that need editing are in fact File:Vickers_anti-aircraft_predictor.png and File:Vickers anti-aircraft predictor 2017 auf Wikipedia (freigestellt).png Quilt Phase (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Quilt Phase: I have edited File:Vickers anti-aircraft predictor.jpg and File:Vickers anti-aircraft predictor.png. Feel free to make the analogous edits on File:Vickers anti-aircraft predictor 2017 auf Wikipedia (freigestellt).png and whatever it might derive from.

Since all of this was cc-zero, there was nothing wrong with failing to give credit. If you want credit, don't license your work as cc-zero! Plus, certainly no credit is (ever) due you as an uploader of someone else's work. - 21:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)

Thanks, you are right about CC0, I missed that. The other is CC-BY-SA. Have edited the derived image summary using your work as a template. A very useful discussion, thanks again Quilt Phase (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You can suggest to the uploader to update the file's description to properly attribute you as the original author, as required by the CC-BY-SA license. They can edit the description to include a line like: "Original photo by [Your Username], modified by [Uploader's Username]." This way, proper credit is given to both parties. It's great that they acted in good faith, but it's important for licensing compliance. For further clarification, they can refer to the Commons guidelines on attribution. This helps maintain a healthy community and proper crediting, similar to maintaining accuracy in something like a chron age calc tool. Fintech55 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Jennifer Lopez at the US Capitol.jpg

This photo is taken by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II, and is released under a CC-BY license. Is this eligible for {{PD-USGov}}? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Flickr profile (where this photo can be found) they state:

"These images are made available for publication by news organizations and/or personal use by our constituents, the U.S. taxpayers. The photographs on this site may not be used in materials, advertisements, products, or promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Staff, or anyone depicted in any of the imagery."

Does that change anything? // Kakan spelar (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed PD-USGov. (CC licenses on USGov flickr accounts are redundant with PD-USGov, at the very least in the US; the US government could theoretically potentially pursue copyright claims abroad, depending on foreign law, but they're not known to do so. However, historically, Flickr didn't always have a public domain/US gov work option, so some older government accounts chose CC-BY labels). The restrictions mentioned are warnings related to personality rights (and implying the organization or person endorses the production), and have no connection with copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

So that mean that we could change the license to PD-USGov for, I guess, almost all photos uploaded by this Flickr account? // Kakan spelar (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It could be dual licensed (give reusers the choice of the CC license or the PD-USGov one). Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

PD-USGov isn't a license, but a statement that the file is ineligible for copyright, so it's not really a dual license. The fallback can be noted, but there is no binding copyright possible where something is not protected by copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It would prevent claims of infringement in other countries, if the U.S. government claims protection elsewhere, as was thought about during discussions around the 1976 Act. Don't think anything like that has ever happened, but doesn't hurt to have both. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this album cover PD?

https://ia800507.us.archive.org/32/items/mbid-cbb9b062-9d4f-42c5-bfda-64291fdb6964/mbid-cbb9b062-9d4f-42c5-bfda-64291fdb6964-37082925560.jpg

Seems like it's just a little {{PD-shape}} and {{PD-text}}, but I wanted to solicit feedback before I uploaded it locally. The recording artist and label are Canadian. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the perimeter text falls under {{PD-text}}, but the central figures give me pause. If they are ancient characters, then {{PD-text}} would also apply. Otherwise, they are not randomly placed lines and circles. For me, the figures are at the border of ToO, so I would follow COM:PCP and not upload. Glrx (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Advice on Army icon copyright?

Hi, I'm trying to promote Starship Troopers to Featured Article and I have used the following images in it: File:Emblem of Italian Blackshirts.svg and File:Heer - decal for helmet 1942.svg which appear to be vector recreations of the original icons. I've received feedback that I need to add a copyright tag for the icons themselves which I believe refers to the original image on which the vector graphics are based. Can anyone point me in the right direction to what tags would be applicable? I have tried looking at the German specific tags but the closest I can find seem to relate to corporations sanctioned by the government which does not seem accurate. Any advice? TIA. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The German (army) eagle may have been a part of some decree or edict of the 1930s. If that is the case, {{PD-GermanGov}} might fit, or {{PD-WH}} if it was part of a military service regulation. I've searched a bit, but could not find anything. There were lots of regulations though, so it might simply be obscure and hard to find. --Rosenzweig τ 20:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I did go with {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} which seemed...reasonable. It is a complex thing identifying copyright. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

PD-Germany-§134-KUG is not applicable here. It's a very tricky template, and not all of the necessary conditions are fulfilled here. Specifically, no legal entity under public law is named. --Rosenzweig τ 11:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Logo_NCWiki.png

I don't get what kind of tag I need to use can someone please help me? It got tagged by a bot. Kroeppi (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The stethoscope is not a simple shape. I believe that puts this image above COM:TOO-US. Glrx (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is to say it appears to be a copyrighted image, so the only way we could host it is a free license, which must come from the holder of the copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 21:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I can get everything I need from the holder of the copyright, but isn't there a possibility for Logos of clubs to use them without a free license only for the article or would I need to only upload it on the german wiki. I am really new to this. I thought the Trademarked Template is there exactly for that. Kroeppi (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Trademarks and copyrights are separate. A work being released under a free copyright license doesn't affect trademark rights. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all, I found something on the website of ncwiki that says it has a free copyright licence (CC BY-NC 4.0). Kroeppi (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not a free license which is acceptable for Wikimedia Commons, because of the NC (non-commercial) part. See Commons:Licensing#Forbidden licenses. --Rosenzweig τ 11:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Fuad shukr 1.png

I've been having some problems figuring out the validity of declaration/release for the image File:Fuad shukr 1.png. I started a DR about it. This is complicated by me not speaking farsi, but based on the translation provided by the uploader I don't think it provides all the conditions for an acceptable license. I can't find a massive number of images from this website on commons so would be interested if this has come up before. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Bangladesh

COM:Bangladesh is already outdated; the country introduced a new copyright law last year (Copyright Act 2023, in Bengali text unfortunately and I can't find an English translation online).

Screenshot-"ing" and translating parts of the law using Google Translate mobile app, especially those at Sections 70–73, made me guess that there may be no more Freedom of Panorama there. My guess may be wrong though, it is very hard if there is still no available English text that is reliable, whether official or unofficial translation.

Though this Daily Star article may give a clue: the new law abolishes majority of the British law-inspired exceptions and limitations (including fair dealing ones), replacing with a fewer list inspired by American fair use concept. Since copyright laws patterned after the U.S. law are notorious for lacking Freedom of Panorama (see also COM:FOP Sri Lanka; U.S. FoP itself is not emulated outside the U.S. as it is subject to scholarly criticism within the U.S. itself), my guess is that FoP has ceased to exist in Bangladesh since last year.

Though I would want to have Bangladeshi users analyze the Bengali text of the law. Ping the organizer of Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2024 in Bangladesh, @Aishik Rehman: . Ping also @আফতাবুজ্জামান and Mrb Rafi: from the talk page of WLM-2024 to help in finding a Freedom of Panorama clause in the new (2023) law, if it still exists (hopefully it still exists). Ping also @Moheen: whom I recently interacted on Messenger about FoP. Again, here is the official Bengali text copy of the new law, from the Bangladeshi copyright office website.

Note to Bangladeshi users: the lack of FoP only impacts the inclusion of recent monuments and architecture of Bangladesh in WLM events, typically those whose architects, sculptors, and artisans (of artistic craftsmanship works) have not yet died for more than 60 years (consistent with the copyright terms of Bangladesh). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Ping peeps who regularly discuss FoP-related things @Clindberg, Adamant1, Yann, and Jmabel: . It's frustrating that there is no immediate English translation that is available online, and I instead rely on news or online articles, one of which (that I mentioned here) implies that the 2023 Copyright Act of Bangladesh eliminated the long list of exceptions based in British-style fair dealing regime, replacing these with U.S.-inspired fair use exceptions, and it is worth noting that U.S.-inspired laws do not permit FoP (regardless of AWCPA amendment of 1990 which introduced architectural FoP in the U.S.), like the case of Sri Lanka. Even the Philippine law, which is heavily inspired by the old U.S. laws (with roots in the 1909 Copyright Act of the United States), does not allow FoP too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

As explicitly stated in this another online source, the new law introduces protection for folk works like folk songs, thereby introducing a domaine public payant regime. Some changes to note include the introduction of site blocking provision, provision for non-commercial uses of works by the PWDs (persons with disabilities), and higher and stricter penalties for infringers. The standard copyright duration is apparently still 60 p.m.a.. But without a reliable English translation, it is difficult to know whether FoP remained intact in the new law or not. My wild guess is that they abolished it (considering they are abandoning the U.K.-influenced fair dealing clauses and are embracing U.S.-style fair use principle). My guess may be wrong though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably if their embracing U.S.-style law then I assume FOP would only cover buildings like in the United States. It's hard to say without an English translation of the law though. So hopefully someone who speaks Bengali weigh in. The guideline should probably be changed to "unsure" or whatever it is for the status of 2D works though if no one ever responds to this. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1 applying the old 2000 law, then 2D works are technically not OK, as indicated at the current version of COM:FOP Bangladesh. Architecture, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship are only allowable copyrighted works in public spaces that can be freely depicted and published for any purposes, identical to the British FoP model.

I said that if the 2023 law aligns with the U.S. law, then possibly there is no FoP. The U.S. architectural FoP exception courtesy of 1990 AWCPA does not seem to be widely accepted elsewhere (and so not a model that other countries would want to follow): per COM:FOP Sri Lanka, the revised law (from 2003) abolished the British-style fair dealing provisions as well as the limited FoP for audio-visual media only (similar to South African one), replacing these with U.S. law-inspired fair use exceptions (like research, educational use et cetera) sans FoP; the Sri Lankan legislature does not seem favorable to any use of their public spaces (not wanting to follow U.S. 1990 AWCPA exception model). Assuming my guess based on this Daily Star source is correct, then Bangladesh becomes Sri Lanka v2.0, in terms of departing British law-inspired fair dealing and embracing U.S. law, abolishing any reference to FoP as a result. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and apologies for the late reply - was busy with my academic work. The previous law restricted 2D art. I am a native Bangla speaker and a quick read suggests that we probably don't have FoP in Bangladesh anymore. The Bangla text is unclear about whether there is FoP or not. I'll refrain from commenting definitively until I hear from a copyright lawyer. I am trying to contact a few professionals and will update you once I have more information. -- Mrb Rafi (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mrb Rafi thanks for the response. If FoP provision (e.g. "the reproduction through photography...of works of architecture and sculptures in publicly-accessible premises is not copyright infringement") is no longer present in the new (2023) law, then Bangladesh is going to be considered as a "no FoP" country for Wikimedia Commons (just like Maldives). For Commons purposes, it is no different from countries that do not allow commercial uses of buildings and monuments (like France and Kazakhstan) or that only restrict FoP legal rights to traditional media (broadcasters and newspapers for example, like the Emirates and Nigeria), and all are the "red countries" of the FoP world map. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I have updated parts of the CRT page, based on the information available. The other parts, I'll leave to other editors. The page is being referenced in some active DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moumita Debnath's in graffiti at Dhaka University.jpg, so I felt it is necessary to update the page itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I made some modifications. It appears the law was passed in September last year, and news reports that time suggest it was awaiting President's signature. I cannot find online sources on when did the President approved the law in finality. Perhaps is it still at his table, or was it already passed but not covered in English-language news sources? Still, the link to the copyright law in the website of the country's copyright office already refers to the 2023 law, not the 2000 law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Does the new FoP retrospective or not? --A1Cafel (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Jemima Rooper

Actress Jemima Rooper was in Welsh video game The Isle Tide. Is there a way to obtain a pic suitable for Commons? Thanks.--Carnby (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find any image with a free license after a quick search on Flickr and Google images. Notice that f you want to illustrate the enwiki article, then you can upload a photo locally under fair use (something that we don't allow here). For other wikis you will need to check their policy. Günther Frager (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Finnischer Eishockeyverband logo.svg

Same as #File:Eintracht Frankfurt Logo.svg. Can anyone give this file a suitable Finnish and US license? Or, as in the case above, nominate it for deletion. Jonteemil (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I upload an old portrait photo from New York Public Library of a deceased person?

link: https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47de-f447-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99

Its "Rights Statement" is as follows:

The copyright and related rights status of this item has been reviewed by The New York Public Library, but we were unable to make a conclusive determination as to the copyright status of the item. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use.

This is for the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Highet which is lacking a portrait image.

I believe it at least can be used on english wikipedia under "fair use" from my understanding of WP:NFCI. Hym3242 (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Circa 1953 published photograph by en:Elliott Erwitt (1928-2023). Could be public domain due to formalities. Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This photo appeared on the dustcover of Highet's People, Places, and Books, which was first published in the US in 1953. The copyright was renewed in 1981, so the book itself will remain under copyright until 2048. But dustjackets and cover art are treated separately from the content of a book when it comes to copyright. Looking at the copy in the Internet Archive, I see no separate copyright notice on the dustjacket, only the credit line "Jacket photograph by Elliott Erwitt". So as Abzeronow suggests, this is likely to be OK to upload under a {{PD-US-no notice}} license. Crawdad Blues (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I uploaded and used a cropped version of it in the infobox in article en:Gilbert Highet. This is my first time uploading an image, would you mind to take a minute to check if I did everything correctly? Hym3242 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I did some minor cleanup like adding categories and a little structured data. I also added the image to Wikidata and created the Commons category for Gilbert Highet (and linked category to Wikidata). Abzeronow (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Auckland coat of arms.jpg

Incorrectly licensed but I am not sure if this work is free or not. The copyright owner was w:Auckland City Council which no longer exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: The rights should have passed to the successor, Auckland Council.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

See COM:COA for more details, but there are two elements involved in files like this: the blazon (which is generally considered in most cases not to be eligible for copyright protection) and the emblazon (which is usually considered eligible for copyright protection but sometimes might not be). Basically, an emblem/coat of arms such as this can be visually represented (i.e. the emblazon) by any who wants to by following the "instructions" given in its written definition/description. It's these visual representations where the creativity is found and where copyright eligibility lies. If the uploader is claiming they created the emblazon shown here, the file might not be incorrectly licensed but just may be in need of verification. If, on the other hand, they just lifted it from the source, then whoever created the emblazon would be its copyright holder unless it's in the public domain for some reason per COM:New Zealand. For example, the same uploader uploaded File:Wellington Coat Of Arms.jpg that was subsequently licensed by a different user as public domain. I don't know whether that's correct, but it might also apply to this file if it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the design dates from 1911, but the question is when the drawing is from (see Commons:Coats of arms). It's a different scan of the same drawing as the image on this archived page (which we also have at File:Auckland City Coat of Arms.jpg also with a bad license), and that seems to imply it may be the original drawing from the College of Arms from 1911. If that is the case, it's {{PD-New Zealand}} (or maybe {{PD-UKGov}}). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992)

About Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Copyright status of photos by French photo studio Harcourt.

Following this previous discussions on the subject, here are sources to demonstrate that Studio Harcourt has officially released the rights to photos dating from before 1992. This evidence is based on two distinct elements: an article published in 2019 in the Canadian national newspaper (Quebec) "Le Devoir", specifically presenting as an example, a portrait of the film director Abel Gance, the date when this picture was taken, and the file uploaded and signed by Harcourt itself in Commons.

• The source of the file also distributed by RMN (Ministry of Culture): [6] with precision of the date (1957) by the RMN archives for the same series of Harcourt photos: [7].

• The source on Commons with uploaded by the official account of Studio Harcourt in 2010: File:GANCE Abel-24x30-.jpg.
• The article published in 2019 by Le Devoir (national French-language daily newspaper of Canada / Quebec) about Wikimedia Commons and the public domain: [8] where its very last paragraph states that:

"In France, Harcourt studio in Paris has released (has freed), since the beginning of the decade, magnificent black and white portraits of stars. Hundreds of uploads now make it possible to illustrate pages on Abel Gance or Roger Federer in dozens of languages.".

This article therefore clearly states that Studio Harcourt has formally “released” (had freed) the rights of the photographs, including the portraits taken as an example, that of the director Abel Gance (died in 1981) whose Harcourt photo is dated 1957 which illustrates his Wikipedia page and which is cited as a reference in this article; this file was officially uploaded in 2010 to Commons by Studio Harcourt itself File:GANCE_Abel-24x30-.jpg. How can we explain that a photo dating from 1957 and uploaded in 2010, would be the only exception to the rights released and fallen into the public domain among all the photos dating from before 1992, then entrusted to RMN?

This clearly demonstrates that as an author, the current Studio Harcourt has clearly released the rights to the photos it holds concerning the archives dating from before 1992. These photographs have therefore been in the public domain since 1992. In its VRT ticket (#2020112910005534), the statement of the person in charge of the valorization of the collections, Mrs. Agnes BROUARD of Studio Harcourt Paris, also confirms this free status: "I must inform you that our archives from 1934 to 1991 are now the property of the Ministry of Culture, preserved by an entity called the Media Library of Architecture and Heritage and distributed by the RMN-Grand Palais photographic agency. This photographic collection is not subject to property rights, so anyone who has a portrait from the 1934-1991 period can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet." (notably cited here: File:Marcel Vaucel.jpg (« 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. »).

I will leave it to the admins and contributors more experienced than me, to definitively close this contradictory debate on Commons and why not, define a specific model for Studio Harcourt's files (PD-Studio Harcourt?). Tisourcier (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If, as you claim, Studio Harcourt " has officially released the rights to photos dating from before 1992", why did they upload this 1957 photo in 2010 with a cc-by-3.0 license tag and not as public domain? That is not the same. --Rosenzweig τ 11:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig Without saying that the public domain dedication is definitely correct, I don't think this disproves it either. It's pretty common for organizations to mistag PD items as CC-BY or similar when uploading. (You also see this on library/institutional websites, where the wrong copyright tag is put on some files.) A lot of the time, it is because the person using the wizard doesn't understand how it works or doesn't know the difference. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That would mean that anything Studio Harcourt says is apparently not exactly trustworthy, and an offhand remark by a Harcourt employée (as discussed earlier) is not a solid enough basis to host hundreds, potentially even many thousands of files. --Rosenzweig τ 11:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't indicate anything about trustworthiness (which is largely irrelevant, frankly, when it comes to licensing to anything for which Studio Harcourt might own a copyright). In any case, a mistake made by a user uploading a file on Wikimedia Commons, even on behalf of Harcourt, cannot invalidate a statement from the studio on the photos being in the public domain. (You might argue that the statement itself was never properly given by someone with the authority to give it, but that's another matter entirely.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Such mistakes (there is at least one other, a ca. 1980 photo also among the 2010 uploads) do make me doubt how serious we can take anything coming from that user. And I think it's one more reason that we should have a proper declaration, with all the legal trimmings we usually demand for VRT permissions, by the current or former copyright holder of the images in question, precisely spelling out the copyright status of these images. For (right now) hundreds (and potentially even many thousands) of images we should not rely on guesswork and vague claims. --Rosenzweig τ 09:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't we just ask Ministère de la Culture for confirmation of the tag to use for the 1934 to 1991 collection?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999 :

This point has allready been discussed. 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, here)[[9]].

• 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.

Tisourcier (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Your claim “that the Studio Harcourt company has never been put into "liquidation" (closeout)” clearly contradicts what Günther Frager wrote here, namely that “The current company, Studio Harcourt, was established in October 30th, 1992 [10]. The previous company, Studios Photographiques Harcourt, was established in 1980 and closed in November 7th, 1991 [11].” Technically, it would be correct because the "old" Harcourt company was apparently not officially named Studio Harcourt (its name was Studios Photographiques Harcourt), but according to that info the current company was founded in 1992 and is apparently not the author of the pre-1992 images. Which makes one wonder how they could upload that 1957 Abel Gance photo (and another ca. 1980 photo I found among their 2010 uploads) with a CC license. --Rosenzweig τ 11:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

And I would add yet another reference, in this official document from the Ministry of Culture summarizing the achievements during the period 1988-1993 mentions Liquidation judiciaire des studios HARCOURT. Günther Frager (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• The research I had done in the past concluded that the images were released into the public domain by the French Government for the pre-1992 tranche that they have in their possession. I don't have the time to start the research all over again. The issue in the past was if the images were "public domain" or released under a "creative commons" license. I had a conversation with the current copyright holders, who have been posting more recent images that were not part of the government tranche. They were not sure what the terms of the transfer were. Has anyone been in contact with them more recently? They may have found out more details since my last contact. --RAN (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, you have claimed that the French state released all of those photos under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. See here and here. But you provided zero evidence for that claim. See also the previous (now archived) VPC Harcourt thread linked at the beginning of that thread. --Rosenzweig τ 10:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• A Canadian article mentions the 100 photos that Harcourt uploaded to Commons (and that you can find in the category Uploads by User:Studio Harcourt), what is adding to the discussion? Nothing. Nobody is trying to delete the images uploaded by that particular user. Jumping to the conclusion that 5.000.000 images are in the public domain because they licensed 100 photos under CC-BY is a fallacy. Also, an image with a CC-BY license is not in the public domain, it is a copyrighted image with a license that has few restrictions and no monetary obligation. Releasing a 1957 photo under CC-BY gives evidence that it is copyrighted. Günther Frager (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  > Also, an image with a CC-BY license is not in the public domain, it is a copyrighted image with a license that has few restrictions and no monetary obligation. Releasing a 1957 photo under CC-BY gives evidence that it is copyrighted.

  It is true that CC-BY is a license that can only apply to a copyrighted image, but uploading a file to Wikimedia Commons with such a tag isn't evidence that is it copyrighted. Many users have erroneously uploaded public domain images under CC licenses (on Commons and elsewhere). Such a license tag has the effect of granting a license if the user is a copyright holder, but doesn't provide evidence of anything in particular. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm talking about "releasing" not about tagging files in Commons and I'm doing so to point out the faulty reasoning used by another user. I'm neither claiming that the 1957 image is copyrighted nor that it is in the public domain nor that its copyright holder is the company legally established in 1992 under the name Studio Harcourt. Discussing the verity of a conclusion is pointless when the reasoning is invalid. Günther Frager (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  The reference source highlighting that Studio Harcourt was never liquidated but was successively taken over by different shareholders, up to the current owners, is clearly developed in detail in the book by Françoise Denoyelle (historian of photography, university professor at the École nationale supérieure Louis-Lumière, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, exhibition curator and expert with the Paris Court of Appeal), published in April 2012 by Nicolas Chaudun Editions, ISBN:978-2-35039-132-8. So, Studio Harcourt is still owner of the "droits d'auteur". The question of determining which model or PD license label might be suitable on Commons for Studio Harcourt files, is a very different point to debate. Tisourcier (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Studio Harcourt vs Mélodie
I found an interesting judiciary case (Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 4 février 2003, 2001/17786)[12] that finally settles the question of who is the copyright holder of pre-1992 photos. In 2001 the French label Mélodie published a box set named "Collection Harcourt" that compiled the music of famous French artists from 1930-1950 and used their Harcourt portraits. The Studio Harcourt sued them for trademark violation. The lengthy verdict states:

• That the original Studio Harcourt established in 1934 was liquidated and the company Financieres Harcourt acquired its trademark in an auction:

-la société FINANCIERE HARCOURT a été immatriculée au registre ducommerce en novembre 1992 avec pour objet social "l'acquisition, la souscription, la détention, la prise de participations ou d'intérêts directes ou indirectes dans toute société et plus généralement toutes activités rentrant dans le cadre d'une société HOLDING";

-le 22 septembre 1992, cette même société en cours de formation acquiert par adjudication différentes marques de la société STUDIOS HARCOURT PARIS mise en liquidation judiciaire, dont une marque "Studio Harcourt" déposée le 2 octobre 1989 et enregistrée sous le numéro 1627192;

This information is not really new, I already provided several references to it.

• That the patrimonial rights (droits patrimoniaux) of the pre-1992 photographs belongs to the French Ministry of Culture:

Les défenderesses ne sauraient opposer les droits de l'auteur originaire, le STUDIO HARCOURT créé en 1934, sur ces clichés, dès lors qu'elles n'en sont pas titulaires et que seul le Ministère de la Culture est propriétaire des droits patrimoniaux attachés au clichés réalisés de 1934 à 1992 par le STUDIO HARCOURT

In particular the user Studio Harcourt made copyright fraud uploading pre-1992 Harcourt photos with a CC-BY license.

• That the moral rights of the pre-1992 photographs belongs to original Studio Harcourt and not the one that bought the trademark in 1992:

En l'espèce, le tribunal considère que la reproduction du nom commercial "Studio Harcourt Paris" pour désigner des clichés photographiques ne remplit pas les conditions précitées. En effet, si effectivement cette reproduction peut conduire le consommateur à penser que ces clichés proviennent du Studio demandeur, cette confusion ne cause à ce dernier aucun préjudice dès lors que lui-même dans toutes les présentations qu'il fait de son activité se situe comme héritier du Studio Harcourt originaire et joue de l'homonymie avec son illustre prédécesseur pour jouir de la renommée de celui-ci. (Cf. article Chasseur d'Images).La reproduction de son nom commercial sur des clichés dont le Studio Harcourt de 1934 est l'auteur ne saurait en conséquence lui causer un quelconque préjudice.

The previous three points makes it clear that the email from Agnes BROUARD is devoid of value as she was making claims about the intellectual property of a completely different company.

• That the photographs are still copyrighted as the French Ministry of Culture authorized the reproduction of the images on the box set:

l'absence de contrefaçon de marque, la marque opposée ne désignant pas les disques ou phonogrammes du commerce et les clichés photographiques reproduits étant d'authentiques clichés provenant du Studio HARCOURT, dont les droits appartiennent à l'Etat qui en a autorisé la reproduction.

All in all, the copyright holder of the pre-1992 Harcourt photos is the French Ministry of Culture and only a handful of images are in the public domain, the pre-1937 ones. Günther Frager (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This would seem mostly correct, but I have no idea where you get the 1937 date. The correct cutoff date would seem to be 1945 (with items from 1946 and later being deleted). On the URAA restoration date (January 1, 1996), the term of copyright for collective works in France was 50 years from publication. So, any collective work published in 1945 or earlier was in the public domain in France as of that date. (Copyright on some of those images was later extended retroactively before expiring again, but that doesn't matter for URAA purposes.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: it is 50 years + 8 years of wartime extension, see the original discussion linked at the beginning. Günther Frager (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That's how I see it too. Note that in France Harcourt photos older than 70 years are in the public domain as collective works accd. to French law since a court had decided that Studio Harcourt photos qualify as collective works. Thanks @Günther Frager for finding that court decision. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• All these allegations are unfounded and partial.

No, in this judgment, it is not the court that determined the identification of the author but it only confirms that the rights are indeed managed by RMN (Ministry of Culture). At no time can the authorship be transferred to RMN and it remains with the true "author" Studio Harcourt. Then, this judgment dates from 2001-2003, while a 2014 judgment confirming precisely the "collective" nature of the author in favor of Studio Harcourt and not that of its manager (RMN) established it, in 2014.

Once again, the detractors of the public domain Studio Harcourt, shared their understanding of (incomplete) texts, to distort the facts: Studio Harcourt still exists, has never gone into complete liquidation, and has been the subject of multiple takeovers as demonstrated by the detailed historical study published by F. Denoyelle. The Studio's rights manager is therefore perfectly entitled to confirm the freedom to reproduce photos dating from before 1992, as she has done (see VTR ticket). Tisourcier (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is the officiel successive takeovers history of Studio Harcourt, since 1992 [13]. The Financière Harcourt SA is clearly mentionned as the Studio Harcourt owners in the same jugement used in reference : [14]. This to confirm that Studio Harcourt never been completely liquidated. Tisourcier (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

All I see there is that the current Harcourt company, which was founded in 1992, owns the Studio Harcourt brand. Which, as explained above by Günther Frager, they bought in an auction. I don't see anything here that the current Harcourt company is identical with the earlier one and that this earlier company was "never liquidated" as you claim. I do get the feeling that you're mixing up the brand and the company(ies) here. --Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No : see "Etablissements de l'entreprise STUDIO HARCOURT" wich is the administrative history of Studio Harcourt company and not the "brand" [15]. Tisourcier (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That section starts on the day 30/10/1992, so exactly the date the "new" company was created. It does not go back to the days of the "old" company. So I still don't see anything to back up your claim that the earlier company was "never liquidated". --Rosenzweig τ 12:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

According to https://www.pappers.fr/entreprise/studio-harcourt-389202177 we can see that:

• "Studio Harcourt Paris" was established in 1992 (see report 13/01/1993)
• "Studios Photographiques de Paris" was established in 1995 (see report 22/11/1995)
• "Studios Harcourt Paris" was renamed to "Financiere Harcourt" in 1996 (see report 10/01/1996)
• "Financiere Harcourt" and "Studios Photographiques de Paris" were merged into a new company "Studio Harcourt" in 2009 (see report 27/07/2009)
• They had the trademark "Harcourt" and "Studio Harcourt" created in 1989 (the ones they bought in the auction)
• They had the trademark "Studio Harcourt Paris" created in 2009
• They had a bunch of other trademarks created after 2010.

As Rosenzweig said they own the brand Harcourt Studio and can use their trademark to sell their products. They are not the company established in 1934 nor the one that initially registered the Studio Harcourt trademark in 1989. The court case also remarks that the new company using an homonym, the trademark and the same photographic style tries to leverage the prestige of the original Studio Harcourt. Günther Frager (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your research about Studio Harcourt vs Mélodie. For me, this only confirms what Agnès Brouard, the person Responsible for the promotion of [Harcourt] collections says, that the assets of Harcourt up to 1991 were brought by the state, and then released to the public domain. I don't see how this court case could prove or disprove anything else. This person is certainly the one who knows best about this, and I don't see any reason to doubt her statement. Yann (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: How does this court decision in any way confirm that the French state released the Harcourt assets up to 1991 into the public domain? It says que seul le Ministère de la Culture est propriétaire des droits patrimoniaux attachés au clichés réalisés de 1934 à 1992 par le STUDIO HARCOURT and clichés provenant du Studio HARCOURT, dont les droits appartiennent à l'Etat qui en a autorisé la reproduction. I don't see anything there about the state or ministry releasing them into the public domain. --Rosenzweig τ 17:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: It doesn't say that, but as I said above, it confirms Agnès Brouard's statement. You try to dismiss her statement as not valid. But the Ministry of Culture has all the right to release the rights, since it owns the assets. Yann (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not confirm it. In fact, it says that as of the time of the court decision, the rights belong to the state. If they had released those rights, they would not be the owners anymore, and as that would be a relevant fact for such a court decision, it would be mentioned. The state could have released the rights into the public domain at some point after that court decision, but there is no evidence for that as well (except perhaps the Brouard statement, which does not contain such details).

In any case, the court decision shows that a person employed by the Harcourt company in 2010 or 2020 was not working for the original company who created the photos, but for another company who acquired the brands/trademarks and assumed the name. So any statement by said employee is just an opinion and, yes, not legally valid in any way. So I'll stand by what I wrote some time before:

“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. [...] 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.” --Rosenzweig τ 18:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you are trying all sorts of bad excuses for not accepting Agnès Brouard's statement. She is certainly one of most knowledgeable persons about this, at least outside of the Ministry of Culture itself. Actually I find her more reliable, as she doesn't have a conflict of interest. As we say in French, qui veut noyer son chien l’accuse de la rage. Yann (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No. Saying that her statement is simply not a legally valid permission of the kind we usually demand per our VRT standards is not in any way a bad excuse. And do you know her background, her qualifications? Or how else can you declare that "She is certainly one of most knowledgeable persons about this" and has no conflict of interest? Just because she works or worked for the current Harcourt company? --Rosenzweig τ 19:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

She is the person Responsible for the promotion of [Harcourt] collections. Managing copyrights is exactly within her responsibilities. She is certainly aware of history of copyrights managed by her company. So yes, her statement is not in the form usually accepted in VRT, but I don't see it as less valid than VRT declarations. The content of her statement is clear. So in brief, she has the expertise to give that information, and she did it without any ambiguity. And since, the copyright status of these pictures is not managed any more by her company, she has no reason to say something different than the truth. In the opposite, the Réunion des musées nationaux (RMN), which is the organization managing copyright for the Ministry of Culture, is known for making false statements about copyright. RMN regularly claims a copyright for documents on which its doesn't have any right, or for documents centuries old. Yann (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

So you don't really know anything about this person except her name and job title at the current Harcourt company and only make assumptions based on that. That's not good enough. --Rosenzweig τ 20:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Yann, you are clearly wrong here, both substantially and procedurally.

For starters, everyone agrees that the copyright of certain older Harcourt photos expired naturally. Those photos are OK to keep. However, there are many other Harcourt photos to which the copyrights have not naturally expired. It is alleged by some that these photos were dedicated to the public domain. However, we have no actual evidence whatsoever of that dedication taking place. All the available evidence would seem to indicate that the copyrights were never disclaimed by the French government. Additionally, even if they were, the VRT statement from Agnes Brouard is of absolutely no value (even if she happened to be correct).

1. Copyright to images transferred; corporate succession irrelevant. We know from the court case cited by @Günther Frager that the copyrights to the old Harcourt images were sold to the French government in 1989. The company itself wasn't even dissolved until a few years later. Whether or not the original Harcourt had any legal successor as a company, however, is totally irrelevant, because, as soon as the ownership of the copyrights had been transferred to the French government, it was the government, and not any company called Harcourt (same or different, old or new), which would have the authority to release the images into the public domain.
2. French government seems unlikely to have dedicated copyrights to the public domain. As you note, the French government has a business selling copyright licenses. And all the Harcourt images on the French government-affiliated websites contain claims that the French government owns the copyright. You are correct to say that the government often overstates its rights. Where images are, in fact, in the public domain, we can ignore these overstatements. But this is an instance where the images could only be in the public domain if the government, after purchasing the rights, explicitly disclaimed them — there has certainly been no natural expiration of copyright. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the government would have done this, as it's inconsistent with not only their current claims on these particular photos, but also with the fact that they have have a business doing photo licensing more generally. I cannot find any instance where the French government has made any similar donation. Additionally, the French lawsuit which refers to the government as the current owner of the copyrights implies that the photos were not in the public domain at that time — which this does not prove that this hasn't changed since, we have no evidence for that. (As an aside, the rights page on the site of the Réunion des Musées Nationaux seems to draw a distinction between when a reprocuction fee is charged and when the copyright itself is included within the reproduction fees: La mention Droits : Etat, signifie que le droit d'auteur est inclus dans le droit de reproduction. Droits : Etat is found on all Harcourt images from the RMN.)
3. Purpose of VRT; effect of statements. The purpose of VRT is to collect proof of permission from the copyright holder. When a copyright holder sends permission to VRT, this is self-executing; the message is the grant of permission. This archived permission could be used in court if contested. Brouard may have had the authority to act for her employer (New Harcourt), but her employer was certainly not the copyright holder. Even if she had some sort of expertise, VRT is for permission statements, not commentary from third parties, even experts. If Brouard had some proof of the Harcourt photos being dedicated to the public domain (actual evidence), that would be one thing. But we have no such thing. Brouard may in fact believe that these photos are in the public domain. Additionally, Brouard may have no incentive to lie about this. But that doesn't mean that her statements are factually correct, and, unlike those of the copyright holder, which grant permission in themselves, her statements have no effect, and thus do not align with the central purpose of the VRT permissions system at all.

In short, these images are clearly not naturally in the public domain. We haven't seen any evidence of them having been dedicated to the public domain (as opposed to Brouard's hearsay), and all indications from state sources seem to indicdate that such a dedication is, at best, extremely unlikely. Especially in light of the active and explicit claims by the owner (as identified by a court in a lawsuit), we can't accept hearsay like Brouard's as evidence of a permission grant. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The argument of "we should trust someone because they don't have conflict of interest" is easily refutable: I don't have any conflict of interest with the heirs of Picasso, can I send a VRT ticket claiming all his works in the public domain? Besides, she does have a conflict of interest: she is working for a company that is profiting from the prestige of the original Studio Harcourt. They probably wouldn't be charging what they charge if their commercial name were Studio Hardcore or if they were unable to use Barthes' quote. Moreover, they do find valuable to have Harcourt photos on Wikipedia as they licensed some of their images with CC-BY. Günther Frager (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

They are two different companies. It is like Pepsi having a VRT ticket claiming some intellectual property of Coca-Cola has such or such license. The company established in 1992 only has a trademark (that is a logo and a name), they didn't sell the assets that the Ministry of Culture acquired in 1989 or the assets that AFDPP acquired in 1991. They were not even established. The court case does state that the patrimonial rights belongs to the Ministry of Culture. Moreover, it mentions that Mélodie used the images with the authorization of the Ministry of culture in 2001. If it were in the public domain, they wouldn't have to ask for a permission. Günther Frager (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The court case does state that the patrimonial rights belongs to the Ministry of Culture. Yes, that what I am saying. Asking for a permission doesn't prove anything. I regularly get emails from people asking me a permission to use my images on Commons. It doesn't prove that my images aren't under a free license. They are probably more comfortable by my permission by email than the CC license displayed on Commons. Yann (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Then, where is the resolution from the French government that states that any person or company is free to use the images from the collection without authorization? You are comparing information that is available online (the license of your photos) with information that apparently is not public. Perhaps Melodie asked for permission precisely because they didn't find such resolution from the French government. Günther Frager (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

the situation involves a misunderstanding of intellectual property rights and ownership. If the court case confirms that patrimonial rights belong to the Ministry of Culture and that Mélodie used the images with their authorization, then the assets weren't in the public domain. The 1992 company only having a trademark doesn't imply they hold broader rights. For a clearer understanding, you might want to visit legal sources or documents on intellectual property. Sufyan741 (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I fixed the indentation and separate the responses from Rosenzweig and mine because it was very difficult to follow the arguments.

It is incomprehensible to see arguments concerning the filing of trademarks now arising in a debate dealing with the public domain status in France of Studio Harcourt photos dating from before 1992; not to mention the fact that the French and international laws governing at that time (1992) the intellectual property of photographs, and more, falling before, under Law No. 57-298 of March 11, 1957. Tisourcier (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Photos of WW2 euthanasia victims on a website

I'm wondering whether the images on this site would be safe to upload to Commons. A lot of them depict Category:Ernst Lossa, of whom we don't have any images, or documents related to him. The disclaimer at the bottom of the page says, "Pictures used on this webiste are owned by the veterans who made them or by whomever made the pictures/videos (mostly these images are in the public domain and can be freely used).", but doesn't specify exactly which images exactly are PD. Maybe there's some source code that marks which images are free to use? I think, at least Lossa's death certificate would be safe to upload as an NS-document? As for the portrait, it's from his patient file in the hospital. The German newspaper Tagesspiegel tags it with © Krankenhaus Kaufbeuren (Hospital Kaufbeuren). But a hospital cannot be the copyright holder of a photo, I think? OVB-online has marked it as "© -". It also looks like the photo has been used for a book cover. The case of the boy was also subject of a 1949 trial. The museum website of Kaufbeuren says "Panoramabild: © Historisches Archiv - Bezirkskrankenhaus Kaufbeuren" (Panorama image: © Historic Archive - District hospital Kaufbeuren). The US Holocaust Memorial Museum has a few photos from the Kaufbeuren hospital that are either marked with "copyright: unknown"[16][17] or public domain[18], but they don't have the photo of Lossa. Nakonana (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no copyright problem with the death certificate, but not because it is "an NS-document" (these are not generally free of copyright as some people seem to assume), but because the text is just formulaic and below COM:TOO Germany, so the license tag {{PD-text}} applies. As for the photo(s?), that depends on who took it and where and when (not later than 1944 obviously in this case). I see that it is credited to the archive of that hospital. Is the hospital also where it was taken? Who took it? --Rosenzweig τ 12:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The photo is from the patient file (Krankenakte). I've found websites that had several photos of the boy and all the other photos there were sourced as "private pictures", while the one from the patient file was attributed to the hospital, so I'm guessing that it was indeed taken there. There are also other photos of other patients out there where it's clearly stated that they were taken by someone in the hospital. However, none of the photos name the actual photographer(s). Nakonana (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

From a German copyright perspective, the copyright term duration is tied to the person of the author (in the case of a photograph, the photographer), meaning that the photograph is protected for as long as the photographer is alive and then for an additional 70 years. If that person worked for said hospital, the hospital would probably know who took it and may have also acquired usage rights per the employment contract (and could then perhaps license the photograph under a free CC license or similar, if they wanted to). If the photographer died in 1953 or earlier, the photograph is in the public domain in Germany. If we don't know when the photographer died or who this person even was, we could keep the photograph either with a COM:VRT permission from a rights holder or after 120 years with template {{PD-old-assumed}}. Which would be the case in 2065 or so. --Rosenzweig τ 18:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Mrs Claud Mullins.png

Could someone take a look at File:Portrait of Mrs Claud Mullins.png and check whether I relicensed it correctly? It was originally licensed as {{CC-zero}} by its uploader, but that didn't seem right to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you might want to clarify the licensing of File:Portrait of Mrs Claud Mullins.png. If it was originally uploaded under {{CC-zero}}, it should be in the public domain, but it's always good to double-check. You can review the uploader's intentions and see if it aligns with your website's guidelines on image use. Imran804 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The current rationale for both country of creation and U.S. PD status look correct.

Pinging @BJCHK as uploader. cc-zero here was definitely wrong. cc-zero can be granted only by the holder of the actual copyright (in this case there is no copyright, so there is no way that could have been correct). You should indicate cc-zero only for images where cc-zero has already been granted or where you hold the copyright and wish to waive your rights. It looks to me like you have made this mistake at least one other time. I'm not interested in going through your edits to work out if there are a lot of these, but if you don't wish to see your work deleted and your account blocked, I would suggest that you go through your edits, fix this where it can be fixed, and nominate your own uploads for deletion where no correct PD tag or license tag can be applied.

If any of that is unclear, feel free to ask for clarification. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Copyright rules for German photographs

There is a proposal here regarding copyright of photographs in Germany. In essence the author believes that the Commons article Copyright rules by territory/Germany implying a 70 year + life copyright is incorrect for photographs: it should be 50 from date of production for annomymous photographs and 50 years from date of publication of photographs that have been lawfully published. Martinvl (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Matrix, D. Benjamin Miller, Yann, Clindberg, and Prosfilaes: (Other contributors to the discussion on Alien Copyright). Martinvl (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aymatth2, Pajz, Alno, AntiCompositeNumber, Rd232, Mahagaja, JWilz12345, Steinsplitter, H-stt, and Ameisenigel: Top ten contributors to the page. Martinvl (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there enough originality in this particular expression of traditional folk art to qualify for copyright?

• File in doubt: File:Tæm̆bili Pandol 2024 Enderamulla Church Feast.jpg

Summary about the image:

• Its a photo of an "Entranceway Decorative Arch(Pandol)" made annually as per tradition for the annual feast of a respective church since the beginning of the church.
• The pandol in the image is the annual pandol of St. Sebastian's church, Enderamulla(celebrated 133rd Ann. in 2023).
• The church doesn't sponsor nor request the making of it, hence the church hold no copyright.
• Pandol is made by volunteered parishioners of the community with donations of "coconut trunks", "areca nut trunks" and "King coconut(orange fruit)" from the villagers.

Matter:

• File was tagged derivative work on "21 September".
• Sri Lankan copyright law says "expression of folklore" are protected.
• Since the church is in its 133rd Ann; doesn't that already have passed 70+ year guideline? (if the original design of the pandol haven't changed since)

proofs:

• Never changing design - since its a traditional decorative item, the design was never changed throughout the years.

Proof file: from here

About the content of the proof file

• Those are pictures of the pandol throughout the years (oldest photos being from 1990 & 1991(the 100t jubillee)).

Any older pics? No.

Why? Even the 1990 & 1991 pics were taken by an individual who was the only owner of a portable camera that time.

• The design is same every year with subtle changes in the size based on how many donations of "King coconut" were received.
• Exceptions were 2020 & 2023 where the pandol wasn't made because of covid(January 2023) and lack of donations (January 2020).

Question:

• Is there enough originality in this particular expression of traditional folk art to qualify for copyright?

VihirLak007 (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think there is any issue here with that. There may be an issue with the statues, but the picture could be cropped. Yann (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it okay if i blurred the statues and upload a new version since, if the image was cropped, the full view of the pandol will be lost. Mainly from the left side. I think having the full view helps in having the idea of the placement, size, overall shape and design of the pandol. Is it okay or is requesting a crop the only way? VihirLak007 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No, blurring would be fine. Yann (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Have I done it correctly? File:Tæm̆bili Pandol 2024 Enderamulla Church Feast.jpg VihirLak007 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)