Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
Please note
  1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
  5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.


Pre-positioned recording devices in Syria and Ukraine

[edit]

I know there's no FOP in either of the countries (though one could argue DM and below-TOO for some buildings), but what about pre-positioned recording devices (kamikaze drone footage, permanently situated cameras, etc)? JayCubby (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NickK: for some Ukrainian copyright insights. In the US, if those are operated by a human operator or specifically placed in order to record an event, they would be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. This goes for the fpv drones as well? I feel they'd fall under the same category as bodycam footage, where there is no originality JayCubby (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be affected by COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings, so they might unlikely be PD in US? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: In Ukraine photographs from pre-positioned recording devices are most likely not copyrighted per Article 8.8, as they are considered photographs that have no signs of originality. For FPV-drones, the question whether there was any creativity involved, if a drone was flying in an unusual trajectory to make a particularly spectacular photo, probably the result is still copyrightable — NickK (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why being "specifically placed in order to record an event" could be considered relevant to the assessment of creativity under US law in any way. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Angle and framing are major parts of the creativity of a photograph. What it captures (unless also arranged by the photographer) is usually irrelevant; the copyrightability would be the same if it caught something interesting versus boring. Not sure why a video camera would be any different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most security cam footage involves minimal creative action; the camera is positioned purely out of practical requirements, and it's continually running, with then the bits submitted for copyright being a tiny snippet of the recorded footage, in a minimally creative snip around the interesting parts. But if you're trying to make a film, then you're controlling the angle and framing with an eye to how the result will look, and instead of something happening by coincidence under the camera, you're acting with creative intent to catch something on camera. I think the phrase comes from a comment on mine on a video from a camera, set to watch a hurricane, that was discussed here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images from New Zealand Archives with improper licences

[edit]

Many images have been transferred to commons Category:Images from Archives New Zealand from the Archives New Zealand Flickr account: [1] and all of these images are licenced as CC BY 2.0. The problem is this licence is innacurate, many items are PD and many items are copyrighted despite the tag uploaded.

There are almost 10,000 files uploaded from this account (assuming they are all in the category, some might be uncategorised), pretty much all are incorrectly licenced and many are copyright violations. For a very obvious example I had: File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg deleted. The photo can be seen here: [2] The New Zealand Archives may have a copy of the book in their collection but they obviously do not own the copyright to it, which belongs to the publisher/author still.

Correctly licencing these images will be a very tedious task but in the meantime I think it would be good to disallow automated uploads from the Flickr account as the licences provided cannot be trusted. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yuk. I've just been through an analogous process with a few thousand images from the US National Weather Service published under an ambiguous and often wrong general disclaimer. I've observed a similar problem with the organisation's Flickr stream too.
I'm willing to lend a hand with any verification or clean-up efforts. Where do you plan to start? --Rlandmann (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My plan was just go look through images as I had time (although I'd certainly never get through it all on my own), correct the category and nominate for deletion if it isn't PD/copyright belonging to Archives NZ.
I've decided to be bold and create a sub-category for Images from Archives New Zealand that have been looked at, to avoid volunteers looking at the same images: Category:Images from Archives New Zealand with verified licence. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help out! Are there opinions on whether the archives have the authority to license Crown works? Felix QW (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their copyright information page suggests that they do have the authority to release Crown Copyright material, and that they are conscious of what they are doing when applying the CC license to their works. In that case, this would only affect privately held copyright; even copyright in the picture book you mentioned above will probably be held by the Crown. Felix QW (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book isn't CC BY 2.0 or else anyone could publish it. I cannot find a single source besides the Flickr page which lists it as CC BY 2.0. They may have permission to release Crown works as CC BY 2.0, the problem is they don't correctly licence uploads to Flickr so it isn't possible to know, based on that alone, if a work is able to be licenced on Commons or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said they were licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr? How would that not be valid then, if they had rights to license it there? If the work was Crown Copyright to begin with, it would seem that is valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: I think you need to read the discussion more closely. As you yourself write, "if they had rights to license it there… If the work was Crown Copyright to begin with". According to the above, there is no particular reason to think they had the rights and a great deal of reason to think it was not Crown Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the description at the source of the deleted file: Archives New Zealand holds a number of Ready to Read books, as well as their original artwork commissioned by the Ministry of Education. In those days, anything even published or commissioned by the government was Crown Copyright. Even in 1984 -- it did not change in the UK until 1989. By that description, it would seem to almost certainly be Crown Copyright. Why is there no particular reason to think otherwise? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because every other source about the book has it listed as copyrighted and there are no digital copies of the book itself/reprints, which one might expect if it wasn't protected. A good portion of their uploads are PD yet licenced as CC BY 2.0 which shows they don't correctly licence things.
[3] for example, PD Image but licenced as CC BY 2.0
This one is licenced but they don't know the author: [4], so how can they have the rights to it?
[5] this one is from a copyright file, so they clearly don't have the rights to the image. Maybe it is PD, but it certainly won't belong to them. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the contradiction here - the book is copyrighted, and presumably not under a free license. However, that doesn't make it unrealistic for the Crown to license individual pictures from the book, as they did when they posted them on the Flickr feed. In any case, the might make more sense to file an undeletion request rather than continuing here, and then depending on how that goes we may have a better idea as to how to continue with the general cleanup effort. Courtesy ping to Yann as the deleting admin of File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg. Felix QW (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The license was reviewed, so I restored the file, and created a regular DR instead: Commons:Deletion requests/File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg. Yann (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: Yes it's copyrighted. The book is from 1984, commissioned by the government, and is Crown Copyright (regardless of author) that will not expire for a long, long time. The New Zealand Archives has the right to license that, and it appears they did for a couple of particular images (not the entire book). The book and images are certainly not public domain, but it appears the images on Flickr have a free license. Nothing about any of that is contradictory. The second one of Prince Charles, if they know it was from a government photographer but not the identity, it's the same situation. The other possibility is material donated to them (along with copyright). They appear to come from slides in their possession (similar one here). When they get bulk archives from government departments, individual authors are often not known (similar to US National Archives material). The third one correct, they would not own the copyright. However it appears to be a pseudonymous publication from 1932, which would have expired after 50 years. The 1994 New Zealand law was still 50 years from making available to the public for pseudonymous works, so it would appear to still have been PD on the URAA date, so copyright would not have been restored in the US either. That appears to be a photo of the pamphlet and not a scan, and thus per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, it may have a copyright (especially under New Zealand law which is taken from older UK law). The pamphlet would be PD, but I guess the CC-BY license would be for the photo itself, in case there is a question. {{Licensed-PD-Art}} might be a better tag for that, if it's uploaded here. Either way, a CC license on a PD work is not reason for deletion. Anyone can make mistakes (Wikimedia editors included); it would appear that the New Zealand Archives has a pretty good grasp of copyright so would not assume there are gross mistakes; their material would most likely either be Crown Copyright or have an expired copyright in New Zealand, even if they reflexively add the CC-BY license to all of them. The usual concern there would be a work which is public domain in New Zealand but restored by the URAA in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> Either way, a CC license on a PD work is not reason for deletion.
No, but consistently incorrectly licencing work means a CC BY 2.0 cannot be taken at face value. If this was not a government account we wouldn't be giving leeway to incorrectly tagging PD work as being own.
This is PD NZ for example: [6] but won't become PD in the US until 2031 [7] Regardless it should not have a CC BY 2.0 tag. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: It seems you didn't read what Carl wrote above and in the DR: The New Zealand Archives has the right to administer Crown Copyright, and they licensed this CC-BY-2.0 on Flickr, so that appears to be a valid license applied by the copyright owner. Yann (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about them licencing works that are PD. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a country such as NZ that traditionally has a low threshold of originality, the CC-BY license may well still be useful for covering the reproduction performed by the Archives. Felix QW (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: New Zealand and Australia have very low Commons:Threshold of originality levels, taken from older UK law (the UK itself has changed due to its membership in the EU which overrode that, and may remain despite Brexit). There had been questions about photographic reproductions of paintings in the UK prior to that, where the reproduction may have a separate copyright from the painting. Probably not applicable to scans, but there is no case law. If we have a CC-BY license on the reproduction, which is also what their CC-BY licenses on Flickr declare, that question is settled as well. Per Wikimedia policy, we ignore that possibility (we use PD-scan or PD-Art), but that can still be helpful to re-users in other countries (thus our {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template). But yes, that does mean we should see if a PD template could apply in preference to the CC-BY. As for that one photo, not sure where your 1931 date comes from. Older New Zealand photos were copyrighted 50 years from creation; that 1933 photo expired in 1984 in New Zealand, before the URAA date, and was not ever restored in New Zealand either, so that photo would be PD in both countries. If it had been restored, a 1933 photo would expire in 2029 in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These would never qualify: [8] [9] [10] [11]
Copies of other work, which these clearly are, do not qualify in NZ [12] Traumnovelle (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: You say "never", but that can be hard without a firm court ruling on similar material. You're probably right, but an EU court ruled that digitization of a new work created a new copyright (or at least a "simple photo" copyright), shortly before a new EU directive came down which changed that. If they could rule that, a NZ court could as well. Agreed it's not likely. I'm not sure if the CC-BY licenses are there regardless of what they upload, or if it's just to make sure there are no questions about the digitization. Agreed that license should be changed to a PD tag of some sort if applicable, possibly using CC-BY inside of {{Licensed-PD-Art}} just for completeness' sake. But that is a task not much different than categorizing stuff, not a significant deletion issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: I think this is how it should be done. Yann (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the licences contradictory? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. A work can be public domain in some / many countries but not PD in others. If there is some country which decided to grant a copyright to digitizations then the CC license could apply. While Commons cares about the country of origin and US specifically, re-users can be anywhere, so as much license info as possible is desired. It's why we have {{Licensed-PD-Art}} -- Commons does not require the license in that situation but re-users might. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed File:Press Branch, Government Print Office, ca. 1905.jpg to use {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}}, which I think sums up the situation quite exactly. Felix QW (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organisational Usernames self-licensing as 'own-work'

[edit]

It's come to my attention that these users have uploaded a batch of images, mostly used on McAslan - Wikipedia two of the users' accounts are organisational entities, not individuals. Is this allowed, It's not clear to me that an organisational account can self-license images as the 'sole copyright holder'?

Yes, these are not OK without a permission via COM:VRT. I tagged 2 of these files. In addition, it needs to be clarify about using multiple accounts from the same organization. The 2 oldest accounts do not have recent edits, so a request for check user cannot be done. @JeffUK: You must inform users when you report them somewhere. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> It's not clear to me that an organisational account can self-license images as the 'sole copyright holder'?
Why not? Corporations can be copyright holders. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States. But not everywhere. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked. This is true in the UK: Ownership of copyright works - GOV.UK] Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't question that a corporation can own a copyright, but we usually require a formal permission is that case. IMO it is specially the case here, with 3 accounts claiming to be from the same organization. We had recently the case of an employee who gave a VRT permission where she actually didn't have the right to do so. Yann (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the Harcourt account? Because that's something entirely different. It wasn't that the files in question were not assigned to the corporation and that permission was needed from the individual author; it's that they were produced for an entirely different corporation which happened to share the same name. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am talking about this case. Please see User talk:Isabelle-ANDI#Warning for some more details (partly in French). Yann (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No answer from these accounts, so Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hufton+Crow and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by John McAslan + Partners. Yann (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1943 movie poster

[edit]

File:Girl Crazy.webp was recently uploaded as PD as copyright was not renewed. Assuming this is right (it seems rare it was renewed?) are other versions such as this one similarly uploadable? CMD (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • They're different works, so their copyright status needs to be assessed separately. This version of the poster is big enough for me to make out a copyright notice, but I can't actually read it to see who the copyright holder was. Copyright for a 1943 work was due for renewal in 1971-72, and I can't find an artwork or "commercial print or label" renewal for "Girl Crazy" around that time. That, and as you say, renewals were relatively rare, makes me think this is almost certainly OK. I'd be happier if I could see the name of the copyright holder though. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a 3rd version here. The copyright notice is identical for all 3, it's unclear, but from the third version you can see it's two words and the second one is "incorporated". Could it be "Harms incorporated"? That would make it en:T. B. Harms & Francis, Day & Hunter, Inc. CMD (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's Loew's Incorporated. --Rosenzweig τ 13:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks :) CMD (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Rosenzweig. The only thing Loew's Inc. renewed in that time period was some Wizard of Oz-themed writing paper for children.
However, the copyright on Girl Crazy was renewed (L13168, August 6, 1970), so any stills on the various posters that are from the movie itself (rather than a publicity photo taken during production or rehearsal, or an alternate take) are not free and make the overall poster unfree. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The posters were certainly published before the film, so they can't be derivative works of the film. Yann (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know that all three versions of this poster (and which one(s)?) were published after the film? (Keeping in mind that "published" in the US could be all kinds of distribution, or even offers of distrubution, many of which could have happened long before even the first screening took place.)
The second question I guess is (assuming that these are stills from the final, copyrighted version of the film) whether, even if the posters were published earlier, the renewal of the film's copyright preserved the copyright in the stills which would otherwise have lapsed when the posters' copyrights lapsed. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The renewal of a copyright in a film would not cause the renewal of a separate copyright in any other work, even posters or other images associated with the film. They would have had to have been renewed separately. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution (or offers to distribute) the trailers and posters for a film would have occurred before the film itself was actually distributed or definitively offered for distribution (and these promotional materials were used in the lead-up to the film's actual release). This earlier publication is why such items are not derivative works of the later-published item, as @Yann says. When this happened, whatever contents first published in those materials — even if later also published in the final film — would enter the public domain (if published without a notice) or eventually expire with the work within which those materials were first published (where the poster or trailer's copyright was not renewed). Therefore, certain frames from full films (which remain under copyright generally) are often in the public domain.
I would also tentatively draw a distinction between two kinds of offer of distribution of work, which may be relevant for determining the publication date of various materials. Let's call these a conceptual and a real offer. A conceptual offer can be made even before the work "offered" for distribution has been created. For instance, I can promise to send you a book when I am done writing it, or (more commonly) you could sign up for a subscription to my magazine. Maybe when you subscribe to the magazine you have, in some sense, taken me up on an offer to receive my next twelve monthly issues. Despite this, the issue I publish next year is not published when this "conceptual offer" is made, but instead when that issue is tangibly put into distribution or "really" offered.
Along the same lines, I am not sure that an offer to distribute a work which is conditioned on its non-exploitation until a certain date results in the publication of a work before the final date on which its exploitation is actually allowed. For instance, let's imagine a movie that premiered on January 1. The film would probably need to have been factually distributed to the theaters even before the new year struck, but, if distributed under the proviso that it is not to be exploited until January 1, then perhaps the year of publication is the later year. This is a little complicated because the publication of films was tied not only to exhibition but also to the ability to purchase/rent copies from the general distributors. But you can also think of a book that is generally published on January 1; the bookstores must have been able to buy and receive their wholesale stock before then, but, if that stock is sold to them on the condition that it not be disseminated before January 1, then I would think that general publication only occurs on January 1. If we go by that standard, then we should count movies as being published on their actual date of release, which is the first date on which the purchased copies could be normally exploited. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you -- do you know of some case law around "Therefore, certain frames from full films (which remain under copyright generally) are often in the public domain"? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything that was first published in a trailer with no notice (the vast majority in that era), or on which the copyright was not renewed, is in the public domain. Trailers tend to contain some frames which are also in the actual movie. Even if the full movie as a whole is under copyright, the frames which entered the public domain via inclusion in the trailer are not copyrighted. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One consideration is that the movie is based on a 1930 stage musical, which is still under copyright for another year (renewed in 1957). The posters could be considered derivative works of the musical. But the posters in question contain only generic elements like a man and a woman in cowboy costumes, not any copyrightable elements of expression from the musical, so I don't think they would be considered infringing. Toohool (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the musical in question wouldn't be PD-US until 2026, but nothing in this poster is a derivative work of that musical. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I am sending on behalf of another user, who told me that he uploaded this image: Gianni Matragrano.png. I noticed this and asked him to message the creator of the image (as he did not make it.). The creator of the image, who is Gianni Matragrano, said he could upload the image. What copyright template should I do if he did not ever license it (eg creative commons.) what template should I use?

SUMMARY: An uploader of File:Gianni Matragrano.png has gotten permission from the person who took the image to upload it to commons, but at the moment the license is not specified. What template should I use? Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: File:Gianni Matragrano.png. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cooldudeseven7: sorry, but "you can upload the image to Commons" is not enough, nor can we allow an individual user to just say they have permission (or anyone could say they had permission for anything).
Rather than "you can upload the image to Commons" we need a specific free license that explicitly allows derivative works and is not limited to non-commercial use.
Rather than you asserting you have permission, we need that grant of license either (1) to be in a public-facing statement on a website or social media account clearly under control of the copyright-holder (probably not practical in this case, because it is not immediately obvious who would be the copyright-holder) or (2) through the COM:VRT process, which is what I recommend in this case. Note that for VRT, the email must come from the copyright-holder, not from (or via) a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is from the copyright holder. Do I need to provide actual proof of the email? Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Eckersley posters

[edit]

The English graphic designer Tom Eckersley was responsible for several wartime UK government posters, such as this one. The English Wikipedia article does not make it sound as if he were an official of the Crown. In that case, they would presumably still be copyrighted since Eckersley died in 1997. I just wanted to check the reasoning held up before I file a DR. Felix QW (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • He doesn't seem to have produced his work as an employee, so to claim (expired) Crown copyright, we would need to see a notice to that effect (I can't read the text at the bottom of the poster you linked, nor find a higher-resolution version online) or some kind of verification that Eckersley transferred his copyright to the Crown. COM:ONUS places the burden of that proof on the uploader or people arguing to keep the images here, and in the absence of such evidence, they're presumably unfree for the reason that you give. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I understand Crown copyright, even transferring your copyright to the Crown does not render it "Crown Copyright" in the sense of making the shorter term applicable; See for instance page 5 of this guidance. Felix QW (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that makes the distinction abundantly clear. In which case, it's irrelevant what arrangement Eckersley had with the government; his works are protected by copyright until 2068. Good find! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't seem to have produced his work as an employee — what source of information do you have on that? EnWPm says Having originally joined the Royal Air Force and being charged with cartographic work, Eckersley was transferred to the Publicity Section of the Air Ministry, this allowed him to work from home and take commercial commissions again, for example from the General Post Office. If he was an employee of the Publicity Section of the Air Ministry, then mightn't Crown Copyright provisions apply? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the text at the bottom of this poster says: "Issued by the Ministry of Labour and National Service and produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Terminal House, 52 Grosvenor Gardens, London, S.W.1." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, here is a link to a somewhat better scan of the same poster: IWM. This source includes a claim that the posted is copyrighted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, but I can't verify that either way. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to get that copy, but it is not that large, and there is a watermark. Yann (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crown Copyright was very different then. From the 1956 act:
Her Majesty shall, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, be entitled—
(a)to the copyright in every original literary, dramatic or musical work first published in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which section two of this Act extends, if first published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department;
(b)to the copyright in every original artistic work first published in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which section three of this Act extends, if first published by or under such direction or control.
The 1911 Act stated: Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work.
If it was Crown Copyright under either of those definitions, then it remains Crown Copyright. If it was a "wartime UK government poster", it would have been hard to avoid Crown Copyright. It was not until the 1988 act where the definition was limited to employees, but that did not change the status of anything which already was Crown Copyright. I guess this was mostly done by a private organization, but it was "issued by the Ministry of Labour and National Service". Eckersley was an RAF employee at the time it seems like, though these may have been done on his own time. But it was hard to avoid being Crown Copyright in that era. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, they would seem to have been done "for Queen and Country".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So following Carl's information, I uploaded some files either by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents or the Central Office of Information. Yann (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, There are many more posters by Tom Eckersley from various UK organisations on [13], but I don't know which ones would qualify as Crown Copyright. Some more knowledge of UK administrations is needed. Yann (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images on https://vindskyddskartan.se

[edit]

Hi, I would like to use images uploaded by users of vindskyddskartan.se. The Terms and Conditions of the site state the following:

"Intellectual Property

The Service and its original content (excluding Content provided by You or other users), features and functionality are and will remain the exclusive property of the Company and its licensors.

The Service is protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both the Country and foreign countries. Our trademarks and trade dress may not be used in connection with any product or service without the prior written consent of the Company.

[...]

Guidelines for photos

Your photos should show the shelter clearly, as well as other equpiment, such as fireplace, toilet, etc. If there is a nice view, feel free to include it as well. Only submit images that you have taken yourself, or that you have been granted the rights to use by the copyright holder."

I understand this as saying that the company does NOT claim copyright for the images. I could not find a statement on who are the contributors or owners of the copyrights for the images nor could I find any statements of copyrights or waiving of such associated with any of the images I tested. EXIF and IPCT data of images download have no information about the creator/artist/copyright holder of the images.

Can I upload user-contributed photos downloaded from the site to Commons? Uli@wiki (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uli@wiki: No. The fact that you don't have a clue who owns the copyright does not somehow put the image in the public domain, and certainly does not constitute a license. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: in almost every country of the world photos are now copyrighted at creation, and someone would need to take positive action to license them, waive rights, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok - too bad but not unexpected. Uli@wiki (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted the site and there is an interesting aspect to this: As discussed above, they confirm that the copyright is with the original contributor of the photo. BUT: They strip off the EXIF/IPCT data for privacy reasons. They currently have no technology to include license information (even if the owner would want that) - supposedly there is no interest for this. They would provide contact to the creator for individual images, which would be tedious to realize for many images. In effect this means, they are preventing anyone else from even knowning the license conditions/copyright owners. Since this is a company, it might seem that this prevents competitors from using the files, even if that were ok with the creators. So they are implicitly exploiting the copyright without owning it. --Uli@wiki (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as their contributors have voluntarily let their images be used that way, there is nothing nefarious about that, even if it is inconvenient for us. It is no different from someone publishing their own photo without being interested in offering a license. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not illegal - just an interesting way to get a more or less exclusive usage situation without owning the exclusive rights. Most contributors probably never thought about it - like me before I wanted to use the images. Uli@wiki (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:High-resolution or SVG official Wikimedia logos

[edit]

Many of these are under CC BY SA, despite being most likely PD-Simple.


If they were logos of other companies, they'd likely be uploaded as PD.


Of course there are exceptions, like the Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikinews, and possibly Wikimedia Enterprise logos, but other than that most of the logos there are simple geometric designs. JayCubby (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where a free license is marked, but an item is in the public domain in certain countries (whether due to lack of qualification for copyright or expiry of term), the free license is still applicable as a fallback provision. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Belarus (and Ukraine) — but what about mass produced buildings built across all of the Soviet Union?

[edit]

The situation is as follows: the Soviet Union had a number of "standard and reusable projects [or project designs]" (типовые и повторно применяемые проекты) and "series projects" for buildings that were built all across the Soviet Union. Think of something like Khrushchevka s. Vitaly Lagutenko (1904–1968) was the designer of the Khrushchevka buildings (and is somewhat of a bad example to ask a question about Belarus given its copyright protection of only 50 years, so let's take Ukraine instead which has a copyright protection of 70 years after death?). My question is, could I upload photos of Khrushchevkas in Ukraine, despite the lack of FoP and despite the not yet expired copyright protection, with the argument that the same building can be found in Russia where it is not protected by copyright due to FoP? (Please ignore the fact that Khrushchevkas probably are below the threshold of originality because there are also "standard and reusable projects" that definitely have creative elements, e.g. reusable project desigs for Houses of Culture and for schools like this one, so that TOO can't be used as an argument for uploads.) Nakonana (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, is an extremely basic building counted as a work of (architectural) art? JayCubby (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are cases which are more elaborate in their design. There can be decorative elements on the facade, there can be columns etc. I only used Khrushchevkas as an example because it's rather well-known. Nakonana (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of project designs for Houses of Culture for example. Nakonana (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things like https://rojavainformationcenter.org/storage/2024/12/Sheikh-Maqsood-9-scaled.jpg, where it's all boxes.
This could be a work of 'art' as there's more to it. I dunno. JayCubby (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's what I'm curious about. This one is probably also artistic enough to be protected. This building can be found in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. However, if I'm not mistaken, Russia is the only country in this list with Commons compatible FoP rules. Does that mean that photos of this building design are not allowed on Commons if it's the version of the building in Homel in Belarus? Nakonana (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have argued against the deletion of images of such buildings in France, and I would do the same for buildings in Soviet Union (the housing ones like Category:Khrushchev houses). Yann (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'll ping here @Alex Spade and NickK: for their insights. They may know about Soviet and post-Soviet states' TOO standards regarding architecture (and if {{PD-structure}} applies). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that for Ukraine they are not copyrighted because they lack any artistic intention. The article 1.56 defines work as an original intellectual creation of the author (co-authors) in the field of science, literature, art, etc. expressed in an objective form. The Law of Ukraine On Culture defines that architecture is a form of art, and that art means creative artistic activity. I don't think that a typical Khrushchevka can qualify as creative, there was no artistic intention while building it, on the contrary, multiple sources state that they were built deliberately functional and without anything artistic whatsoever. Thus, in my opinion, they don't qualify as copyrightable works of architecture as there was no artistic creativity involved — NickK (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the Houses of Culture with this standard design? There are several houses of culture in Ukraine with that design[14] [15][16] Can they be uploaded? Because the same design can also be found in Russia, so Commons will have photos of this standard type of building anyway (see File:Нижний Новгород. Дом культуры имени Серго Орждоникидзе.jpg). Nakonana (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that just because a certain design has been replicated many times, that does not mean that this design is not copyrightable. Gnom (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that. The thing is just that we already have photos of this building design on Commons from Russia where it's covered by FoP. But in Ukraine it would be still copyrighted and we can't upload images? (BTW, I've fixed the previously red link above to the photo of the building in Russia) Nakonana (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say that these buildings lack artistic creativity. The main question is whether we consider each individual project an exact copy or an adaptation. If the former, I think we need to find out where the first copy was published and what its copyright status is (as this will be considered first publication for US copyright law purposes; Ukraine will still be the source country for buildings still standing but will cease being the source country for a demolished copy). If the latter, each of them will have their individual copyright status depending on the location country — NickK (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Soviet/Ukraine law, but I know that in the US, cases about architecture copyright have been quite heated about not the seriously artistic architectural works that will be discussed in classrooms for centuries, but about the houses that average person buys. Like a song or story doesn't have to be good or memorable to be copyrightable, neither do architectural works. Copyright has always protected maps, textbooks, and other things that are purely functional and not ostentatiously artistic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes: Ukrainian copyright law protects separately works of art and for works of science. Textbooks you mention get protection not because they are artistic, but because they are undeniably scientific. From scientific point of view I can imagine that drawings of Khrushchevkas are copyrightable (they likely involved some advanced engineering planning) but I don't see how their outside photos will be copyrightable (given that they contain neither anything artistic nor anything scientifically non-trivial) — NickK (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand conception works of art or science in Russian and Ukraine law. The key is in following (in respective articles) list of type of works. Both Black Square by Kazimir Malevich is creative work in recognized art style - suprematism, and Khrushchevka is creative work in recognized architectural style - functionalism. Alex Spade (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you then define the threshold? There is a definition in Ukrainian law which is based on creative artistic activity, and the Russian one is similar. Looking at en:Functionalism (architecture), Khrushchevka seems like a real outlier there: unlike e.g. Mosselprom in the USSR or Bakkegaarden in Denmark which have a clear artistic intention while being functionalist, Khrushchevkas deliberately lacked a creative intention (and there are sources for that). There is indeed in-depth analysis on the merits of this project for fighting housing shortage, but I haven't seen any sources for merits of architectural design of this project. I don't see how a 2D picture of a Khrushchevka from the outside would be above TOO: it's hard to see which element of it is copyrightable — NickK (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Russia creativity threshold is defined by the judicial system (in individual court decisions (without precedents) and the Supreme Court generalization of court practice) and the legislators (in amendments to copyright legislation) (as it was done with TV / transport and similar schedules and automatic camera works). The last Supreme Court generalization (No. 10 of April 23, 2019) decrees "until proven otherwise, the results of intellectual activity are assumed to be created creatively".
Creativity of Khrushchevkas is discussed, criticized and disputed, but as I can see in sources - creativity postulated as limited, not as lacking. Alex Spade (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Russia, сreativity is primary criterion for copyrightability. Simplicity is not - "simple" Black Square by Kazimir Malevich was copyrightable. Regularity/uniqueness(originality) is not - it is unimportant, how many times some model of building/structure was erected - for copyright law these erected buildings/structures are copies in the same manner as number of issued copies of some novel. Artistry is not - article 1259. The Objects of Copyrights: The objects of copyright are scientific, literary and artistic works, irrespective of the merit and significance of the work or the method whereby it is expressed. Alex Spade (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So. The Houses of Culture design in creative indeed (from my PoV). Khrushchevka design and its creativity can be disputed in some manner, but such design was discussed in core architectural journals/magazines, and such discussions will be proof, evidence, or/and argument for its creativity for a possible court decision . Alex Spade (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Art-100.jpg

[edit]

Didn't see I should have asked for help here, and not the community page. Just found my original artwork of the Last Supper on Wikimedia. My website page here https://freechristimages.com/bible-stories/last-supper.html shows it is only available as a print. I'll add my copyright info right away. Here is the original upload to wikimedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Art-100.jpg&oldid=297632321 and the current page stating it is in the public domain (it is not in the public domain) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Art-100.jpg Any help taking it down would be greatly appreciated! Thank you, Laura Sotka 108.81.157.4 07:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I renamed the file to File:Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, restored.jpg. I think you could be credited for the restoration, but claiming a copyright is a bit farfetched. This is not your original artwork, as you claim above, but a work by Leonardo da Vinci, made in the 15th century. Anyway, we won't accept any claim from an IP. You need to send some proof to [email protected]. Yann (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Da Vinci's Last Supper is public domain --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the restoration though, the entire bottom middle section seems to have been replaced completely by the restorer. In my mind, that could well suffice for copyright protection. Felix QW (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1954 Nigerian newspaper

[edit]

Hi, Haylad has uploaded many issues of a 1954 Nigerian newspaper claiming {{PD-Nigeria}}. AFAICT there is no signature in File:9th December 1954 Daily Comet.pdf, but does this license really apply? Could it be anonymous? Could it be a collective work? Yann (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Yann, Newspapers and Magazines are collective works, the copyright is assumed to expire 50 years after the publication year, this is in accordance with the Nigerian copyright act of 2022. It is imperative to note that while the specific wording regarding the duration of copyright for collective works may not be explicitly stated in the same section, it is generally inferred from the broader provisions regarding copyright duration in the Act. The common practice of 50 years from the date of first publication is widely accepted in copyright law and is reflected in the legislative framework. What do you mean by AFAICT, can you expatiate on it? Haylad (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Haylad: Hi, "Newspapers and Magazines are collective works". That's not always the case. I don't know Nigerian law, but in France, they are collective works only when the articles and images are not signed or attributed. So collective work is certainly not the general situation, only a specific case. Yann (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Work for hire

[edit]

This is about whether or not a corporation or organization can own a copyright. There does seem to be some confusion about it. In many jurisdictions it's allowed with varying rules.

I'd like to start a new project page related to the copyright by jurisdictions; this information should probably also be included in each country. Obviously it's a big project, so it would help if we had some research. Note: The English Wikipedia article only covers the United States, so it's mostly useless for this endeavor. What I have so far:

  • Germany:  No: Only a person can have a copyright
  • United Kingdom: ✓ Yes: A corporation can have copyright if an employee
  • United States: ✓ Yes: A corporation can have copyright if an employee or a contractor in certain instances

If anyone knows the rules in other countries, please feel free to add. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, please allow me to suggest that the distinction should probably read, can/cannot be an author, and not can/cannot own a copyright.
That said, the question is whether this distinction matters for us at all. For example, if a German employee at a software company creates code during work hours, the copyright in the code is virtually entirely and automatically transferred to the employer, making the employer (be it a corporation or an individual) technically not the author of the code, but still holding nearly all the rights in it. Gnom (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't understand how employees could retain the copyright of the works done during their employment. It would allow them to use the works after quitting the job without the employer's consent. Yann (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually a real problem that some businesses in droit d'auteur jurisdictions face when they don't have proper IP transfer clauses in their employment agreements. :Gnom (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is certainly not restricted to some businesses in droit d'auteur, but to any employee which produces something copyrightable (engineers, architects, etc.). Yann (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The emphasis here is (I think) droit d'auteur jurisdictions, countries having a copyright model similar to that of France, as opposed to the Anglo-American copyright model. --Rosenzweig τ 21:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is yes, with any Berne country. I think though the distinction you want is whether a corporation can be the first owner, or the author (as Gnom states above), which rarely matters for us. In many EU countries, the human author is always the first owner, but then the employment contract will dictate if the copyright gets transferred or not (virtually always yes). So in practice, there is little difference between that and an automatic work for hire. The EU (and Berne Convention really) separates things into economic rights (which are transferrable), and moral rights (which usually are not). The US "copyright" generally corresponds to the economic right. If any right is transferrable, i.e. you can sell it, then yes of course a corporation can own it (by later purchase or employment contract). There may be some differences in some edge conditions -- in the U.S. sometimes a copyright owner, or sometimes only heirs, can claw back a sold copyright many years down the road if initially owned by them, but not a work for hire. For "moral rights", those should still exist for the human authors in the EU even if the economic right was transferred. The UK law distinguishes between "initial copyright owner" (which can be a corporation) and "author" (which is always a human). The 2006 EU copyright directive (article 4) also has a slight difference for the term of anonymous/pseudonymous works in the situations where a Member State provides for particular provisions on copyright in respect of collective works or for a legal person to be designated as the rightholder -- in that case, if the human author was not mentioned on the original publication, the copyright term can never be expanded to 70pma by disclosing the author within 70 years (although not all such countries actually implemented that detail in their law, so probably need to look at each country's law -- the UK did not). In the end, whoever owns a transferrable copyright can license it, and that is usually what we care about. In virtually all cases, an employee's economic rights would be transferred to the employer, and it is that owner we need to get licenses from. Is there a particular situation you have in mind where the distinction would matter for Commons? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is based, essentially, on what I think is a misunderstanding (or a highly misguided approach to permission-gathering). See the section above about whether or not it is acceptable for a corporate uploader to upload a file to Commons as "own work," rather than requiring an external permission email from the individual creator.
The issue is, of course, that when the corporation is the copyright holder (through whatever provision this is done), generally this means that the permission is the corporation's to grant, not the employee's.
You could argue that the use of the phrase "own work" doesn't make a lot of sense, but a corporate uploader's license grants are fully valid (provided that it actually owns the copyright) — just as they would be valid on any external site, like Flickr. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you are talking about [17]. I don't question that a corporation can own a copyright, but we usually require a formal permission is that case. Yann (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yeah that seems a little odd. If the original human author no longer owns the copyright (or economic right), they can no longer license it, so we don't need their permission. I think we do try to verify accounts are actually from a company, but once that is done, whatever license they put up should be OK. In that case "own work" is more "self-owned work", as in any case we need a license from the current owner. I don't think we need VRT for everything provided the account itself has been vetted, or obviously OK for other reasons. But accounts are anonymous so we'd have to be pretty sure it really was an official company account. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Although I will say that, in principle, the same is true of all individual users' accounts, too. I don't think we should be setting a different standard of evidence based on this. Where something has never been published on the internet prior, and where the claim of ownership/authorship doesn't seem implausible, we tend to take it at face value, do we not? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verifying accounts named for corporations (and well-known personalities) is part of policy -- Commons:Username policy#Well-known_names_and_names_of_organizations. I think for most accounts, there would be no reason for someone to misrepresent that they are someone other than what they appear to be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Work published in modern (post-1993) Russia and other post-Soviet republics:  No: Only a person can have a initial copyright
  • Work published in USSR: ✓ Yes: A corporation could have initial copyright in certain instances with very important nuances
    • Russia: ✓ Yes: If corporation had initial copyright in certain instances, it is had initial copyright now.
    • Other post-Soviet republics: Unknown: their legislations have no respective transitional thesis in explicit form.
Alex Spade (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the actual copyright is not the important right. The question is who has the right the determine the attribution and decide over licenses. It is possible that the copyright holder gave all these rights to someone else. GPSLeo (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but I am not talking about copyrightholder, I am talking about legal person as author in the Soviet laws - see points 3.b and 4 of {{PD-Russia}} and this information. Alex Spade (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For examples: de-jure author of en:Four Hearts (1941 film) is Mosfilm (not director, screenwriters, and composer of film) and author of en:Raising a Flag over the Reichstag is TASS (not Khaldei). Alex Spade (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damage Assessment Toolkit application screenshots

[edit]

Under {{PD-DAT}} it is stated that images from the NWS Damage Assessment Toolkit application are public domain, however, screenshots of the application of itself are less clear. Indeed, while using the application, I noticed that the copyright notice at the bottom of the screen had expanded, now citing "Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS | NOAA/NWS" for information (I've bolded what I believe to be private companies not releasing their material under a free license). I checked Microsoft's service agreement and it specificly states that "unauthorized sharing of... ...other copyrighted material, resale or other distribution of Bing maps" is not allowed under their license terms, so it follows that their map data is being used in the Damage Assessment Toolkit application, screenshots of which are being uploaded to Commons under Public Domain licenses. I'm not fully familiar with Commons so I'm not sure the next step, so I hope someone more adept at this platform than me can guide me, but note this does NOT affect the PD-DAT template which outlines images specifically, not application screenshots. Pinging @EF5 because they stated earlier that application screenshots were public domain as well. I found the license disclaimer above while zooming in on Crawford County Airport in southeast Illinois, United States. Departure– (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

license for reproductions in article JBENP Jean Bernard Editeur à Nîmes et à Paris

[edit]

Hello, My publication contains some reproductions of postal cards which have more than 100 years ago. The french legislation makes that these documents are all free of right (domaine public). So is it obligatory for me to return another justification to wikipedia community? Thank you for your answer. Regards, P F( 'Ennemonde') Ennemonde (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ennemonde: Your postcards are probably OK (unless there is a photographer mentioned, and s/he died after 1954), but {{CC-0}} is the wrong license. They should be either {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} or {{PD-France}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. Please fix that. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOO and historical Windows screenshots

[edit]

Hi! I try to cover some old historical software and would like to know if screenshots like this (Windows 1.0 DR5) and this (W 1.0 Alpha), this exceed the threshold of originality. In my mind, it's too simple, but I would like hear other opinions. Thanks! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windows' UIs are not copyrighted themselves. The overall organization of the elements in this screenshot is indeed rather trivial. So, you can mark it as {{Pd-shape}}. By the way we already have Category:Windows_1.0_screenshots for such screenshots. Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming we are talking strictly about the U.S., it is hard to imagine a problem with either of those. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes, it's very likely we only have to take the US jurisdictions into account :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing for images

[edit]

I need help regarding removal of images I uploaded to Wiki commons: File:Silence Wang 01.jpg and File:Silence Wang 02.jpg. They were removed for alleged licensing issues provided below, but they followed the exact licensing requirements as provided by Wiki:

The original photographer and owner of the photo gave explicit licensing for this image in her instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/p/DBTliRmPGZ-/?img_index=2 in the following language: "©️I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license." This follows the wiki commons image upload copyright and licensing instructions for images from instagram posts.--Etherealmama (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This is license laundering. The images were originally posted at https://m.weibo.cn/profile/7574935809. The Weibo user has around 32K followers while the Instagram has only a handful. Also, in this post https://m.weibo.cn/status/5056100426056506 it is clear that the images can only be used for personal usage «所有图可以自印自留，但不授权自印后作为无料发放（举例：印了自己放家里收藏可以，但是不能公开发放❌，更不能标价开团❌）», (defective) Google translate: «All pictures can be printed and kept by yourself, but you are not authorized to print them and distribute them for free (for example: you can print them and keep them at home, but you cannot distribute them publicly❌, and you cannot mark a price to start a group❌)». Günther Frager (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not grab the photo from weibo or instagram but was given explicit instructions BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER (photographer) and accountholder (who are the same person), who communicated directly with me and employed me to upload and release the photos for Wiki commons use. I don't understand how the number of followers on her social media accounts are relevant. What matters is the photographer and copyright holder gave permission and provided explicit licensing language on the photo, which she added to her instagram post, as required by licensing policies. Is this not sufficient? What else needs to be done?

The photographer is only releasing licensing to those specific photos for Wiki commons, not everything that she ever posts on instagram or weibo - that's why the licensing language is only posted in those specific posts and not her entire account, does that make sense? How do I get these photos back? Do I reupload them? Or do they have to go through a different licensing verification process as I don't want them to be removed again. Etherealmama (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the images File:Silence Wang 01.jpg and File:Silence Wang 02.jpg, as this is clearly not an obvious case of speedy deletion. I have tried to view the Weibo post but it requires registration, which I have not been able to complete. Based on some quick googling, it seems that people outside China are not officially banned, but in practice will always encounter some bug making it impossible to register, which aligns with my experience. I think anyone citing Weibo or similar Chinese social media as evidence for deletion should be required to provide a screenshot or transcript with some basic info (e.g. the date of the post). So whoever still believes this is license laundering should open a COM:DR as many details from the Weibo post as possible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is most certainly not license laundering as that is defined as "taking an image with a non-free copyright status and uploading it, WITHOUT permission from the copyright holder..."
In this case, there is EXPLICIT permission from the copyright holder (evidence of written communication available) and it is also clearly stated in her own instagram post in the required licensing language: "©️I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license." What else is required? Again, it is only specific to these two images, not everything the photographer/accountholder ever posts to her instagram or weibo. Etherealmama (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2024
@Etherealmama: While your frustration is understandable, it doesn't seem like King of Hearts is claiming that this is a case of COM:LL. King of Hearts is just stating that anyone wanting to challenge this file's licensing needs to start a COM:DR because this isn't the kind of thing that typically qualifies for speedy deletion and should be discussed instead. You might also want to consider asking the copyright holder to email their COM:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT given the problems King of Hearts describe about their attempts to verify the license just to remove any doubts at all. Perhaps the copyright holder could even use COM:RELGEN. Anything that makes it easier for the copyright holder's content to be verified is going to lessen the chance of the file being nominated for deletion. Finally, for future reference, you don't really need to copy-paste comments from other Commons pages here onto VPC; simply providing a link to the page/discussion usually suffices. In addition, it sometimes also helps to discuss things (even if only as a courtesy) with the administrator who declined an undeletion request since they too can just simply restore the file if presented with new evidence after the fact. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation and suggestions for VRT. I'm really trying to understand how to properly verify the licensing and avoid it being removed again. I had discussed with the administrator who declined the undeletion request, they suggested that I bring it for discussion to the help desk. Appreciate the tips. Etherealmama (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: The first image version of File:Silence Wang 02.jpg (which you also restored) is a completely different photograph though and was deleted (by me) at the request of the uploader, 11 days before the second version was uploaded. Do any of the permissions which were mentioned also cover this different photograph? --Rosenzweig τ 09:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad - I had checked that both versions of File:Silence Wang 01.jpg were the same photo and assumed the same for the other image. Deleted the old version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading PD (?) artwork

[edit]

Hi all, I am uploading a lot of artwork from auction houses, for artists who died >70 years ago. I use {{PD-old-70}} to tag them. However, I started getting (speedy) deletion requests (example). These seem to be specifically about US artists. I have the Wikidata items for the artists whose work I upload, but no dates for the works themselves. Can/should I apply additional filters here? For example, I could exclude US artists who died after eg 1927. What would be the best filter to apply here? Or I can add additional templates under specific conditions? Thanks, Magnus Manske (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, That is not a speedy deletion request, and I also think that some information is missing to establish the copyright status. We need the date of publication (or at least the date of creation), and if it is after 1929, some evidence that it was published without a copyright notice, or that the copyright was not renewed. Anyway, the current license is not OK. Yann (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So as I wrote, I don't have the creation/publication date for most of these artworks. I do have the Wikidata item of the artist, which puts the creation date before their death. What is my best way to proceed? Not upload artwork for anyone who died after 1929? Or just for anyone who was a US national, and keep the other countries at death > 70 years ago? Which license template to use, under which condition? I'd rather someone here can tell me what's correct, than keep guessing. I don't really know the minute details here. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For works published before 1978, the US term was not based on the year of death at all -- it was 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever was shorter. Of course, works also had to be published with notice, and also renewed after 28 years, which rarely happened. Defining "publication" in the US was a thorny issue, especially for paintings, but if there is some information about a painting out there, it shouldn't take much to establish at least a strong probability it is PD by now. If correctly attributed, usually we can find at least something about the painter or painting to help. The one example you give doesn't "feel" old, and indeed the DR mentions it's unlikely to be the person that Invaluable credited it to. I did find one eBay auction of a print from the same artist, and there's virtually no way it was a person born in 1858. At that point, I think we have no information at all about the painting, and it could easily be modern. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until I receive further advice, I will use {{PD-old-auto}} instead, as I know the artists death year. I will also leave a "created before" note in the {{Artwork}}'s "date" field. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just note that art published after 1929 will still frequently be copyrighted in the United States. So any artwork not clearly published before 1929 (which should be uploaded with {{PD-old-auto-expired}}) will require careful analysis on a case-by-case basis. Actually, due to the URAA, this is even more true for non-US artists whose work may well still be copyrighted in the US despite disregarding copyright formalities. Felix QW (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo text Air France (1990).jpg

[edit]

Buenas,por favor convierte este DR en un ejemplo para el COM:TOO France. AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please make this DR an example for the COM:TOO France.
translator: --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Spain-photo

[edit]
English: Hi, Do these photos comply with the license of the {{PD-Spain-photo}} (File:Ferrer y Rebrov - Barcelona vs Dynamo Kyiv 1993.jpg, File:Camp Nou Barcelona - Atletico 1996.jpg File:Team Atletico Madrid 1995-1996.jpg)?
Русский: Привет. Соответствуют ли эти фото лицензии шаблона {{PD-Spain-photo}} (File:Ferrer y Rebrov - Barcelona vs Dynamo Kyiv 1993.jpg, File:Camp Nou Barcelona - Atletico 1996.jpg File:Team Atletico Madrid 1995-1996.jpg)?

Mitte27 (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitte27: The first photo is PD in Spain, but not in the US until 1993+95+1=2089, and is therefore unacceptable here until that year. Similarly, the second photo is PD in Spain, but not in the US until 1996+95+1=2092, and is therefore unacceptable here until that year. The third photo isn't even PD in Spain yet because it is not simple, it will be PD there in 1996+70+1=2067 and in the US in 1996+95+1=2092, and is therefore unacceptable here until that year. @Alexdevil: Please be more careful. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alexdevil#Files uploaded by Alexdevil (talk · contribs) 2.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mitte, I'm sorry. So the license is not usable outside Spain? I didn't understand that. Alexdevil (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexdevil: Correct, those photos are not usable on Commons (or Spanish Wikipedia per es:Wikipedia:Uso legítimo, es:Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Cambiar políticas y reglas de uso de imágenes, es:Wikipedia:Sobre el uso legítimo, and es:Fair use) at all until they are PD in the US.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitte27: @Alexdevil: I'll explain what Jeff did not, PD-Spain-photo can only be used for photographs created before 1971. The United States has a law that restored U.S. copyrights for all Spanish works that weren't public domain on January 1, 1996. Additionally, in 1989 and afterwards, the U.S. would have had a copyright on any Spanish photos so we cannot host any 1990s Spanish photo until the dates Jeff stated. Abzeronow (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UN Fact Finding Mission documents

[edit]

Kind regards. From what I gather, the documents published in this page [18] are in the public domain per {{PD-UN-doc}} and that they were published under a UN document symbol (namely these detailed reports: [19][20][21], and I can see several UN documents uploaded at Category:United Nations resolutions, but I wanted to make sure before proceeding. Is this correct? Many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV in Gaza and the West Bank

[edit]

Is there any precedent on whether it's PD? JayCubby (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC) ÆWhich files--Trade (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Madness

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixtape_Madness https://www.youtube.com/@MixtapeMadnessOfficial

Are the CCBY videos from this channel safe to upload here? --Trade (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While some (not all) of their videos are tagged as CC-BY, I'm not at all confident that they've actually cleared this with the creators of the music on their channel. The "If you believe this video breaches your copyright, please direct your DMCA related emails to ..." statement in the video descriptions isn't a good sign either; it's barely a step above "no copyright intended". Omphalographer (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess a mixtape channel would contain a slew of copyvios. Do you have any reason to believe the individual works they are combining are either in the public domain or free-licensed? - Jmabel ! talk 05:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of their uploads looks like actual mixtapes tho Trade (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Syrian Civil War map (ISW-CTP).svg

[edit]

This file is described as own work based on this image produced by the combined ISW-CTP team and is copyright protected. It shows areas of Syria controlled by various groups/factions. My understanding of copyright is that the intellectual property protected by copyright in the base image is the outline of the areas controlled (an overlay on the basic map). My further understanding is that minor changes such as varying the colours used in the map, and the addition or removal of features from the basic map do not change/dissolve the copyright. Also, reproducing this outline (ie as an overlay) on a third-party open source map, whether or not it uses the original colours, is also an infringement of copyright.

If my understanding is correct the map could only be used under fair use criteria. The map is used in more than one place on En Wiki.

My question goes to whether the map can be used at all, under what conditions and what should be done about the present situation. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VRT question

[edit]

Do we accept VRT permissions for Roblox? Or does their terms of service get in the way of that?--Trade (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea

[edit]

Do Commons follow Ukrainian or Russian copyright when it comes to photographs taken in this peninsula? Trade (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of General Gregorio del Pilar in 1898

[edit]

This is a photo of General Gregorio del Pilar in 1898 (photo link). The description says "General Gregorio del Pilar, known as the Boy General, and his troops in Pampanga, c. 1898. Arnaldo Dumindin" I'm not sure if Arnaldo Dumindin is the original photographer. Is this photo public domain? -Artanisen (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=970584886"