Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/01

John Yorke AtLee - Anvil Chorus, The (1894)

This year when the pre-1923 music and sound recordings entered the public domain under the implemented law called Music Modernization Act of 2018. Now folks, I have a quick question. Can I allow uploading a music here?

HarvettFox96 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah right, forgot that that day had finally arrived. Yes, it would appear so. You can use {{PD-US-record}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. HarvettFox96 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, looks like someone has created {{PD-US-record-expired}} which is a bit better. The older template is still applied to uploads where the status was not evaluated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: HarvettFox96 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Wielki słownik ortograficzny PWN 2016.jpg

COM:BOOK says modern book covers can only be uploaded if below TOO - would this one qualify? It does only consist of text but COM:TOO Poland suggests a low TOO. eviolite (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, IMO, this is OK. Yann (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The publisher logo seems to be still copyrighted; everything else is obviously PD. Ankry (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The logo complies a 3rd guideline from Commons:De minimis#Guidelines. A book, not a logo is the main subject of the photo and the author didn't focus on the logo. ~Cybularny ^Speak? 21:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all for the replies and confirmation. eviolite (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: eviolite (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Scans of works within PD but with non-commercial license

Hello,

Today I discovered this. A project by a Japanese public library uploading the scans of some old magazines. From the about page it says that the copyright of those magazines have expired (著作権が消滅している) and thus should be within the PD; as the project is made in association with the Japanese government, I can trust this I guess. And since the magazines are from 1912~30, it should be outside of the scope of the URAA.

But when I actually check one of the magazines, there is this ugly overlay saying it's under the CC-BY-NC-ND license, not compatible with Commons.

Can I still upload the scans (assuming I manage to remove the ugly overlay)? I remember hearing similar stories about museums putting some random license on works within the PD, what's Commons' stance on this topic?

Thanks, --Lady freyja (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can upload them. After that just tag them with {{PD-ART}} template. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons will accept them; you can wrap the PD tag with {{PD-Scan}} (if they are made by scanner) or {{PD-Art}} (if they are photographs of the original pages) to show the reasoning. Unsure how much the library cares; sometimes they will make money off of reproductions so may be protective of the revenue stream, to the point of stretching copyright claims to the maximum. It's the uploader's choice of how to judge that risk. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

NC and ND licenses on PD-Art are compatible with Commons, because even ARR is compatible with Commons; we simply ignore the license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for the information! Then I will do. :) --Lady freyja (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright for picture taken at the fall of Singapore in 1942

File:BritishSurrender.jpg is recorded by its source (Imperial War Museum) as being taken by a Japanese official photographer (name of photographer not stated). It was taken during the process of the British administration of Singapore surrendering to the invading Japanese forces in 1942. The image currently has a {{PD-UKGov}} licence tag, which would be relevant if the photographer was a British soldier, but that doesn't apply here. Which set of copyright rules would apply in this situation? British-Singaporean law in place prior to the ceremony, Japanese/Japanese-Singaporean law in place after the ceremony or modern Singaporean law? Would any special copyright rules be applicable as a copyrightable asset produced in war time by a defeated power? I suspect there will be a justification for us to retain the image but the current licence is either wrong or not correctly justified. Any advice you can provide would be appreciated. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Where and when was it first published? Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Normally it's the country of first publication, but for something taken during the war, things would get really fuzzy -- unsure if publication would be by permission of the author, but maybe that was part of the terms of surrender, etc. I do recall somewhere that the UK extinguished copyright on such seized works, and that (in the author's opinion) the EU restoration did not apply to them, since those were only for expired works and not extinguished (so, similar to seized government works not qualifying for URAA restorations in the US). I think the UK did have a program which allowed private citizens to apply to have their extinguished works restored, but don't think the government could do that, so probably PD in the UK that way. If Japan is the country of origin, it's {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. Not sure I'd worry about it too much. It's probably been PD since the 1940s or 1950s at worst. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

University of Mataram logos

File:Logo-Unram-1.png and File:Logo unram.png are logos for en:University of Mataram that were uploaded as "own work" under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} licenses, but that seems unlikely to be the case. I tried to check the university's official website, but my web security software keeps telling me that the site contains possibly dangerous links and is warning me to not try and access it; so, I can't really verify the files' licensing. Would logos of Indonesian public universities be acceptable to relicense as {{PD-IDGov}} per COM:Indonesia? If not, then these probably would be too complex to be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO Indonesia and this may need to deleted if there licensing can be verified to be OK for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy delete. No need to upload university logos or wrongly-licensed logos here. Thanks. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that this is due to crosswiki upload; he is possibly a newcomer to Wikimedia projects. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, but the uploader was intended to use UploadWizard to upload it RaFaDa20631 (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Image with CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license

Can an image with that type of license be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons? Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

No. See Commons:Licensing#Forbidden_licenses. It can be combined with another free license, but it can't be the only valid license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

California state mugshots

I found this image (originally attributed to "TMZ.com") of Jeremy Meeks throughout the years (2002, 2009, and 2014) and as the last one of these mugshots is already uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons as a public domain image, is it safe to assume that the other images are all covered by the same laws? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If they're mugshots by some jurisdiction in California they're in public domain yes. Borysk5 (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, out of caution I will probably nominate it for deletion after upload to have more eyes on it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Maunsell's 1926 Map of battle

Can en:File:Maunsellp.214.jpeg be imported here? It was just undeleted in en.Wikipedia, after this 2012 discussion said it would be allow allowable this year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If E. B. Maunsell died before or in 1951 (very likely but some sort of reference is needed), then the map is now public domain and can be moved to Commons. SV1XV (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Colonel Eustace Ball Maunsell lived from 1878 - 1936.[1]. Frankly, the copyright tag on en-wiki was incorrect before yesterday, due to the URAA. But it's fine now, and for Commons, by the looks of it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I transferred the file to Commons. Actually the copyright tag was not really fine (not PD in the country of origin in 1996), but it's PD anyway in both the US and UK now. De728631 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There was no "copyright tag on en-wiki ... before yesterday [1 January]". The file was only undeleted on that day, as I said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, whoops, OK, missed that. Maybe we should mention the deletion and undeletion in the "history" section for the transferred file. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

{{PDMark-owner}} on new uploads from Flickr2Commons

I am fully aware Flickr users' use of Flickr's "Public Domain Work" (PDW) license option, which links to PD Mark, on their own photos has been discussed ad nauseam, and I am specifically not seeking to reopen that debate. For avoidance of doubt, my understanding of the consensus achieved previously is that works that the copyright holder has asserted to be in the public domain (either through use of Flickr's PDW option or otherwise) are acceptable on Commons.

However, I am concerned with the way this consensus has been implemented by Flickr2Commons and Flinfo: they're currently tagging all new PDW uploads from Flickr with {{PDMark-owner}}, without giving the Commons uploader the opportunity to choose a more appropriate template. I read PDMark-owner as narrowly tailored to the "uploaded by the copyright holder, and none of the other PD license tags apply" use case, which is certainly not the case for all PDW images on Flickr.

From a technical standpoint: Flickr2commons and Flinfo use {{subst:Flickr-public domain mark/subst}} as the license tag when transferring PDW images. The old revisions of that template were deleted, but I think there used to be a big "please choose a PD license tag" notice added to new PDW Flickr uploads. This edit by Shizhao began tagging them as PDMark-owner instead.

Are we okay with PDMark-owner being used as the default license for images tagged as PDW on Flickr? If so, does its wording need an update? --Alex Cohn (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alex Cohn: I'm not okay with that. Shizhao, why did you do that?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

To be fair to Shizhao, the template had already deleted when they recreated and redirected it to PDMark-owner. At the time, new PDW uploads were being created with a broken subst as their only license tag; they may have simply been trying to fix the broken subst. I'm going to see if I can find an example. (edit: here's an example, which was quickly tagged as missing a license) Alex Cohn (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I would likely prefer that PDMark works not be easily transferrable by the automated tools, since yes we should see if the Flickr user is actually the copyright owner -- if not, it would need to be another PD tag. Or at least that they be subject to Flickrreview as well, but not sure how much extra workload that would cause. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

As for the workload: FlickreviewR 2 doesn't recognize PDMark-owner as a valid PD license, so there are currently 74k images in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review. I've been working on that cat, assigning specific PD license tags using VisualFileChange if I see a lot of similar ones (e.g. everything uploaded as PDM by the Yellowstone National Park Flickr account can be safely tagged {{PD-USGov-NPS}}). Alex Cohn (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Template:Flickr-public_domain_mark/subst was deleted as an "unused template" at the DR Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Flickr-public domain mark/subst. Looks like a mistake, not realizing that it was actually still in use by Flickr2commons and Flinfo. The deleted version suggested various Commons PD tags to use for the Flickr file marked with PDMark, including "The Public Domain Mark was applied by the copyright holder to the work → please use {{PDMark-owner}}" along with a note that "...community consensus has decided to accept files which are labeled as Public Domain Mark by their copyright holders." I think undeleting / restoring the old versions is the right way to go. We can then edit the original if consensus is that the language is too harsh about PDMark. —RP88 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like undeleting the old template is likely the right way to go there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted revisions of Template:Flickr-public domain mark/subst and revered to the version prior to the deletion. —RP88 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Need help determining a license.

I have hired a voice actor to read a specific poem for me. Given that it was work-for-hire (I paid for it, obviously), the copyright for the said recording belongs to me, and I am willing to release that copyright under one of CC licenses (that was the big idea from the very beginning). Please advise about any possible issues that may prevent me from uploading the said voice rendition to Commons. -- Wesha (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Work for hire" is a bit more complicated than that -- see this circular. Paying for it is not enough; you'd need something in writing as well. It's only automatic for actual employees, not commissioned works. (For example, the photographer would own copyright in wedding photos unless there was something in writing.) Other countries can differ, but most are moving that way if not already there. If you did the actual recording yourself though, I presume you would own that copyright anyways, so work for hire would not enter into it. There are related rights for performers, which are murkier in the U.S., but usually those amount to agreeing to be recorded, so those may be fine depending on your agreement. Lastly, the poem itself would have (or have had) a copyright, so either the poem itself must be public domain (really old), or you need a license from the poet -- unless it's your poem of course. That may also be granting a license on the poem itself, if it's not PD. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

author vs copyright owner

I am a bit surprised that either there are no templates or I cannot easily find them (from template:Information) for the case where the author have transferred the copyrights to a different person. The information template gives author (which is the original author who is not allowed to license the image anymore) and source, but the source don't seem to offer a version where the uploader is the actual copyright owner (template:own says the uploader is the author, which is not true).

Is this case planned to be handled by misusing the parameters giving author=copyright owner and use an additional attribution field for the real author? Then the metadata will be untrue. What is the expected and standard way to handle uploads by the copyright holder instead of the author?

(I am not sure about the proper English legal terms; in Europe the "author rights" are bound to the original author and cannot be transferred and "copyright" is the right to sell or license it, which can be transferred by contract, if I understand the terms correctly.) --grin ✎ 07:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Grin: In such cases, I generally use bullets in {{Information}} fields to specify, with full explanation in a VRT ticket.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes but this is not "machine translateable" (structured fields will contain false information or information will be missing from there), also not standardised (so everyone uses a different way to describe it); also the fields will contain false information if source is "own" or the author is the copyright holder (which would be also against the template doc). I either hope someone tell me the matching templates or I ought to create them. grin ✎ 08:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

In general, for any license-based field, "author" really means "copyright owner", since it's only the copyright owner who can license the work. The Information template works to identify the author separately, for moral rights purposes. For corporate works for hire, the "author" is typically the company, even though that's not strictly correct (really means the actual author is anonymous). If that doesn't work for structured data, we may need something else. We do have some "heirs" type templates, like {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}}, which is a specific type of transfer away from the original author (probably the most common type we encounter). What does structured data do with something like that? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Pre-1972 sound recordings and U.S. copyright

There appears to be a misconception that pre-1972 sound recordings are protected by copyright. They are not. See 17 U.S.C. § 301(c): "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, and in accordance with chapter 14, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title." The Classics Protection and Access Act essentially extended copyright protection in everything but name to these sound recordings, allowing for unauthorized uses to be subject to the same penalties as copyright infringers, carving out exceptions for certain non-commercial and fair uses, and creating rules around statutory licensing (17 U.S.C. § 1401).

As the protection of pre-1972 works is a non-copyright restriction, we should get community clarification on whether works covered by the Classics Protection and Access Act are non-free. Because pre-1972 sound recording rights holders have essentially the same exclusive rights as sound recording copyright holders, and because violating these rights carries the same penalty as copyright infringement, I believe that we should consider these rights equivalent to copyright when deciding whether a work is eligible to be hosted on commons.  Mysterymanblue  19:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

They are (or were) protected by common-law copyright, just not federal statutory copyright. That is real, and has teeth, and is still copyright and as such affects the "free" status, even though the boundaries are not well defined and differs by state. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc.. Common-law copyright was eliminated in the U.S. in the 1976 Copyright Act, with the exception of those pre-1972 recordings. The new law from a few years ago (finally) eliminates common-law copyright for those too, meaning those old recordings are now protected by federal statutory copyright as well. The terms of protection are listed in {{PD-US-record}}. As of two days ago, we can finally start uploading pre-1923 sound recordings; before that even those were fully under federal copyright protection (since the passage of the new law) and so were unambiguously not public domain. 17 USC 301 is now mostly outdated; pre-1972 recordings are now subject to title 17 protection by virtue of the new law section you cite. We have therefore never allowed uploading of pre-1972 recordings, unless they were licensed (or PD-USGov), since they were non-free. See Template talk:PD-US-record and m:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 for some older discussions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clindberg: 17 USC 301 is not outdated; it was amended by the 2018 Classics Protection and Access Act (See page 53 here) at the same time that federal protection was granted to these sound recordings, explicitly keeping intact the relevant provision. 17 USC 1401 also does not refer to the protection afforded to these sound recordings as "copyright". Congress deliberately preempted state common law copyright while also declining to extend copyright in name to these recordings. My issue has nothing to do with the long history of pre-1972 sound recordings, but rather the law right now which gives copyright protection to these recordings in practice but not in name. I am asking the community to 1) validate that this protection is not "copyright" but only copyright-like and 2) find that this non-copyright restriction is sufficiently similar to copyright to make sound recordings protected by the Classics Protection and Action Act non-free and ineligible to be hosted on Commons.  Mysterymanblue  20:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, section 301 now sounds like common-law copyright is preserved, along with the additional federal protection, until the terms specified in {{PD-US-record}} expire. So, sounds like common-law copyright still exists on those as much as ever, being gradually phased out through 2067. They just added some baseline protection which is universal across states -- forgot about that distinction. It's still copyright though, just not fully-fledged federal copyright. The stance we have always had remains -- see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record. The "non-copyright" stance was suggested many years ago, but was generally rejected in that DR, at which point the template was changed to be vastly more limiting. Pretty much all pre-1972 recordings were non-free before two days ago, unless licensed or PD-USGov. Now at least, pre-1923 recordings are free, and that will increment one year for the next 24 years, before a further 10-year pause in expirations. When the law was passed, {{PD-US-record}} was changed to reflect the terms in the new law, so it was rarely a valid tag to use before now. So, that tag represents the current community consensus, and is in accordance with the Wikilegal guidance (most pre-1972 sound recordings created in the United States are not in the public domain). We consider that new protection copyright, along with the existing common-law copyright which prevented uploads before the passage of that law. Nothing much changed, other than the additional federal protections, until the expiration dates of which we have now arrived at the first one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, the statement "pre-1923 recordings are free, and that will increment one year for the next 24 years, before a further 10-year pause in expirations" is not quite true. While the terms for sound recordings published in 1922 and earlier expired on 1 January 2022, there will be a 1 year pause before the increment begins, i.e. the 100-year term for sound recordings published in 1923 will expire on 1 January 2024. The logic for this is encoded at {{Not-PD-US-record-expired-min-year}}. See 17 U.S. Code § 1401 (a)(2)(B). —RP88 (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea that "common-law copyright is preserved". To me, the statute establishes three things:

1. State statute and common law do not protect pre-1972 sound recordings. See "With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, the preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to activities that are commenced on and after the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act" (17 USC 301(c)), referencing 17 USC 301(a): "On and after January 1, 1978,... no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State."
2. Pre-1972 sound recordings are not protected by federal copyright (17 USC 301(c)).
3. However, pre-1972 sound recordings do receive protection akin to federal copyright under 17 USC 1401.
    Mysterymanblue  03:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Right, "pre-1923" is the same as "published 1922 or earlier". In another year, it will be pre-1924 recordings, etc. Whoops, I see what you are saying. 1923 works are protected for 100 years, so they won't expire until 2024, so we have to wait two years for that.

1. I guess I was looking at this clause: Nothing in this subsection may be construed to affirm or negate the preemption of rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising from the non- subscription broadcast transmission of sound recordings under the common law or statutes of any State for activities that do not qualify as covered activities under chapter 14 undertaken during the period between the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act and the date on which the term of prohibition on unauthorized acts under section 1401(a)(2) expires for such sound recordings. That seems like it says that common law is not pre-empted for any activities outside of the specific area of the new federal protections, until the expiration date. So it's possible that common-law restrictions can still exist. So, I was incorrect to say that common-law rights continue in full, my bad, but some may continue it seems to me.
2. Correct, they don't get the full force of federal copyright, but they get some protections exactly the same as copyright law. The law may be wording things very carefully to control very specifically the rights being granted, but those recordings certainly do get some protections exactly the same as other copyrighted works, plus some other possible common-law rights. In the general concept of copyright as related to "free works", I would agree that those are also copyright restrictions. And that was the consensus I think when that law was passed. So when you say "I believe that we should consider these rights equivalent to copyright when deciding whether a work is eligible to be hosted on commons", I would agree, and that has been the practice. I think we would disagree that these are "non-copyright" restrictions, as the term "non-copyright" there is not specifically about U.S. federal copyright, but encompasses other forms such as common-law (and I'd argue these new protections as well). Simply hosting the files here would violate those new protections (unless licensed) anyways, so we couldn't host them regardless (just like privacy laws, if the act of hosting files here would violate other laws, we can't host them if they are copyright-related or not).

In the end, I think we agree -- pre-1972 sound recordings are non-free unless licensed, PD-USGov, or expire based on the new law's terms. And that has been current practice (though there are likely some files uploaded 10+ years ago under PD-US-record in its old wording, and not yet deleted, as we did not want to do a mass deletion without looking at the specifics of each file). So I think you are simply proposing that we keep the status quo. We have always considered the common law protections, and these new protections, as "copyright-related", that's all. The fact that most aspects of the federal copyright law don't apply to them is not the same thing as "non-copyright" from a more general perspective. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Mexican clothing from 1970s by anonymous artist

This is a fun one. How should I tag a photo of a huipil (traditional women's garment) from Mexico from the 1970s? Nosferattus (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A traditional pattern is probably not copyrightable. --Leyo 08:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I settled on the following:

This file is in the public domain because in Mexico, anonymous works are not protected by copyright. It is also likely that the textile pattern is traditional, and thus not copyrightable. The garment is also public domain in the United States since utilitarian items such as clothing cannot be copyrighted in the United States. This template must not be used to dedicate an uploader's own work to the public domain; CC0 should be used instead. This work must carry justifications for free usability in both the United States and its country of origin.

File:Zsobaner.png

Is this file a copyright violation? Can't find info on TOO in Kosovo or Serbia. There is also File:Community of Serb Municipalities (Kosovo) logo.png with the same symbol marked as PD-Kosovo but I am not sure if that is legitimate. eviolite (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The emblem does not look especially original. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

File:SVSPA logo.jpg

DGJ has uploaded this logo to be used in their new article on Wikipedia and has said that they have permission to create an improved version of the Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy's logo (OG logo here). Since the logo is probably above the threshold of originality, should VRTS be brought in here? Nigos (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nigos. If the uploader of the file is also the copyright owner or officially represents the coyright holder, then there are a few things they probably can try: (1) send a COM:CONSENT email to VRT as explained in COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?; (2) use the VRT release generator as explained at COM:RELGEN; or (3) post the logo on an official website or social media account owned by the copyright holder under a free license that Commons accepts at explained at COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary. As long as Commons is able to somehow formally verify the copyright holder's consent to release the file under a free license, it can be kept; otherwise, it most likely is going to end up deleted if it cannot be converted to a different acceptable license per COM:India. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I can convert the image into another license. I have gone through the licensing wiki page. But Iam still a little confused. What is the usual licensing used by academy logos?

Thank You DGJ (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It is up to the copyright holder to decide. CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are recommanded, but any free license is OK. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Files nominated for deletion three months ago for false ownership claim and probable copyright infringement, no admin response.

I nominated six photos for deletion back in October because the uploader falsely claimed that they were the author, but later admitted that they only colorized the pictures with an online tool. This user was later blocked as a sockpuppet. Since then, however, there has been no administrator response to the deletion requests. The pictures probably are not public domain as far as I can tell. Should I bring this to the noticeboard? Here are the deletion requests, for reference: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brandenburg 1974.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monticello 1974.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lousiville 1974.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guin 1974.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cincinnati 1974.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madison 1974.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brandenburg 1974.jpg. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a backlog of the deletion requests. The oldests still open date from May 2021. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Should File:Emilio Pucci 1973.jpg be taken down?

When I found this photo on eBay without the copyright notice on the back, and (I thought) taken at an American hotel, I thought it met USA published without a copyright notice criteria. I have just now found the same image (flaws and all) up on Getty Images attributed to the Fairfax Media Archives, and a bit of poking around suggests the hotel might actually have been in Australia. I know that the rules only apply to photographs that were taken in the USA, so as someone's staked a claim on it, I guess I should request this file be deleted, right? Thank you so much for your advice. Mabalu (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Getty images' photo is from that exact same copy (same wrinkles etc.) Did they just use the eBay scan? How did that copy end up on eBay after obviously being owned by the newspaper? Did Getty simply buy it? What were the details of the eBay auction... is it still available to see? On the other hand... the mentioned Wentworth Hotel is I think in Sydney, and Fairfax Media is an Australian company, and the Daily Sun mentioned on the back of the photo could well be the Australian newspaper of that name, so ... would seem to be an Australian photo. I'd probably remove it either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The original version of the upload here includes a partial caption saying the image was intended for "Herald Look." Fairfax media's primary publication was the The Sydney Morning Herald (and sister paper, the Sun Herald). "Herald Look" was likely a section or supplement to one of their papers. This suggests first publication of the image in Australia in 1973. The caption also provides the surname of the photographer; establishing the identity of a Herald employee from 1973 based on a surname is not impossible. The current claim of unknown author is wrong and Australian copyright of author's life +70 years is almost certain to apply. At the moment we have no evidence of publication in the USA, so the current rationale is flawed. I also think that this should be deleted unless an alternative justification for retention can be crafted. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah right, it mentions the photo was used in the Sydney Morning Herald's Look section in mid-1973 (there are some Google hits on there being such a section in that newspaper). The photographer was probably Rick Stevens then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I've requested it be deleted, with a link to this discussion. It was uploaded in good faith, but now I understand I was mistaken. Mabalu (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Reprints L'Esprit nouveau

Hi, Reprints of L'Esprit nouveau, a French magazine from 1920 to 1925, are available at Hathitrust in full view. Usually Hathitrust is quite rigorous in checking copyrights, so I wonder if they documents might be OK. Any idea? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Do they use foreign rules or just U.S. rules when deciding on copyrights? They are mostly visible as full view to me (coming from U.S.), but some of the volumes are still search-only. Obviously, such works from 1925 only expired in the U.S. last year. The one I looked at has an article by Le Corbusier on Roman architecture... followed by an article by "De Fayet" which was apparently a Le Corbusier pseudonym. And articles by Amédée Ozenfant under his pseudonyms. I guess those two were the primary authors of that magazine? Can't see how that would be OK in France and therefore here, unless French copyright law on collective works limits the term to 70 years from publication, regardless of the lifetime of the authors? Does the copyright of the individual articles matter? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

w:Hathitrust has its repositories based in Michigan, USA, so are primarily concerned with US copyright law. They have a large body of work stored that is both in and out of copyright. In the past they have defended claims of fair use on copyrighted works in the US courts. They also deal with documents with more complex international copyrights and appear to apply access controls based on the jurisdiction of the IP address accessing their systems. Unlike Hathitrust, our policies of not accepting fair use rationales and on being open to all jurisdictions means we have more complex issues to consider. Commons policy of having suitable licensing or expiry of copyright in both country of origin and USA would suggest that a blanket authorisation of these works here would be inadvisable. Many of the magazines (or excerpts from the magazines) may be out of copyright in France but that will need to be established on a case-by-case basis. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clindberg: For France, rule is 70 years from publication only if the author is not mentioned, which is not the case here. And yes, documents which are not PD in France are usually not available in full view to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Xsprintair logo w-5321edff.webp.pagespeed.ic.Sf2H1 MBFP.webp

Hello, I do not know under what license this image may be licensed. This is a logo, maybe it is freely available or an image on which ordinary geometric shapes are applied (therefore the file is not subject to licensing, but is publicly available), please help--Marshal 10000 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

SprintAir is based in Poland where the threshold of originality is really low. I.e. this logo seems not be free at all and should not have been uploaded here. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Can I upload derivative work from this photo?

Hello! I want to know if I can upload a derivative work of this photo,https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Niceto_Alcal%C3%A1_Zamora,_presidente_de_la_II_Rep%C3%BAblica_Espa%C3%B1ola.jpg#mw-jump-to-license and, if it's possible to upload it, who is the author, me or the photographer. Thanks! Fewasser ;-)Tell me!! 23:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fewasser: It depends on what changes you want to make to the image. What are they? – BMacZero (🗩) 01:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@BMacZero: Hi! Thanks for answering. I coloured the image, nothing more. Fewasser ;-)Tell me!! 01:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fewasser: In that case, you probably did add creatively to the image, so you've created a true derivative work where both you and the original author should be attributed (because both of your creative works are present). An author line like "Unknown author (colorized by Your Name Here)" would be appropriate, and you'll want to leave the original license tag and add a new one (like {{CC-BY-4.0}} or {{PD-Self}}) that applies to your edits. Your edit is probably in COM:SCOPE, so I think you can upload it (as a new file, don't COM:OVERWRITE the existing one). – BMacZero (🗩) 05:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You should also add {{RetouchedPicture}} to your new file page. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fewasser: Hi, and welcome. Per this page, File:Niceto Alcalá Zamora, presidente de la II República Española.jpg was taken by Alfonso Sanchez Portela (N/A, 1902 - 1990), who holds copyright through 1990+80=2070. Please use internal links.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 06:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi again @Jeff G.: @BMacZero: , i dont understand wery well the internal links concept. What I understand here is that this file cannot be used in Commons, so it need to be uploaded as a Fair Use photo. Am I right?. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Fewasser ;-)Tell me!! 15:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fewasser: Yes, but not here or on Spanish Wikipedia or Wikidata. See en:WP:F for upload on enwiki.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, it appears that the file that you have coloured was itself a copyvio. This means, that although you still own the copyright of the additional work, the initial file is not free, and thus the combined work is not free either. Commons does not allow fair use/fair dealing images, and I doubt that any court would conclude that simply colouring a black and white photo transforms it into something completely different (in the USA there are 4 factors, and I believe that all 4 are against you on this one). So you can use your coloured image if the initial is allowed due to some other reason (for example for an educational purpose, research, etc), since the additional copyright you would be able to licence. However, this would be disallowed on Commons. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Iran and URAA

Really, I'm again curious on reasons that why Iranian works may be copyrighted in the United States.

Per COM:Iran, Iran did not participate the Berne Convention, WTO, Universal Copyright Convention or anything else about copyrights. But recently @Chubit: 's two edits lead me to image that if there may have other reasons that URAA may be applied to Iranian works.

Those edits may result risks to several files, that they may be deleted unless uploaders or authors know why they're Public Domain in US (though for old uploads {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} may apply). I asked Chubit twice for clarification but no responds till now. Moreover, I saw some year-old discussions on the template talk page that for some reasons {{Copyright notes}} can't be added to PD-Iran template? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure about the exact nature of copyright protection in the United States for Iranian works (it sounds simple in the beginning, but the devil is always in the detail). However, the simpler thing is Commons' policy: «Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work.» So if the work is copyrighted in Iran, but is free in the United States, you are free to host it on a server in the United States, but it will not be in accordance to our current policy to keep it here. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue is rather the opposite. Iran has a very short term copyright for pictures (compared to most Western countries at least), so many pictures are in the public domain in Iran due to age, but not yet in USA, which doesn't use the rule of shorter term. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any URAA issues with works from Iran -- they don't have a URAA date, since they have not joined the Berne Convention. So, we typically just try to respect the terms that Iran has now (which, most likely, would not change if they join Berne, meaning we could likely keep any files that are in the Iranian PD at the time). The only issue might be unpublished works; those would be protected in the U.S. regardless (an Iranian author could in theory first publish in the U.S., or any other Berne country, to get worldwide copyright protection on their work). Otherwise, they are PD in the U.S. by virtue of being from a country with no U.S. copyright relations. Not sure why the PD-Iran tag insists on a U.S. tag, really -- it should likely be replaced with {{Copyright notes}} as you mention. Sounds like it was added in 2012, and then someone thought it was odd and wanted it removed in 2014, but again with no discussion. But that tag is the closest we have to a "PD-US-no-copyright-relations" tag, I think. Unless you want to use {{PD-1996|country=Iran}}, as you could consider that "correct", since the URAA date is in the future (if it will ever exist). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted Chubit's edits. I agree with what Gone Postal said. Let's not complicate things. Iranian works are not protected in the US and vice versa. I have no objections to adding {{Copyright notes}} to the PD-Iran template. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Black and white photos in Category:Saline Valley

Many black-and-white photos in Category:Saline Valley are sourced to this site: [2]. They are certainly dated to before 1927; however it is unclear if they were published before then or not, and the source's main page has a notice "All items on this website have been catagorized [sic] as fair use and are being displayed strictly for non-commercial and nonprofit educational purposes." I expect this to be either PD-US-expired or PD-US-no notice, and uploader Netherzone has agreed, but would just like to make sure in case we missed something. eviolite (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If they were published after 1927, they may not be in public domain. So, the date of publication is important. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

PD-Italy

Hi all. I’ve just uploaded four new images:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ebe_Stignani.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stignani_Carmen.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Merli-Stignani-Pavarotti.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bechi-Caniglia-De_Fabritiis-Tajo-Stignani-Gigli.jpg

They were both nominated for deletion. Yet, in order not to be mistaken, I looked at an already existing file on Commons.
I found this:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luciano_Pavarotti_72.jpg

I indicated the same license as this image: PD-Italy. My question is: what’s the difference between my images and "Luciano_Pavarotti_72.jpg"? --Sentruper (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You should put specific copyright tags as in the above mentioned image. Ruslik (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You can't just put the text "PD-Italy" in there; you need to put the license tag, which is the text {{PD-Italy}} (with the squiggly braces). That way, it will show up in the licensed categories. However, do note that PD-Italy is more for snapshot-type photos; studio portraits like File:Ebe Stignani.jpg and especially File:Stignani Carmen.jpg would not qualify, as those would be 70 years after the death of the photographer. If that type of photo is anonymous, i.e. the photographer's name was not provided on the original publications, they would need to be created before 1940 (thus expired before mid-1996 per the old rules of 50 years from creation, plus six years wartime extension) and published before 1952 (published more than 70 years ago) to be OK -- those would then be {{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{PD-1996}}. If not anonymous, then the author needs to have died before 1952, and the photo created before 1940. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

There's an additional problem. Even for those that are snapshot-type photos, the source for all four images was published in 1980. If that was the date of first publication, they would have been copyrighted in the United States as being first published after January 1, 1978, even without the URAA. TrueNeutral879 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To the people in the United States

I haven't seen anybody mention that here, but the US Copyright Office is currently open to comments on the possibility of issuing copyright registrations without any consideration regarding the status of the work. It could potentially allow people to register public domain works and claim copyright on them. The current idea is that the applicant needs to request the examination. If you live in the USA, perhaps you could send in your ideas, it has the potential to influence how this project is run. https://www.copyright.gov/policy/deferred-examination/ (P.S. I am not saying that the entire proposal is bad, please consider it, and send your comments to the Copyright Office if you think appropriate) ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the problem? Registrations do not create any new copyright anyway. Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct. It only allows people to sue others for copyright infringement without having to prove damages. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

They still must prove the validity of the copyright, though. This proposal doesn't seem to change much. TrueNeutral879 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

North Carolina General Assembly map graphics

I wanted to upload a congressional district map here, which was linked to from here, since File:United States Congressional Districts in North Carolina, 2021 - 2023.tif, the previous congressional districts map has been uploaded. However, I saw in the disclaimer page that "Photographs and graphics on the North Carolina General Assembly Website may be under Copyright Protection"; I don't know if it applies to these maps as well. Also, a similar, smaller pdf is also at the "All About Redistricting" website here, linked to from here; the original pdf is from here. Twotwofourtysix (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Twotwofourtysix: This map likely does not meet the threshold of originality. The copyright notice does likely apply to the map, but that doesn’t matter, because this map doesn’t deserve copyright. The basic information of the map—the shape of North Carolina, the shape of the North Carolina’s counties, the shape of the various Congressional districts, and the shape of the precincts (in the inset maps)—are not copyrightable. The “original” elements of this map are thus the positioning of the main and inset maps, the selection of the inset maps, and the choice of color for the districts; and these fall below the standard set forth in Darden v. Peters. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

French threshold of originality

Hello, there is something clearly wrong stated in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France#Threshold_of_originality, for more explanation see the corresponding talk page. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Collective works without searching: suitable templates?

For Collective works that are uploaded without a reasonable search, using a cut-off date of 150 years, what are the right template/s to use? {{PD-newspaper-assumed}} is for when the reasonable search is done, which comes with a 120 year cut-off. Inductiveload (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

{{PD-old-assumed}}. I assume. Borysk5 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Borysk5 That also specifies a 120 year cut-off (in fact, it's just a more general case of {{PD-newspaper-assumed}}). While I suppose it's "technically" true, because 150 is greater than 120, it doesn't seem to capture the complete situation.

Or should old-assumed learn a parameter to say "this hasn't been subject to a reasonably diligent search, so it's 150 years"? Inductiveload (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And is 150 actually a "thing" at all, or is it always 120 after the discussion over {{PD-old-assumed}}? Inductiveload (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Winnie-the-Pooh 19.png

Files such as this one have been uploaded here and more in Category:Winnie The Pooh. However, the version on en-WP says it will not be in the public domain in its home country until January 1, 2047. There was some discussion on Wikisource on whether the US should be considered (one of) the home country. What do we think? ––HTinC23 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC) (02:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC) edited)

Published simultaneously in the UK and US in October 1926, per the en-wiki article. PD in the US as of three days ago. The text's copyright will expire in the UK (and most of the rest of Europe) in 2027; the illustrations not until 2047. So, it comes down to what is the "country of origin". Per Berne, with simultaneous publication, the country of origin is the one with the shorter copyright term. Of course the US was not part of Berne at the time. But if you go with that definition, then the U.S. is the country of origin I think. If you would prefer to break the tie based on the nationality of the authors, it would be the UK. There are no definitive precedents for something like this, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately, this is not a legal question, but a moral one. Legally, we are in the clear because it is PD in the US, so it's a question of whether we choose to host it or not despite being copyrighted in the UK. The determination of country of origin is something that we haven't really formalized in general. For COM:FOP, we take the more lenient of the following two: 1) the country the work is located in and 2) the country the work was photographed from. In most cases, a chain of COM:DW requires PD in all affected countries, but not for FoP when its placement in the target country is (or can be presumed to be) authorized by the original copyright holder. But for multiple competing countries at the outset, we don't really have a policy written down somewhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Are we sure the book was the first publication of this illustration? Prior to the publication of the 1926 book (which may have been simultaneously published in 30 days in the US) Milne had published a series of stories about the bear in newspapers with illustrations by Shepard. Sources indicate that the stories and illustrations were reused in later books. Was this specific image one first published in the UK newspaper (so not simultaeneously published in the US) and reused or was it a new commission from the same artist that had worked with the author before? If it is the former, our tentative argument for retention here falls apart. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

An update: these files are now nominated for deletion. HTinC23 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• The rules deal with U.S. copyright in the first instance, which makes sense because U.S. is the home of Commons. Under U.S. law, this is a U.S. work. Because the book (and thus the illustration) is in the public domain in the U.S., the book (and the images) can be hosted on Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is The "Teddy" Bear original of 1903 in the Smithsonian- Category:1903_Teddy_bear_in_Smithsonian_Museum_of_American_History. That face looks familiar. Winnie-the-Pooh was published first in the U.S. book market, because of a huge population of potential buyers (and profits) compared to the U.K., especially with the continued popularity of this American stuffed bear. A book business after all. --Ooligan (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ooligan: Thanks, but please use internal links like Category:1903 Teddy bear in Smithsonian Museum of American History.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Carl Lutz, Fortepan and Archiv für Zeitgeschichte

cc @Hadi and Omnilaika02 who are also following the issue.

Hi everyone,

I'm stuck with a copyright/attribution problem regarding photographs of and by Swiss diplomat Carl Lutz, especially those in this section: Category:Photographs by Carl Lutz.

TL;DR:

Fortepan claims attribution even if it allegedly has no right to it and I'm seeking counsel in order to avoid misattribution and potential copyright infringement.

Long version:

I'm interested in using photographs of Swiss diplomat w:Carl Lutz for his article on frwiki (in order to propose it to featured article/fr:Article de qualité). While checking Category:Carl Lutz, I noticed some high quality and valuable images in Category:Photographs by Carl Lutz, which seemed to have a common point of origin: Fortepan. Indeed, some users have uploaded files (in bunch uploads) from fortepan.hu, a host based in Hungary (see also Category:Images from Fortepan). The uploads from Fortepan seem to be stained with possible copyright violation (see @Grin's comments in 2017-2018 on the matter). It seems that the website goes on "fishing" for images on the internet that are in relation with Hungary, with little to no care if they are allowed to republish them on their own website (but that's a story for another day).

Lutz was Swiss vice-consul in Budapest during WWII and died in 1975 (therefore 70 pma not applicable yet). His legal heir, Agnes Hirschi, gave Lutz's archives to the Archiv für Zeitgeschichte (AfZ, Archives of Contemporary History of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich). My educated guess regarding the files in Category:Photographs by Carl Lutz: they uploaded the files from the AfZ's website that are in relation with Budapest and Hungary and attributed them to the AfZ/Agnes Hirschi (when they were not licensed under CC).

I contacted the AfZ last year to ask if it was possible to release images by and from Carl Lutz in a CC compatible license. This was done between late December 2021 (many thanks to them). Now I'm seeking assistance in order to tidy up the undue copyright appropriation by Fortepan.

Questions:

I see two problems in this situation: (1) the undue mention of Fortepan in the file attribution; and (2) the mention of fortepan and its serial number in the file name. For instance, this portrait of Carl Lutz is the extract of this file in the AfZ database (p. 4) (the CC license is located in the top left corner of the website, under "Nutzungsbestimmungen").

How should I proceed? Upload the photographs from AfZ and put in a request for deletion for the preexisting Fortepan files in Category:Photographs by Carl Lutz? Replace the attributions in the Fortepan files and change the titles (i.e. removing "fortepan [serial number]"? Should I request a bunch upload?

Thanks a lot for your help, – Arkhein Drakenov (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"it seems that the website goes on "fishing" for images on the internet that are in relation with Hungary, with little to no care if they are allowed to republish them on their own website" - in such case I would request deletion of such images where there is no credible source confirming such claims and upload clean images separately. Note: I have not verified accuracy of this description. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a very long and complex topic. You could try to search for it and it'll provide you with hours of very long debates. :-) They are notorious licence-washers, hosting a lot of photos of unknown author, origin, date, but faking a CC license on them; and they also host more and more genuinely licensed or at least approved images, often with almost matching license, but hardly ever properly attributing the source (or actually offer any pointers for verification). We cannot say "it is a fraud" since there are a lot of valid free images hosted, but the general sentiment was that every damned image has to be manually verified by someone, maybe using some similar template to Flickr review. But the real problem is that it is way harder to verify due to lack of proper attribution. And outright deletion would be too harsh. And we talk about 160 thousand images. In a nutshell. grin ✎ 20:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It's always adventurous when someone mentions Fortepan. :-) But fortunately your question seems to be actually answerable. I'll be brief:

• feel free to remove Fortepan attribution from name, description (except from source, since they were the source of the file), they have no legal rights whatsoever to any of the images (they are neither author nor rights holder, only one publisher from the masses);
• peferably keep Fortepan reference in the description (do not lose information);
• no need to worry about any modifications on the image or the names (it's CC licensed, no matter how legal it was, from the point of view of the uploader, so it allows any modifications, provided the original licensor - who is AfZ/Ms. Hirsch - is kept). (Technically we have to fix the false attribution.)

That's my suggestion, but maybe others will voice theirs. :-) (Sidenote, took me some time to find the originals or some example for the license, so I put it here.)

As for the specific method of "how", I can't offer any good suggestion on mass rename. grin ✎ 20:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to @Grin and Mateusz Konieczny for their inputs, I'll proceed according to Grin's suggestions.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Arkhein Drakenov (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Seeking input from Commons on a photo of Bronko Nagurski

I've gotten helpful input from EN.WP about an image I'd used of football player Bronko Nagurski. Our ongoing discussion is here: Files for discussion/2022_January_12#File:Bronko_Nagurski.jpg. The image is managed by Getty Images, where Getty's metadata dates it as well into the Public Domain, claiming it is from 1 January 1900, rather than what I surmise to be circa 1926-1929. If it isn't 95 years old now, it soon will be, in actuality. The photo was recognizably taken at the old Memorial Stadium in Minneapolis, where Nagurski takes a standard pose for photos of new collegiate gridiron recruits. Nagurski first shows up in his university's yearbook in 1927, but normal yearbook publishing lags meant he entered school in 1926. (He was on the 1926 freshman squad and was on the varsity team in 1927-1929.) The photo in question is File:Bronko_Nagurski.jpg on English language Wikipedia. See the Getty archive page and metadata claiming a 1900 date - the licensor. It is owned by the Chicago Daily News negatives collection, Chicago Historical Society referenced as their item SDN-068904. In this case, what are the rules? Is this file allowable now as a Commons upload? I was referred to Commons on this, as you may have further experience regarding Getty claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax MN (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 January 2022‎ (UTC)

Getty claims the image is owned by Chicago Sun-Times/Chicago Daily News.[3] A quick check of the Chicago Sun-Times collection at Chicago History Museum finds the image you are describing at https://images.chicagohistory.org/search/?searchQuery=Bronko+Nagurski. This specific image is stated as being created in 1929. We would need to do some further digging to confirm the image was published in 1929 and wasn't just an unused spare. If it was published in 1929, you could upload the image here on 1 January 2025. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Very, very few newspapers ever renewed their works. See https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html#C ; none of the Chicago papers had full issue renewals, and contributions were occasionally renewed, but none this early for the Chicago Daily Times. If this was published in 1929, it's {{PD-US-no renewal}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Yes, you make a good point. Does it, for the sake argument, matter if the photo wasn’t taken by some working for the paper (i.e. not a en:work for hire)? Suppose the photo was taken by someone independent of the paper who then allowed the paper to use it. Wouldn’t the original article need to be checked to determine whether the photograph was attributed to anyone in particular? — Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, an individual who owns copyright might have renewed it. But the renewal records are online and could be checked. The hardest part here is showing that the photo was in fact published in 1929; a negative in an archive might never have been published (or not published in its entirety), meaning there is a very real possibility that copyright lasted much much longer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Then it seems that we need to figure out who actually took the photo as well as show that it was actually published in 1929. Perhaps the best way to do both would be to somehow find it actually be used in the Chicago Daily Times in 1929. Would something such as en:Newspapers.com be helpful in a case like this? If it might, then perhaps there's someone at en:WP:RX who might be able to help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If the negative was in the Chicago Daily Times archives, it's a work for hire. At the most, will expire the shorter of 95 years from publication and 120 years from publication (unless first publication happened between 1978 and 2002). It's really the date of publication that matters, doesn't matter who really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion on File:Fourier2.jpg

File:Fourier2.jpg is a colorized version of an early 1800s engraving. The last uploaded version is from Getty images: Link. A few days ago I initiated an unrelated thread on English Wikipedia: Link, and the possiblity of an artistic license (regarding colorization) was discussed/questioned by two editors. In that thread I agree with the comments by User:Adam Cuerden. May I get another opinion (or opinions) regarding the subject and the hosting of the image on Commons? Bammesk (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This colorization seems to be minimal. I do not think it can result in any new copyright. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Peotry In Motion.jpg

Is this image (File:Peotry In Motion.jpg) out of copyright especially in the UK? From what I read, UK copyright of published editions last 25 years after first publication. I can't tell whether there might be some creativity within the image. George Ho (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dutch picture postcard < 1942

I own a postcard with a photo of the first municipal lyceum (w:nl:Eerste Gemeentelijk Lyceum in Den Haag) in The Hague, Netherlands. There is no name of the photographer and no year on the postcard, but the photo must have been taken before 1942, because in that year the building was demolished. Is it allowed to upload the image to Commons? Sijtze Reurich (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sijtze Reurich: Hello. While the card is now out of copyright in the Netherlands and the rest of the EU, it may still be copyrighted in the United States. So I would rather not upload the image. De728631 (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it really relevant whether it is copyrighted in the US? It was a Dutch building and is a Dutch postcard. Sijtze Reurich (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it does matter because the Wikimedia Commons servers are located in the US. So all uploads here need to be free in the country of origin and in the United States. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ciell and Ellywa: I tried to find a local upload form at the Dutch Wikipedia, but the only upload link I found goes directly to the Commons Upload Wizard. So, am I right to assume that nl.wikipedia does no longer support local file uploads? De728631 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Local uploads are not allowed on nl.wikipedia. By the way, I asked the question because I couldn't find the Dutch/European rules for uploading picture postcards to Commons. It never occurred to me that I should seriously consider the possibility that an American copyright mafioso could claim with any chance of success that he has the rights to a Dutch postcard. Well, so be it. Sijtze Reurich (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

De728631 is right here: per Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_US_and_non-US_copyright_law, files have to be free in the country of origin as well as under the copyright laws of the USA. If the material would be free in the Netherlands (for NL: +70 years after the creator is diseased, which in cases of an unknown photographer is not to determine without background research), we still have to look at other rights, in this case maybe also Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. While I assume you are being sarcastic in your remark about 'American copyright mafioso' this law from the Bern-convention could apply here, if you cannot prove the image came into the public domain in 1995 or before. URAA gives heirs of the photographer from other countries the rights to restore the copyright in the USA - which is very confusing for us Europeans! But this is how it works...

@Sijtze Reurich the only way this could possibly be solved is to reach out to the manufacturer of the card, that should be listed on the back. They, or their successors, could have more information that could help determine the copyright status of the postcard: who was the photographer, when was the card printed, that kind of information.

@De728631: nlwp does still allow local uploads, but it is rarely used. Dutch wp community has decided the collective admins and users of Commons are more knowledgeable on the general subject of copyrights and we want to abide the same rules as Commons. The upload link has been removed from the side menu, but the Special: page is still active. However, everything that license-wise can go on Commons will be transferred here by us. Ciell (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The publisher was Roukes & Erhart in Baarn. I can't find a closing date, but anyway, the firm no longer exists. Even if it still existed, the chances that the archives from the 1930s would have been preserved are very small. (I have been working for a publishing company for more than 25 years; I know what I am talking about.) So I'm not going to bother looking any further. I will give up the idea of putting the photo on Commons. Sijtze Reurich (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ciell and Sijtze Reurich: Ciell, thanks a lot for the explanation. I found that nl:Speciaal:Uploaden does exist but its use is limited to administrators. So, if Sijtze uploaded the file temporarily here at Commons, would you transfer it to the Dutch Wikipedia? Under these circumstances I think it could be kept there for the time being with a note that it should not be transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@De728631 I don't completely understand: to what benefit should nlwp allow to host it locally, if it does not comply with the rules? The Dutch Wikipedia only has some exceptions for, for instance, historical images on the history of our language Wikipedia: if images meant for articles are not allowed on Commons, I don't think a local upload would be a suitable alternative. Ciell (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The benefit would be that you get an illustration for an article of a historical building that does not exist any more. And since the postcard is out of copyright in the Netherlands, there is also no legal issue to keep it local. However, if there is consensus to not use local uploads at all, then we should respect it. De728631 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

In general, the U.S. term would be 95 years from publication (regardless of author), so it would have needed to be from before 1927. The EU restored copyright to a great many works in the mid-1990s (the Netherlands went from 50 years to 70 years in 1995 I think); the US was forced to restore copyright to foreign works in 1996, provided they were still under copyright at the time. The combination of those two means that the U.S. would have restored copyright to any anonymous Dutch postcard 1926 or later to 95 years from publication -- which now covers only 1927 and later works. On January 1, 1995, this postcard was PD in both countries; a year later it was copyrighted in both, provided it was from 1926 or later. It has re-expired in the Netherlands, but possibly not yet in the U.S. Can you find other copies on the net which might have a postmark on them, which would mean they were published before that date? Any postmark before 1927 means it's fine. Otherwise, finding a way to upload to nl-wiki might be the best option. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Many of the photos used for Roukes & Erhart's postcards were taken by the photographer J.F.H. Roovers, who passed away in 2000. I found the company that owns the copyrights to his photos. I'll ask them if the photo of my postcard was taken by Roovers. Not that we get much out of that, of course. If the photo is by Roovers, then we are not allowed to use it, otherwise we still do not know enough.

The risk that we run if we show an anonymous photo, can be seen at the website of Historisch Emmen: "After 20 years, Historisch Emmen has taken all information from after 1900 from the internet. Today, ruthless people buy rights to photos in order to earn a lot of money from them." These are the people I mean by "copyright mafiosi". Sijtze Reurich (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The photographer would have needed to be known within 70 years of publication. After that, it becomes PD, regardless if the author becomes known later. So discovering the author today should not change anything. According to this article, linked from Category:Photographs by J.F.H. Roovers, postcards from that photographer from before 1946 were ruled expired, since it was not until 2016 that the copyright owner tried to sue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

hiroko.cn images

Hello all, hope you all are having a good day.

I came across these sets of images while I was renaming. I see that the images are having a watermark of the website, and all are marked Own work. Now, as I searched hiroko.cn in web archive, I found these images which when translated, show as someone's travelling album. And there is no CC licence statement written. Then what will happen of this image. --Contributers2020^{Talk to me here} 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reichstag Dome and German FOP

An image at enwiki, w:en:File:Germany berlin reichstag-1.jpg, caught my attention lately as it is tagged as not compatible for Commons. This, despite there is FOP for building exteriors found in public spaces in Germany (ref. COM:FOP Germany), which means this should be OK here. Unless, the entire space is considered a private space and virtually all images found at Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome may need to be "thrown into a wastebasket". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The depends on whether the roof of Reichstag (from where the photo was made) is a public place or not. Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It appears the public can access the roof for free, but it requires registration. See here. TrueNeutral879 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

at least in the past those were thrown in theweastebasket, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dome of the Reichstag (building) or Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Reichstag (dome) - Exterior --Isderion (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Try to ping those involved in both DR's: @Lophotrochozoa, ThePlaz, Fry1989, Danny S., BrokenSphere, Dodoïste, Blackcat, A.Savin, Wuselig, AndreasPraefcke, Quedel, FA2010, and Fastily: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, because the public access to the dome is limited, photos like this probably cannot pass the public place requirement of COM:FOP Germany; while some other photos from Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome, in particular remote or aerial views, are OK. --A.Savin 02:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing much has changed from my previous arguments and if A.Savin prevailed than, he should prevail now. You could argue that this is an outside view. But FOP does not apply, if you leave ground level. And climbing the roof of the Reichstag would definetly mean, you left ground level. Wuselig (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If the public can access the roof for free, what's the issue? Deleting these files seem against (at least) the spirit of the law. Yann (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not as easy regarding the Reichstag; unlike for a museum or so, you cannot just "come, buy a ticket and enter". You have to book your admission permit well in advance, and it is valid for the chosen timepoint only. But in COM:FOP Germany#Public you can read that even museums probably do not qualify. That said, IANAL but for me it's unlikely that a court in Germany would see the Reichstag dome as a public place. --A.Savin 13:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't always the case. I remember that you could go there without having an appointment (why do I feel old now :( )

After reading through de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium_„öffentlich““ I am leaning to finding it ok, I mean the building has written "Dem deutschen Volke" (to/for the German people) on it.

However it is an edge case --Isderion (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's probably not ok. You can access that place for free, but not freely. It is not a public space. Doesn't look like German FoP is applicable, then. Images of the Reichstag building taken from afar, from real public space, are fine, of course. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

D.h. dann, weiter gedacht, dass immer dann, wenn aus Sicherheitsgründen Personenkontrollen durchgeführt werden, oder der Zugang aus anderen Gründen irgendwie beschränkt ist, auch eine Straße kein öffentlicher Raum im Sinne des FoP mehr ist? Was hat das dann aktuell mit den ganzen Beschränkungen wegen Covid auf sich? Sind Straßen und Plätze Covid-Auflagen nicht mehr FoP-fähig? Das wäre imho die Konsequenz aus Deiner Argumentation. Und bitte dieses rein deutsche Problem mit ausschließlich deutschem Recht auch ausschließlich auf Deutsch führen, wer dem nicht folgen kann, kann sowieso nicht mitreden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 14:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Covid-19 restrictions, I'm one of those who still hopes this is all temporary, that means if I tell you what my understanding of a particular law is, I assume "normal" situation as before the pandemic. But there is nothing we can rule out, and also some rude surprising court decisions are of course not impossible in future. --A.Savin 14:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Info DR now commenced by me: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the FOP rules JWilz12345 might be right (or not ?), but it’s a pity more and more people are looking for photos which can possibly be deleted in Commons instead of trying to keep good photos for the benefit of Wikipedia. When I entered the Reichstag I asked a guide if it is possible to take photos of the building and he gave permission. Our modern time forces us to comply with millions of rules. Where is the difference between taking a photo from the air and a photo taken from outside the dome by standing on two feet … it could be the same photo !! It’s just crazy ! I don’t think these rules were made by the architect ! --Olga Ernst (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Only pictures taken from the roof top are a problem. --Yann (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Olga Ernst: the question you should have asked was: "was it possible to freely share and distribute your images under commercial license, without the need of Architect Lord Norman Foster's added license", and "if the rooftop is considered a freely-accessible public space by virtue of panoramafreiheit." But per admin A.Savin, it appears not and Foster may win in potential lawsuits against Wikipedians or German reusers. And since FOP originated in Germany, I assume there will be no more attempts to widen their scope of FOP as that may trigger backlash from artists' groups.

Regarding "Our modern time forces us to comply with millions of rules." Commons (and Wikimedia Foundation in general) has no choice but to follow; France has already refused free culture-friendly FOP and only implemented non-commercial FOP in 2016. And it was only confirmed in November last year that we here in the Philippines do not have FOP (thus many of us here might have unintentionally violated artists' economic rights over public monuments and buildings here), which is why FOP is now being rolled out in our legislature and expected to be passed before the 2022 Philippine elections (hopefully, before the 18th Congress permanently ends in preparation of the elections). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Würdest Du das bitte, das es ausschließlich um deutsches Recht geht, auf Deutsch schreiben? Nur, wer sich auf Deutsch hinreichend gut ausdrücken kann, kann bei einem solchen Thema, bei dem es ausschließlich um deutsches Recht geht, sinnvoll mitreden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 14:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me but Commons is an international project and its language is English. In particular there is no obligation to switch to German or any other language in the Village Pump. --A.Savin 14:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dann besprecht innerdeutsche Angelegenheiten, bei denen es primär auf ein gutes deutsches Sprach- und Rechtsverständnis angeht halt nicht hier. Ohne Deutschkenntnisse kann jedenfalls niemand hier eine sinnvolle Angabe machen, das ist schlicht nicht möglich. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 14:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Not the knowledge of German language is what we need here, but much more a knowledge of German laws. --A.Savin 15:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Und dafür musst Du deutsche Gesetze lesen, die auf Deutsch geschrieben sind. Und ein Grundverständnis vom deutschen Rechtssystem haben. Und da mindestens einer der betroffenen Fotografen, deren Arbeit hier vernichtet werden soll, bekennender Nichtenglischsprecher ist, ist es extrem unhöflich das hier in einer für den Sachverhalt unangemessenen Fremdsprache zu verhandeln. Die Diskussion gehört in das Commons:Forum, da wird in einer dem Thema angemessenen Sprache diskutiert, nicht auf Chinesisch, Spanisch, Suahili oder Englisch. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 17:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ich argumentiere nicht für Bekennende Irgendwas-Nichtkönner, sondern für den Admin, der sich irgendwann die Mühe macht, diesen Löschantrag zu entscheiden. --A.Savin 17:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Der oder die Admin muss sich ja auch mit deutschen Recht gut auskennen, also auch unbedingt mindesten de-4 haben, sonst kann da keiner was sachgerecht zu sagen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 17:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wieder einmal spaltet die Überregulierung der Justiz das Volk (die Wikipedianer) aber trotzdem gerne noch ins Deutsche übersetzt : „Was die FOP Regeln angeht hat JWilz12345 möglicherweise Recht (oder auch nicht ?), aber es ist schade dass sich immer mehr Leute damit beschäftigen Commons zu durchstöbern um Fotos zu löschen, anstatt gute Fotos zu Gunsten von Wikipedia behalten zu wollen. Als ich den Reichstag besuchte, fragte ich einen Angestellten dort, der bestätigte, dass es kein Problem sei das Gebäude zu fotografieren. Leider gibt es in unserer modernen Zeit Millionen von Regeln die wir gezwungen werden einzuhalten. Wo ist der Unterschied zwischen einem Foto von der Kuppel aus der Luft, oder fotografiert von einer Person die auf zwei Beinen steht … es könnte das gleiche Foto sein. Es ist verrückt ! Ich denke nicht dass der Architekt solche Regeln machen würde.“ --Olga Ernst (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Der Gesetzgeber macht diese Regeln. Wir müssen uns hier halt daran halten; weniger aus Eigeninteresse, sondern um Nachnutzer, die sich auf die freie Lizenz verlassen, davor zu schützen eine Urheberrechtsklage an den Hals zu bekommen. --Túrelio (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bleibt die Frage : ist ein öffentlich zugänglicher Platz auch dies, wenn man dafür zahlen muss ? --Olga Ernst (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Abschließend kann das nur ein Gerichtsurteil sichern, wie ja auch aus dem 3. Abschnitt von de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „öffentlich“ zu erahnen ist. --Túrelio (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we cannot say it without having a legal issue coming from, but that is what we try to avoid. I would be nice if we can keep it, but it seems not to be. The dome and the outerior on the roof of the Reichstag can be visited by public, but isn't a place that is assigned to be a public space. You can enter it when the Bundestag says "ok, you can visit us", but there is no entitlement that everybody who wants, can go onto or into it. Thats the difference, so that the criteria "public" in FOP isn't fulfilled in my opinion. Deutsche Fassung der wichtigen Teile: Der Reichstag kann von Besuchern(!) besichtigt werden, er ist also für die Öffentlichkeit teilweise begehbar. Es fehlt aber die Widmung als öffentlicher Raum. Der ist nicht gegeben. Es ist auch nicht die Sicherheitskontrolle die das einschränkt, vielmehr die grundsätzliche Einschränkung der Besuchsmöglichkeit. Und es bleibt ein "Besuch" und kein "Aufenthalt" wie es im öffentlichen Raum der Fall wäre. Nicht zuletzt gibts dort auch Hausrecht - was im Umkehrschluss bedeutet, dass es eben nicht der Öffentlichkeit gewidmet ist. Und zur Fotofrage: ob man (privat) Fotos schießen kann, ist hier nicht relevant. Wenn hätte wie schon gesagt gefragt werden müssen, ob man Fotos für kommerzielle Zwecke von der Kuppel zur Drittlizensierung veröffentlichen darf. Aber hat nicht irgendwer Kontakt zur Bundestagsverwaltung und könnte dort unkompliziert mal nachfragen? --Quedel (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

The pictures of Luis Barragán's work under the Luis Barragán category and its subcategories seem to be copyright violations, but then again the works that are in a public space seem to meet freedom of panorama in Mexico. I don't think the interiors of buildings that he worked on count as public spaces. The link that I pointed to does say, "Please note that the term “work” extends beyond physical buildings, landscapes, gardens and developments; it also includes drawings, sketches, blueprints, texts, manuscripts, preparatory materials, etc. Making “use” of a work includes photographing, filming, reproducing, broadcasting, publishing, etc. These lists of “works” and “uses” are not comprehensive and encompass all related objects and applications." SL93 (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

File:HMS Tactician Jan 1953 SLV Green.jpg

Hi all

The file File:HMS Tactician Jan 1953 SLV Green.jpg has a tag indicating that it's public domain in Australia, but it appears to lack a US-specific copyright tag and I think that's required, right? I suspect it might be eligible for Template:PD-1996, although I'm unsure if we can be sure the "first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States" criterion is met. Cheers Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Allan C. Green died in 1954. Therefore the photo was still copyrighted in 1996. Thus it will remain copyrighted in USA until 95 years after its first publication. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: I'm not sure I entirely understand this - the three conditions mentioned at {{PD-1996}} do not include any reference to the death of the author. They focus mainly on the status of the work in its home country (which is apparently public domain, per the template already present) and the date of the work + whether it has a copyright notice. Cheers Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, you're saying it was still copyrighted in 1996 so not eligible for the above. OK then, I guess it should be nominated for deletion from Commons. Amakuru (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Mexican copyright question

I admit that I've raised my question before. That discussion is closed. But I do not know if that means it can be reopened.

I am raising my question again because I am enquiring about a possible solution, based on what has been accepted on a similar site in the same country, Mexico.

The article in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaxaca_en_la_historia_y_en_el_mito

I have major issues with limitations on the usage of images. A reviewer asked that all my images be reviewed, suggesting that I did not have the right to use them because the artist has not been dead for 100 years.

SOME KEY IMAGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM WIKI COMMONS. AND OF COURSE, THEY NO LONGER APPEAR IN THE ARTICLE. MY LOGIC SAYS THEY SHOULD ALL BE REMOVED. IF THAT HAPPENS, THE ARTICLE LOSES ITS PUNCH.

The images I have used are, I believe parallel to those in Wiki Commons related to the art of Diego Rivers. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Diego_Rivera

Here is the text from Wiki Commons that precedes the Diego Rivera site.

"These works or works by this artist may not be in the public domain, because the artist is still living or has not been dead for at least 100 years. Please do not upload photographs or scans of works by this artist, unless they meet one of the following exceptions: The work was first published in the United States and one of the United States public domain tags applies; The work is permitted by a legal exception such as freedom of panorama or de minimis; The work was released by the author or their heirs via E-mail confirmed authorization; The work was released by the author under an open license on their website, or an official account with a site such as Flickr; The work is known to be in the public domain for some other clear reason. Works of this artist first published before 1927 can be uploaded to English Wikipedia (see en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad). For more information, see Commons:Licensing and Commons:Derivative works."

There was a discussion in Wiki Commons about my images and some were removed. I do not know how to find that discussion now. I did notice one day that someone set up a page where my images should be placed. It is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Murals_by_Arturo_Garc%C3%ADa_Bustos

I am in touch with Rina Lazo, who I think is the only surviving heir (daughter) of Arturo Garcia Bustos, the artist who painted the images in Mexico that I wish to use. She is delighted that I set up a Wikipedia page but when I informed her that it has been deemed that I cannot use the images she did not reply to my question as to whether she had ever been involved in copyright issues associated with her father's work. I could phone her. But I would like to know what is feasible before I do that.

Am I right? If I uploaded the images with the Diego Rivera proviso from above and if Rina Lazo sent me emails saying I could use the images, would I then be able to use them on Wikipedia? Is there a format for such a letter that you can direct me to, preferably in Spanish?

There is also the freedom of panorama provisions that I think are generous in Mexico. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Americas#Mexico But this is new stuff to me and maybe Wikipedia is an American entity and the rules of the USA apply, not Mexico. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama We are talking about a mural in a public building that has been declared to be a museum.

ANY HELP WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANKS ArbyBB (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If it is a mural visible from a public place, then I assume Mexican FoP would apply. Also, assuming Rina Lazo is really the heir, she would have ability to release the work under a suitable license for Commons. Zoozaz1 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons cannot use any "fair use" rationale -- so it must wait until copyright expires, in both the U.S. and the country of origin (which is the country of publication). Or, have that copyright licensed. (For Diego Rivera, he lived in the U.S. for some periods, so many of his works might be U.S. works.) Mexico (though not the U.S.) does have freedom of panorama for paintings, so for a photo of a mural in its public setting, it is only the copyright in the photographs which matters. A photo which is basically a copy of the painting though, I think would need to have the painting's copyright expired.

It sounds like, for this author, the work would be protected in the U.S. for the authors life plus 70 years, or 95 years from publication if it was published before 1978. Mexico will protect them for the life of the author plus 100 years. There were once formalities required in Mexico, before 1948 I believe, so it's possible that earlier works became public domain in both countries and have stayed that way. There is no way for us to really know, and it sounds like that is highly unlikely in the case of this author. So, presume all of their works are still under copyright for many more decades.

The heir would have the right to license those copyrights. Please use the COM:VRT mechanism, where the copyright owner themselves messages Wikimedia with permission. They cannot allow only Wikipedia to use the images; they would have to allow anyone to use them, which is where the problems could be -- the format of those emails tries to make sure there are no misunderstandings. If you can get permission for Wikipedia only, that may be good enough to upload to the English Wikipedia directly under a fair use rationale. I'm not sure what the Spanish Wikipedia rules are, in regards to these "non-free" works. The other possibility is a photo showing a mural in its public context; in that case we only need the license from the photographer, due to freedom of panorama in Mexico. Per policy, we allow that type of photo, even though the U.S. status is unclear. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Unfortunately, you may not use any nonfree content on Spanish Wikipedia; please see the details in Spanish at es:WP:FU.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this clear explanation. Just finding and reading this now. (I have been spoiled by emails that advise me that replies have been made to my queries. Tonight I looked at my "notices" and found the above. Thanks, again.) It's a clear explanation, but rather detailed, for a newbie to decipher. But detailed it has to be. I am focusing on the possible good news: "The other possibility is a photo showing a mural in its public context; in that case we only need the license from the photographer, due to freedom of panorama in Mexico."

For referencing freedom of panorama is it sufficient to to include the following text with each image, as I have done:

The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article 148, VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that

«Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyrightholder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: […]

VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». See COM:CRT/Mexico#Freedom of panorama for more information.

All images are from pictures from my camera. Some of my images show the railings and stonework surrounding the panel. Does that meet the requirement for "public context". I also have an image of the hall where the mural is and that could be included in the article to establish context, in a general sense. This would be helpful to establish overriding context. Also, I can establish context through stonework for panels, and the article makes it clear that there are some cropped images that are from the panel associated with the stonework context.

The stonework is now visible in 4 out of the 10 images and I suspect I could add it to more of them.

If we are able to establish context as described above, I am required to provide "the license from the photographer, due to freedom of panorama in Mexico" ? Is the licence, the form in Wiki Commons where I attest to be the owner of the individual image? Or is there another way of of establishing a licence?

I'm thinking that if I can use the above approach, then I do not need to bother the heir of the artist in order to be able to use the images. Am I accurate?

I think I am getting a handle on what the advice-giving and decision-making processes are in Wiki Commons. Is it accurate to say that the explanation by @Clindberg above is authoritative advice upon which I can act, but what I do is still open to challenges from anyone in the Wiki Commons community?

ArbyBB (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand Defence Force image of ashfall in Tonga

Hello,

I've been thinking of uploading an image of the ashfall in Tonga as taken by an unidentified member of the New Zealand Defence Force (available here, with the caption "View of Nomuka, Tonga."). On one hand, the licensing terms on the NZDF website are not clear; on the other hand, the website of the Ministry of Defence asserts that its works are under the CC BY 4.0 license; and the image is claimed to be under the same license when it was reused by the Radio New Zealand website. Would it be appropriate to use the image under a CC BY 4.0 license? --Dialh (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a license for the www.defence.govt.nz website would automatically apply to www.nzdf.mil.nz. The only thing I can see on the latter is "Imagery and video can be used for editorial and non-commercial purposes with attribution to New Zealand Defence Force." on https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/nzdf/significant-projects-and-issues/tonga-response/. --ghouston (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, I would have to see more evidence that the NZDF has released said image under Creative Commons before I would feel comfortable going ahead and uploading it. Otherwise, if it falls under Crown Copyright, we would have to wait until checks Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/New_Zealand 2123 to upload the said image.

Of course, we could try to contact the NZDF to clarify things. Dialh (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I intentionally didn't add that 3rd image of Tonga because unlike the other 2 image which had EXIF data allowing c-BY.4.0, the "View of Nomuka" one had no exif data and as such I didn't feel comfortable adding it even though it technically may be on the same licence..--Stemoc 21:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, I would feel much more comfortable uploading it if the NZDF could clarify the copyright status (preferably by updating its website with a more explicit copyright page, but I'll also accept an email to OTRS). Dialh (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the image they added to their main site was not the original one, i managed to pull the original one from their official dropbox which was of a higher quality than the 1.5mb one they had as well as having the Exif data so it can now be used..--Stemoc 21:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Seal of Queen Hame of Assyria, Nimrud (side view).png

Hi all -- I'm working on a Good Article review of the Wikipedia article for an ancient Assyrian queen named Hama. The article is currently accompanied by three photos of treasures/artifacts found in the tomb of this queen (example: the golden seal linked in title of this post), but I'm not certain whether these photos have adequate licenses. The photos were all taken in 2003 by a member of the US Army as part of official duties (tagged accordingly) and published in an American academic journal, and I'm satisfied that they're public domain under US copyright laws, but according to the source these photos were originally taken in Bagdad, Iraq, and so I'm wondering: are they all right for use under Iraq copyright laws? Or is that totally unnecessary to worry about, as they were published in the US? Is it the place of creation or publication that matters here? Any advice would be appreciated. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It is the place of publication that matters. Ruslik (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ruslik! I'm very glad to hear it. Copyright should be okay then. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Provided the artefacts are PD, as the photos are derivative works of the artefacts. Were they published during the days of the queen? Otherwise I suppose they never have been published with the consent of the copyright owner (probably her descendants, if there are any left). :-) I suppose this is academic, but if I am right, then the copyright legislation is breached by a lot of governmental institutions. –LPfi (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It was published every time it was used to make imprints. Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleted images for Tri Counties Bank

Hi all,

A few of the images I uploaded were deleted for copyright issues, it seems that our logo was kept, but these ones below I would like to have restored.

• File:Tri Counties Bank regional headquarters in Roseville.jpg
• File:Tri Counties Bank Campus Building 2016.jpg

There is no copyright issue because I am an employee of Tri Counties Bank and it is declared on my Wikipedia userpage and all of the images I uploaded on their behalf were contributed with permission, so I assume the real issue here is that perhaps I didn't upload them with the proper licensing? These two images are just photographs of the outside of our buildings so its fine for them to be a free license. FYI, I'm somewhat new to all of this, so let me know what I can do to get these photos restored. We were using these photos in our Wikipedia article, but they immediately disappeared after getting deleted here. Spektred (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence that you have a legal right to release the images under the stated license should be submitted to the OTRS. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ruslik Thanks. I sent them an email. Spektred (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spektred, if you want Commons to rely on the declaration on your User page, an authorized official of the bank (not you) should send a message using VRT confirming that you are authorized to upload material on behalf of the bank and the VRT agent who receives the email should add a note on your user page confirming that. As a general rule, your own email will not suffice because it does not provide any evidence that you are who you say you are. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward Thank you. I got in touch with VRT and they were able to get this resolved quickly. Spektred (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright of 3D objects in free license pictures

Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:United Buddy Bears Exhibition in Warsaw.

Hi, What's the copyright status of 3D objects in free license pictures? If I make a sculpture, I take a picture of it, and I publish the picture with a free license, do I release the sculpture under a free license, or only this particular picture of the sculpture? This concerns Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:The Golden Buddy Bears in Vienna.jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not quite the issue this was raised to address. If the sculptor and the photographer are the same person, there may be a real question of the status of the sculpture. However, the question at hand in the UnDR is if Miss X takes a photo of a copyrighted sculpture and the sculptor, Mr. Y, gives Commons a CC-BY license allowing the photograph to be on Commons, can Ms. Z then make a sculpture from the photograph under the CC-BY license? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether the artist and the photographer are the same person or not doesn't matter. Why couldn't the artist license a specific 2D reproduction of the work without doing so for the original? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You can certainly write a limited license that allows any photographs of a sculpture to be used freely but does not license a 3D reproduction of the sculpture. However, the CC-BY license does not have that limit, quite the opposite:

"1 b "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License."

That's very broad and certainly allows one to make and sell 3D copies of the licensed sculpture. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe it does. To me, the phrase "Work and other pre-existing works" would mean using them in conjunction, and does not imply a license for pre-existing works outside its particular use in the main Work being licensed. It does not say "Work or other pre-existing works". It does allow you to make and sell copies of the photo, or put the photo on a T-shirt, etc., but does not give anyone the right to make other derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A sculptor can license their work only so far as seen (or for use in) the photo, and no further. They don't need to give a full license on the entire sculpture. I don't see why we would not consider that license enough to be "free"; it would be the same situation as a photo of a sculpture in a "freedom of panorama" country. In those cases you can use the photo, but certainly have no rights to use the pictured object any further, and we consider that free (since it's all about the photo itself). The sculptor's permission would solely be allowance to make the derivative work, understanding the free license allows anyone to use the photo for any purpose according to the photo's license terms, and not licensing any other of their derivative rights. If we want a warning template about that detail, similar to FoP or de minimis templates, then OK. If the sculptor and the photographer are the same person, I think we would assume the same thing -- it's only the photograph that was licensed that way, not the entire pictured object. Any work which is only derivative of the original sculpture, losing the specific usage of the photograph itself, is simply a separate derivative work without a license. So to me, for a derivative work, we only need a license from the author of an underlying work so far as to make the derivative work itself free. It would not allow any other derivative photo, or any other direct derivative of the underlying work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clindberg: If you have few photos of some area, made from various perspectives, you are technically able to make a 3D model of the area using the photos only. What about this? If this is not a DW of the the photos, so can I use copyrighted photos to make a free 3D model of a free object this way? Ankry (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I will give an example: let's assume a recently died famous person whose all photos are non-free. Can we make a 3D model of their face/head basing on the photos and consider it free? And then, make free DWs of it? This is applying your logic. Ankry (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Your examples are not derivative of the photos. So you would have a new work, correct. If the object you are modeling is copyrighted though, it's still derivative of that work. So modeling an uncopyrightable face is fine, but a copyrighted sculpture would still need a license from the sculptor to do anything with that model other than fair use. You can also make a drawing of a person using photos for a reference -- as long as you don't use the same angle, pose, facial expression (which may be part of the photographer's expression in posed portraits), etc., the drawing is a new work and not derivative of the photos. For snapshots, the photographer does not have any copyright in the photographed elements, usually only in the framing/angle/timing/etc. of the photograph itself. For a posed photo, the selection and arrangement of the elements can be part of their protected expression as well (so making a sculpture out of a carefully posed photo can be a problem). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Carl, I don't believe you are speaking to the issue here. As I said above, a sculptor can certainly give a limited license which allows photographs of the work but not a 3D reproduction. However, Commons discourages special purpose licenses and in most cases when an artist allows us to keep photographs of his work he does it with a CC-BY (or CC-BY-SA) license. That's the issue -- does a CC-BY license given by a sculptor to allow photos of the sculpture to be used on Commons allow others to copy the sculpture in 3D? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If they explicitly license their sculpture, then sure. If they are responding to a question about usage of a sculpture in a photograph, I would assume they are simply giving a license sufficient to allow the photograph to be licensed CC-BY, and no more. If the question is ambiguous about the scope of the license, I would assume the smallest reasonable scope, obviously. If there is ambiguity in the questions we ask, that is our fault. I can't imagine we would ever need to ask to license an entire sculpture CC-BY. I wouldn't consider that a "special purpose" license -- we are after the normal license on a photograph, so we need the full license from the photographer, and then we need permission from the sculptor for that license on the photo -- no more. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure -- that's the way it ought to work. But, in my experience, when an artist (usually a painter, but sometimes a sculptor) is asked to allow their work to appear on Commons, they give VRT a CC-BY-SA license for the painting or sculpture. I don't see any reason why that does not give permission to copy the work in any form -- photo, painting, or 3D. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, if they are allowing the work to appear on Commons, that would only be part of a work that can actually be uploaded. The COM:VRT emails are usually very explicit about what rights are being licensed, to avoid misunderstandings, so if it's not very very clear that the artist is allowing anyone to make 3-D copies of their sculpture and sell them, I would assume they are simply allowing the specified derivative work under that license. I suppose there could be something a little more open-ended, like allowing anyone to make photos in the future provided they are freely licensed. But I would think the expectation when asking about particular photos is that the ask is simply to allow the derivative work. Any wider scope, I think we would need clear written permission about that scope. I can't imagine we would ever need to ask for a full license on the entire sculpture, so I doubt that a sculptor would be having that possibility in mind when answering. The exact text of the question, and the exact text of the answer, could matter of course -- but I would never ever assume a license that goes beyond our website's needs if we are asking permission for our website in particular. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Photographic prints copied in US government works

Is a photographic print that is copied in a PD US federal government publication (as determined by HathiTrust, among others, and with no image rights/attributions noted) considered to have been published and eligible for Commons? I ask because the determination of whether or not the photographer was an officer or employee of the government would be on a case-by-case basis (although most certainly were). Would publication date affect this? All of the images I have access to are pre-1978, but I could try to hunt down later images if that dividing line isn't an issue. I don't know if any of the originals are in color; given that published copies are b&w, would that affect their status? Star Garnet (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As a general rule, I think we would presume that anything that appears in a Federal publication is PD. However, that is a rebuttable presumption. The fact of the Federal government publishing a copyrighted image may or may not make it PD, so if we became aware of its non-PD status, we would have to take it down.

I say "may or may not". If the government published it without the written permission of the copyright holder, then it would retain its status prior to the publication. We see this frequently with FBI most-wanted photos that are mug shots from state or municipal police. They have a copyright and we can't keep them without a license even though they were published by the FBI.

If it were published with written permission, then the status would depend on the actual words of the permission. The government does use and publish works that explicitly retain their copyright, most notably many recent coins. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

In this case, they are photographs of members of congress provided by the congressmembers' offices at the request of the Joint Committee on Printing. Most of these were taken by a staff member or committee staffer with the congressmember sitting at their desk or around the Capitol, but some may have been taken as part of a campaign or by a family member. I can reach out to the committee to see if they have historical release language, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was none whatsoever. Star Garnet (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There are several issue there. It's arguable whether staff members who take photos of officials are doing so as part of their job. The staffer was not hired as a photographer and, as we know, just because the photographer is a Federal employee, the photo is not PD if it wasn't the job of the photographer to take photos. This occurs a lot with photos taken by military personnel.

Also, as you know, if the photographer was a family member, the image is not PD. Finally, I'd bet that many congressional photos are taken by independent professional photographers. After all, the politico want to look as good as possible in a photo that will be seen widely.

Bottom line, I'd be careful unless the credit line explicitly calls out the Senate or House staff photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that gets away from the root of my question. Given that collections of the photographs are widely considered to be PD (HathiTrust, Google, Archive.org) and of course not licensed, how does that affect (higher-resolution) prints of the same protographs? One quibble is that anything remotely work-related that a congressional staffer does at the (ethical) request of a congressmember or other staffer would qualify as part of their official duties. Star Garnet (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Wing Commander Ravish Malhotra.jpg copyvio

No indication IAF licenses under GODL, copyright disclaimer says "Copyright © 2021 Indian Air Force, Government of India. All Rights Reserved." It's admin locked so I put it here.MSG17 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@MSG17: This file is not protected. There have been some indication that images by Indian military forces, and some images from the Indian government, are under a free license. However there is still some doubt. I asked some people in India to confirm this, but I never received a definitive answer. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The "All Rights Reserved" is not especially meaningful -- it's the equivalent of a copyright notice in the Buenos Aires Convention. However, I think people have shown the GODL is really not used for photographs at all -- and it needs to be explicit at the source. So don't think we can use that license. There are {{Indian navy}} and {{Indian Army}} templates due to specific statements on those websites, but don't see anything similar on the Air Force website. They just have a boilerplate copyright notice, as mentioned -- but can't find a terms of use page or anything like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

How to properly (legally) upload book cover

I want to improve the Wikipedia article Ginny Gordon, and include a photo of a 1948 book cover. In the past I added a book cover to Power Boys, and in looking at More Details for that illustration I see this wording between double brackets {{}}:

Non-free book cover|image has rationale=yes|category=Young adult fiction book cover images.

That gave me a copyright notice of an image of a book cover that qualifies as fair use.

However, when I did some experimenting with using that above double bracketed wording the preview showed a notice about speedy deletion because of copyright violation.

I'm a real novice about uploading photos, and believe that entering the correct copyright code may lead me to various questions to fill out that that will allow the proper copyright clearance, but I can't recall how I've done it before.

Could someone tell me what code to use? Sorry for being a nitwit, but I can't figure out how to upload a book cover, and didn't write things down. Karenthewriter (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karenthewriter: Wikimedia Commons does not allow non-free images. Borysk5 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karenthewriter: : You may find the information at COM:HIRTLE useful for knowing the age and types of works newer than 1926 which can be uploaded to Commons. Borysk5 is correct is saying that Commons only takes free images - but there are many factors to consider. Please feel free to continue the dialog with me on my talk page if you need more help! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Borysk5 and @Ellin Beltz. I really am a nitwit, the place to upload book covers is: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. I finally figured things out, and got my article illustration up. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Seeking Workable Copyright Tag

https://web.archive.org/web/20211229185112/https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51786005505_3b61d01c79_c.jpg. Hello. I'd like to upload this image to Commons. There's a WP article on him. Now, I haven't yet proven the image was ever published. It depicts Paul Martin (1883-1932). It was taken by the wife, while they were on vacation, between 1924 and 1931. She passed the image down the family line to myself. She died in 1972. I hope this is enough detail to go on. (I'm the only one who has the image.) Thanks JimPercy (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@JimPercy: One of the templates in Category:License tags for transferred copyright should do.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks for your reply. I haven't ever before uses any of these templates while uploading to Commons. The purpose of a real photo is ideally to keep it as original as possible. So maybe the one that might best fit here is, "Template:Cc-by-3.0-heirs." This template also seems more basic, without asking for more details on my part. JimPercy (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin,TennisPose.jpg. I just added the license tag and the entire date line. Now, there's the error message: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 missing SDC copyright license. Not sure how to fix that, unless it's done by administration. JimPercy (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not an error message. You must have the "Show hidden categories" advanced option turned on in the Appearance section of your preferences. This hidden category, Category:Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 missing SDC copyright license, is used to let a bot know that this image has license information that needs to be copied by the bot to the Commons:Structured data for the file. You can safely ignore this hidden category — it will be removed when the bot processes the file. —RP88 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I will then just let it be. I was thinking of that possibility when I typed the words "done by administration." I wasn't thinking in terms of a bot taking care of it, but that does make more sense. JimPercy (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Everything's great now. JimPercy (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Transferred copyright before upload question

The creator of some illustrations has signed a copyright transfer agreement giving me full ownership of the copyright to these illustrations. My goal is to upload the illustrations to wikimedia commons so they can be used to illustrate a number of entries. I am happy to allow unrestricted usage, modification, etc by anyone of these illustrations. So concretely please, what do I do exactly to make that happen? Do I have to insert a little icon into each image? Or do I just upload the images and also some document where I declare the images free to share? Thanks! (Anyone replying, please assume correctly that I don't know what I am doing and need very specific guidance, if you don't mind!  :) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attentionperceptionlab (talk • contribs)

• Thank you for sharing. After uploading you must contact the Volunteer Response Team by e-mail and tag your uploads with {{Permission pending}}. You may use any free license of your choice but Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) is recommended. Read these two pages for further instructions and feel free to request assistance here, if needed. SV1XV (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The document approach is the common one, and directions are at Commons:VRT. I suppose you should attach a copy of the agreement to the (confidential) VRT e-mail. If the VRT page is not clear enough, please tell what is still unclear. The volunteers will guide you if your first e-mail is problematic in some way, but as there is a backlog, it is better to get it sorted out as much as possible here on the wiki.

You still need to decide on a licence (or several). The standard licence here is {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, but it sounds you might want a public domain dedication equivalent such as {{Cc-zero}}. The latter is not legally recognised in the EU, as you cannot waive the moral rights (and the author could not legally transfer them). {{Cc-by-4.0}} is another choice. The -by part of the CC licences means the author is to be attributed, the -sa that derivative works must be licensed by the same licence (or, in some cases, by a later version of it).

You will be asked about the licence on upload. The "templates" quoted above can be inserted in the code of the file description case later, if the choices available during upload seem problematic (there is a "specify later" or equivalent shown as one option during the upload process, if you use the upload wizard). The template will add the "icon", although on Commons it is a large box explaining the terms.

–LPfi (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Low-resolution, mistitled, duplicate file

As one can easily check from here or here/here, File:14th Murrays Jat Lancers (Risaldar Major) by AC Lovett (1862-1919).jpg is correctly titled. But someone uploaded its low-resolution, mistitled, duplicate copy: File:Ahir Sirdar.jpg. So it would be great if someone can delete the duplicate copy without leaving a redirect. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Prominent copyright watermarks by uploader

I stumbled upon the Upload list of Gaudi Renanda. Now, I understand Commons:Watermarks, but can be DONE about it? I don't see an easy way to apply the {{Watermark}}-Template to hundreds of files. Should a bot be tasked to apply that template? Should we instead begin with tagging the images for deletion, given that the uploader stopped all activities after being told on the talk page about the no-watermarks policy? Do we do nothing because the uploader might one day come back and upload unmarked pictures? Do we select some quality images for watermark removal and just delete the rest? --Enyavar (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Enyavar:  Done, I marked the 198 unmarked uploads of Gaudi Renanda with {{Watermark}} for you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool thanks, I'll remember to ask for bot-jobs next time I notice something like this! --Enyavar (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Enyavar: You're welcome. That was not a bot per se, but experience with VFC.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

70 years since author death, exactly when?

Like the subject says, when actually 70 years are tagged from? the author's death date or January 1? So for example, if photographer died in 1953, does it mean his works now in public domain? Thanks.Crook1 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It is 1 January of the next year. So, if an author died in 1953 their works will be in public domain from 1 January 2024. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright of the material inserted by hackers

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:HackedForeignMinistry.png. In short, a website which is under CC-BY-SA 4.0 was hacked, and the inserted material is presumably original text and artwork. I guess it does not mean that hackers shared it as CC-BY-SA 4.0, and thus a screenshot of a hacked site is a copyright violation, but I guess we need more informed opinions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we could argue as in COM:GRAFFITI: "the artist is unknown, proof of authorship of the art is problematic, and, some believe, the artist would have difficulty enforcing their copyright since that would require a court to uphold the validity of an illegal act as the basis for damages or other relief against a third party." The last point is the one which overrules our precautionary principle, as there is little risk for reusers in these cases. –LPfi (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Provided the artwork is original, of course. I am sure that in some cases material from elsewhere is inserted. –LPfi (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That part of COM:GRAFFITI is not an especially strong argument, given that it states general conclusions about how the law may be applied without citation to any authority. [4] gives a good rundown of the state of the US case law as of 2018: so far, no one has prevailed on that argument in a case. That is, of course, US law and not Ukranian law, so if someone can cite something for Ukraine showing otherwise I'm all ears. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Can I upload an image from a public mural in the UK to Commons?

Hi all

I'm less familiar with Commons rules about murals so thought I would double check here, is it ok to upload images of public murals in the UK to Commons if the photograph itself in CC BY SA?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No, 2D works are not covered by the freedom of panorama in UK. Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding to Ruslik's input. You need license permission from the artist of the mural. If he/she is already deceased, his/her heirs who hold the artwork copyright. However, you can upload images if the mural is already in public domain; that is, if the muralist or last-surviving muralist is already dead for more than 70 years. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, well thats not going to happen, thanks anyway. John Cummings (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Not all murals are 2D. If its a mosaic, for example, you should be OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Ura umebachi.gif Files and copyright infringement in violation of copyright.

There is a copyright file without permission to distribute in the Japanese community yamauchi-man ちややまる에서.

Ura umebachi.gif This file violates copyright.

http://yamauchi-man.com/chihou/shiro_hidatakayamajou.html

It's protected by copyright.

It's a file that can't be used on other sites.

I applied for a separate deletion request. Takuyakoz (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

... at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ura umebachi.gif.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Australian Aboriginal Flag

The Australian government's low threshold of originality has now cost them $20 million in buying out the copyright to the Aboriginal Flag: [5]. I suppose the flag can now be hosted on Commons, given that it seems it will now only have the restrictions that typically apply to flags, "where its use is free, but must be presented in a respectful and dignified way." Perhaps an official government statement can be found. See Category:Australian Aboriginal flags. --ghouston (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m not too sure if it will be PD, there is a discussion on the undeletion request. Bidgee (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

And another DR request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg. --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Great shearwater and plastics pictures from paper

May the pictures of a great shearwater and plastics from Figures S1 and S2 [6] (CC-BY) be uploaded here? If so, may I ask someone to do so? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.140.3.202 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2021‎ (UTC)

given that it's ccby, yes they can be uploaded. please register an account and upload. for help see COM:FS.--RZuo (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

China traffic signs copyright

Is image like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beijing_Expwy_S11_sign_with_name.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beijing_Expwy_S11_sign_no_name.svg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Sxjs5902.png copyrightable or not?

If something like that is copyrightable in China (and there is some risk), then better template would be Template:PD-PRC-Road Traffic Signs - right ?

Or is it requiring template from author of work because it is derivative work of PD materials and therefore full copyright is captured by whoever made this file?

Or is it PD-shape even in China?

Though I am not entirely sure how to check that it actually matches official PRC traffic signs.

(it is offwiki, but if anyone got idea how to solve problem discussed in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny/notify_uploaders/Herman_Lee_Zh - help would be welcomed)

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, zhwikisource doesn't have local copy of GB 5768《道路交通标志和标线》, but regareless, they are in fact public domain as per 7.3.2.3: [7] Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for help - then I will use Template:PD-PRC-Road Traffic Signs Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Using Bundesarchiv photographs

Is it possible to use photographs from the Bundesarchiv collection as covers for self published books? Who knows who to contact? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a00:23c5:7f09:c501:5037:3151:6233:1513 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2022‎ (UTC)

• @2a00:23c5:7f09:c501:5037:3151:6233:1513: Certainly; in general, any photos on Wikimedia Commons can be re-used for any purpose, even commercial, as long as you follow the terms of their license (which typically require including attribution of the author/copyright holder, link to the source, and name/link to the license) and any other possible non-copyright restrictions. Please see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for details on re-using any Commons content. -M.nelson (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

NFT copyrights

This had to happen eventually... File:Purple SolaStar Personal Collection.jpg is, apparently, an algorithmically generated image sold as en:NFT (based on information in en:Draft:The SolaVerse). The draft is unlikely to survive after which the image might be deleted as out of COM:Scope, but I wanted to ask about NFTs more generally:

• Do generated NFT images have copyrights at all, or are they {{PD-ineligible}}? Do they have an author?

• Even if the generated image is considered machine-created and ineligible, might they still be COM:Derivative works if the elements used in the generation process are complex enough?

• If there is a copyright, who is the copyright holder? Does purchasing an NFT include transfer of copyright (I suspect this depends on the NFT in question)? Can the buyer of an NFT then upload and license it as CC image if they wish? MKFI (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing weird about images associated with NFTs. They're just images, with all the legal rules. en:NFT answers several of those questions; NFT transfers don't usually transfer copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing special about NFT images (with regards to copyright). Some are algorithmically generated, and are not protected because of the lack of human authorship (I don't know if this one is or not). The vast majority of NFTs have no affect on copyright ownership, the original author is still the copyright owner. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Whether NFT related to image was sold it does not influence image copyright in any way at all. (in theory NFT sale may be bundled with selling copyright, but in this case NFT activity still has no influence whatsoever and can be ignored). In general NFT machinations are utterly unrelated to copyright and do not influence it at all (there is plenty of misleading claims and outright lies stating otherwise, so do not worry about being confused). Note that anyone at all can create NFT pointing to anything, if I would want I can create NFT pointing to Wikipedia logo. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Is chart qualifying for PD-shape?

Is chart like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:UNMappersHighways_MINUSMA.png qualifying for {{PD-shape}}? Or is it requiring licensing by author? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's on OpenStreetMap wiki which is licensed under Creative Commons so it shouldn't be a problem. Borysk5 (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that OSM Wiki has massive amount of files under license different than stated (or which would be assumed from footer). Text on wiki is not affected, as it is original and not copied (it is original research). But files are getting reviewed, mostly by myself as many are uploaded by people who are not authors or lie about licensing. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki#Designing_policy_for_handling_files_without_clear_license In this case I am wondering can I PD-shapeify this images or is it above TOO Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Julie Snyder Michel Drucker Musée Grévin Montréal.JPG

This is not a photo of two people but rather of wax museum sculptures of them. Aren't such sculptures copyrighted? Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: As this appears to be from Canada, it is covered by Freedom of Panorama. Please see {{FoP-Canada}}. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, From Hill To Shore. That clarifies things. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Foreign Languages Press logo.svg

I returned to uploading free logos of companies for use on Wikipedia. I started with this file, but now worry that a mistake may have been made. We know what the threshold of originality in China is, and I reasoned with myself that semi-cursive writing in Chinese is anything but new and so is not necessarily copyrightable in that country. However, when I compare it to this beauty of a logo, I wonder to myself whether the logo I just uploaded meets the "stroke of the brow" threshold. I doubt it, but I do not feel like seeing it or my talk page get templated with a deletion notice due to lack of permission. FreeMediaKid$ 16:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@FreeMediaKid!: calligraphy is protected by copyright in china. but i couldnt find who wrote the logo, or if the logo used a computer font. the red logo might be copyrightable too, since i see it's a clever combination of ww (initials of waiwen) and 出.--RZuo (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That's why I came here. I thought I had an understanding of the Chinese copyright law, but after seeing other text logos for comparison, I realized that I may need to reupload it locally on the English Wikipedia. I do not mind going through that again over there, but I do mind keeping my integrity. FreeMediaKid$ 05:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Headshot for an article about an author

Hello! I'm hoping to assist with this drafted article by Wikipedia user:Innisfree987. They have a completed draft[[8]], but it doesn't have any image of the author yet. I found a headshot on the author's website and reached out to him for permission to use on this Wikipedia article. He responded yes. Do I need to send him some sort of paperwork to confirm this before I upload the image? Thank you for your help! Its choosday innit (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

He would need to send e-mail to [email protected] under OTRS system... if he actually owns copyrights to the pic. Just because it is someone's pic doesnt mean you own copyrights to it. Typically they belong to whoever took the photo. Borysk5 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll ask; thank you for the information @Borysk5! Its choosday innit (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You might want to check the instructions at Commons:VRT (the OTRS changed names to VRT). –LPfi (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Mugshots

Are mugshots from the state police free to use? I thought they were public domain, but a bot has tagged one I just uploaded:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Matt_DeHart,_New_Hampshire_mugshot_2021.jpg

I'm sure I've done something wrong here. -- Valjean (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: It was tagged because you didn't add a recognized copyright tag to the page. {{PD-USGov}} exists for works by federal employees, but works by state employees may or may not actually be public domain. I don't see any tags for New Hampshire, so unless you can find something that says otherwise, this is a copyrighted image. We used to have {{PD-US-mugshot}}, but that is no longer accepted. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What should I do? Should I contact the webmaster for the NH state police website? -- Valjean (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: You can, but that is a long shot.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I know. On small websites, there is often a contact link to the webmaster. On large ones there rarely is. Any other suggestions? -- Valjean (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hall of Fame busts of individuals

I came across File:John Madden (11282631876).jpg and started wondering about it. It seems that bronze busts like this one of en:John Madden are 3D-works of art and thus eligible for copyright protection in their own right; this means that photos of them are likely going to be considered COM:DW. So, I'm not sure this en:Pro Football Hall of Fame bust of Madden can be kept regardless of whether the photo of it is released under an acceptable license on Flickr as long as there's no consent from the copyright holder of the bust. Perhaps the Hall of Fame or the en:NFL has these busts created as a "works for hire", but that would make them the copyright holder, right? In addition, there would still seem to be copyright concerns for the busts themselves even if they were casted from molds, wouldn't there? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

License info ignored by bot

Dear colleagues! I have just uploaded the file from the website where it is claimed that the materials are available under the license CC BY-NC 4.0. I have provided a link to that website and license info. Nevertheless soon after uploading the file was marked as candidate for deletion. Could somebody check and instruct what is wrong? --Mikisavex (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mikisavex: Hi, and welcome. I'm sorry, but the license restriction "‐NonCommercial" AKA -nc- (noncommercial) is not usable by itself for Wikimedia Commons. For the reasons, please see Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Jeff G., thanks for explanation. If the CC BY-NC 4.0 license is not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons (sorry I didn’t know this) please delete the mentioned file just now. It will not be relicensed. --Mikisavex (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Mateusz Konieczny nominated the file for speedy deletion, but I've converted it to a deletion request to allow for discussion. Please provide input at Commons:Deletion requests/File:History of Philosophy Yearbook (title page).jpg. -M.nelson (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• That page is {{PD-ineligible}}. Yann (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is it really not passing TOO in Russia? It is extremely low, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Black_Square_(Malevich) was hold to be passing it. This title page is more original. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Answered there. Yann (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Uploading of Higher Colleges of Technology logo to Higher Colleges of Technology page

The official logo of the Higher Colleges of Technology was uploaded to the Higher Colleges of Technology page on October 7, 2021 by an employee of the Higher Colleges of Technology. On October 13, 2021 it was removed by user Tarawneh on the basis of Copyright infringement. Higher Colleges of Technology owns the copyright in its own image (logo), and it was uploaded by an authorized employee of the Higher Colleges of Technology (as can be verified from the account details). Therefore, it was not copyright infringement. Therefore, please undo the removal and re-instate the image urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullancaster (talk • contribs) 07:21, 28 January 2022‎ (UTC)

@Jpaullancaster and Paullancaster: Hi, and welcome. I see that you uploaded File:HCT New Brand Logo Mark (October 2021).png and File:President & CEO at the Higher Colleges of Technology.jpg, and that they were deleted. They have been judged too complex to be under TOO in the country of origin, so please have an authorized representative license them on your official website or social media or send permission via VRT. Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload an svg or jpg version of the logo, too. If you can't get a compliant license, the files may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. In addition, please stick to one account and see COM:SIGN. Pinging @Tarawneh, EugeneZelenko as deleting Admin and tagger.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

1931 UK sound recording

Hi, What's the copyright status of UK sound recording from 1931? i.e. File:Gandhi - His Spiritual Message to the World, 17 October 1931.mp3 The author died in 1948, more than 70 years ago. Gandhi was in England at that date, so it was certainly first published in UK, probably in a news broadcast. If it is not yet in the public domain, when will it be? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status of a document from the 1800's

Hello, I found an image of a document dating back to the American Civil War era, and I think that it would be a great addition to this page on Wikipedia. However, I am unsure about its copyright status. Would this image be in the public domain? Or would the one who scan the document own the copyright? ---ILikelargeFries (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• The best license would be PD-USGov. We already have a category for these docs, I can't find it now. --RAN (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! -- ILikelargeFries (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggested wishlist item

meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Bots and gadgets/Tool that reviews new uploads for potential copyright violations is a really important wishlist item for copyright on Commons, and I hope it gets your support! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:FoP-Uruguay

Hi, I'm seeing a discrepancy between the policy policy COM:FOP Uruguay and the template {{FoP-Uruguay}}. I've started a discussion at Template talk:FoP-Uruguay - input would be appreciated there. Thanks, -M.nelson (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

In the template the law seems to be mistranslated. It should be: "It is not unlawful reproduction". Borysk5 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for confirming that the template is inaccurate. I've updated it to match the policy page COM:FOP Uruguay; any future changes should be made in both locations. -M.nelson (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Unpublished in the EU

In Germany we have "If an anonymous or pseudonymous work is still unpublished 70 years after its creation, its copyright expires." but the recommended license template is Template:PD-EU-unpublished which describes a 25 year clawback period if an unpublished work is published after the copyright expiration. What is the correct template for the unpublished images/texts created prior to 1951. Or should the text in PD-EU-unpublished describe the 70-year period of being unpublished, as well as the 25 year clawback? --RAN (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So in EU it seems we have three cases of works the copyrights of which have expired:

• Works published before copyright has expired. Normal PD-old templates.
• Previously unpublished works where the uploader is the first publisher or where the first publisher has permitted republishing under a free licence.
• Previously unpublished works where the 25-year publication right has expired.

The template you linked seems to be about the third case. Do we have something for the second case? Is that the category you are concerned about? We don't need a PD-EU template for the 70-year period, nor for the 25-year period, as works are not PD during those periods.

–LPfi (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, case #2, I suggest we expand the text of PD-EU-unpublished to cover that case, rather than make a new template. It appears that the template is already being used for those instances, even if the wording of the text in the template implies it only covers case #3. What do you think? --RAN (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Case #2 is technically not public domain, so not sure it makes much sense to use a PD-* tag. It would need a normal free license tag like any other upload, though maybe we could have a wrapper template, which would take a PD tag for the original work, and a license for the 25-year first publication term. Not sure how often this actually happens though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• I didn't see many cases with that claim, but probably mainly because people are not aware of this possibility. Images from family archives (which we have quite often) first published on Commons could fall in that case. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Let me reword what I am looking for, maybe that will help. We have Template:PD-US-unpublished in which the text contains both situations where an unpublished work falls into the public domain. It has the dates for authored works (70 years from the death of the creator) and the dates for anonymous works (120 years from creation). PD-EU-unpublished should contain text for those two cases, and not just the text explaining the 25-year clawback rule. It should have the text "If an anonymous or pseudonymous work is still unpublished 70 years after its creation, its copyright expires." which appears to be the EU rule. Copyright expires = public domain. Do I have the rule wrong for the EU? --RAN (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The problem would be in having a PD template for a non-PD work. Once the publication right has expired, the cases are the same.
    Carl Lindberg's solution might still work, in everything but the name: allow a parameter for the licence and a parameter for the publication year in the template; when the 25-year period has expired, what is shown would be the text for the third case, while before that it would tell the licence (and an explanation).
    While this situation seems to be rare, I think the impression is just because we haven't told people to tell about it – we say PD-old for old EU works regardless of publication history, while some of them are from family collections (and some are recently published by institutions). –LPfi (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I suppose you could also go to some archive institution, find previously unpublished photographs, scan them and publish them with a free licence (CC-BY?) for the time of the publication right. –LPfi (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• The strong distinction between unpublished and published is mostly unique to the US (well, technically also some of the other countries on the UCC side of the UCC vs Berne divide). The copyright term of anonymous works expire in the EU based on when they were made available to the public whether or not they are actually published with the permission of the author — for these works Commons has the {{PD-anon-70-EU}} template. If the identify of the author is known the appropriate copyright template is {{PD-old-70}} or similar. If someone asked me, I'd recommend that {{PD-EU-unpublished}} be used in addition to either a PD-old or PD-anon-70-EU copyright tag when one wants to emphasize that not only has the copyright expired, but that any relevant publisher's right has also expired. —RP88 (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Actually many countries have longer terms for unpublished works, even today. The UK did until 1989, and gave a 50-year term from that date for anything still unpublished until then (excepting only pre-1957 photographs). And really, the 25-year right for works never made available to the public means there is sort of an infinite economic right protection for completely unpublished works in the EU. That is not part of the Berne Convention though, and I'm not sure that 25-year term counts for the URAA. And yes, the terms are based on "making available to the public" usually, not strict publication -- "making available" includes public display or broadcast of a work, which "publication" does not, so it's rather hard for a work to be truly never be made available. How did someone outside the author's family get a hold of the work if it was never made available, and questions like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• These two licenses should probably be combined: {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. I still think we should just have one PD-EU license listing the multiple rules to be PD in the EU. What do you think? --RAN (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Those are pretty much the same. There is one EU directive difference, which is for countries which allow a legal person to own the initial copyright, that the author must be disclosed on the initially published works (and not simply become known at any time in the following 70 years) to get the 70pma term. Not many countries actually implement that distinction, even ones which would seemingly qualify, though a couple have. I don't think the tags right now mention that distinction, so yes right now they are synonyms. The topic has however been discussed several times over the years at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure, and it hasn't been deleted yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Joan of Arcadia logo originality

The image File:Joan_of_Arcadia_(logo).png currently exists at EN Wikipedia under fair use. However, the curve shape thing connected to the i is the only thing ambiguous to me as to whether it would be public domain as a textlogo. 93 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You probably right as the threshold of originality in the USA is relatively high. Ruslik (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Chief-Tecumseh-col 18.jpg

File:Chief-Tecumseh-col 18.jpg is a new painting that was recently uploaded by a user with no other uploads or edits. I see no indication that the uploader can actually claim this as their "own work." Could someone knowledgeable about such matters address this? I am ignorant of the proper procedure. Much obliged. Kevin1776 (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The proper procedure is to follow closely VRT. This means the painter, Eleanor Rindlisbacher, should write an email with her permission to publish the painting with a free licence. I will ping the uploader about this now: @Walkerpub: . In the meantime you can place Template:No permission since on the file page. Please note the documentation on the template. Thanks for asking and helping. Ellywa (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Reuse of my work outside Wikimedia

Hi, I have recently noticed that a football (soccer) team near where I live (Switzerland) is using one of my picture almost every week to show who plays before games:

• my picture
• the way they use it (posted today)

I have checked twice and I'm 100% sure that the background is my picture. They did not contact me to use the picture and they're not using it per the CC-4.0 criterias because my name and the licence are nowhere to be seen. They've probably used it more than 20 times across Twitter, Instagram and maybe Facebook. I wrote them a couple weeks ago to ask them to clear the situation but as you can see they are still using the picture and they're giving me the silent treatment. This is the first time something like this happens to me so I'm not sure what my options are. I have a few questions:

1. Since my work is CC-4.0, that means their version is also CC-4.0 right? Then does that mean that the logos they use on the image are CC-4.0 as well? Is it just the part with my picture (since it's a photoshoped and they added things) that is CC-4.0?
2. Am I in my rights to threaten them to legal action? I haven't brought this subject with them because I expected them to just not know what they were doing, but since they're not answering and acting as if nothing happened I'm not sure I want to be nice anymore. I'm kinda affraid that it would be a waste of money and time but this situation is annoying.

Thanks in advance for any advice, Christian David, AKA Espandero (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not at all a lawyer, however, I believe that you are incorrect in your analysis. As I understand the laws of the United States, if they have the licence for this work, and they do, they cannot commit copyright infringement, and they can only be claimed (rightfully so, in my opinion) to violate the licence. Here is the thing, they are violating the licence, by not distributing their work with the correct attribution and also, since you have chosen the viral licence (CC-BY-SA) without distributing theirs under the appropriate licence. You could file a DMCA notice, and that would force them to: Remove their work or Relicence it appropriatly. You can sue them, but to the best of my knowledge free licences have never been litigated in court. You would not succeed in getting any money from them for this, because you would probably need to prove actual damages that you have had due to their use of this picture. How much money would you have made if they would not have published their altered version at all? That's how much you can get. If you were to assume that their work is under a free licence, then you are opening yourself up for the lawsuit, and because copyright infringement is a violation that has no "state of mind" attached to it, it wouldn't matter how much you have believed that it was suppose to be free, if you cannot show that they have actually released it under the stated CC-BY-SA they way they were suppose to, so my prediction would be: 1) They would be forced to stop distributing their picture, 2) You would have to pay for the copyright infringement of their alteration if you distribute it. You could try to find a lawyer willing to demand that they are following the licence, it would cost you. You could write to your legislators asking them to make a law, that would allow for you to force the free licence upon the infringer. You could file DMCA notice and force them to remove their derived work. Sorry for being a bearer of bad news. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's the contact page of FC Sion: https://www.fcsion.ch/fr/contact George Ho (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gone_Postal. I'm really not in it for the money (otherwise I wouldn't put my pictures on Commons), but as I said the situation is annoying so I'm sorta looking for anything that would make them understand. At least now I have a clearer view of the situation. Thanks again, Espandero (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

One thing I thought about as well, is for you to look into "moral rights". I believe that the author of the work has the right to be called the author, but that will depend on the specifics of where you live, where they are, etc. Basically, I am not a lawyer, but just a person who watches lawyer videos on Youtube. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 21:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

They only have a license if they follow the terms of your license (giving credit, marking the CC-BY-SA license) I'm pretty sure. If they are not following the terms, their right to the license terminates and it's infringement. See here. Their derivative work is not automatically CC-BY-SA; they could be choosing to commit infringement instead (licensing their work CC-BY-SA is one way they can get into compliance, but not the only way). The logos are probably a separate work altogether; you can argue there is a composite work of the logos arranged on top of a derivative of your photo (where they edited the sky, and some other touchups). Other elements of a composite work have an independent copyright, but the altered background would be a derivative work. However, only the copyright owner themselves can sue, I think. In the U.S., if you have not actually registered a work, the damages are limited to actual monetary damages. Thus it's possible for something to be ruled infringement, but be awarded minimal money (such as $0 or $1). If you have registered, then there are some automatic damages. That is only for infringement which actually occurs in the U.S., of course. Other countries will have other rules, and not as sure about those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Heirs - choosing the appropriate license

Hello, I was wondering if you might know which is a better tag for me to use for a family photo? I’m writing an article on an artist who is a (deceased) relative of mine. He had plenty of reviews and such in legitimate newspapers and magazines, but there were no photos. I have a photo from 1943 - it’s in the VRT thing because the administrator nominated me for deletion, but then he said: “Yes, [Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs] is OK for works created by your ancestors, but we usually require a confirmation via email. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure.” I wrote to VRT asking for permissions, there’s been back and forth conversations, because I thought the photo should be public domain, so I said I think it’s [PD-US-no notice] but then he pointed out that I said the photo has never been published, and so PD-US-no notice doesn’t apply here. So then I asked for permission and I’m waiting for an answer. But what about [PD-heirs]? Can I use that one? It’s for “works released into the public domain by the heirs of the creator.” But these family photos have never been published and have never been copyrighted. In the old days people didn’t copyright family photos because it took too much time and money, and plus you didn’t need it. Nowadays you just click a photo and it’s automatically copyrighted. As an heir to the negatives and the photos, can I just release the photo into PD? Do I need to ask for permissions? Am I the one asking for permission or do I ask someone for permission? I’m happy to grant permission. But I think someone official has to grant my request? And which one is better - [PD-heirs] or [Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs]? Thank you for your help! JHVfan (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@JHVfan: if you can prove you are the heir you can do whatever you want. as for which licence to choose, please spend some time reading the actual terms of the licences, follow the links in the licence templates when necessary.--RZuo (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If the works are still unpublished, I think the term is 70 years pma (since his death) in USA, like in most of the world. You did not state where you live, so I assume it is not one of the exceptions. If the time has expired you can use {{PD-US-unpublished}} and {{PD-old-auto}}. If it has not, then you get to choose the licence. In Europe there is the additional publication right, which applies if the work is previously unpublished (see ‎#Unpublished in the EU below).

If the works are published, the year of first publication matters for the length of the copyright term, as do formalities, depending on when and where they were published.

The main differences between licences are whether you want attribution, for yourself or for the author, and whether you want derivative works to be under the same licence. Then there are differences in the wordings, and those might matter in some cases, but you need a lawyer if you care. For the CC licences, the former have "-BY", the latter "-SA". I'd recommend both, i.e. CC-BY-SA, which is the standard licence here on Commons, so the {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} you suggested. Public domain dedication is messier, as it is unknown in much of the world, but CC-zero works at least for USA.

–LPfi (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear @LPfi and @RZuo Thank you both for responding to my question. Well, I received permission for a piece of artwork under [Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs] but I was not granted permission for the family photo I mentioned in the question above. The reason why is because even though I was very certain that his wife took the picture, I could not know with 100% certainty who the photographer was. Commons has to err on the side of caution because occasionally, a photographer or his heirs pops up and claims ownership of the copyright. I respect that Commons has to be very strict with this. I only just recently learned that Public Domain is kind of limited. It’s funny because I thought it was the opposite! I live in the US so I thought if I use that designation it would be easier for the artwork to use PD. But Lpfi, I’d like to read about what you mentioned above, as well as, oh doggone it....do I have to change all the artwork from PD-US-no notice over to Cc-by-as-heirs if I want the work to be attributed to the author (my relative)? Darn I was so sure I was finally done. Sigh. JHVfan (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are several points:

• Family albums are problematic, as there seldom are any mentions of the photographers, and they might be anybody (such as a neighbour or a guest). But that anybody seldom gives the negatives and if they do, it is probably intended as "do what you will". Although that latter isn't legally enough (it needs to be in writing, and more explicit than that), it makes the claim on "serious doubt" needed for our precautionary principle to apply even more far-fetched. If you are a heir of all those who likely could have taken the picture and left the negatives with you, it is not that important which of them truly took the photo (you can state "X or Y" in the author field).
• You either have the copyright or you don't have it (in a certain jurisdiction). If a work is in the public domain, licensing it is copyfraud (you should still license it for those countries where it is not PD, if any).
• The problem lies with PD dedication: in most of Europe you cannot give away your rights just like that. You can licence your economic rights, such as with CC-zero, but that doesn't affect the author's moral rights, which are the right to attribution and the right not to have their work altered or presented in a defamatory way. At least in Finland you can waive the moral rights only for specific uses (see e.g. translation of Finnish law, section 3). CC-zero should handle the economic part, while legal interpretation of PD-self is uncertain in these jurisdictions.

–LPfi (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

See also Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#Authors' moral rights. –LPfi (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear @LPfi I’m having a heart attack right now because I never heard of “Copyfraud” before I started reading the article in your link a few minutes ago. This was the question when I first used the Upload Wizard. Who am I? What’s my identity? If I’m an heir to these works of art, am I an heir to the copyright? But what if my ancestor never formally copyrighted his works? Then isn’t that PD-US-no notice? He thought that just signing his paintings was enough provenance to prove his authorship. How do I inherit copyright to something that was not copyrighted between the years 1927-1978? Yikes! I don’t know what to do, except maybe breathe deeply, calm down, maybe keep reading some more. JHVfan (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @LPfi I read several more things and found this about the Berne Convention “Before 1978, in the United States, federal copyright was generally secured by the act of publication with notice of copyright or by registration of an unpublished work. This has now been largely superseded by international conventions, principally the Berne Convention, which provide rights harmonized at an international level without a requirement for national registration. However, the U.S. still provides legal advantages for registering works of U.S. origin.” The USA didn’t join the Berne Convention until 1988, so now if I write song lyrics in a coffee shop on a napkin, or just snap a photo - those things are AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted. In the old days you had to fill out paperwork, and mail that, plus a photo of your work, money, etc. to US Copyright Office, then wait 4-6 months for your certificate, which you then had to post publically. So I think I’ll stick to PD-US-no notice and I’ll look for other PDs that might cover more of the world. One of my ancestor’s paintings was first published in France, though, 1933, so I’m not sure if the Berne Convention says it’s still copyrighted, since my ancestor died only 35 years ago. JHVfan (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Many American works on Commons are free because they were first published without notice, or the copyright wasn't renewed. They are still the works of their respective author. When the USA joined the Berne convention, USA started to recognise the copyright of foreign works that had been published without the US requirements. Thus a French painting published in France in 1933 (by an artist who still lived in 1952) would be under copyright in the USA. This copyright restoration (Commons:URAA) did not apply if the work was published in the USA shortly after being published abroad, nor if the artist had (certain) ties to the USA, the latter apparently being true in your case. Their manager might however have taken care of the copyright procedures, for this and for other works. Them taking care of the renewal is less probable. It is also unclear what works were ever published in the legal sense – unpublished works now have the 70 years pma term. –LPfi (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to add that I fell for you. The law doesn't care about feelings. And few people know copyright law, even the basics. Many here on Commons, like me, have had to learn great a deal to be able to help people like you, and to make as sure as we can that authors and reusers alike can share and use the works without legal trouble. –LPfi (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, @LPfi That’s why I’m so grateful for all your help! I feel as anxious as I did when I was in college and I couldn’t understand what I was reading. My problem, from the beginning, has been selecting the correct license. So I’ve just written to the VRT team for permissions for the 1933 painting, asking for Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs. Hopefully that will be correct. I might even get a C+ in your class:-)JHVfan (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Problematic Flickr account

Hi, What is the problem with this Flickr account: [9].
I'm trying to upload photos marked as Cc-by-2.0 so the license is ok but uploader says: "Unfortunately, no images from this Flickr account can be uploaded on this site.".
Checking 'Commons:Questionable Flickr images' there are 'socks' of this guy (Marco Verch) mentioned.
However this account, dating back to 2017, has 13,0696 photos and looks legit to me (first look, and I'm not experienced with wrongful Flickr practises).
Please confirm, it is problematic or maybe the block can be released. Lorem333Ipsum (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lorem333Ipsum: If it is an account related to Marco Verch then it is due to the way he interacts with reusers of his files. If you do a Google search of his name and "Creative Commons" you will see stories about how he uploads images with Creative Commons licences and precise methods of attribution. If the precise method of attribution isn't followed exactly, he then apparently sues the user for breach of the copyright licence. While this behaviour described by the articles probably meets the letter of the law, it isn't really in the spirit of Wikimedia Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion of File:Faith Chepngetich Kipyegon, Laura Muir und weitere 1500-Meter-Läuferinnen bei den IAAF Leichtathletik-Weltmeisterschaften 2017 in London (35638401273).jpg, File:Faith Chepngetich Kipyegon, Laura Muir und weitere 1500-Meter-Läuferinnen bei den IAAF Leichtathletik-Weltmeisterschaften 2017 in London (35638401273) (cropped).jpg and File:Kipyegon, Muir and Dibaba at the 2017 London World Championships.jpg. @Lorem333Ipsum, De728631, Jameslwoodward, Infrogmation, and Ellywa: As you all participated in the undeletion discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-01#File:Faith Chepngetich Kipyegon, Laura Muir und weitere 1500-Meter-Läuferinnen bei den IAAF Leichtathletik-Weltmeisterschaften 2017 in London (35638401273).jpg I thought it would be useful to bring this to your attention to prevent similar restorations. For the background to this case and various deletion discussions, please see Category:Images by Marco Verch. From Hill To Shore (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Tsuburaya, Eiji 02.jpg

I DR'd File:Tsuburaya, Eiji 02.jpg because the Japanese PD claim was removed by the uploader and it was uploaded with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. That DR was closed as keep, but the file still does not have a license. Anyone have any thoughts on what it should be tagged as? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber and Missvain: I think that the file should have been deleted because it is under copyright in the source country: it's not {{PD-Japan}} (50 ypma), nor {{PD-Japan-film}} (not a pre-1953 movie). Ruthven (msg) 12:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Another problematic Flickr account ?

I have noticed that the account of Joe Haupt [10] on Flickr is blacklisted on Commons. I posted a request for clarification at the appropriate page but I never got an answer. The flickr photostream of Joe Haupt is a mixture of own photographs of various objects in his collections and of old printed material. Does anyone here remember why Joe Haupt is blacklisted? SV1XV (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sv1xv: There is a comment you left at Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images/Archive 6#51764518@N02/Joe Haupt where you say a previously blocked account ID has been reassigned to a new user, Joe Haupt. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My assumption back then was wrong, the Flickr account was not reassigned, I mixed up flickr id with flickr name. Joe Haupt was blacklisted on Commons on purpose. However I cannot understand why. SV1XV (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a separate discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vintage Spice Girls Novelty Radio, AM-FM Bands, Made In China, Circa 1998.jpg where Joe Haupt is noted as previously having problems with licence laundering and providing derivative works without evidence of permission for the original work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Still the rationale behind the decision for blacklisting Joe Haupt was not documented, or at least it is not accessible to non-admins. SV1XV (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Bennygantzsignature.png

This signature was uploaded by User:Historical User in August, and claimed as "own work". It is possible that the user is actually Benny Gantz, and therefore has the power to do this, (which is why I have not nominated the file for deletion) but I am concerned. I have asked the user at W:WP:Teahouse#Can I request an edit here? whether they are Gantz. --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The same user subsequently uploaded File:Norton Logo (November 2021).png. also claiming, CC-BY-SA, but giving no justification (and not claiming it as "own work"). I can find no evidence that it is licensed under CC, though I'm not sure if it may be below the threshold of originality and could be regarded as PD. Finding this makes me think it less likely that they are Gantz.

I shall notify the user on their Wikipedia user talk page that I have raised these concerns (since I doubt if they look at Commons). --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This user probably meant that because they scanned the signatures they therefore hold the copyright. This is quite a common misconception. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated both for deletion. I'm still not sure whether the Norton logo meets the Threshold. --ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Norton logo is certainly below the Threshold of originality (see examples at that link, along with their respective authorities). It is certainly a trademark, but not copyrightable. -- Wesha (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)