Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/08

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

Question about a painting

A user has repeatedly inserted this image of Maron into articles on the English- and Spanish-language Wikipedias. However, the author attributions for the file is incorrect, it apparently being an 1863 piece (see here) and the editor responsible has refused multiple requests to fix the issue themselves before proliferating the image. At this point, I want to resolve the issue myself but want to ensure that I follow the right procedure, but I’m not experienced enough to do that. If the file was ripped from another website and is an old enough painting by a person deceased the requisite amount of time, would all I need to do to bring the file up to standard be to correct the info in the file description or it in violation of copyright or some other rule? If no rules are violated, do I need to open a discussion to revise the ownership material? ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I changed the description. In such obvious cases just editing the description is OK. Citing evidence such as the flickriver URL you cited here is good if there is any risk the description becomes contested.
Commons generally thinks photographing a painting doesn't create any new copyright (in accordance with a US verdict), so mostly ignores any such claims. Thus who took the photo is regarded irrelevant copyright-wise. If a painting is in the public domain, also all faithful copies are regarded to be.
If the painting would be newer and possibly under copyright, then a "request for deletion" (Commons:RFD) would be the proper procedure. LPfi (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I changed the license to {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}}. If it is from 1863, the author certainly died more than 100 years ago. The PD-Art template indicates that there is no new copyright. Yann (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@LPfi and Yann: Thank you for the help and clarification. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Cut off date for Central African Republic (and similar countries)

So according to Central African Republic copyrights for photos expire after 20 years (link). URAA date is 1996, so it would mean aby photo produced in 1975 or earlier is in public domain, am I understanding this correctly? For example this photo on Getty was produced in 1975 in C.A.R. and according to them is copyrighted. Borysk5 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The example photograph was taken by Karel and published by the French agency Gamma. Photographs were likely distributed in many countries, irrespective of where taken. If this photo must be linked to a country, the likely one would be France. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
So it's country of publication which matters, not creation? Allright Borysk5 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, right. Yann (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Question about copyright

A colleague of mine is willing to give permission to upload a graph to Wikipedia. A different version of the graph he made was previously published in the IPCC report (Figure 1.17). Most of the IPCC reports are published under an incompatible license [1], unless otherwise specified (I assume mostly in the case of prior publication in open access journals).

  • Am I right in thinking the original creator does not have the copyright anymore after publication?
  • The figure is relatively simple, and variations of it are commonly published. How much does it need to differ from the published version to not fall under copyright of the figure? Femke (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Femke: Unless he sold his copyright to the publisher, he still retains it and can license his work however he sees fit, although we will probably want permission via VRT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh brilliant, thanks! Femke (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Femke: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Jeff G. (pinging also User:Femke), where can I read up more on this or do you have a reliable source to back up your statement? I don't even know which search term I would use in a Google search. I recently had a similar situation where the author of a figure was happy for me to use it but the publisher said "no". They replied to me "this article including all figures, is copyrighted to the American Meteorological Society. It is free for anyone to read. It does not carry a CC BY license. I'm sorry, but we cannot provide permission to re-use Figure 9 in your Wikipedia article under their image use policy." It was figure 9 in this journal publication. I don't know what you meant with "sold to the publisher". I would have thought the author would have signed over the copyright for everything to the publisher. Does it make a difference if he got paid or not? EMsmile (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@EMsmile: Authors sign contracts with publishers all the time. Sometimes in those contracts the authors sign away their exclusive rights to particular works for a large sum of money, percentage royalty, or both. Other times, the authors only sign away non-exclusive rights, for a lower sum of money, percentage royalty, or both. Your task is to determine which happened re that figure 9. Good luck.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Just to clarify: in your initial answer you said "sold his copyright". Does it make a difference if the author "signed over" their copyright without an exchange of money or even without a percentage royalty, or is the money aspect secondary? And good to know about the difference between exclusive and non-exclusive rights, I hadn't appreciated the difference. EMsmile (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@User:Jeff G., oh and which option is more favourable for us: when they sign away their exclusive or their non-exclusive rights? Sorry to ask you all this. Is there a good website inside or outside of Wikimedia Commons where I can easily read up on this? EMsmile (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@EMsmile: In the US, at least, there has to be something of value given on each side of a contracted transaction, so gifts are "purchased" for a dollar, or men who love what they do are called "dollar-a-year men" (I think at least one Mayor of New York City did that). If we have a license from a publisher who has the exclusive copyright, we can accept that. If we have a license from an author who sold a non-exclusive copyright to a publisher, we can accept that too. We can continue this conversation by copying to COM:VPC, my user talk page, or your user talk page, but sooner or later someone will delete it if we continue here in Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/08‎‎.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Nick Davies 2017.jpg copyright

@0mtwb9gd5wx: , please state your questions or comments clearly and in prose. If you have good reasons to suspect that a file is a copyright violation then you should generate a deletion request. You have linked to an image file[2] on a blog. It is more useful to link to a webpage where the photo is used, as its context can be informative. In this case it is on the blog author's profile page.[3] This blog does not appear to be the source of the photo, because this photo does not appear in an archive of the webpage made before the file was uploaded to Commons.[4] You should not have added this to the file page as the source without more evidence. Also, you should not have added a warning about the photo in its caption. I support deletion of this photo, because there is no evidence to support the assigned license. Please nominate it for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
verify by if Nick Davies : https://www.nickdavies.net/contact/ 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean? Are you suggesting the someone should engage with Nick Davies through the contact form at the link you have provided? That's not how things work here, it is the responsibility of the uploader to establish that the license that they have assigned is valid, although other people may choose to tidy up after an uploader. If you are not in a position to engage with Nick Davies you could ask for a volunteer at w:en:Talk:Nick Davies. If nobody makes an effort to establish a valid license then the file should be deleted. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Ayhan Viaene 9360

It appears that most if not all recent uploads by User:Ayhan Viaene 9360, including three that I have just tagged for speedy deletion, are copyright violations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Valerie Biden Owens 2019.jpg

Hi all. I am trying to help update the source and license for File:Valerie Biden Owens 2019.jpg, which Owen’s publishing house has released into the public domain on Flickr, but I don’t know which PD license to select. Would be grateful for advice! Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: {{Cc-zero}} or any one of 17 redirects.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @Jeff G.! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Innisfree987: You're welcome! For future reference, the answer is revealed by either hovering over or clicking on the words "Public domain" on Flickr.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Own work?

Would like to know what others think about File:DWDeamer.png and the claim of "own work". The same image can be seen used here, but the Commons upload predates that use by a few years. The EXIF data provided is very minimal and the uploader could be the subject of the photo. This is listed as a "Cross-wiki upload from en.wikipedia.org", but there's really nothing more about the source of the file to be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Tineye reports that the image was found at http://news.sciencenet.cn/upload/news/images/2010/5/20105291017389542.jpg on May 28, 2010 (it's not there anymore). So the date is suspect. However, it could have been a right-hand selfie that DWDeamer kept using for years.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Jeff G. for checking on this. Would you, as a VRT member, accept this as licensed or would you request the uploader email VRT to confirm their copyright ownership. The uploading of this file appears to be the only contribution made by the uploader on any WMF project. FWIW, the English Wikipedia article (en:David Deamer) where the file is being used was created by a different account, but it was created on the same day only a few minutes after this file was uploaded; so, the accounts might be connected. Since neither account is active any more, I don't think asking the uploader for clarification is going to lead anywhere. However, this English Wikipedia Teahouse question might be an indication that one of the two above-mentioned users is back asking for help about the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:DWDeamer.png.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it PD-shape in Germany?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:NiederRheinroute_Hauptweg.png - would it be OK to treat it as a PD-shape or not?

I tried reading https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Threshold_of_originality but I am not even a bit more sure than before Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Photograph of an old (pre 1900) postcard

Greetings,

this time around I'm rather optimistic, but want to make sure I'm getting it right anyway: So I have searched around for a picture to got with an article about the East Louisiana Railroad, and found this photograph of an old postcard. While the collection states that the item is a "copy photoprint" dating from "between 1950 and 1973", the original postcard is stated to be from "between 1887 and 1891" – which is very likely true, since that railway line ceased existing in 1905. So, the original postcard is undoubtedly in the public domain. Now, from looking at similar items like File:Postcard-Malta-Old-Barriera.jpg, I deduce that a simple photographical reproduction of the postcard does not amount to a sufficient "threshold of originality", and as such can be uploaded to commons and tagged per Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs, or maybe Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag in this case.

Am I missing anything here, or am I mistaken? I hope not, as it would be nice to have grasped some weird copyright legal stuff. -- LordPeterII (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, No, not mistaken. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Alternatively, {{PD-scan}} might work here, not that it really makes a difference from what I can tell. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Derivative work

I recognized that File:United Nation Peacekeeping Iranian Forces.svg was deleted for being a derivative work. I can't see the deleted file but from the name I guess it had UN logo as derivative work, which is licensed with {{PD-US-no notice-UN}}. Can anyone please see that it is a UN logo and confirm that the license will apply so that I can request undeletion? Thanks. HeminKurdistan (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I undeleted this. Please add the source, and fix the description. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I will do it. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Borysk5 (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong rationale for copyright exemption?

In the description of File:Bronze Medal of Valor.svg and File:Bmv.png it is claimed they are not eligible for copyright because they are the work of the "USAF-AUX". In fact, it is an award of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), which is the auxiliary of the United States Air Force. CAP is a private not-for-profit corporation chartered by the US Congress. It is not part of the government, and the works of its employees and volunteers are not exempt from copyright.

The files might be eligible to remain on Commons for some other reason, such as being simple shapes. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Fixed. Yann (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Borysk5 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

File on English Wikipedia

w:File:Gopal Swarup Pathak.jpg (source) is uploaded to English Wikipedia under the fair use claim. However, I think the file can be uploaded to commons under {{GODL-India}} as it is the work of the central government. Thoughts? --Ratekreel (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you show where it is explained that GODL applies to this image? Yann (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Media uploaded without a license

There are many ways on Commons to tag problematic files for deletion, where they are more or less monitored by administrators on a daily basis. And if you do not specify any license at all, the file is dumped into a category that, at first glance, no one is watching for at all. Does anyone care of those 2k files? Xunks (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

As you can see at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_without_a_license these are processed, but oldest ones were tagged on 26th May. I expect that in about 10 days everything dating back to May will be processed (right now it is 100 files) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I used to check this category regularly, but no time these days. Yann (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
BTW it is not helpful to tag files which have a license as "Media without a license", i.e. [5]. Right, the license may be wrong, but the tagging is also wrong. Yann (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Now down to 834. In fact, most of these files are obvious copyright violations, so can be speedy deleted. We used to have a bot (KrdBot) which tags images from an external source without a license as copyvio, but it stopped working. :( This was very helpful. If anyone wants to take the job, it would be great. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
KrdBot - is its source code available? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: No idea, but User:Krd can tell. Yann (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

Are works by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board covered by {{PD-USGov}}?

I know the answer should be obvious, but the USCSB website has a copyright notice on all its webpages. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are part of the U.S. federal government. Presumably the website templates used by the web designers had a placeholder for a copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I figured that was the case but wanted to be sure. Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Borysk5 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"Open Geodata" license compatibility

I found a few files (e.g. [6] [7] [8] [9]), all uploaded by the same user (@Okernick) carrying "www.braunschweig.de/opengeodata" as source, with an "Attribution" licensing template with additional attribution text:

"Datenquelle: Stadt Braunschweig - Open GeoData, 2019, Lizenz: dl-de/by-2-0. Veränderungen, Bearbeitungen, neue Gestaltungen oder Abwandlungen sind im Quellenvermerk mit dem Hinweis zu versehen, dass die Daten geändert wurden."
[loosely translated: "Data source: City of Braunschweig, Open GeoData, 2019, License: dl-de/by-2-0. Modifications, editing, rearrangement or derivatives must carry a note in the reference that the data has been changed."]

However, the referenced weblink mentions additional restrictions, especially:

"Die Geodaten dürfen nicht für Anwendungen und Veröffentlichungen verwendet werden, die kriminelle, illegale, rassistische, diskriminierende, verleumderische, pornographische, sexistische oder homophobe Aktivitäten unterstützen oder zu solchen Aktivitäten anstiften."
[translated: "The geographical data must not be used for applications or publications which support criminal, illegal, racist, discriminatory, slanderous, pornographic, sexist, or homophobic activities, or instigate such activities.]

I don't think that these additional statements are compatible with the Commons project, but I'm not sure whether they are part of the actual license terms, as they are under the "netiquette/notes" section on the page… --Rohieb (talk) Rohieb (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

it seems to be that those are legal notices, that government may prosecute you for those things in Germany if you try to do this, regardless of license terms. Borysk5 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I thought so at first too, but at least pornography and sexism are not illegal in Germany. --Rohieb (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I found the situation rather similar to what the Commons community discussed on the Japanese government's {{GJSTU1}} license, where similar restrictions are imposed by the Japanese government. Some proposed that the restrictions were not compatible with the definition of free license, while others contended that it's a kind of non-copyright restrictions. Anyways, as (per my experience) the deletion standard for templates is somewhat lower than individual files, the retention of GJSTU1 template may not mean the files would be kept here.
Anyways, that's just some personal opinion. Inputs from other more experienced users are appreciated.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know about non-copyright restrictions. --Rohieb (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright query

The source of File:Rajiv Gandhi 1986.jpg is copyrighted. But before that site uploaded the pic on 6 April 2016, its cropped version was already available at the official site of Prime Minister's Office (India) – its oldest archived version is dated 26 September 2014. So, is the Template:GODL-India applicable on this file? - NitinMlk (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

GODL-India needs to be explicitly marked on images in order to use it. I'm not sure it has actually ever been applied to any photograph, but rather data sets on data.in.gov. There was a discussion at some point which demonstrated how we were using that tag very wrongly, but it was never fixed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
"GODL-India needs to be explicitly marked on images in order to use it." - is it documented somewhere? @Carl Lindberg: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the discussion was at Commons:Deletion requests/Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India. I was arguing that the GODL license's wording would allow images to be licensed, if desired, but Hrishkes was pretty convincing that none really have been licensed that way -- it has to date just been used for specifically datasets. Exacerbating the problem is that images from certain government websites are OK per their license, but some of those custom license tags were redirected to GODL so it's all a bit messy now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:ShashiTharoor.jpg - hopefully I have not misunderstood things @Carl Lindberg: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Iranian national football team badge

I wondering whether en:File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran (low res).png might possibly be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States and COM:TOO Iran. The file was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia under a non-free license, but perhaps it doesn't need to be treated as such. The three main three elements of the logo appear to be the Iranian flag, a soccer ball, and some text (both in English and Farsi). The flag can be found already on Commons at File:Flag of Iran.svg and the words "Iran" and name "Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran" aren't eligible for copyright protection (I don't know what the Fari says); so, that just leaves the soccer ball. There are also plenty of soccer balls used as part logos which have been uploaded to Commons as can be seen in Category:Association football balls in logos, but probably quite a few of those files probably need to be reviewed. Even if the soccer ball in this case is also not eligible for copyright protection, then perhaps the combination of all the elements together is. That is what I'm interested in figuring out and would appreciate opinions on. FWIW, even if this isn't PD in Iran but is PD in the US, then that could help as well because then it might be able to be relicensed as en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Translations of foreign works that are public domain in the USA and other issues

  • We have several book scans up for deletion where the book is an English translation in the public domain in the USA. It is a translation of a foreign book, where the foreign language work is still under active copyright. Most of the books were scanned in a federal project at Fort Meade library. I would assume vetted by lawyers that upheld the public domain status before releasing the books to the Internet Archive. See for example: File:Two men in me (IA twomeninme00dani).pdf (this one not part of the Fort Meade project) and about 5 others. Is the English language book independent of the original language work for copyright purposes.
  • We have up for deletion several books that were published in the USA that have illustrations by someone who may have resided in a foreign country at the time of publication. See for example: File:The friendly playmate and other stories from Norway (IA friendlyplaymate00poul).pdf It would be good to have a discussion if that fact invalidates the USA public domain status. RAN (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
For the first one, it is not independent. The original translator still has a license of course, but the works are still under control of the original author. The other copyright likely expired in the U.S. at one point but was presumably restored by the URAA; I would undelete that in 2026 on en-wikisource, and 2036 on Commons (author died 1965).
For the second one, the residence of the author does not matter for "country of origin". It is where works are first published. If those illustrations were re-used from an earlier Norwegian book, then there is likely a problem (though could still be OK on en-wikisource if earlier than 1927). But if the U.S. book was the first publication, then it's a U.S. work, and lack of renewal lost copyright. There could still be copyright in that author's country that re-users there need to be concerned about, but Commons would still host it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Complex images versus simple images/art images

See for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francisco Goñi.jpg where we have to decide whether an image is simple versus complex. Several countries give shorter term protection to "simple photographs". Sweden didn't even award copyright to non-art images until the 1970s. The argument is made that commercial photographs are never simple, but the wording would have used the term for commercial photography if that was the intention. See for example File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg for a complex art photo that requires complex staging with set dressing and multiple takes. RAN (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding a Flickr account to Questionable Flickr images/Users

Some DRs has been issued against pictures from the Flickr account 16133272@N00.

As you can see with the first two listed DRs, an contributor even tried to contact the Flickr user to clarify the ownership of those pictures. I discuss this situation with an admin on their talk page. They pointed out this was the official account of a magazine publisher and then might be not a Flickrwasher but could qualify for the bad author list to have a manual reviews of the pictures. QTHCCAN (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Works that were not re-registered

Hi there, some [Wikisource users including myself] want to digitise some works by Mimi Maxey, such as File:Cornelia Mima Maxey.pdf. These were published in the period 1930-42, and were not, as far I can tell by looking in the US copyright periodicals, re-registered. This has I think been known among Latinists but I cannot evidence it further. Before we embark on this transcription, is there anything further we can do to ensure it doesn't become subject to internal debates and queries, and potential deletion, given the difficulties with lapsed copyright works? JimKillock (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked her other works in that date range, but Cornelia by Mima Maxey was registered on July 3, 1933 (A63527). Since a copyright renewal has to be sometime in the 28th year, a book published in 1933 would have to be renewed in 1960 or 1961. Occasionally the Library of Congress was slow in publishing renewals, so it is prudent to check 1962 as well. If Cornelia was renewed "Maxey, Mima" would appear at CCE 1960 Books and Pamphlets Jan-June, pg 813, CCE 1960 Books and Pamphlets July-Dec, pg 1788, CCE 1961 Books and Pamphlets Jan-June, pg 841, CCE 1961 Books and Pamphlets July-Dec, pg 1884, CCE 1962 Books and Pamphlets Jan-June, pg 894, or 1962 Books and Pamphlets July-Dec, pg 2009. She does not, so the US copyright to Cornelia was not renewed. Note: these links may need to be opened in their own windows to work. I've updated the permission statement at File:Cornelia Mima Maxey.pdf. —RP88 (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much! That is very helpful. I'll try to replicate that process for the other works, if we come to try digitising those. --JimKillock (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Images of artworks in the book "Maria Theresia und Ihre Zeit"

I have a copy of the book "Maria Theresia und Ihre Zeit", published in 1980. It is a catalog of artworks at an exhibition at Schloss Schönbrunn, published by the Austrian government, with some of the artworks depicted in photographs. The artworks include paintings, sketches, engravings, prints, statues, floor plans, statues etc. My questions is if the images of 2D artworks published in this book are PD, if the 3D art is PD as well, and if I can thus scan the images and upload them to Commons. I have asked this question on Discord and on German Wikipedia [10], and have read the Austrian copyright law [11], and checked all supreme court decisions relating to copyright on their website [12], yet I am still unsure about the copyright status of these works.

The original artworks are all public domain, since they are all over 200 years old, or at least the ones I've seen so far are. The issue is whether the photographs gain a new copyright. I am fairly certain that these photos do not constitute unique intellectual creations ("eigentümliche geistige Schöpfungen", §1) and thus do not qualify for copyright. It may also be the case that the book is not copyrightable because it is a government work, but I am not sure because it's not necessarily for official use ("zum amtlichen Gebrauch", §7). There is no copyright notice as far as I can tell, and I did not see that any of the photographers were named, but I may be wrong on that (though neither is required for copyright in Austria). I highly doubt uploading scans of artwork in this book will cause legal issues for Commons, and common sense tells me that this should be okay, but I want to be certain that no-one knows better before boldly uploading the images. Toadspike (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say than you scan only the 2D works, because photography of a 2D work did not give new copyright rights to the photographer. But it is not the case for the 3D works, because of angle choices, luminosity and so on. See 2D copying & {{Photo scan}} Miniwark (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Toadspike: Mind the official policy Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#When should the PD-Art tag not be used? --Xunks (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both, I will go ahead with the uploads soon. Toadspike (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

POTD on 2022-08-03

The POTD on 2022-08-03, taken in Kyoto, Japan

The file attached is the POTD on 2022-08-03, which depicts illuminating pillars covered in kimono (a type of traditional Japanese clothing) patterns, in which the patterns are created by still-alive designer Yasumichi Morita (i.e. his works are still copyrightable in Japan, per pma+70 years copyright protection). The image is beautiful, but I have a minor worry that it may be a violation of COM:FOP Japan, which states that there are no free FOP in Japan for artistic works. Speaking of the patterns, I think they are likely over the threshold of COM:TOO Japan (there are flowers and birds in some of the patterns), though inputs from users familiar with Japanese copyright law is appreciated.

Therefore, I'd like to ask whether you think the clothing patterns could be considered an "artwork" under Japanese copyright law? As the file is a POTD, I'd like to solicit more comments before any actions would be taken, thanks!廣九直通車 (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Are not those kimono patterns de-minis in this context? Ruslik (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Why they would be as a focus of picture? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The kimonos themselves are not de minis, but the parts which are over the threshold of orginiality (the alleged birds and flowers) could be. Borysk5 (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 Question@Borysk5: So, are you asserting that the file itself may survive under COM:DM#5? As a high-resolution 6,585×4,390-pixels image, I found that most of the patterns are shown rather clearly on my screen.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: Does high-resolution of image prevents them from being de-minimis? The copyrighted context here are as I understand 2d patterns which are printed on columns. Each pattern on itself takes small part of image, and is also distorted and only partially visible. It would be comparable to this photo: File:1 times square night 2013.jpg in which there are dozens of otherwise copyrighted and clearly visible billboards, but entire photo has de minimis tag. Borysk5 (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: High resolution does not invalidate de-minimis. The individual kimonos are de-minimis in this context even if they are clearly visible. The only potential copyright claim I could imagine for this image would be for the entire artwork as a whole, not for the kimonos or the kimono designs. Nosferattus (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Right, but without the designs this is just a row of evenly placed cylinders, seems too simple to be copyrighted. Borysk5 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Borysk5: Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding on DM#5. As the examples listed there are mainly low-resolution images, I thought DM#5 is only for these cases. Perhaps more deletion examples in relation to that criteria can clarify our case.
Also, note that there is no free FOP for all artworks in Japan, and I think both the patterns and the pillars should be construed as a whole work. This is similar to illuminated advertisements in the metro — you can't take out the advertisement and say "the empty advertisement board is too simple to be copyrighted".廣九直通車 (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there some separate criteria for utility objects such as clothes, even beautiful ones? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
While clothing is often considered utility, the columns here are not being used as clothing. Here they are purely decorative, and would not be considered utility. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, if someone takes photo of unused toy then it is also not fulfilling utility role. AFAIK "it is utility object" applies also when chair is in for example museum of design Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Could the overall work be considered a type of sculpture, and protected by copyright in Japan? --ghouston (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    • That's what I suspected. The classification doesn't matter, as long as the work can be determined as a copyrightable artwork in Japan, then there's no free FOP available, so delete in such case.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
      • OK, so after some research, I think the following points can be distilled:
  1. COM:CLOTHING does not apply, as the patterns are not used on clothing, but rather decorated as a set of artwork.
  2. The composition and image description support that the pillars are the main subject of the file, so marginal DM reasons like DM#2 or DM#3 does not apply.
  3. Perhaps COM:DM#5 could be used to keep this file by considering each pattern to be shown in insufficient detail/clarity (By Borysk5). A contrasting view is that the set of pillars form a single artwork, so the entire set of pillars does not fall under DM#5 (By Nosferattus).
With regards to point 3, I tend to support the latter view. While I considered cases where artworks cover a large portion of the image (like File:1 times square night 2013.jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Willesden Junction station MMB 01 1972 stock.jpg), the patterns shown are rather homogeneous that a clear art style can be expressed. Moreover, the description describes the artwork as The "Kimono Forest" at night, a collection of 600 kimono gowns wrapped around poles with LED lighting inside... It's clearly intended by the designer to make all pillars into a whole big artwork.
In conclusion, I consider the entire set of pillars to be a whole big artwork, and therefore support  Delete under COM:FOP Japan with DM failed. I will nominate the file for deletion if there are no further dissenting opinions, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@廣九直通車 unfortunately, it seems you are right about this. Not sure if the photographer has been informed about this discussion yet, so I'm leaving a ping here @Basile Morin FYI. El Grafo (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, El Grafo, for the notification. This installation is more a decorative lighting system than a sculpture, in my opinion, because it just borders the gate, and the people walk through (not around). It's not possible to photograph the whole. There are 600 pillars in total, while this picture contains only 50. The design of each pillar is not under copyright. The patterns are free. Kind of architectural work. Yasumichi Morita is an interior designer, and these lamps are specifically made for this train station. These are sorts of beautiful street lamps. -- Basile Morin (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comment, but the classification of the installation doesn't matter, as there is no free FOP in Japan for artworks COM:FOP Japan. Your image also covers a substantial part of the pillars, the pillars form the key and essential part of your image, so I don't think DM applies. With regards to your claim that the patterns are not copyrighted (i.e. within public domain), I think evidence should be raised to prove it.
Procedurally I will need to nominate it for deletion, but I indeed found the designer company's contact page. Perhaps during the deletion discussion, I (or somebody else) can try to persuade Mr. Morita to go OTRS, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Basile Morin: Where may we find the license, law, or court ruling that declared "The patterns are free"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
  • These patterns on textile are used to make real kimonos. And that's not forbidden to photograph a kimono in Japan, as far as I know. The fact that the designer integrates textiles in glass tubes does not remove the clothing nature of the original objects. It's like hanging socks or ties in a tree. You can pretend your tree is special, and a piece of art, but the patterns of the socks used are not protected. All the less de minimis -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Borysk5 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

PD-US-no notice?

I'm wondering whether anyone can help sort out the coyright status of en:File:'Le Rendez-Vous des Quatre Formes' from the portfolio 'Les Formes Vivantes', lithograph on paper by Alexander Archipenko, 1963, Smithsonian American Art Museum.jpg and en:File:'The Gondolier', bronze sculpture by Alexander Archipenko, Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg. They are file uploaded locally as non-free content, but it's possible that they might not need to be treated as such. If was opined at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 6#Non-free Alexander Archipenko images that they could possibly re-licensed as {{PD-US-no notice}}; so, perhaps that's a possibility. One of the files appears to be a graphic work, but the other is a photo of a sculpture. The file that is a graphic work probably would fall under COM:2D copying if the work itself is PD, but the photo of the sculpture would be subject to its own copyright in addition the the copyright of the sculpture, wouldn't it. Since the sculpture photo is described as being a photo of a museum display, I'm not quite sure how COM:FOP United States and COM:CB#Museum and interior photography apply since photos of 3D works generally generate their own copyright separate of the work itself and there's nothing to indicate that the photo has been released under an acceptable license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Who took the photo of the sculpture? Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Marchjuly:  Comment the sculpture photo exists on Commons, but only deleted (speedily-deleted): File:'The Gondolier', bronze sculpture by Alexander Archipenko, Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
So [13] could be imported to Commons under {{PD-Art|PD-US-no notice}}. It would be useful to find a higher resolution. Yann (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Archipenko had died in 1964, so none of it's works be it 2D and 3D are in the public domain yet. So both images may be OK in the English Wikipedia with fair use, but the problem with the sculpture is to interpret how their are "first published" in the sense of the US Copyright law. Is there already a definitive response to this ? Is it the first public display, or the date of creation on the work ?.
For exemple, for 'The Gondolier', According to the MET it was cast in 1914 and firstly exhibited in 1969. If 1969 count as the first "publication" then it may be indeed a PD-US-no notice work, but if it's the cast time, in 1914 Archipenko was living and working in France, not in the US...
Also, some of the works in Category:Sculptures by Alexander Archipenko are also problematic, either because the place of the works are not in the US (if public display count as first "publication") or the descriptions did not even give a localisation or the date of erection for the sculptures. Miniwark (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Public display is not publication, though before 1978, public display while allowing anyone to make copies (via photography or drawing) could constitute publication -- see Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. In the EU, public display would be "making available to the public" (though not publication); some of their copyright terms start then. Determining "publication" for the U.S., in terms of losing copyright through lack of notice, can be different than determining it under Berne for the "country of origin" determination. Something created in 1914 but not exhibited until 1969 seems odd. It sounds like that particular casting was made in 1961, so the exhibition history may just be for that casting (and after the MET acquired it in 1964). If the artist was selling copies beforehand, it may well have been publication -- but did those other copies have notice? MOMA has another copy, apparently cast in 1966. A New Zealand museum has another copy; unsure when that one was made. There is a 1957 casting in the Hirshorn Sculpture Garden, which has apparently been there since 1977 or earlier, so that is a pretty strong case for no-notice. The photo was originally uploaded as PD-self, so that part may be OK. The MET still gives copyright ownership to the artist's estate. We may need more information on other castings to really know, but it feels like if published in that older era then the country of origin would be somewhere in Europe, meaning it's not OK for Commons. The URAA could then have restored copyright, and the U.S. term would be 95 years from publication -- so then the question is when exactly was that first publication, for it to be OK on en-wiki.
The other work is also possible, but again no history of the work is given. You would need to identify the copies without notice, and that the country of origin is the U.S. In looking, they were apparently first published in St. Gallen, Switzerland in 1963. If there was no notice anywhere on the grouping (entirely possible but I haven't seen the full publication), then they may still be PD in the US, since not sure that Archipenko's works from that period would have been eligible for the URAA, given that he was a U.S. citizen and actually living in the U.S. (if he was living in Switzerland or another foreign country at the time, then the URAA would have restored them). However, they would appear to be copyrighted in the country of origin until 2035, so the question about U.S. notice is moot for a while (at least for Commons; en-wiki might mark them as PD if lack of notice is shown, though with a NoCommons tag until 2035). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Miniwark and Clindberg for your input here. The two files in question are uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, and their non-free use is being discussed at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 August 6#Non-free Alexander Archipenko images. There non-free use is problematic and one possible way of resolving things would be if the files could be converted to some a PD license, even if one for only local use on English Wikipedia. If such a thing might be possible, then it would be a great help if you could comment in the English Wikipedia discussion about the image. --Marchjuly (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

When do we assume and English author has been dead for 70 years when we only have a commons name and no dates

See: File:Model engine-making in theory and practice (IA modelenginemakin00pocorich).pdf (1888) RAN (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It is generally accepted on Commons to assume an author or photographer has died 120 years after making the work. So this book can be considered in PD. Ellywa (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
"J" stands for John (see his articles in Amateur Work magazine), so his name was John Pocock. Probably born ca. 1850. --Rosenzweig τ 16:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I looked through the England census of 1901 and found 4 James Popcocks Pococks and 4 Popcocks Pococks living in London, none in the section of London he listed in his introduction to the book, and none had an occupation that stood out as the author of an engineering book, the closest guy was a piano maker. Ping me if you have a new clue. I will start a page with a list of authors we need birth and death dates for that people can add to, and strike off when we find the info. --RAN (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Did you search for "Popcock" or "Pocock"? I remember seeing a John James Pocock and a John Jeremiah Pocock in the London area (searching through Ancestry). No definite clues however which of them might be this one. --Rosenzweig τ 22:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • My typing error above. The other authors I found this week, all listed their occupation as "author" in the census. I will try again tonight looking through the London city directory. Where there any more clues in Amateur Work magazine? Are you going to load his articles? I started an entry for him at Wikidata: J. Pocock --RAN (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't look comprehensively, and I won't upload anything from him. There are volumes of the magazine at the IA, [14] and [15]. Searching for "Pocock" there showed some hits. Apparently he knew some French. --Rosenzweig τ 23:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Freedom monument (Riga)

Please help me resolve my doubts. As noted here, the monument has two co-authors: the sculptor, who died in 1942, and the architect, who died in 1958. COM:Latvia states that Copyright is in effect for the lifetime of an author and for 70 years after their death and Copyright to a work created by co-authors is in effect for the duration of the lives of all the co-authors and for 70 years after the death of the last surviving co-author. So is this legal to have all these here on Commons, if copyright lasts until 2029? Xunks (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

"So is this legal to have all these here on Commons, if copyright lasts until 2029" No. Borysk5 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: Can you please elaborate your statement? --Xunks (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
If the named architect is a co-author in a legal sense, it would probably be legal because of Latvia's freedom of panorama law (see COM:FOP Latvia), but since that law allows only non-commercial use and we only want media that are ok for commercial use as well (COM:SCOPE#Required licensing terms), we don't want to host them before 2029 and will delete them until then. --Rosenzweig τ 18:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: All RSs, as I can see, name them as authors: e.g., [16] [17] [18]. Does that mean, that all 3h files (except those applied to COM:DM) should be nominated for deletion? --Xunks (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
What are 3h files? As for nominations, I wouldn't nominate any files that clearly show only the sculptor's work, like File:Brīvības piemineklis-1905 gads.png. All files that show the architecture of the monument as a whole (and not in a de minimis way) could be nominated. Whether you want to do that is up to you. --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I mean ~three hundred files. Xunks (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the article en:Freedom Monument, the monument came about under the following circumstances:

The concept for the monument first emerged in the early 1920s when the Latvian Prime Minister, Zigfrīds Anna Meierovics, ordered rules to be drawn up for a contest for designs of a "memorial column". After several contests the monument was finally built at the beginning of the 1930s according to the scheme "Mirdzi kā zvaigzne!" ("Shine like a star!") submitted by Latvian sculptor Kārlis Zāle. Construction works were financed by private donations.

As the monument was commissioned by the then-Latvian Government through a competitive process, I presume that ownership of copyright would have been vested in the Latvian Government, while the architect, designer and sculptor retain only the moral right to be acknowledged for their roles in its creation. (This may have been specified in the competition rules.) The act of commissioning implies that the actual form of copyright involved here would probably be of the same sort as e.g. a design by a government employee, i.e. probably for a fixed term, such as 50 years or so from the date of creation, and NOT for "for the lifetime of an author and for 70 years after their death". Bahudhara (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You are free to come up with as many fantasy options as you like, but any creative work is copyrighted until proven otherwise. Xunks (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
That can depend on the law at the time it was made. These days, most times commissioning does not transfer copyright at all, unless the contract says otherwise. (Some U.S. sculptors have won court cases over statues displayed on the National Mall in Washington D.C., since they still owned the copyright.). However, I think in Iran their law does basically convert copyright ownership (and change the term) for works like that. Under Soviet law, it may well have been similar, but then subsequent laws may have changed the treatment or brought works back under copyright. Of course, this was made in Latvia before the Latvian SSR existed, and not sure what (if any) copyright law existed in Latvia at the time. You'd have to trace the law at the time it was made, and any retroactive changes since to see if it's actually still under copyright. Other than the sculpture, which would have been PD by 1996 anyways, I don't think photos are an issue under U.S. copyright. Not sure this is an obvious deletion, at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The Latvian copyright law has no transfer of copyright. This remains with the authors (see § 2 (1)) and the law implements pma70 (see § 36 (1)). And if a work has multiple authors (as in this case by Kārlis Zāle (1888–1942) and Ernests Štālbergs (1883–1958)), the copyright belongs jointly to all co-authors and pma70 is considered for the last co-author who survived all other co-authors (§ 37 (3)). As Xunks has opened a deletion request, the discussion should continue there. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That's the law which was issued in 2000. The law from the early 1990s was 50pma. I think there were copyright laws or regulations in the Latvian SSR, which dates from 1940 though copyright probably not until the 1970s when the Soviet Union joined the UCC. This monument was constructed in 1935, when I have no clue what the copyright law was, or if there was one. Some or all of those laws could come into play; some of the transitional provisions of each of the successive laws might have guidance on how to treat prior works, or it may be entirely ambiguous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Borysk5 (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Revocation of Creative-commons licenses

According to Commons:Licensing all files uploaded to Commons must be under non-revocable free license, which generally applies to all Creative Commons licenses, as they contain a clause about their non-revocability. However according to section 203 of U.S. Copyright Act, creator of a copyrighted work, may after 35 years, revoke any transfer of copyrights or license and this right cannot be waived away. Potentially, starting in *check notes* 2036 people who published works under Creative Commons license may make a notice about revocation of CC license forcing Commons to delete those files and any derivative files. This also could apply to any text or structured data added to the site. I'm not sure if that's a problem in regards of non-revocability principle, but I didn't see it being adressed here. Borysk5 (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while irrevocability is a good ideal to strive for, you're never going to get strict irrevocability of everything. We allow PD works by the US government, even though Congress could change their copyright status with the stroke of a pen. In fact, I have argued before that irrevocability should not be a required condition for a government-issued license, because theoretically anything, even the works of Shakespeare, could be revoked by the government. Therefore we can only do damage control by limiting the number of independent entities authorized to revoke licenses to 200 or so worldwide.
Returning to the present case, we've actually had such a case before: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 43#missing legal competence by age?. It seems that in many countries, people can revoke licenses granted while minors once they reach the age of majority. There is unfortunately no easy way to mitigate this risk; strict adherence to the non-revocability principle would require us to ban minors from contributing, which would also require us to perform age verification on everyone, which is never going to happen. The best we can do is allow every user a one-time ability to use this loophole, with harsh conditions such as an indefinite block until and unless they agree to reissue the free license. This mirrors w:WP:NLT; there are certain things that users are legally allowed to do that we can't prevent them from doing, but since it represents a breach of the social contract of the community, we also reserve the right to shut them out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this detailed response, I have been wondering some of these before. Borysk5 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
In the end, complying with the provisions of 17 USC 203 might be impossible for a freely-licensed work -- you need to give notice parties you have granted the license to, in writing, of the termination I think. When that is basically everyone, I wonder how possible that is (or if courts would allow e.g. just the termination notice for Wikimedia). In the end, all copyright licenses are limited by actual copyright law, and if so, so be it. What "free" doesn't allow is revocable restrictions further than that, specific to the individual work and/or license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
How does that provision work with rights already used? I assume you don't have to burn the books you printed while you had the licence to print them, or the film you did using music you don't have a licence to any more. I also assume you are still allowed to keep the book you got in your bookshelf and read a chapter aloud for your students. Do you have to take down images from your website? Must you cease sharing the PDF you made using such images? Or is this only about exclusive licences? –LPfi (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
So, from my analysis:
  • No, you don't have to burn books, due to first sale doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 109). Reading chapter to your students is probably protected by fair use either way.
  • "Do you have to take down images from your website? Must you cease sharing the PDF you made using such images?" Probably yes, that law doesn't seem to have any exceptions. "Or is this only about exclusive licences?" Nothing in the law says that. I don't think open licenses existed at the time the law was written, but the plain language seem to include any type of licenses. Borysk5 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Nope, you just can't print and sell any further books. You can't exploit the work (usually meaning making copies) under the license any further, basically. Section 203(b)(1) says: A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant. So, a derivative film is still fine (that is an existing exploitation). For something like Commons, yes we'd have to take down the images. The clause applies to both exclusive and non-exclusive licenses.
Under the old notice-and-renewal system before the new law came into effect in 1978, any transfer or license made during the initial 28-year term would revert back to the author's heirs if the author died before the renewal could be filed -- the extended copyright would not "vest" in the new copyright owners unless the author was still alive on that date. The idea was to give heirs another chance to license a work if it had gotten famous in the interim. This section was a replacement for that ability for works licensed after 1978, though after 35 years instead of 27, and allowing a still-living author the same rights. As with anything, we can only work within the bounds of copyright law itself. There are further windows for termination, after 56 and 75 years, of works published before 1978 in Section 304(c) and (d). The full requirements on how to execute those terminations are in 37 CFR § 201.10. Law can always change; it doesn't make anything "non-free" when it does, nor does following the law make something non-free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Borysk5 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

File:EDIT GIRL based on Alexander Rodchenko 1924 poster.png

This is an interesting one: A derivative work of a 1924 poster by Rodchenko (see en:File:1924 Poster by Alexander Rodchenko, showing Lilya Brik saying in Russian Books (Please) in all branches of knowledge.jpg) which is in the public domain in the USA, but not yet in Russia (Rodchenko died in 1956, and considering the 4-year Russian wartime extension it will enter the PD there in 2031). Therefore it was nominated for deletion with Commons:Deletion requests/File:EDIT GIRL based on Alexander Rodchenko 1924 poster.png.

The file is a very close derivative work, made a by an American user and certainly in the PD in the US, but not yet in Russia and other countries which have 70 year pma terms. Can we keep this or do we delete it until restoration in 2031? If we delete it, the user can still upload it to en.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 15:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The Commons policies require any file to be free both in USA and the country of origin. Ruslik (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but that's the point: Which is the country of origin? The derivative file was created in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 22:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The underlying work must also be in public domain in its country of origin. Ruslik (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright on personal photographs inherited from deceased family members

After the death of my father several years ago I inherited his collection of personal photographs from the 1950s, some of which are potentially of public interest. Since he is no longer alive, I cannot ask him to officially release his copyright on the photos to me. Can I still upload some of these images to the Commons, and if so, what kind of description and license should I use? On the one hand, I cannot honestly describe them as "entirely my own work." On the other hand, since they are all his own work, I am 100% certain that no other living person or legal entity holds the copyright on them. So who could the copyright possibly rest with, if not me? Choliamb (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You can use one of the templates in Category:License_tags_for_transferred_copyright. Ruslik (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Choliamb: It is also recommended that you explain the situation (e.g. "This was taken by my late father") in the description, author, and/or permission fields when uploading, to help guard against people tagging your photos for deletion because they cannot figure out why you are authorized to release them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The "-heirs" templates, such as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}} should make the situation quite clear. As source you could write "{{Private collection}} of uploader's late father" (using a template where possible is good, as the text then gets translated). As author, just use your father's name, unless there is a Wikipedia article on him or some other good page to link. The issues are whether your father was the photographer (as people often have photographs by others in their collections) and whether somebody else might have claims on the photographs (e.g. other heirs or commercial arrangements). You might want to make those things clear by an email as explained in Commons:VRT, but unless the photos have been published elsewhere that is probably not needed. –LPfi (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you to all three of you. This is very helpful. My father is the photographer in all cases, and none of the photos have been published before, so a combination of {{Private collection}} in the source and one of the CC heirs licenses should be ideal. (I had no idea that the latter existed; I should have searched more carefully.) Thanks again. Choliamb (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
It is difficult to search for something you don't know exists. Thank you for doing this. –LPfi (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
If you want to be ultra-careful, you need to confirm with the executor of your father's estate that you inherited the copyright to the photographs as well as the photographs themselves. Martinvl (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Elvis Presley 1958.jpg

There isn't any statement of what was done to check this was out of copyright, and it was only identified a few days ago what movie it was a promotional photo from.

Can we trust a "no renewal" copyright check for this? Are we kind of using transitive loss of copyright from Modern Screen, or? It's really poorly documented, and I'm trying to figure out the exact logic. The Internet Archive gives their source for Modern Screen as The Library of Congress, which might clarify matters, but doesn't appear to. It's all rather a mess. I'm willing to buy that this image is out of copyright because a colourised copy was published without renewal, but with a complicated copyright status, I'd at least like to see evidence of research being done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"Modern Screen" is not listed on the UPenn page of periodical renewals. Was the Internet Archives upload done by the Library of Congress themselves? If so, yes that seems like something we can trust. The photo itself seems to be credited to "Globe" (credits on page 72), which is where things get more nervous. A search on copyright.gov with "Globe" as a name and "Elvis" anywhere in the title gives only a couple hits from the 1980s, which are textual copyrights and I don't think is the same Globe company. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion here (sorry, I managed to completely miss this section). At the FP nomination it was speculated that the black and white one may be from a separate exposure that would have a separate copyright. Technically possible, but I'm not sure about that. --El Grafo (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I can confirm that these are two different images. If you mirror one of them and overlay them using the pattern on the shirt as reference, it is obvious. Even visible without that if you know where to look on the non-cropped version of the bw image: the thumb is pointing upward in the color version, hiding the nail in the shadow, while in the black and white version the thumb is more horizontal with its nail clearly visible. Seems like a clear case of "hold that pose, please" followed by a quick switch to another camera back with bw/color film. --El Grafo (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Given the garish colours of the colour one, I'd suspect it was also black and white and colourised for the magazine, but it doesn't matter much. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Nah, the other color prints look the same. Looks like a combination of punchy slide film and yellowed paper to me ;-) El Grafo (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright during occupation by another country

Has it ever been discussed on Commons, how to handle works made in a certain country, during occupation by another country. The reason I ask is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rhoedens. Indonesia (or rather en:Dutch Indies) was occupied by Japan when this card and photo was made. If Indonesian or Dutch copyright law is valid, the image should be deleted, but it can be maintained if the copyright law of Japan is valid for this file. Ellywa (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of country those files were produced by Japanese occupation authorities. Meaning that copyrights to them belong to Japanese government, so I think we should use Japanese laws. Borysk5 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not where works were made, but where they were published that matters. Likewise, unless the creator has specifically released copyright, the creator usually doesn't matter. In a case like this, where it was an invasion, not an annexation, and it's clear that it was illegitimate from our historical perspective (i.e. ignoring stuff like the post-WWI/WWII occupation of Germany), I think it clear that the Indonesian law controls.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, copyright wise, which law applies. In both cases, the document is in the public domain. Yann (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
As it is a handwritten sort of ID card, I do not assume it has been published more then 50 years ago, as would be required to fall in PD according the Indonesian Template:PD-IDUnknown. So I am highly amazed you closed the DR without waiting for a final conclusion on this discussion. What is the evidence this has been published? The uploader did not provide this evidence. Ellywa (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
If we look at en:Military occupation#Occupation and the laws of war, we see that under the Hague Convention of 1907, an occupying force is required to repsect, wherever possible, the existing laws in the country that they are occupying. Thus copyright laws that were in existance prior to hostilities would normally continue to be in force. Martinvl (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Martinvl, this shines light on the matter. Of course, the occupying power should have ratified this convention. But in any case, on Commons, we could base our practices on this convention (or later versions). Ellywa (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ellywa: Handwritten or not, the existence of this card itself proves that the photograph was published. Using a picture in an official document constitutes publication. We don't need any other proof. Yann (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Yann, I have read a similar view on publication before, I believe from RAN. I disagree. It would mean that any personal passport photo would be "published" as soon as it is put in the booklet. And any photo would be published as soon as it is archived by the authorities on some document. Although the definition can be different in the various countries, I think that publication would mean an item becomes (widely) available to the general public. On the English Wikipedia, the Indonesian situation happens to be mentioned (en:Publication. The sentence reads "...so that works can be read, heard, or seen by others". I think that this will mean the document should not be filed in an archive which cannot be publicly accessed, or the publication should not be carried in a bag of someone. But perhaps we could agree that we do not agree on this. Ellywa (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Publication does not have a single meaning across all countries. Even within the same country (the US), it does not have the same meaning across time (pre-1978 vs. post-1978; see COM:PACUSA). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no doubt an officiel document (passport, ID card, etc.) is published. A passport is not a document put into an archive. It is meant to be produced at the request of any competent authority, so certainly it can be read by others. So yes, any personal passport photo is published as soon as it is put in the booklet. It is not the extent of availibility which contitutes publication. A secret-defense document only accessible by authorized people is nevertheless published. Yann (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Are images from Prs allowed

Hey, there is a website called Prs legislative research[19] and a lot of politician images can be found there. The website says that they are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 licence, can't we upload the images from that website here ? Admantine123 (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

If the images were made by them sure, but it's possible they're just using images from elsewhere. Borysk5 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I have shared a link, can someone tell whether image they are using here are on any other website or not to make it clear that they have made it themselves.Admantine123 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
This disclaimer contradicts with stated CC BY-SA 4.0 license, pls see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses: Commercial use of the work must be allowed. As for the photos: this one, for example, is taken from [20], this is grabbed from [21], this is a derivative of [22], so all this stuff probably falls into Commons:License laundering. Xunks (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Admantine123, @Borysk5, @Xunks: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:://prsindia.org.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Uploaders' due diligence

The Commons pages which discuss copyright issues seem to underplay the uploader's responsibility to check the validity of the license when uploading files from a webpage that displays a free license. This is mentioned somewhat opaquely at COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. There are guidelines at Commons:Questionable Flickr images, but users are unlikely to encounter this page. Commons:Questionable YouTube videos is very cursory, and does not mention the need to question TV clips that are not on the YouTube account of the TV company. Have I missed something? I think COM:NETCOPYRIGHT should be expanded to outline the tests that should be made. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Our main problem in that respect is that few of our uploaders make any effort to ascertain they have the right to upload an image they found. The pages you mentioned could be improved, but the most effective measure would be changing the upload wizard so that people wouldn't click "own work" for files to which they don't own the copyright. The wording in the wizard is unfortunate and should be rethought. However, as long as copyright law is far from common practice, our efforts to provide only free files resemble a fool's errand. –LPfi (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright on photographs of PD-artworks

I have been reading about copyright for photographic reproductions of public-domain artworks, and as I understand it, there is no copyright protection for such works. Is this correct? If so, am I free to upload photos of paintings from a museum's website, for instance, this painting here? I ask because the museum has released this photo under a non-commercial license, so it would not be usable on Wikimedia otherwise. Medarduss (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if the painting is in the public domain (which seems to be the case here), a mere reproduction doesn't produce a copyright, so there is no copyright on the resulting image. Yann (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Medarduss: Just to add to what Yann wrote, if there is a frame, that may still be in copyright, so you should crop out the frame as much as you can.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the answers. I will start uploading some (frameless) images now. Medarduss (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Medarduss: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Fontaines à boules

This category includes photos from Pol Bury works. Normally i would nominate most of them for deletion because Pol Bury work is not Public Domain yet and because there is no Freedom Of Panorama in France. But the work itself is just a bunch of reflecting spheres. See for example File:Paris 023.jpg. So did this fall under the "Threshold of originality" exception ? For comparison see Reflecting spheres Miniwark (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Luzern and Tirol

Are these below the threshold of originality (upload with PD-shape oder PD-inelgible)?

  1. https://getlogo.net/tirol-werbung-logo-vector-svg/
  2. https://seekvectorlogo.net/luzern-vector-logo-svg/

Greetings from Germany, --Mateus2019 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Not an absolute expert, but I feel like the second image might be passable if uploaded under PD-textlogo. Would appreciate someone who is more knowledgeable about this sort of thing to confirm my opinion and to provide guidance on the first image.
Greetings from England! - Dvaderv2 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The first one is most probably OK with {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:TOO Austria I would rather not let the Tirol logo pass. See the "Zimmermann Fitness" footnote for an example of a textlogo that does enjoy copyright in Austria. As to the Luzern logo, copyright in Switzerland requires "creations with individual character". That mirrored name "Lucerne" with stripes is most likely meant to refer to a reflection in Lake Luzern, so I can see a creative and individual character for that logo, too. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

USAF-hosted image that wasn't created by the USAF + subject of a third party photograph distributing/publishing the photo without the third party's involvement

I came across this USAF article about an individual who was originally in the Greek Army before enlisting with the USAF's Security Forces, with the article consequently featuring a few photos of the individual's Greek service. On the one hand, the photos are being hosted on an official USAF website (and with VIRIN numbers too) and possess the usual declaration of public domain status, but on the other they clearly haven't been taken by an USAF-employed photographer and are even indicated as being "courtesy photo[s]"/"courtesy asset[s]".

I am particularly interested in uploading this image to Wikimedia since it looks to be an informal photograph taken on the individual's behalf and thus conceivably something that could be uploaded here, but is that actually possible to do? All the uploads I've seen of similar photographs have almost always involved the subject of the photograph uploading the photo themselves (example 1, example 2) or getting the original photographer/agency to upload it themselves (example 1, example 2), and I don't think this is the sort of situation we're dealing with when it comes to this particular photograph. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Dvaderv2, unfortunately since the license to the photograph would lie with the private photographer, by our precautionary principle we cannot presume any license other than All Rights Reserved. Merely being published on a U.S. government website doesn't mean the license has been waved. Such a thing is possible, but we do not have enough information to know that that is the case, and we do not know who the photographer even is. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Now I checked the first image and it actually has metadata in it. It states that photographer is Senior Airman Tessa B. Corrick and it is in public domain. I also checked the image linked and it doesn't seem to have such info in metadata. Borysk5 (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Borysk5, Tessa Corrick is the writer of the article. Some of the images in the slideshow are public domain, such as this one and this one, and when you open the Photo Details pages they're clearly indicated as such (i.e., "U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Cassandra Johnson"). — Huntster (t @ c) 13:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

File:AcuraARX-06.jpg

Er, 99% sure this is a copyvio, I put up a copyvio notice but the bloke who uploaded the video was quicker to the hip than me and has removed the notice. The original source is here, and it clearly says Acura in the bottom right corner. So I think rather than CC-BY-SA-4.0 this is just a press release. Thoughts? Thanks X750 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like it has already been deleted once as a copyvio by Pi.1415926535, and simply was reuploaded. I can't see anything on the source website that really indicates this file has been released under a CC-by-SA-4.0 as claimed. This could also be a case where there are two copyrights to consider: one for the photo and one for the car's design. Car shapes are generally considered to be utilitarian for the most part and are not usually subject to separate copyright protection. Some customized cars, however, can be eligible for their own copyright protection. If that's the case here, then the photo would be considered a COM:DW and two copyrights would need to be taken into account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted again, and blocked for a week. Gearheads seem to be in competition with football fans for who can upload the most copyvios lately. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Pi.1415926535. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Cheers Pi.1415926535. I did a double take when I saw the redlink on his talk page but the file still existed. Odd. Yeah well I don't know about that Marchjuly, I always am under the impression that unless no examples of the car exist in the world anymore it is always replaceable with a free image, with does make it frustrating for elusive cars such as the en:Mazzanti Evantra but it is what it is. Thanks all for your help. X750 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
There might be some cases per COM:CB#Vehicles where there's something about a car (e.g. a customized paint job) in which might be considered copyrightable in its own right. I'm stating that's the case here, but just mentioning that in some cases it might be possible. In addition, a car could exist in its testing or design stage, but it has not yet on the market. Perhaps in a case like that, there might be issues with COM:PUBLISHED in the sense that the car hasn't be "disseminated" publicly yet. On English Wikipedia, such a thing might be argued as a justification for the non-free use of a photo or other artistic rendition of a car. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyrighted Logos

All the files of this category are clear copyright violation:

[23]: “The EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIPS and all related logos, pictograms and taglines are trademarks and copyrights of European Championships Management Sàrl.” (at the end of the page), and

[24] COPYRIGHT STATEMENT:

© 2021 European Championships Management Sàrl. All rights reserved.

This website is owned and managed by European Championships Management Sàrl (“ECM”). Unless expressly stated to the contrary on this website, all material contained on this website, including any text, graphics, still images, moving images, audio, database and software is the sole property of ECM or of a third party expressly authorizing such use by ECM.

This website, all material contained on this website and its design are protected by all applicable copyright, design, moral, brand and other relevant intellectual property laws.

Please, delete them. 2A02:3032:A:D768:30C4:9BBC:9F2A:F92B 17:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2022 European Championships Logos‎. Yann (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

PD-logo?

I'm wondering whether File:New SYL Logo.png would be considered {{PD-logo}} since the claim of "own work" seems questionable. File:Super Y League logo 2016 (traced).svg is avector version of the same logo and it was licensed as {{PD-logo}}. If png file is not "PD-logo", then it seems that the svg file cannot also be "PD-logo". At the same time, if the png file isn't "PD-logo" but is OK as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, then it seems that the vector version would also need to be licensed as such. For reference, the logo belongs to en:Super Y League. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The individual elements may be too simple, but the selection and arrangement to me is likely enough for copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Clindberg. FWIW, the png file's licensing was converted to "PD-logo" by another user. So, I guess it probably needs to be discussed as COM:DR if there's disagreement about whether this meets COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Template Gov.pl

On the day 19th August 2022 Polish government updated terms of its website gov.pl and changed license from CC-BY to CC-BY-NC-ND, making to it incompatible with commons. I cannot edit Template:Gov.pl so I'm asking someone with permissions to update this template and remove files uploaded after this date. See website archvied on 19th and 18th. Borysk5 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

We should accept new uploads under the old license if we can establish that the file was on gov.pl before the license changed, most likely by finding the file on archive.org. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I know, I meant files uploaded on gov.pl after that date (if there are any here). Borysk5 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
We should accept uploads made after the law changed, and into the future, if the image is in an archive of the gov.pl website that was captured before the law changed. For example, the images at https://web.archive.org/web/20220815080119/https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc could still be uploaded and the existing {{Gov.pl}} license tag would be valid. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we should add the date to the template, eg. this way: 

This work was obtained from the official website of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Poland before 19th August 2022 and it is protected by copyright.

Ankry (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I favour this wording (in Template:Gov.pl/en):
The Polish and Russian language versions need equivalent modification.
Verbcatcher (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we should handle this as in {{Pixabay}} referring to the change of the licensing terms at the source website. I.e. we may leave the current text of {{Gov.pl}} as is, but add a note that reads:

Note: On 19 August 2022, the Polish government switched the old sitewide license for all uploads from CC-BY to CC-BY-NC-ND which does not meet the free content licensing requirements for Commons. Therefore, media published on this website from 19 August 2022 onwards is not considered to be freely licensed and can't be accepted on Commons. Files uploaded to Commons after this date should be subject to careful license review, verifying that the publication date on Gov.pl is prior to 19 August 2022.

De728631 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good for me. Borysk5 (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
That looks ok. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I added the update note to the English version. Now someone needs to adjust the /ru and /pl subpages. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I made a request at Commons:Translators' noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I edited the Polish version. Borysk5 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Dziękuję! De728631 (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Commons:2D copying and a third-party photograph of an old Philippine Passport

The file in question: http://ourpassports.com/post-war-philippines-passport/ and en:File:1947 passport ph.png

Since that all Philippine government works (Template:PD-PhilippinesGov) are in the public domain, is this photo qualified in Commons? Or is this 3D enough (due to impressions) that the photo has a separate copyright? 2001:4453:53E:500:3936:4947:4A47:805E 10:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that 3D elements are insignificant here. Ruslik (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The photograph of the person to whom a passport was issued might not be a government work. In some countries (including the UK) it is not taken by a government photographer but is supplied by the applicant for a passport. The photo might have been published before the passport was issued. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
May be, but I don't see any photograph here. Just a passport cover. Yann (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
en:File:1947 passport ph.png is just the cover, but http://ourpassports.com/post-war-philippines-passport/ includes the inside pages – click on the almost-invisible '>'. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, I didn't see these links. The passport is in the public domain as work of the Philippines government, but seeing the date (1947), any copyright would have expired anyway. Stamps are most of the time too simple to get a copyright anyway. The picture was published anonymously more than 70 years ago, so it is OK. Best would be to upload this as a PDF document. Yann (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's Move! videos

Not sure if this was asked here previously or elsewhere but are videos uploaded to the letsmove YouTube channel, which contain videos from the "Let's Move!" initiative, generally covered under PD-USGov-POTUS? -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems that Category:Let's Move! already has some videos uploaded, so it seems so. Be wary of third-party copyrights, though. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Asked that since I intended to upload this and possibly other videos from the said channel here but my primary concern is the music used in those videos (as discussed here and possibly elsewhere). -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification for File:Conservet Deus su Re.ogg's source was from audio restoration which has asserted copyright

While the recording is confirmed to be made by government-owned RAI and was performed by Banda dei Carabinieri (now known as it:Banda musicale dell'Arma dei Carabinieri/en:Italian Carabinieri Bands) by the long-dead Luigi Cirenei (wikidata:Q63290316), it seems that the file was derived from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUtQks1UsDM which according to the description has an asserted recording copyright. I also believed that since it was recorded before relatively noise-free recording mediums were invented that they took significant effort to clean-up this audio material. Should this be removed from Commons due to this? 2001:4453:53E:500:6C6E:CB60:2A7E:68D9 08:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. I have nominated the file for deletion. De728631 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Are diagrams from scientific articles able to be used? if so, what limitations apply?

As it says on the tin. I want to use a diagram from a scientific article that is, as far as I can tell, not available from any other source. Is there any way to make that image available? or am I doomed to struggle and toil to create a similar diagram myself? Licks-rocks (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That depends on the individual journal and to some extent on the complexity of the diagram. Many journals have an Open Access policy where the content comes with a free licence, so you can upload those diagrams at Commons. Content from other journals without a free licence cannot be uploaded here unless the graphs are so simple that there is not individual copyright on them. So for an individual review, please provide a link to the article and tell us which diagram you would like to use. De728631 (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thank you for your response, I am talking about figures 4 and 5 in this paper: link. they aren't all that complex, but it's the first diagram of a giant current ripple I have found. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The journal is copyrighted, but the chart seems so simple it may classify as Template:PD-textlogo (or something similar). Borysk5 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Looking through the text on that page I think the most appropriate option would be { {PD-chart} }?--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

{{NKC}} template for review

I am planning to begin using this new copyright license template, and wanted to run it by this forum. There is strong precedent for "no known copyright restrictions" templates where the rationale is tied to known institutions making a copyright determination and applying this assessment explicitly. See {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}} and Category:No known restrictions license tags for more.

The intention here is for a template for when institutions are marking their items with the "No Known Copyright" standardized rights statement URI in their metadata. (RightsStatements.org is scheme used by thousands of institutions globally for marking copyright.) Based on feedback from Clindberg, I made it with a required parameter that would enforce that use of this template requires an accompanying institution source, so editors are not using this in place of other templates for their own copyright determinations.

I would probably upload tens of thousands of files, at least, with this template, if the Commons community approves it. Also, I am not the best template coder, so if anyone would like to improve it (especially localization or formatting), it's appreciated. Thanks! Dominic (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic: , It is a great idea to standardize some of the "no known copyright restrictions" templates (current and future) and re-use someone-else carefully researched and well translated text. I found 7 translations of https://rightsstatements.org/page/NKC/1.0/ , see for example italian version. Changes I made:
I think we should add {{NKC}} to other templates in Category:No known restrictions license tags, is that your intention? --Jarekt (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Thank you SO MUCH for all that help with the template! Regarding your last question, I'm not sure what people want. It does make sense to standardize "no known copyright" where possible, but many of these other ones seem to be using custom text from the source institution that may not have the same wording at this one. It makes sense for NKC to be applied in cases where the institution is specifically using that statement URI in their metadata, but I am not sure about us applying it to other institutions that didn't use that. Dominic (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@Dominic: , that makes sense. --Jarekt (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 SupportAs the community already accepts other no known restrictions license tags in Category:No known restrictions license tags, I can't think of a reason to reject this one. It is the most standardized in the field. I would however clearly indicate that the remaining risk that comes with reuse is a risk taken by the reuser. That may be an institution uploading their own collection items, a third person or (once the files are on Commons) people reusing the files in other Wikimedia projects or outside Wikipedia. I can imagine that institutions deciding to publish their NKC items on their own website only don't want to be unintentionally exposed to any additional risk. Beireke1 (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Exterior of the Centre Georges-Pompidou

I am pretty sure than most of the image in the category, cannot be here on Commons. I have add the warning for 20 century architecture in France, but i never donne a category deletion request. If someone can do it for me i would appreciate (also many of the image are used by local Wikipedia, and may need to go back here as "Faire Use"). Miniwark (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks ShakespeareFan00 for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Exterior of the Centre Georges-Pompidou. Miniwark (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Marco Verch

I'm looking for images in Flickr, and I've found these images from the profile cited above: 1, 2, 3 and 4. However, I've noticed that his account is banned here. Question: It should exists exceptions like with these 4 photos? As far I notice, images I've provided have an appropriate copyrightholder information, or perhaps I'm missing something and I'm wrong. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: Marco Verch is litigious regarding the attribution requirements and other terms of his CC licensed images. There are reports that his CC licensed photos are traps for the unwary, for examples see Automated image recognition: How using ‘free’ photos on the internet can lead to lawsuits and fines, Indiana Copyright Litigation: German Photographer Sues Toolfarm.com for Alleged Copyright Infringement, etc. What he is doing is probably legal, but nonetheless his photos are no longer welcome on Commons. See discussions from several years ago at COM:AN archive and DRs. —RP88 (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Alright, good to know. Thanks --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest trophy

Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Eurovision_microphone wants an SVG of the Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) trophy that does not infringe. The request pointed to the image File:ESC2016 Trophy.jpg that shows the trophy. Given the do not move to Commons comment about just the Eurovision Song Contest logo at w:File:Eurovision Song Contest.svg (below TOO-US but above TOO-Sweden) and the elaborate sculpture of the trophy, can Commons host File:ESC2016 Trophy.jpg without a release for the underlying trophy? Glrx (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:ESC2016 Trophy.jpg. Glrx (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
See also COM:VPC#Copyrighted Logos below and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2022 European Championships Logos. Glrx (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
And COM:TROPHY.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Other trophies

  • Compasso d'Oro. An Italian user solved the copyright problem in this way.
    Compasso d'Oro. An Italian user solved the copyright problem in this way.
  • David di Donatello. An Italian user created this image, but there are no copyright issues in this case I think.
    David di Donatello. An Italian user created this image, but there are no copyright issues in this case I think.
  • Leone d'Oro. Good version, but wrong colors
    Leone d'Oro. Good version, but wrong colors
  • Simplified version, probably good for copyright. An Italian user created this image.
    Simplified version, probably good for copyright. An Italian user created this image.
  • Telegatto. Is it possible to have a free version in some way?
    Telegatto. Is it possible to have a free version in some way?
  • Academy Award. This is the best version in my opinion but I wasn't able to vectorize it.
    Academy Award. This is the best version in my opinion but I wasn't able to vectorize it.
  • Probably better for copyright issues
    Probably better for copyright issues
  • Is it legit?
    Is it legit?
  • Rough version drawn by me.
    Rough version drawn by me.
  • Pulitzer Medal; free SVG needed
    Pulitzer Medal; free SVG needed
  • BAFTA-Award; free SVG needed
    BAFTA-Award; free SVG needed
  • My rendition of the ESC trophy: is it legit? Must it be uploaded locally?
    My rendition of the ESC trophy: is it legit? Must it be uploaded locally?
  • Sanremo trophy: is it legit? Must it be uploaded locally?
    Sanremo trophy: is it legit? Must it be uploaded locally?

Apart from Eurovision trophy, I was checking the other trophies on Italian Wikipedia. I would like to know whether is possible or not to get a free version of these trophies and if/or they are OK for Wikipedia and Commons.--Carnby (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:New_Perspectives

The concern here is that whilst the publication or journal is clearly a work of a US Federal entity, the submissions to the journal are in some instances submitted by third parties, whose affiliations are independent from the Federal Government. Does this still mean the journal contents can be considered a being licensed under PD US Gov terms? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Are there copyright notices in the journals anywhere ? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I had not found one in the pages I'd examined, However some of the issues post-date 1988. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The latest one I see in that category is 1979, so if no notice (and seriously doubt there would be one), they were all PD immediately upon publication. Issues after March 1, 1989 could not use that reasoning though. If the authors knew they were contributing to something like that, they usually expect effective public domain status, especially in that era. Anything before March 1989 should be fine though; anything after maybe the PD-USGov presumption holds, though it would get fuzzier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I got confused with a different category entirely. If these are all pre-1980, then there isn't an issue, as the licenses can be updated appropriately. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Could please someone answer questions about copyrights in France?

I started a DR on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Affiche commémorations des 600 Franchimontois 1968.jpg; this is about a French poster made in 1968, by an artist who died in 1997. Now there are new questions, which I feel not confidence enough about to answer. I know the basics about copyrights (most about those of the Netherlands) but I do not know enough to answer these question. Could please someone answer these questions who has knowledge of copyrights in France? JopkeB (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Yann as our expert on French copyrights.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! --JopkeB (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing special about this case. There is no particular legal question. Your DR is fine. This file needs a license from the copyright holders. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Stable Diffusion/Open RAIL images?

What is the Wikimedia Commons position on images generated with AI tools like Stable Diffusion, which use the CreativeML Open RAIL-M license? We already have a rapidly growing bunch uploaded at Category:Stable Diffusion, most of which seem to be incorrectly (?) tagged as CC.

Specific subcategories to consider:

  • Generated images of famous landmarks or buildings, some of which may not be covered by freedom of panorama (eg Eiffel Tower)
  • Generated images of famous people (eg Donald Trump)
  • Generated images of copyrighted characters (eg Mickey Mouse) Jpatokal (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jpatokal: Such images of the Eiffel Tower and Mickey Mouse are derivatives of still-copyrighted works, and should go. Images of a fat bronzed blob with a swirl of orange on top can stay.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status of Tea Party movement flag

An image of a flag that is supposed to be one of the symbols used the en:Tea Party movement was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:Second Revolution Flag 2x3.svg under a non-free license. As per the description given for the file, this flag is basically the en:Betsy Ross flag with a Roman numeral II added to it. I've already asked an English Wikipedia administrator about this, and they seem to agree with me that this flag doesn't need to be treated as non-free. However, I'd thought I'd pose the same question here as well just to make sure. Is this flag PD or is adding the "II" enough to make it a COM:DW under US copyright law? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It is probably in PD in USA. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Ruslik0. The Betsy Ross flag is certainly PD 186 years after her death. A derivative of her work could gain its own copyright, but the addition of just the Roman numerals would fall under {{PD-textlogo}}. Glrx (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Ruslik0 and Glrx. What license should be used for the TP flag? {{PD-old-auto-expired}}? {{PD-shape}}? {{PD-logo}}? Some combination of licenses (i.e. one for the BR flag and one for the final TP flag)? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
A combination of {{PD-old-auto-expired}} and {{PD-textlogo}} would suffice. Ruslik (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Since English Wikipedia doesn't have an equivalent to {{PD-old-auto-expired}}, I used {{PD-US-expired}} instead for the Betsy Ross flag. The licensing can be changed as needed after the file has been moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Image

Hi, Back in 2013 File:1986 Dodge D56 Alexander AM "MerseyMini".jpg was uploaded and was under a CC licence on Flickr, That licence has now been changed to "all rights reserved" however we don't have the original uncropped image and for some idiotic reason the Commons uploader had also chosen to blur the vehicle reg plate,


So would I be correct in assuing the now "all rights revserved" licence is irrelevant as it was originally reeased under a CC licence and therefore I would be well within my rights to upload the full non-cropped image?, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 08:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010. Creative Commons licenses aren't revocable as explained in COM:LRV as well as here and here on Creative Commons' website. So, you should be able to continue to use the file as long as you continue to abide by the terms of the original license. The catch, if there's one, could be that you may have to somehow "prove" that the image was originally released under such a license if push came to shove. If it's just your word against that of the copyright holder, then there's no way to tell who to believe. However, if there's an archived version of the website or something else (perhaps an email exchange) which shows that the file was originally released under a different license then it's currently released under, then that might be seen as sufficient proof. I'm not sure what Commons would do in such a case since it's really the uploader of a file who's responsible to proving the file is OK for Commons per COM:EVID and a common way this is done with Flickr seems to by providing a link to the page showing the license. If the copyright holder had emailed their COM:CONSENT to COM:VRT, then this would be on file and would support a claim that the license was subsequently changed. VRT verification; however, isn't always necessary as explained in COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary which seems like the case here. FWIW, I found what looks to be a 2019 archived version of that Flickr page here, but it shows the license as being "All rights reserved". I couldn't find anything going back to the time when the file was uploaded to Commons. Since you don't seem to have been the person who originally uploaded the file, maybe try asking the person who did (or the person who verified the license) about this. Perhaps, one of them can help sort this out. One of them might also be willing to contact the Flickr account holder to find out why the license was changed. One other possibility might be that a mistake was made verifying the license. Is it possible that the license was never in fact changed but was always as such? Not saying that's the case or implying something improper was done, but rather just trying to consider every possibility. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Davey2010 and Marchjuly: License reviewer Leoboudv reviewed it as properly licensed in this edit 07:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC). However, a new filename is recommended, as overwriting Mr.choppers' upload would be unwise per COM:OW.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey @Marchjuly and User:Jeff G.. , Brilliant many thanks for your help, Apologies totally forgot to mention about the admin reviewing it and that it passed, I'll go ahead and upload that file in full under a new name, Many thanks again for both of your help greatly appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Davey2010: You're welcome. However, please note that Mr.choppers is not an Admin on any WMF project covered by CentralAuth.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: FWIW, I wasn't trying to imply that either the original uploader or the license reviewer did anything wrong. I'm just not sure if there's a way of verifying that the photo was originally uploaded to Flickr under an acceptable license that goes beyond the diff left when the license was verified. Is there a way to show that the file was really uploaded to Flickr as such if the Flickr account holder tries to claim it wasn't? The copyright holder probably had a reason for changing the Flickr licensing. Perhaps this reason had nothing to do with Commons, but there's no way of knowing for sure. So, if the uploader is looking for "unauthorized" reuses of their Flickr photos and comes across the ones uploaded to Commons, then they might think they have the right to get them taken down. Could they try to do this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Anyone could try anything. Overly litigous Flickr uploaders will tend to go the way of Marco Verch. However, I will try to ensure that sources I review positively are archived.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The uploader, Mr. Choppers, is very familiar with copyright licenses and I assert that the image was free when I reviewed it Jeff G. & Davey2010 Secondly, there are more than 7000+ flickr images from this flickr account on WikiCommons. I was very active in the past years here but today I have to work a lot in real life and not very active on Commons today sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/08&oldid=722899665"