Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/05

Is this picture OK to upload?

There is a supposedly public domain photo on WP Clipart of C.S. Lewis linked here: https://www.wpclipart.com/famous/education/CS_Lewis.png.html. Is this OK to put onto Commons? Is it actually free? StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That picture is free and you can upload it to WikiMedia Commons as it says 'You CAN use the images in your own work, both personal and commercial'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-back spider (talk • contribs) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It depends on how much you trust the person running that website. There's a notice on the bottom of the page saying that it's a hand-curated selection of copyright-free artwork, but I'd like to know the provenance of the image to be absolutely sure it's public domain. It'd be worth contacting the website owner to ask. Notably, that particular photograph is already used on the English Wikipedia at en:C. S. Lewis (image: en:File:C.s.lewis3.JPG) albeit with a claim of fair use, though that only means that the uploader believed it to be copyrighted, not necessarily that it is. clpo13_(talk) 08:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The history of the image on enwiki is a bit odd. The web source given there is from 2014, and that person actually got the image from Wikipedia, where it was first uploaded in 2008 with the only source info being "Photograph by Arthur Strong, 1947". Searching the web for a combination of Arthur Strong, C.S. Lewis, and 1947 gives me this, which isn't the same picture but clearly from the same session (in Oxford, apparently). Arthur Strong died in 2004, so works of his won't be public domain in the UK until 2075 (70 years after his death per COM:UK). That alone means the photo can't be uploaded to Commons, since works here must be public domain in the country of origin and in the United States (COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law). It may be public domain in the US for one reason or another (see COM:HIRTLE for more on that), but that's a lot harder to determine and won't have any effect on its status here on Commons. clpo13_(talk) 08:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. The website you linked to hosts copies of unsourced images. You must find a valid source and information about the image. The image was deleted from Commons in 2010. It is present on en.wikipedia, where it is tagged as non-free, but it doesn't even have a valid source there. A false source was added later by a user, but it can be seen that actually it was copied there from the en.wikipedia image (the copy was made in November 2014 when the en.wikipedia image was larger than its present version). Although not providing the source, the first uploader to en.wikipedia wrote that the photo is by photographer Arthur Strong (1908-2004). That is plausible. It is not one of the photographs hosted at the NPG. Some sources credit the present copyright on some of Arthur Strong's photographs to Ingrid Franzon. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: pandakekok9 01:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Norfolk Coast Path

Hello. My query concerns the above article. Jonathan.barber talk added this File:Norfolk Coast Path and Peddars Way.jpg which looks as if it has been scanned from a publication. I have messaged the user and he has informed me he has third party with permission granted. Please take a look and see if everthing is OK. Thanks Northmetpit (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This file needs an OTRS permission, so I've tagged it accordingly. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Tagged — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-back spider (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Iftekhar Rafsan.jpg

I am requesting to review this picture. I don't think there are any copyright issues here.This image was taken from flickr. This image is under CC0 copyright license

File:Iftekhar Rafsan.jpg

Iftekhar Rafsan (Rafsan the Chotobhai)

--KaziKamrulOfficial17 (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That image has no copyright issues because it is public domain, KaziKamrulOfficial17 uploaded it with the right time of picture taken and the right photographer from Flickr. --Red-back spider (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Red-back spider: : Please note: just because someone claims to be an author, or claims a certain license on Flickr, doesn't necessarily make it so (see Commons:License laundering). In this case I have no compelling reason to doubt the authorship of the image, but in general, people lie on the internet all the time, or rehost images that aren't their own work (even in good faith, with the best of intentions). A certain degree of skepticism is often needed when evaluating claims, rather than taking them at face value. --Animalparty (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Animalparty: :But when it's public domain, it means you can do anything with the picture so you can make it Creative Commons instead. (I think, If I'm wrong tell me)  ::@KaziKamrulOfficial17: Also the uploader to Flickr did not Flickr-wash so it isn't copied from somewhere else.

--Red-back spider (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Red-back spider: If something is already public domain you cannot release it under a Creative Commons licence because that would require you to hold copyright of that work in the first place. In this case though, it looks like the Flickr user was in fact the original photographer and rightfully released the image into the public domain under a CC-zero licence. De728631 (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@De728631: Okay I understand that, you can't change public domain into Creative Commons. --Red-back spider (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

But I still think KaziKamrulOfficial17 made the right license for it because it's the same on Flickr and WikiMedia Commons (Go to 'File History' in ref #4). --Red-back spider (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Deleted picture and  Done and

Resolved

--Red-back spider (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Guidance required

Can anyone guide me that media from the below website is allowed on commons?

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/about-site/copyright/

Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, unless otherwise stated.

Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the abovementioned general permission and indicate clearly any restrictions on use.

--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The simple answer is no. Please see COM:L for more about what licenses are accepted. --Wcam (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tiven2240: No, you are not allowed to use any of the media/pictures as it says "harvest, collect, gather or assemble any material for other than official and non-commercial use" so it is under the licence 'All Rights Reserved'. Please see COM:L, to see which licenses are accepted. --Red-back spider (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Red-back spider (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Assistance with Spanish photo c. 1968

The photo which appears at the top of the article link here was taken in Spain in 1968 or January 1969 at the latest (since the person at the centre of the photo was murdered in January 1969). I'm not 100% certain (erring on the side of caution) that the following templates {{PD-Spain-photo}}{{PD-1996}} are sufficient to demonstrate satisfactory public domain usage, otherwise I am assuming the public domain usage cannot be satisfied? Comments on whether sufficient, an alternative or not possible please. Thanks, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It meets the URAA date requirement, but not {{PD-1923}}. So the question is whether it meets {{PD-1989}} (which you'll have to research). You can think of URAA as an additional requirement: 1) Is it public domain in the source country? 2) Is it public domain in the US? 3) Was it public domain in the US as of the URAA date? We can only host it if it satisfies all three requirements. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer, can you clarify please: {{PD-1989}} refers to publication in the US, as far as I can tell the image has not been published in the US at all; does this mean that as the image has not been published in the US it cannot be PD in the US? Since point (3) is dependent on point (2) the question is whether or not it is considered PD in the US; which is the point I am not clear on. Thanks,--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Try to find the origin of the photo, when it was first published, where, by whom. Maybe you can ask the question to Javier Padilla. (His email is mentioned in his blog.) -- Asclepias (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Thank you for pointing me towards Padilla, I have seen him mentioned before. El Pais credits the photo to the Spanish publishing house Tusquets Editores (whose archive is now held in the Spanish National Library). The photo is clearly public domain in Spain, that does not seem to be a problem. What I wish to understand is whether a picture which has not been published in the US is therefore excluded from US public domain (and thus from Commons).--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You can use COM:HIRTLE to figure it out for your exact circumstance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that shows {{PD-1996}}, which is what I indicated at first. What is considered reasonable in terms of stating the photograph was not published in the US? Is it a matter of indicating that searching for the item shows no US publication and that will stand unless someone can show otherwise...? --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think publication in the US matters according to the chart. If it's published abroad without a copyright notice before 1978, then it's OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Disregard

Resolved

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

License check

Hello all- I have recently uploaded about eighty-five maps [1] that seem to be products of the US Government. Since they are US Federal government products, I think they are 'free and clear' to use on Wikimedia Commons, but I downloaded them from the website of an organization centered in India. Is there any problem with that? I don't think there should be, but I wanted to confirm. Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The maps are 'free and clear' to use on Wikimedia Commons. --Red-back spider (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-back spider (talk • contribs) 10:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with "old" picture.

Hello, dear colleagues. This picture here, depicts Jimmy Douglas, a goalkeeper who represented the United States in the 1920s. The picture is in good quality, but (at least as far as I know) there's no indication about who made it and when it was made. However, Douglas is dressed in a US jersey and he last played for the US at the en:1930 FIFA World Cup. So, it's sort of safe to say that this picture was made before or in 1930 and, therefore, it would be at least 90 years old, which means that it would be in the public domain or close to it. Is there any form to determine this picture copyright situation in order to upload it here? Regards.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 02:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you ask the website who took the photo and what the licence terms were? --Red-back spider (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

(football fan jumping in) He's obviously wearing the US national team uniform; this image shows the 1924 Olympic squad and another version without the USSF President. This image shows the 1930 World Cup Squad. If you can demonstrate the photo is from 1924 then it should just squeak in as {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-France}}, but a second opinion necessary.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Red-back spider Actually, I asked. I'm yet to receive a response from them. Goldsztajn, this article on The Guardian was very helpful. Douglas's jersey and hair cut are very very similar to those at The Guardian picture. I'm assuming that both pictures (the one at NSHOF and The Guardian) are from 1930 FIFA WC.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 21:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem! --Red-back spider (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

and  Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-back spider (talk • contribs) 10:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence

The people behind these 3 portraits File:StyleGAN2 Example 1.jpg, File:StyleGAN2 Example 2.jpg, File:StyleGAN2 Example 3.jpg do not exist, since they were created by an AI program : https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/. I think the copyright should be similar to what is written on File:Edmond de Belamy.png (painting obtained by the same technology), but I would like to hear other opinions, and get the confirmation they are free of copyright legally, for Commons -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There are more in the Category:AI generated faces. Existence of articles on Wikipedia English StyleGAN or Generative adversarial network (but where copyright question is not dealt with). BBC says on its website "The company later made these programs open source, meaning they are publicly accessible". There's a button "Save" at the bottom of the page, without notification of particular copyright, that also suggests these portraits are public domain. And now I see a related discussion occurred a few months ago leading to the creation of this specific template {{PD-algorithm}}, then I'll change the 3 files. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)  Done

Transformation from "Public Domain" to "Creative Commons" image

Hello all -- I was checking out some image licensing as part of a Good Article review for an English Wikipedia article, and I stumbled across an image with rather odd licensing. This 1930s photograph of a street in Manhattan,[2] which is Public Domain, has been cropped and then separately uploaded [3] under a Creative Commons license (seemingly indicating that the user who cropped the image now owns copyright). Am I right in thinking that this is not the correct way of uploading a cropped image? Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

According to the file history, the uploader of the crop used the Upload Wizard, so they probably just accepted the wizard's default source and licensing selections. At least the actual source info is included in the description. A simple crop like that would not be original or creative enough to generate new intellectual property that could be licensed, at least in the United States, so I think it's safe to change the license template to match the source image. The easiest way to upload a cropped image is to use the Commons:CropTool, which duplicates the source and licensing information from the original and links back to it automatically. clpo13_(talk) 01:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that the PD-old-1923 "licensing" placed on File:Studios, 51 West Tenth Street, Manhattan (NYPL b13668355-482793).jpg is nonsense, because a work created in 1938 can't have been published before 1925 and a work by an author who died in 1991 can't be PD-old-100. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Since public domain allows you to do anything with the picture, I think it is legal to make it Creative Commons. --Red-back spider (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope. If there is no copyright, you can't claim any, which is what a Creative Commons license does (other than CC0 but even that claims you were the author). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, everyone -- this definitely answers my question (and I notice someone has helpfully fixed those two files!). Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved--Red-back spider (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Disregard

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with multiple copyright violations

Hello! I hope this is the right place to ask this. What would be the best way to deal with 69 improperly licensed images uploaded by a user who has said, more or less, that the copyright owner said it was ok to user them?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I would nominate deletion for each of the files one by one, but that would take a looooooong time... --Red-back spider (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Red-back spider: there must be a better way...ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP and Red-back spider: What I would have done is to not nominate them for deletion but to tag them with {{No permission since}}. This can both be done manually one file by one, and also collectively with VisualFileChange. The same goes for deletion requests.Jonteemil (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Magazine cover photo from 1907 - is it now public domain?

Hi all, thanks in advance for your time with this question!

I've asked this on the general helpdesk already and was referred here.

I want to upload the cover photo of this magazine issue to the Commons (scroll up a page): https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=S1giAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA109 .

I could do it low res for fair use since the subject Lady Beatrix Stanley is long dead however I am wondering if the image could now be considered as in the public domain? The photo itself is ascribed to Speaight, New Bond Street, who I believe to be Richard N. Speaight. He died in 1938 (https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/artists/392715) and hence his work is now in the public domain as of 2008, and a number of photos by the artist are now available on Wikimedia Commons. However I don't know if this applies to a photo which may have been commissioned, as could be they case here. The editor at the time, Peter Anderson Graham I believe, passed away in 1925: s:Author:Peter Anderson Graham. But is this enough?

I've read that it could be muddied by needing to know that everybody who contributed to the magazine has passed 70 years ago, which would be a near impossible feat. FlyingFoxBoi (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@FlyingFoxBoi: According to the Hirtle Chart this is public domain and the Commons copyright tag is PD-US-expired if you live in the US. --Red-back spider (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Red-back spider: Does this apply to the UK as well? The magazine is a British publication. FlyingFoxBoi (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The Hirtle Chart only refers to US copyright. It should be free in the UK as well, but I'll leave that to people with more familiarity in that area.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It does, to indicate the copyright status in the U.S. of this British publication. Please also place a tag to indicate status of the photograph in the U.K. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@FlyingFoxBoi: {{PD-old-70-expired}} is the correct template : {{PD-US-expired}} applies only to works originally published in the United States. More than 70 years have passed since the death of the creator (making it PD in country of origin), and publication occurred before 1925 (making it PD in the United States). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 May 2020‎ (UTC)

PD-US-expired applies to works from anywhere. All files on Commons need a U.S. copyright status tag. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You're half right. All files on Commons need a U.S. specific PD rationale. And within the US (outside of Commons), pre-1925 works are PD no matter where they are from. But on Commons, non-US works also need rationale for their respective country of origin. {{PD-US-expired}} is insufficient for non-US works, hence the warning message "Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag." --Animalparty (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@FlyingFoxBoi: This file is Public Domain.(that's the simple answer) --Red-back spider (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone!! Photo is now uploaded and attached the page of the botanist/artist Lady Beatrix Stanley. FlyingFoxBoi (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved--Red-back spider (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Publication and public display

I need some clarification on what constitutes publication under US law. According to the Copyright Office, "Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US offers a more detailed analysis, and describes when public display of a work can constitute publication.

In regards to Ticket:2020042310007655, does publicly posting a photograph inside of a private store which is open to the general public constitute publication? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

When? The rules changed on that; if it was done before 1978, it would have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Before 1978, probably does. After 1978 (when the definition you quote became the law), probably would have to fall under the "offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of [...] public display". So if someone was trying to give out the photo to multiple stores for them to display, it would probably count. (I think that clause is mainly part of the publication definition for movies; the moment a movie is published is when copies are sent out to movie theater owners, or sent to the distributor company. The actual displaying of a movie doesn't count, so a movie screening before it's distributed is still technically unpublished.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah makes sense, I missed the fact that the Copyright Office was giving current guidance which may not apply historically. I'll reply to the ticket accordingly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Odette Rosentstock.jpg

Hi all, I hope this is the correct venue. I am attempting to qualify Odette Abadi for GA status and am enquiring about the availability of File:Odette Rosentstock.jpg. This image is marked as in the public domain, but I am not sure. It says that the article should have been created before 1923 (it was created in 1958) and 50 years after the death of the creator / photographer - but since there is no info about the photographer, how do we know when he / she died?. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: But, why do you need to know when he/she died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-back spider (talk • contribs) 11:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright duration in France is based on the lifetime of the author/photographer plus 70 years, so we would need to know these dates to determine if the photo is truly out of copyright now. De728631 (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

De728631, So best course of action would likely to be just remove it. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Odette Rosentstock.jpg. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Reports of the Christopher Commission

Is the w:Christopher Commission a Californian governmental agency? I suspect that {{PD-CAGov}} or {{PD-US-GovEdict}} may apply, but the front cover of the first report stated clearly that it's all rights reserved. Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: The Christopher Commission license is 'All rights reserved' because, first, it says it was published in 1991, second, it has the 'All rights reserved' logo in it. --Red-back spider (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Red-back spider: Of course I knew that there is a clear statement of "all rights reserved", but what I mean is that, whether the statement is mistakenly stated (i.e. some sort of w:Copyfraud?) By California state law, any public records are released into public domain, while other kind of government edict are not granted federal copyright, many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: Well..., maybe it was a copyfraud. --Red-back spider (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your opinion, and perhps I should find for others opinion as well, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not PD-US-GovEdict (those are for items with actual legal effect, like laws and court rulings), but should be PD-CAGov, I think. Keep in mind that the amendment to the California constitution on which PD-CAGov is based was added in 2004, so this was likely copyrightable at the time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, but referring to {{PD-CAGov}}, it cited the California Public Records Act enacted in 1943, so what is about the Californian constitution?廣九直通車 (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to en:2004 California Proposition 59, the "Sunshine Amendment", which was specifically mentioned in the referenced 2009 court case which I guess is the real basis for the tag, showing the actual legal effect of the older law plus the more recent amendment. It's possible that it was PD at the time legally, but that became far more likely after the 2004 amendment, and not sure there was a court case which made the copyright status clear in 1991. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks!廣九直通車 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Some joker had uploaded this hoax

Just see for yourself. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Australian Government And Its States

Hi everybody! I am asking the following questions because we have rules about this for the US. Can I upload works of the Australian government to Wikimedia Commons? Which states in Australia allow their work to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons/commercial websites? Which license does Western Australia, Northern Territory, Southern Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania have? --Red-back spider (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia, {{PD-AustraliaGov}} and {{PD-Australia}}. The Australian government can retain copyrights on government works made less than 50 years ago. --Animalparty (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Just be careful in general Animalparty is correct, there have been some initiatives over the last couple of years to release works under cc-by especially during GOVHACK events. A lot of it is around heritage areas there has been significant work done by @Kerry Raymond: using this material it is possible that media files have uploaded here with that license. Gnangarra 09:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Red-back spider (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Disregard

Center for Jewish History License Information

Stuck

Stale

Hi, I take issue with the license information, the Center for Jewish History uses on Flickr and how our Flickr-Bot interprets it. According to https://www.cjh.org/about/copyright-information all the images are tagged "no known coypright restrictions" despite they explicitly state that their member organizations only own copies of the pictures, not the copyrights and they don't even know the copyright holders. They refer to "fair use" in their terms. I noticed that when checking File:The destroyed synagogue; Munich (4409293226).jpg, a very welcome image from war torn Munich, Germany. If I am correct, this and any other picture from this source has to go, and we need to block FlickrBot from allowing them back in. What do you think? --h-stt !? 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright template query

APOE

A question has been raised at Dementia with Lewy bodies FAC as to whether the correct template is used for this image. The source is here, which is a "RCSB PDB Structure Summary" as described in their usage policy. As far as I can see, this image has been released into the public domain by its owners, hence the {{PD-author}} template. The usage policy also requests "The authors of the structural data producing the image and the RCSB PDB should be cited." As far as I can see, this is a non-copyright restriction on users of the website, rather than some ad hoc attribution-requiring copyright licence. There is no copyright (any longer) to licence. Others are concerned that this is an ad hoc attribution licence, and needs an appropriate template, though I don't know which template is appropriate for that. There are quite a lot of images on Commons from the Protein Data Bank, though not all are these structure summary ones. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I read this as a reminder of the academic requirement to cite sources, and it's entirely orthogonal to copyright. A layman's explanation regarding the academic requirement is in this answer to a (a completely different) question. I think we would be following the requirement, and allowing reusers to follow the requirement, by the correct use of the Source and Author fields in the file's information template. Unfortunately, that seems a little off on this file at the moment. Storkk (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing it, but I'm not sure exactly how it should be cited. Biochemistry is not my field. Storkk (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Storkk thanks. I agree the uploader isn't really the author so that was a good fix. Now when you click "Reuse this file" the attribution is "Rupp, B., Peters-Libeu, C.A. / Public domain" which seems fair. -- Colin (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Data itself isn't copyrightable, so if they're asking for authors of the data to be cited, it's even more evidence that they mean it in an academic rather than copyright sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-back spider (talk • contribs) 08:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

If a photograph was taken by someone from Austria who died in 1904 but it was published in Austria in recent years, is it in public domain? The Austrian law says life+70 years if the photographer is known. --SharabSalam (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Such a photo would be in public domain now in both Austria and USA. Ruslik (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

Удаление фотографии, якобы с нарушением авторских прав

Добрый день! Я загрузила фотографию, права на которую принадлежат моей подопечной актрисе, следовательно у меня есть разрешение и полномочия на ее использование. Подскажите, пожалуйста, можно ли как то вернуть фотографию, без последующего ее удаления? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arina Fadeeva (talk • contribs) 06:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arina Fadeeva: Обратитесь к permissions-ruwikimedia.org (смотрите шаблонное разрешение). Если у Вас есть документы, подтверждающие передачу авторского права, Вы можете их включить в Ваше письмо. Оно обрабатывается конфиденциально и Вам расскажут, как произвести загрузку. --Red-back spider (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Stale

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-back spider (talk • contribs) 03:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Unclear date of death

So there is this German photographer named Ernst Sandau who lived around a century ago and I would like to know if he has been dead for more than 70 years or not since it would have implications on whether or not the photos he took in Germany could be uploaded to Commons. Apparently the Ernst Sandau page claims he died relatively young in 1918, but other sources claim he was still alive long after that into the 1960s. I need to know whether or not we can keep this photograph. Alsakan (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Alsakan: We can see in the histories of Category:Ernst Sandau and Creator:Ernst Sandau that there is hesitation about the death year of Sandau. Apparently, users did not find actual evidence for the suggested year 1918 and there are known photos signed Sandau taken later. The death year was thus left as unknown for some time, and eventually a user suggested a hypothesis that Sandau might have died in 1918 and that the later photos might be signed by his successors. One option could be to contact users that researched the matter then and ask them if, to their knowledge, it was ever satisfactorily clarified. Pinging Mutter Erde Martin H. Zolo Drdoht. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, de:Ernst Sandau had a son of the same name http://pantorijn.blogspot.com/2015/02/ernst-sandau-postcards-knight-cross.html . So only files until 1918 are allowed on commons, I think. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sandau Sr.'s death year of 1918 has been attested by a source at the German Wikipedia, which leaves us with a handful of images made by his son Ernst. Since these are very likely still copyrighted, I have nominated them for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ossi Oswalda 1928 Ernst Sandau 001.jpg. De728631 (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Animal sounds

This question came up on fawiki, and I am relaying it here to get broader responses: If an audio recording contains the sound of an animal, say a bird, and the recording is copyrighted material (such as the audio stream of a National Geographic episode), can I still extract the part with only the animal's sound and upload it on commons with a CC license?

My response to it was: the animal sound itself is not subject to copyright (because it is not creative work by a human). The efforts it takes to record the sound, while respectable, do not give the recorder any copy rights either. However, if the recorder has used a creative way to filter the recording, for example to enhance the sound quality, then the latter part would qualify for copyright.

The analogy I use to explain my thoughts is with the copyright of "data". It takes a lot of scientific effort to measure the exact height of a mountain and put it on a geographical map. While the creative display of that data in the map will certainly result in copyright, the data itself is not copyrighted and you can share it with others freely.

Is my interpretation correct? If so, how can we determine if a "sufficient" amount of creative work has happened to the audio to qualify it for copyright? If not, why? Huji (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the sound recording itself has its own copyright, explicitly per copyright law. Recordings typically deal with three possible copyrights -- the music, the lyrics, and the recording. The first two are not applicable here but the third is. Per 17 USC 101, “Sound recordings” are works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as disks, tapes, or other phonorecords, in which they are embodied., and per 17 USC 102(a)(7), (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression [...] Works of authorship include the following categories: [...] (7) sound recordings; and. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Huji: This may depend on what jurisdiction you're in. In the UK (where I am), there is explicitly no requirement of originality for sound recordings the way there is for literary and artistic works (s1 CDPA). There is a small exception for recordings that are copies of other recordings (s5A). So here, the recording would definitely be subject to copyright, and the copyright would belong to the producer of the recording. --bjh21 (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clindberg and Bjh21: Thanks for your response. The point is less about the "originality" or more about the "creativity" of some work to be copyrighted.

If any sound recording is copyrighted, then it would mean no one should be allowed to create any work that is reasonably similar to that recording, without permission from the copyright holder. So if I record myself saying "hello", no one else can say "hello" without getting my permission?! Obviously, I am exaggerating. But I was under the assumption that for a work to be subject to copyright, it should be a "creative" work made by "humans". No? Huji (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the sound recording protection is on straight copies, or works which copy that recording specifically. It is a "thin" copyright in that manner. Similar to how two photographers, standing next to each other, would have independent copyrights in their photographs even though they look very similar. I would imagine the copyrightable aspects of a sound recording would be more where you put the microphone in relation to the subject, and numerous other things like that, rather than the sounds that actually come out of it. Another example might be engravings that are copying an existing work; two different engravings of it will look very similar, but the copyright is in all the small details of how they varied the lines widths etc. to get the end look. Two people who record the same concert and have microphones near each other would have independent copyrights on their recordings, even though they may sound virtually the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clindberg: the example of two photos of the same subject was truly enlightening. Thank you for that! Huji (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 00:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

CC-BY without version specified

Hi. I noticed that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaQ2kVVt5IA and many other similar videos have been uploaded by their creator (Mr Fereidooni) on YouTube under a CC-BY license. I am interested in uploading them onto Commons; they will be extremely useful for a series of articles on Persian music theory that I have been working on for the last couple of years on fawiki. There is one issue; YouTube does not specify which version of CC-BY is used on these videos (e.g. 3.0 or 4.0) and I don't want to upload them using the wrong license. Should I just assume 3.0, which is the oldest option available in Commons' upload wizard? Huji (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Youtube links to version 3.0. See also Template:YouTube CC-BY. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Huji: Courtesy link: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468

You may also be interested in Commons:video2commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both!

One more copyright related question. If the creator of those videos uses a portion of a well-known song to explain a musical concept by replaying that portion of the song himself, and assuming that the original song is copyright protected, does it violate CC-BY? Must it be considered fair use, or can it be free content if it is his own rendition of the portion of the song?

Essentially, you cannot teach music without replaying other people's work. Does that mean you cannot teach music in a copyright-free fashion? Huji (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If the original song is copyright protected, the creator of those videos cannot publish his derivative works under a CC license without express permission of the original copyright holder. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: I guess my question is more about what constitutes as "derivative work". If I rewrite a text in my own language, it is not a violation of copyright. Particularly if the second work is not competitively creative (e.g. the first is a novel, and the second is a description of its story line). That is essentially what we do in Wikipedia all day. Can we draw a parallel here for music too? If someone reproduces some sounds that were used in some music, but the product he makes is not music itself, but rather, a description of someone else's music, isn't it similar to the "paraphrased text" situation?

A concrete example would be: if someone plays the cord progression used in some song to explain it from a harmony standpoint, they are not really reproducing the song. Can they do so and make their educational content "free"? Or just because they are talking about a chord progression that was used in some copyrighted song, they are bound by copyright? Huji (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think what you say makes sense. But wait for the opinion of other volunteers, because I'm not very familiar with musical works. I'm more into pictures. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If you rewrite a text in your own language, it may well be a violation of copyright, just like a movie may be a violation of the copyright of a book without literally reproducing anything. It seems likely that a description of a story line at the length of the original, repeating all the points of the original, would well be a copyright infringement. You can certainly talk about chord progressions.

Part of it may be complex between Wikimedia and the outside world. You can do fair use in Creative Commons works, but Wikimedia Commons may not accept them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true: Wikipedia uses fair use all the time, so he can absolutely publish the derivative work under a CC license. It's just not a CC license that Commons will accept, because it only applies to 99% of the work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It is okay if it ends up on Wikipedia (as opposed to Commons). I just want to get the licensing part right. Can you show me an example of a CC license file on Wikipedia which also contains fair use material? Huji (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

On Wikimedia projects, unfortunately there is no concept of "partially free" media as you might find on Youtube; a file is either free or non-free. On Wikipedia, articles are allowed to be partially free (i.e. mostly free text with some copyrighted quotes and images mixed in), but there is no such thing for media. If you want to use a CC video from Youtube that makes fair use of a copyrighted work, I would recommend muting the audio on the offending section and then uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue is the offending part is the part of most educational value.

Think of a video teaching you about en:death metal. Any examples provided will be copyrighted (after all, the genre originated in 1980s). If that video is (wrongfully) shared on YouTube with a CC license, can I still upload it (or portions of it) on Wikipedia with a fair use license? Huji (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The rule of Wikipedia is, you are not allowed to use copyrighted audio of a broad musical genre to illustrate that genre. It is not true that any examples provided will be non-free, because someone can create their own death metal music and release it under a free license. In fact, anime also originated around that time and many of our anime articles (e.g. Dojikko) are illustrated with lovely illustrations provided by members of the community such as Niabot. What you can do is insert non-free media on the articles of specific anime series and specific death metal songs, so long as there is critical commentary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: @Huji: Maybe I'm a little a bit late, but here is the answer as per above. If these videos indeed contain copyrighted music items (I specify because not all well-known melodies are copyrighted) and the items in question were not properly licensed by the writer(s) (copyright holder(s)), there is practically no way a free CC license would be appropriate for your upload. Regarding your 'own rendition' & 'chord progression' question, it is important to note that besides a master copyright (technically covering the recording of this song) a published song has also a composition copyright (covering the music sheet of this work). Reproducing song's tune as it appears in the composition, in whole or in part, in any way (playing a musical instrument, singing, otherwise) of course counts, and 'explanatory manner' does not make an exemption. Another question is whether a chord progression is identifiable as a part of a copyrighted composition, but since you recognized this song yourself, we will assume that in this case it is. Given the above, the only solution I see here is either taking those explanatory videos that do not contain copyrighted compositions or uploading in accordance with non-free content criteria if they are met. Juliette Han (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think my main questions have been answered here. Huji (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 03:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Advice on file with PD tag at English Wikipedia

Hi. I am working on an image review for a Featured Article candidate at English Wikipedia. One of the images I am reviewing, w:en:File:French battleship Bouvet NH 64442.jpg, has a claim of PD from Naval History and Heritage Command. The source website has no details of the image's copyright status, author or creation date but the Wikipedia PD tag says, "Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description)."[4] What would Commons view be on the validity of that PD tag and do we have an equivalent one here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like {{NHHC}} and {{PD-USGov-Navy}} would fit...--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

They would be saying "public domain" from a U.S. perspective. It would only be PD-USGov-Military-Navy if the Navy sent someone over to Europe to take a photograph of it, which is possible, but most likely was someone else's photo made available to them so would at the very least be PD-US-expired. I don't see a photographer's mark on it, so would probably be PD-anon-70-EU for the country of origin, if it was a French photograph to begin with which seems more likely. Navypedia.org dates the photo as 1898, which would make the most sense. Most photos on that site are indeed US Navy photos, and it's possible the PD-USGov-Military-Navy tag applies, but perhaps {{PD-anon-expired}} would be more prudent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I made the transfer to Commons but I now see that {{NHHC}} can't stand on its own. Unfortunately the source country is unknown so I can't apply another licence to it and publication is also unknown. I have seen other images taken by British photographers when the ship has visited UK ports, so the assumption of French origin is unsafe. I'll set a speedy delete tag on the imported file and leave the original at Wikipedia. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's anonymous, it should be fine anywhere. {{PD-anon-expired}} covers the EU. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that one won't work either as it assumes the work was published before 1925. We can prove the image was taken before the ship sank in 1915 but it could have sat in an archive until the NHHC published it on their website. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The Navy has a print, which means someone else took a photo and gave the Navy a print, meaning it was published as of then. The only way it is unpublished is if the Navy itself took it, which would make it PD-USGov. Also, the "unpublished" stuff is rarely indefinite these days -- for Europe, if not published within 70 years of being taken it passes into the public domain at that point. The anonymous term is 70 years from "making available to the public" (which is not as stringent as "publication"), and only then if made available in the 70 years after creation. But the Navy already had a print probably 120 years ago. So yes, I think PD-anon-expired is safe. It's only significant doubts which are subject COM:PRP, not any possible theoretical doubt. The odds of this being unpublished are extremely small. Up to you though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

UK Government works under "de minimis"

I have to explain how the UK Government works are protected by "crown copyright" in logos, documents and other uses which placed under "de minimis". --122.2.105.103 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question? Telling us that you have an action to perform is interesting but doesn't explain what you need from us. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Using CC BY/BY-SA images as desktop backgrounds

On Commons, there are categories of images that may be well-suited to being usable as desktop backgrounds. For example, there is the category Computer wallpaper and its subcategories. This brings up the following question: would there be a licensing issue if a user downloads an image that is licensed under CC BY or CC BY-SA for their personal use as a desktop background? Ideally, a Creative Commons BY or BY-SA license would treat copying and adaptation of a work that happens as personal and private use differently from public distribution or public display or public performance/broadcast transmission of the same work.

As an example, in looking at the CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic License legal code, section 3(a) mentions the rights "to reproduce the [CC licensed] Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works;" and section 3b mentions the right "to create and reproduce Derivative Works;". Section 4 mentions restrictions that apply to the rights granted in section 3. Section 4(a) starts with "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the [CC licensed] Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform." This statement for the most part mentions activities that involve other parties. The statement also uses the term "distribute"; however, that term brings to mind making copies of a work available to multiple outside parties as opposed to copying a work for personal use. Section 4(b) mentions restrictions that apply if the licensee is to "distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work" and section 4(c) mentions restrictions that apply if the licensee is to "distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the [CC licensed] Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works". From this, it may be that private copying and adaptation of the work is not restricted at least under the CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic License.

For the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License legal code, section 1(i) defines "Licensed Rights" as "the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license." Section 1(k) defines the term "Share" to mean, for the purposes of the license, "to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.", which seems to refer to activities where one or more copies of the work are made available to outside parties. Section 2(a)(1) mentions the license granting the rights to "reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part" and to "produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material." Hopefully, this would allow the licensee to "reproduce" the work even if they do not "Share" the work. Section 3 talks about restrictions that apply to exercising the rights granted under the license. Section 3(a)(1) mentions conditions that apply "[i]f you Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form)". The use of the term "Share" in the statement may indicate that the restrictions are not intended to apply to copying of the work that does not involve copies being made available to other parties. Section 3(b) mentions restrictions that apply when "[y]ou Share Adapted Material You produce", which may similarly mean that the restrictions are not intended to apply to adapting the work in the course of personal use.

For categorizing works in the Computer wallpaper category and subcategories, it might be useful to consider the licensing for a work. Ideally, the license for such a work would allow, at minimum, users to download, copy, and adapt the work for personal use. --Gazebo (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, do not understand what your problem is? Can you describe it in a language more amenable to interpretation? Ruslik (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any problems here. CC licences do include personal use without adaptations, otherwise they would be non-free by definition. See also the licence deed for "4.0": You are free to Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format ..." Note the word "copy" which includes copying a work to your desktop as a wallpaper. The same wording is used for previous versions and the share-alike licences. De728631 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It may depend on who has access to view your computer screen. Let's assume it's only you and you don't display it publicly. Then, the analysis and conclusion of your second paragraph sound okay: "private copying and adaptation of the work is not restricted under the CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic License". I guess the analysis of your third paragraph sounds okay also. Where section 2a1 of the v. 4.0 allows to "reproduce and Share", to "produce, reproduce, and Share", it would seem reasonable to interpret the word "and" as meaning "and/or", so that the licensee is not forced to share. Besides, the copyright laws of many countries may directly allow such personal use. Section 8a of v. 4.0 seems to overrule the introductory sentence of the license and confirm that such direct legal right can be exercised without triggering the license. I don't understand your comment about the categorization on Commnons. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It is all very well for Commons to have a category for images that are well-suited to being used as a computer desktop background. However, it would seem useful for images in that category (and subcategories) to either be uncopyrighted or licensed in a manner that allows users to download and copy and adapt the image for personal use, without having to worry about things like attribution or including a license URL or even a copy of the license. If all versions of the Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses (or at least versions 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0) allow such personal use, then that is great. Indeed, it would make sense for "free content" licenses to allow personal use without subjecting personal use to all of the same requirements that apply to public distribution of a work. However, I was not sure as to exactly how the Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses handle personal downloading and copying when it comes to attribution and specifying the license URL and information, not to mention licenses like the GFDL, LGPL, and GPL. --Gazebo (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as your private copy of a CC-BY-SA- or CC-BY-licensed file remains private, you are free to use it without attribution. You can hang it on your walls in your private home or use it as screen background. You should just remember this point before you are going to use such media as background in your Youtube studio, or on your notebook in a public presentation, or when publishing screenshots. And as we accept free media only per COM:L, all media conforming to COM:L at Commons qualify for private wallpaper use from a legal perspective. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Pexels licence

I found some candidate images for use on Commons on the photo website Pexels. However, I hesitated as I cannot find any clear guidance on Commons about the licence.

• The official Pexels Licence is written in nice simplified language, but doesn't look very legally robust to me. It seems to resemble CC0 but is not explicitly so.
• The only guidance I could find on Commons was a vague note at the top of Category:Files from Pexels which says "Creative Commons Zero (CC0) until 4 July 2018,later publications do not fulfil Commons license requirement." I think I would find a bit more detail helpful.

Whether Pexels is a good source or a bad source, I would appreciate it if a knowledgeable editor could add some guidance, as appropriate, to:

• Commons:Licensing
• Commons:Free media resources
• Commons:Bad sources

...or perhaps create a Commons:Pexels page if it merits deeper explanation. Can anyone help?

Thanks, Cnbrb (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at the restrictions at the bottom of the licence page you linked to. They apply some levels of commercial restrictions (NC) so are ineligible for use on Commons. Also, "Don't redistribute or sell the photos and videos on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms" fails our redistributable test. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have updated Commons:Bad sources myself to reflect this. Cnbrb (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Corbis/Getty Images copyright confusion

Hello all -- I was checking the copyright status of some Commons images of journalist Nellie Bly, and I've found a few photos that I'd like to ask for a second opinion on. These four images ([5] [6] [7] [8]) are all tagged as Public Domain due to age, but the provided source links back to Corbis Images (now Getty Images), where these exact images are currently for sale and labeled as "not released". Since it doesn't make sense for a corporation to be selling licensing rights for free photos, I'm wondering if the images were perhaps not originally published/made public anywhere, and therefore are not actually in the public domain? I tried looking this up, but I'm finding the rules a bit unclear. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This kind of action by stock photo agencies is not unheard of; see w:copyfraud. However, it does mean that we should scrutinize the PD rationale more carefully and delete if we cannot definitely prove that all the conditions for PD are met. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately some uploaders neglect to provide convincing evidence for public domain rationale, assuming (incorrectly) that "old must mean PD", or spuriously invoke {{PD-US-unpublished}} in hopes no one will double check. --Animalparty (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It makes all the sense in the world to sell free photos -- they make money off them. You are paying for the service; one-stop access to a wide range of subjects. They have loads of public domain works that they sell copies of. It's your choice whether to pay or not. Once public domain, there is nothing stopping them from selling it, basically. For one example, see this court case, about them selling photographs that a photographer had placed into the public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow... Okay, so I guess it's not cut-and-dry either way then. Any suggestions for how to try to confirm copyright status, other than directly contacting Getty Images? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You can try to find original publications, in old prints, newspapers or books. (For example, at Nellie Bly sketch.jpg, I added a note about an image in a 1890 publication, which likely inspired this derived image, but if you can find an old publication of the derivative itself, that would be better.) I doubt you would get help from Getty to document public domain status if they make money by licensing the images. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably true. ;-) I'll see what I can do in terms of my own research. Thanks! Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Acceso en línea (dominio público) sin restricción de reproducción

I uploaded the files in Category:IGM-Chile (except one of them). They are disponible in pages like Islas Picton Nueva y Lennox 5567 : carta preliminar "material cartográfico" : Instituto Geográfico Militar de Chile. und under "Términos de uso y reproducción" they stated that:

Acceso en línea (dominio público) sin restricción de reproducción.

and the last line says:

Biblioteca Nacional de Chile. Algunos derechos reservados.

My question is the {{PD-Chile}} tag correct?

--Juan Villalobos (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• What exactly are the rights that they reserve? Presumably not PD if any rights are reserved (unless they are trying to reserve rights they don't actually own). - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That looks like a general sitenotice to me, i.e. the site itself is under a license similar to es:Creative Commons, but individual images on the site may have a different copyright status. An official institution claiming that files are PD strongly implies that they are indeed PD, but nonetheless we need to independently verify how it meets the conditions on Template talk:PD-Chile. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Inotoriousandy

Hello, I looked at a few of the photos uploaded by User:Inotoriousandy and they were copyright violations. I tagged three of them. Likely they are all not originals. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Implications of using Wikimedia content in original work

I want to use some photos from Wikimedia in a music video. The video and music for the video are my own composition and recording, but photos used in the video could come from Wikimedia

I have found photos with various CC licenses, mainly: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

If I use these photos in my work, am I obliged to license my work (music and/or video) with a similar license, or can I retain ownership (possibly for commercial exploitation?

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctbayne (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

For the files that use BY on its own, you can release your work under any licence you want, so long as you properly attribute the source of the images and link to the licence terms.

For the files that include SA, you are bound to release your work under a licence with similar terms, in addition to the attribution of the source. The new licence doesn't have to be exactly the same but the key points must remain. For example, if you use an image with CC-BY-SA 3.0, you can release your derivative work as CC-BY-SA 4.0.

In the situation you describe above, I'd advise you to stick to the files with the BY licences. If you find any PD images though, you can use those without any attribution (though it is often a good idea to note your source anyway, in case someone claims later that they are not PD). From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: even for SA, the music (for example) does not have to be licensed compatibly, but any visuals that derive from the SA-licensed work do. This can be tricky to make clear in the credits, so SA content may not be useful.

Still: if you want to use something here, and the license is not fully compatible with what you want to do, and the person who holds the copyright is an active Commons user, you can get hold of them through their user talk page or through the "send mail" feature, and many (though not all) are likely to be willing to accommodate your needs, as long as they are credited in some manner. - Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Great, Thanks - that's very clear now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctbayne (talk • contribs) 09:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Logo CITES

Hey! This is the logo of CITES in its simplest form. Does it comply with a "logo based on letters" or not exactly? Thanks. --Virum Mundi (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the country of origin of this logo? Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ruslik, sorry, I didn't know you replied (you didn't mention me). Well, according to their website, all national CITES authorities have the same copyrights, so I guess it's not just one country. Their main offices are in Geneva. Actually, both English and French Wikipedias (and maybe others) use one version of the logo or another, but they are not stored in Wikipedia Commons (both use certain rules which apply only to them). My question is if this concrete logo complies with a text-based image (which I understand can be used anyway), or is it too formatted. Thanks --Virum Mundi (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the country of origin i.e. where it was first published. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no legal rationale behind choosing a country of origin as far as Commons is concerned; it's primarily from a moral angle and to protect likely reusers of our works (e.g. most people who would like to make use of Commons photographs of French buildings are probably in France). However, for an international organization that came into being simultaneously in multiple countries, I see no reason to comply with any countries' copyright laws other than the US, especially given that the US is a party to the treaty. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the author of the work may be an artist living in any country and the logo itself may have been published by them before it was adopted by the organization. Ruslik (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, we have no legal obligation to comply with the law of any country other than the US. Identifying the country of origin is solely a matter of fulfilling the spirit of the free content movement. It is a compromise, a recognition that if we tried to ensure that content was free in every country worldwide we'd end up with almost no content at all, so let's just pick two countries: the one that we're required to by law, and the one that makes the most sense. Here the natural person or persons who created the image is so divorced from its prevalence that we don't care where they are from, whoever they may be. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Paintings by Pablo Amorsolo

A Filipino artist, Pablo Amorsolo, died in 1945. According to Filipino copyright law, his work is to be copyrighted for 50 years after his death. The counting begins on Jan. 1 of the next year, so in this case the paintings are copyrighted until Jan. 1, 1946 + 50 years. The question is whether this copyright expires after Dec. 31, 1995 (i.e. it's free on Jan. 1, 1996) or expires after Jan. 1, 1996 (i.e. it's free on Jan. 2, 1996). This is important, because the Filipino URAA restoration date is Jan. 1, 1996, so if the paintings were in the PD on that date, they are in the PD in the US as well, otherwise not. This was already discussed on Wikipedia here (with limited participation). I based my opinion on US copyright law, where it would enter the PD after Dec. 31 of its final year of protection, but according to one user: "It's true for the US, but civil law in the Philippines is codified and strongly influenced by Roman law, where a general rule is: 'The term, which is calculated in years, expires only in the last year of the term in the same month by name and on the same day in accordance with the day by which its starting point is determined.'" Is this true? And if so, does it also work that way w.r.t. copyright? --MrClog (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Most laws extend copyright to the end of the calendar year. So, copyright would expire at the first instant of the January 1, meaning that on January 1 itself, the copyright was expired in the Philippines. In other words, the 50 years goes from the first instant of January 1, 1946 through the last instant of December 31, 1995. The first instant of January 1, 1996 is beyond 50 years from the first instant of January 1, 1946, so it was public domain that day. So there should be no URAA restoration for that author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I still believe this is a controversial case with regards to how terms are calculated specifically in the source country and how they are calculated usually, especially given that restoration counted from the first instant of January 1, 1996. Since I understand what previous comment refers to, I'll abstain from forcing my opinion. Juliette Han (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how it's controversial -- the URAA restores works under copyright on Jan 1 1996, and at no point of Jan 1 1996 was that author's works copyrighted. The last second of December 31, 1995 was the last moment of their valid copyright. The 50 year clock starts at midnight of Jan 1, 1946, and the 50 year period ends after the last second of Dec 31, 1995 -- the same way that a 10 year period starting on Jan 1 2010 ends at midnight of dec 31 2019; no part of 2020 is part of the decade of the 2010s. Extending through Jan 1 1996 would be 50 years and an additional day, which is not what their law says. They got copyright for the year of 1946, and 49 more years, but any part of 1996 is beyond that term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Reading more carefully the Wikipedia page, I think I understand more -- there is a general principle where if a contract was for 10 days and the contract was negotiated on a particular day, the 10-day period does not start until the next day. Applying that to copyright law, if the expiration was based on 50 years from the actual date of death of the author, you could make the case that the 50 year term does not start until the next day. However copyright law has stipulated that the 50 year period doesn't even start during that calendar year, so it's already removed the "partial day" problem that wording was trying to make clear. Since the author died in 1945, you are correct that no part of 1945 counts towards that 50 years, but the 50 years started on the first instant of 1946 and continued through the last instant of 1995. There is a reason that en:Public Domain Day is January 1, not January 2 ;-). Nepal is the only country I can think of which uses a calendar other than the Gregorian to determine their copyright term end dates. Philippine copyright law is very similar to U.S. copyright law anyways, since that is what it started from. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I asked my Philippine acquaintance and he said that it's indeed not the case. What also confused me was this Spanish tradition 'years shall be calculated from date to date', and for some reason I didn't want to believe that January 1 will be nevertheless excluded. Silly me! Maybe subconsciously I wished these works were still copyrighted :) Juliette Han (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the "date to date" thing is for monthly terms, in dealing with the different numbers of days in months -- so a two-month contract starting on June 30 (presumably signed June 29 or before ;-) ) would end before the first instant of August 30, not August 31, since it started on the 30th of June. In other words, the day a monthly term ends is based on the day of the month which it started from. But that's moot in the year terms for copyrights (that end on year boundaries). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

TOO for buildings

Hi! I made a post at Commons_talk:Threshold_of_originality#Buildings about TOO for buildings. If anyone would like to Commons I would be happy. For countries that do not have freedom of panorama there could be problems with buildings. But my understanding is that not all buildings are eligible for copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright review question for File:Noether.jpg

Copied here from COM:AN, section “Copyright review question”; cf. Special:Diff/419905788/419906031 and Special:Diff/419946194/419952274. — Speravir – 18:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To get a copyright reviewed, do I have to create a file deletion request, or can I just ask for a review here at this noticeboard? FYI, the image is here, and its copyright was brought up here on en-Wikipedia. Thanks. Bammesk (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC) The image is from Flickr (Emmy Noether (1882-1935)). So template {{Flickrreview}} would have to be placed on the image page. But, oh my, it is licensed as nd, So I fear, we must delete this in Commons (but can hopefully copy it to dewiki and enwiki). — Speravir – 01:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Speravir, I made an argument for this being in the public domain in the U.S. HERE, and in its country of origin Germany with the explanation in the top copyright tag HERE. Did you consider the arguments? If the image is in the public domain in U.S. and Germany, then the flickr copyright notice doesn't apply. Bammesk (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Bammesk, I’ve read this, but was not convinced. But I maybe not have understood it well enough. What I did not consider myself: The license claim on the Flickr page may nethertheless be unjustified. From my point of view the photo was taken in Germany, so there is no transfer of copyright possible. I will ask in dewiki for more help. — Speravir – 18:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ping did not work, so now: Ping @Bammesk. — Speravir – 18:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Speravir, thanks, the discussion is now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Noether.jpg. Bammesk (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Hence it can be closed here. — Speravir – 18:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 18:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Content from Wildlife Protection Solutions

Hi, I was considering uploading screenshots from some videos of this Youtube channel here: Wildlife Protection Solutions.

Some of its content is listed under a creative commons licence. However, the video descriptions also include disclaimers like "all rights reserved" (see this for example).

So which one takes precedence?

Thank you in advance. Mariomassone (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If they were officially uploaded to YouTube under a free licence, this license will prevail. Ruslik (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" is not a contradiction to a CC license -- you have to reserve the rights in order to license them (or once did anyways). The phrase was basically the same thing as a copyright notice under the en:Buenos Aires Convention so it was frequently used in conjunction with the c-in-a-circle notice to gain protection in more countries -- and the habit still persists today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Burbank Town Center Magnolia entrance.jpg

• 

I plan to crop the horse out of the picture. The location where the photo occurred was Burbank, California. I don't know how much I should crop out, but I must comply with COM:FOP US as the US law doesn't give FOP for two- and three-dimensional artworks. --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Might be better off blurring the horse a little rather than cropping. I don't think it's a problem if the blurred result is still recognizable as a horse, just that the copyrightable details are no longer there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Aesthetically, I think cropping just immediately to the right of the horse works best. We don't really need the left side, one of the red columns is still visible even after the crop, and it's still an OK composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That does look good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problems along with Peter Pan poster

Here's a problem with the copyright notice from Disney film Peter Pan. The improper copyright notice with the words "ight", ommitting "Copyr-". But some RKO Radio Pictures posters that are improperly or not renewed copyright in the public domain.

But also I found here on IMDb page. [9] --122.2.105.103 04:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Be careful with Peter Pan. Some elements are public domain, some are in copyright and some are used in the USA subject to fair use (fair use not being accepted in Commons). Great Ormond Street Hospital, who hold most of the residual copyrights, provide a good explanation of the current situation.[10]. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

They don't see to know what "fair use" means in the US, or are using it in a different manner. It is possible to make fair use of versions of Peter Pan not in the public domain, but that doesn't seem any more likely than any other work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

They use the term "fair use" correctly in one answer but probably incorrectly in another (unless they just explained themselves badly in the second answer). Regardless, their description of what is in copyright and what is public domain is a useful reference. The original work is PD; the stage play is copyrighted in the UK, US and Spain; other derivative works made outside of the UK will have copyright on the derivative elements only. The situation for derivative works made in the UK is more complicated due to Peter Pan being named specifically in UK copyright law. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And my guess is that tape took off the "Copyr-". Even if it got left off all copies, there's another copyright notice, and judges in recent times have not been as strict on old copyright notice rules. It's well beyond "we know this is PD."--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

File:TV licence (3714001810).png UK TV license copyright

The license for File:TV licence (3714001810).png is given as CC BY 2.0 Generic. However, it is not clear that the depicted document is out of copyright, or, for that matter, that the TV license document was licensed as CC BY 2.0 Generic. (From what I understand, the country of origin for the document may be the United Kingdom, so there may be the question as to whether the document is out of copyright or freely licensed in the US and in the UK.) --Gazebo (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It may be in public domain as {{PD-EdictGov}} in USA. Ruslik (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The BBC is not a government organisation, so {{PD-EdictGov}} is invalid. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a quasi-tax. Ruslik (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not eligible for copyright IMO

Although this file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epcc_logo.jpg is not in Commons (but could be, I think), this image is not properly licensed in my opinion. How can a simple text-logo be copyright protected? I don't see, how this file meets the threshold of originality (see: {{PD-textlogo}}"; "{{PD-ineligible}}"; "{{PD-text}}". If this is the case, I think this (or an SVG version) can be transferred to Commons.

Thanks, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

In USA yes, but probably not in UK. See en:File:EDGE_magazine_(logo).svg. Ruslik (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to echo what Ruskil0 said; not every country has a "threshold of originality" consideration in their copyright laws. Huji (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's fine in the U.S. The UK can have an extremely low threshold though as mentioned (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Threshold_of_originality), so we are often reluctant to use their logos unless it's pure text in a standard font. Carl Lindberg (talk)

I've relicensed it as w:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

copyright - Photo taken in 1943 and published in it.wikipedia

I have translated a page about Giancarlo Puecher (an Italian partisan shot in 1943) from it.wikipedia into French. I have loaded a photograph of Puecher into Commons, and I have received a message that it could be deleted as the copyright info is not available. Three questions: - how can a 1943 photograph be subject to copyright? particularly a photograph of historical subject? Probably it's a photo from his ID card... - a photograph published in Wikipedia shouldn't have already been checked upon publishing? - how can I add info about the photo in Commons? I tried, but I couldn'find a way Thank you FRIGIO55 --Frigio55 (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright can last the lifetime of the author and 70 further years in a great many cases (including the entire European Union). For the U.S., items from that era can last 95 years from publication. Sometimes, items that were not actually published until much later than they were created have different terms. So, something from the 1940s can easily still be under copyright. It can last a really, really long time. There are ways copyright can have expired too, so the details on who took the photograph (or was it originally published with no author named), and which country it was first published in, can matter greatly. If works were still under copyright in their source country in (most of the time) 1996, they could have had their U.S. copyright restored to that 95 years. If nothing is known, and no reasonable assumptions can be made, it can be impossible to determine the status. The closest we have is {{PD-old-assumed}}, which is for works with little provenance information created more than 120 years ago, as in most cases those have expired. For File:Giancarlo Puecher.jpg, you did not put a licensing tag on it at all, which means you will automatically get that notice since there is no declaration (via tag) of exactly why it is public domain.

The file at it:File:Giancarlo_Puecher,_prima_medaglia_d'oro_della_resistenza,_caduto_ad_Erba.jpg (which is much higher resolution; if you are going to transfer it's best to transfer the original) uses a license of {{PD-Italy}} there. That license is also valid on Commons, which is for "simple photos". Normally, I don't think that studio portraits count as "simple photos", though if those were just quick portraits for a school directory, maybe they do. If not simple, and the photographer is anonymous, the term lasts 70 years from publication. In that case, if it was a private family photo which was never published until being included in the named source book which is I think from 1965, the 70 year clock for anonymous non-simple photos may have started from that point (as well as the U.S. 95 year clock) and would still be under copyright in both countries. If it was published the same year it was created, then it's probably PD in Italy now, and the U.S. would depend on the exact year it was published. These details unfortunately matter. If the tag on it-wiki is accurate, you can mark the photo with {{PD-Italy}}, which should allow you to remove the speedy deletion tag. If someone else thinks there is not enough evidence for that, they may nominate for deletion (which would be a discussion, and not automatic) at a later time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Cricketer Ricky Ponting and Rianna Pontin (24079181379).jpg

Could anyone tell me why this image was deleted on here? I have cropped it and want to use it on the following Wikipedia page:

2006 ICC Awards

It's still being used on Wikipedia, so I presume I can still use mine there as well. However, I want to make sure that I'm uploading my cropped version of this file properly, so I would appreciate knowing why this particular image was deleted on Commons or the appropriate information/protocols pertaining to uploading my image. — 29cwcst (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This image have never been deleted. So, please, explain what you mean. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about Will Patton mugshot

Would it be OK to upload this mugshot of actor Will Patton (https://southcarolina.arrests.org/Arrests/William_Patton_22815644/) under a PD license such as PD-USGov? StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, {{PD-USGov}} applies only to works of the federal government; indeed, the template itself contains "This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision." Some states--like California, Florida and Massachusetts--have elected to consider certain of their government works in the public domain, but South Carolina is not such a state. Эlcobbola _talk 18:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: Thanks for telling me. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: Even if it was PD, and even if it was on Commons, it would be in EXTREMELY poor taste to use it in an encyclopedia article, per WP:MUG and Manual of Style/Images. An actor arrested for a DUI is simply tabloid fodder, not encyclopedic. There is no mandate that one must use a crappy image just because it's the only one available: often none is better. --Animalparty (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Animalparty: That's honestly what I thought. I think I should've just kept digging for a better image, and I'll just continue to do so. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

File:36 Eastbourne Pier Fire (48781158938).jpg

This image was uploaded to here from Flickr, from an account called "Jeff & Brian", and tagged with a Creative Commons licence. However, the photo itself is watermarked "Eddie Mitchell" (which it also says in the metadata at the bottom of the page). The Flickr page doesn't exist anymore. But my question is: is it possible that this could be a case of "Jeff & Brian" taking an image they found elsewhere on the internet (such as here?) and passing it off as their own on Flickr? If so, shouldn't this be deleted? Or could it be "Eddie Mitchell" using an alias on Flickr? I'm asking as I recently uploaded a video of the fire from the same Flickr user, but after uploading, I looked at the other media transferred to here from that user (most of the pictures in Category:Eastbourne Pier fire), and started to get a bit suspicious of the images' true sources. If someone could help advise, that would be really appreciated, thank you! Seagull123 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that the file has been deleted on Flickr could mean that the copyright holder has contacted Flickr or the Flickr user and asked to have the file deleted from Flickr. The majority of the photos look like typical family photos, so they were probably taken by the Flickr user or possibly by friends and relatives, but maybe the user also uploaded a couple of other pictures from unknown sources.

Where was the photographer standing when File:62 Eaastbourne October 2nd (48781704517).jpg was taken? Was there a place, accessible to the public, where you could take a photo from this angle, or did the photographer need access to a restricted area? Would the construction workers let in a random Flickr user or would such access be limited to newspaper photographers and similar people?

Note that a lot of files in Category:Eastbourne Pier fire need to be renamed: Eaastbourne → Eastbourne. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

COI editor

Hello, this editor has stated that they work for the town of w:Natick, Massachusetts. I have already cautioned them about uploading copyrighted images. I would suspect most of the recent uploads are copyright violations (the town does own a drone). Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I haven't looked into this case in detail but your choice of subject heading has me a little concerned. Unlike other Wikimedia projects, Commons actively seeks out the "COI editors" as they are the ones who usually own the copyright of files related to the subject they supposedly have a conflict of interest with. Being a COI editor on Commons is normally a positive, although there is often confusion between ownership of the physical document and ownership of the intellectual property right.

If Rames1651 is an employee of the town authorities, I expect that rather than copyright violation it is more likely an issue of either using an incorrect licensing template or lack of evidence of copyright ownership. Both issues are relatively easy to resolve in most cases. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, From Hill To Shore Please help me out here. I work for the Town of Natick. Everything I create for the Town of Natick is a public document and should be availalbe to everyone. This includes the drone photos and the town map that Magnolia677 wouldn't allow to be posted last fall. How do I attribute the uploads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rames1651 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

On Commons, we are concerned with the legal copyright of media. The copyright usually belongs to the person who authored a photo or image, unless they have a written agreement with the town that explicitly says otherwise. A few questions so we can figure out how to help:

• Which, if any, of the images did you personally create? You can only use {{Own work}} and apply a CC-BY license if you personally created the image. For example, if you personally operated the drone that took the photographs, or drew the maps. Otherwise, we need to person who created the image to provide their explicit permission.
• Does the town does have a legal agreement that allows it to acquire the copyright for any of the images? If so, we'll need a legal representative of the town to confirm that and to permit the CC licensing of that work (see COM:OTRS).

Let us know if you have any further questions about anything. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: I, @Rames1651: , created the maps, I flew the drone, I processed all the images. As a municipal employee, everything I create for the town automatically becomes a public document. http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ARC/arcres/residx.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rames1651 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rames1651: I think this can probably be sorted out to your satisfaction, but the situation is still a bit unclear and a few more precisions may be necessary. The page you linked to, at www.sec.state.ma.us, includes this statement: "Copyright: Those records created by Massachusetts government agencies and institutions held by the Massachusetts Archives are not copyrighted" [...]. Are you saying that the works you created in the course of your employment for the town are covered by that statement and therefore are not copyrighted? And are you saying that the works you uploaded to Commons were created in the course of your employment for the town? If so, how can you claim a personal copyright on those works and license them on the respective file pages on Commons? On the other hand, you can of course copyright and license works that you created, or creatively modified, on your own personal time outside of your employment, but then they would not be covered by the www.sec.state.ma.us page. Or, if works you created in the course of your employment for the town are not covered by the www.sec.state.ma.us statement, then the town would probably own the copyright, in which case an official of the town would need to issue a statement in the name of the town. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Everything a municipal employee creates for the municipality for which he/she/they is/are employed automatically becomes a public document. When I uploaded the files, I don't recall there being an option to declare them public domain. Can I go back change it now? Do I have to delete them and reload? --Rames1651 (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You can edit the description pages of the files to correct mistakes or detail information. No need to delete for that reason. Still, it could be useful to know the reasoning. Do you think your works meet the definition and conditions for the public domain status tag Template:PD-MAGov? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible photo of a Luxtrol light control device

I am considering uploading a photo that I took that shows the control handle for a Luxtrol light control device. The photo was taken in the US. A low-resolution version of the photo is temporarily available for download here. Around the control handle is a scale with marked increments from 0 to probably 100. In the center of the control handle is what is like a logo or nameplate or badge of sorts, with the text "LUXTROL" and "LIGHT CONTROL" and what is likely the manufacturer, "THE SUPERIOR ELECTRIC CO." The question I have is whether there would be copyright issues with uploading a high-resolution version of the photo to Commons.

(As an additional note, there is this ad on a third-party site which shows photos of a similar (or possibly the same model) Luxtrol light control device.) --Gazebo (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the design of the control device is solely utilitarian, and the logo falls short of US COM:TOO, so it should be OK to host. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

When doing online research about the mentioned light control device and also related devices, I came across three references to US copyright entries about Luxtrol and light control devices, specifically here and here and here. However, these may not mean anything with regard to the mentioned light control device or scale or logo being under copyright or not. @King of Hearts: Thanks for the feedback. --Gazebo (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Based on your feedback, I have uploaded a high-resolution version of the photo that I originally mentioned. Am I correct in presuming that the mentioned US copyright references are not relevant and that there is no copyright with the depicted control device/indicator scale/logo? --Gazebo (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This looks totally fine to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

These files need help.

I got notified of these files getting tagged for deletion. Please help, because I believe the deletion tags are not valid.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CosmosLaundromatPoster.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spring2019PillarPosterBlender.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spring2019AlphaPosterBlender.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ElephantsDreamPoster.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CosmosLaundromatYouTubeThumbnail.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jack_Nance_Eraserhead.jpeg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stanley_Kubrick_in_Dr._Strangelove_Trailer_(4)_Cropped.jpg

StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@StrangeloveFan101: Your files are getting deleted because they have logos on them which are all rights reserved. --Red-back spider (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot from a TV show.

Hi, Can a screenshot from a TV show be added as evidence that an actor appeared in a TV show? I uploaded one because I believed it was OK after reading up on wikipedia about copyright.

"the use of a limited number of low-resolution screenshots for identification of and critical commentary on the television program and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konnie_Huq#/media/File:Konnie_Huq_-_2point4_Children.jpg

The image has now been flagged. Is it not allowed or have I just filled in something incorrectly?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaahh (talk • contribs) 09:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adaahh: Commons only accept free (as in freedom) media files. Non-free and fair use media is not allowed here. You can upload it to the English Wikipedia if you want, provided there's a fair use rationale, though I'd recommend using the actress' IMDb page instead as your source, since the page shows that she appeared in 2point4children. Thanks, pandakekok9 09:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Digital & Analog TV screen quality comparison-1.jpg

Is this image really in free license?--GZWDer (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The screenshots do not show anything original. They are {{Pd-ineligible}} Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Free screenshots, {{Pd-ineligible}} is the template for it. --Red-back spider (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Are the screenshots actually free? Information about the current or past weather might be uncopyrightable as being factual, though there might be copyright issues depending on how the information was calculated or determined. I am not as sure when it comes to weather information that has been calculated and/or predicted for future days. Others would probably know more than I do about copyright as applied to weather information. Another issue that comes to mind is the visual presentation of the weather information. In looking at the screenshots, there appears to be graphical elements including a background pattern, rectangles with separations between adjacent rectangles, and small images of what appears to be clouds, umbrellas with raindrops, sun, and possibly stars. --Gazebo (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the information itself is not copyrightable, but I would think that the layout and icons and images used would be. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Is (free) licence of this file right?

On Commons talk:Threshold of originality i heard that I should ask this question here:

• File:SpongeBob SquarePants logo.svg
• File:1447843795totallyspies6logo(1).png

Are they really under en:Threshold of originality?·Carn 11:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd say no, because I think for PD-TEXTLOGO to apply the logo needs to be utilitarian. The Spongebob logo is heavily embellished, while the Totally Spies one contains elements other than text. I'd delete them both. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

New PD templates for California Gov

We have at least 3 new templates:

• Template:PD-CAGov-LACoFD
• Template:PD-CAGov-LAFD
• Template:PD-CAGov-LAPD

Claiming PD based on some unspecified law of California. Any idea if those are valid and if so we should add information why. --Jarekt (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think these are in line with {{PD-CAGov}} which is valid for government units (including state, county, city, and municipal government agencies). These three are municipal and county agencies and could also be covered by the generic PD-CAGov tag, but as with PD-USGov and its derivatives, it won't hurt to be more specific. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:PD-CAGov clearly states which agencies fall under that license (each with a link to some specific law), and those 3 are not mentioned. @Illegitimate Barrister: , could you complete those templates and link them to some specific provision in law that supports your claim that such files are PD? --Jarekt (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Illegitimate Barrister: I think you misunderstood the template. The list of agencies in {{PD-CAGov}} is not an exhaustive list of those agencies whose works are PD, but it is the opposite. Those are "agencies permitted to claim copyright" despite of the general no-copyright provisions for public agencies in California. So the three agencies from LA not being on the list is actually a good thing for our purposes. De728631 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have made a draft incorporating the relevant information from PD-CAGov into the agency templates. Please see User:De728631/workshop and let me know what you think about it. The line about "Copyrightable Works by the State in the United States:..." was left out on purpose since this is not applicable here. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

De728631, Yes I misunderstood PD-CAGov tag, and User:De728631/workshop looks great as compared to the original templates. Another approach would be to just add {{PD-CAGov}} to those 3 templates and keep them mostly unchanged. --Jarekt (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Thank you. I think though the original PD-CAGov is too generic, which is why I kept the line crediting the local agency. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Illegitimate Barrister and Jarekt: I have now updated the three templates according to my draft. Please feel free to add more details from PD-CAGov if you like. De728631 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright/Derivative (?) Conundrum on File:RBMK_reactor_hall_n_piping.gif

Before proposing deletion on File:RBMK_reactor_hall_n_piping.gif, I would like some extra eyes/advice:

File:RBMK_reactor_hall_n_piping.gif is an animated GIF "movie capture" taken from a YouTube video as described in the summary. My initial interest in this was along the lines of "Oh, an animated GIF. Huh, would be great to improve the quality by making it a real video..."

According to the licensing tag, this image is CC-BY-SA-4.0 -- which is fine, but because it's a screencap/vidcap of the YouTube video, it would appear to be a COM:DW...? I couldn't determine the licensing of the YouTube video and I didn't want to make (too many) assumptions... (I did search through all of the licensing policies and couldn't find any guidance on "What to do when the license is there but appears to be impossible....")

Thoughts? :)

Thanks in advance!

Jewell D D (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

1. 1. 1. The File in Question

@Jewell D D: According to the user's userpage, they did create the original YouTube video. If that is the case, they are free to upload that GIF here with a different license than the video, however, we would prefer if they would apply the license to the video as well as proof that they actually created it. @Tadpolefarm: .

(On an separate note, it is pretty common for newer users to upload files they have no rights to as CC and {{Own work}}. We are generally quick to assume that such a file is a copyright violation if it's been published on the internet before its upload here.) – BMacZero (🗩) 19:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@BMacZero: Good points, and yeah, I'm guilty of making the very assumption you described ... :| ... I didn't really COM:AGF. Thank you!

@Jewell D D: It's often a correct assumption; I didn't mean to say such issues shouldn't be raised. The "Good faith and copyright" section applies here. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tadpolefarm: No worries! All good, sorry for assuming that something negative was going on. Since you're the original creator, do you have maybe the original video file? I really liked the animation, I just wanted to improve the quality by putting it into a VP9/WebM in <as high of a resolution as possible>. I'm happy to do the reencoding work or even the re-rendering if needed. Maybe you could message me on my talk page and let me know if you have the original source? :) Jewell D D (talk)

The animated GIF is my work and uploaded to commons by me. Please don't delete it. I generated the GIF from the base 3D modelling used in making the Youtube video Chernobyl diasaster which was also my own work. – tadpolefarm (🗩) 23:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:PD-newspaper

I was looking at Template:PD-newspaper vs. Template:PD-newspaper-assumed and they look quite similar. May be we should merge them. --Jarekt (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Too different. Merging a "known" notion with a "known or assumed" notion would, in fact, mean elimating the template PD-newspaper, to the benefit of the template PD-newspaper-assumed and making that template even more vague by eliminating the condition of 120/70 years, to cover other cases. But, from past discussions about PD-old-assumed, Commons would possibly not want an "assumed" type of template with a condition other than 120/70 years. -- Asclepias (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what makes this a legitimate license tag. This seems a synonym for {{PD}}, while the other seems the same as {{PD-old-assumed}}, though maybe with a couple more details. The fact something is in a newspaper doesn't change its copyright term. The assumed one... maybe OK, but I'd be inclined to delete this one. Not sure it has many legitimate usages. It's used on File:Winston Churchill Marlborough Punch 1938.png for a drawing by a British artist who died in 1976, and File:Ildefonso Velásquez - 01 diciembre 1962.jpg for a non-anonymous (can see credit to a Victor Ramirez in the article) Mexican photo from 1962, neither of which are PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Pinging Aymatth2. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have commented at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-newspaper. A newspaper and an article or illustration in a newspaper are usually covered by separate clauses in the copyright law. Usually the term of the article is longer than that of the newspaper, but not always. This is for when we know for sure the newspaper and the articles are PD. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:PD-KosovoGov

After looking at this DR, I really want to know about if photos are considered as "official material" or not. The license description is so vague. --219.78.190.56 16:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Should this DR be closed?

Should this file, according to the DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove Trailer (4).jpg), be kept or deleted? It honestly seems like there's more reason to keep it than to not. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It will be closed in due course. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: OK. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:PD-BMValenciennes

Can some French speaker look at Template:PD-BMValenciennes it is untranslated PD license, used on couple images. If it is valid than it should be translated to English. --Jarekt (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@AntonierCH, Yann, Nat, and Ruthven: Anyone, please? De728631 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• It states that the files using this tag come from the Médiathèque Simone Veil de Valenciennes (Simon Veil Media Library of Valenciennes) and that the Médiathèque "has established that this file is in public domain in France", but also caveats that statement by stating that the file may still be protected by copyright elsewhere. It also allows for space to place the evidence. As to its validity, I can't say. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 19:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Pinging @Arflhn as creator of the tag. Arflhn: Could you elaborate how this tag is valid? --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 19:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Nat, Jarekt, and De728631: What I see, it's that the Template is used in PD-old photos. E.g. File:Intérieur du bastion Cardon (2).jpg is a 19th-century photograph, and it's sourced by the template with the link to [11]. Thus, I reckon that this template is intended to be used as an equivalent to {{PD-France}} license tag. Maybe we should specify it in the template text. --Ruthven (msg) 21:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Ruthven, Jarekt, and De728631: So it does seem to be valid per Ruthven. But it does need to be translated to English. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 21:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's similar to the type of template saying for example that the Library of Congress says that it is believed that there is no copyright on a work, but Commons users can't tell exactly why it says so. It is assumed that the institution did a correct job and doesn't lie. There is a similar template for Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France). It's not the ideal type of situation and such templates must not be used when we do know the information and a more explicit template can be used. But they can have a usefulness in particular cases, when no better option exists, no better template can be used, when a reputable source institution affirms that a work in its collection is in the public domain, but doesn't state exactly what the rationale was to determine it, and Commons users can't determine the information from elsewhere, and the affirmation of the institution is believable and there is no reason to doubt it. If we look at files using PD-BMValenciennes, for example there are photographs by Léon Poulain. It is known that they were published in three books from 1890 to 1892, so for their U.S. status the template PD-US-expired can be used. For their status in France, the source institution affirms that they are in the public domain. The life dates are not specified. In this case, the template PD-old-assumed could be used, but it is a weak rationale and not really a better template. Some users may find the affirmation of the institution safer. In a case like this, both PD-old-assumed and PD-BMValenciennes could be used in combination. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. It seems that this is also similar to {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}, so a footnote like "Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined. See Commons:Licensing for more information." would be useful here as well. De728631 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

This template is based on Template:PD-BNF.

Do you want me to translate it in English ?

Arflhn (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please. It should at least have an English translation. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

+1 --Jarekt (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, PD-files have to be PD in both the US and the country they're from, is that right ? Yet the French BNF template states "It can still be under copyright in other countries." is this useful ? If it's PD in both the US and its country then it should be fine ?

Arflhn (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Arflhn, In most cases Non US institutions can not determine US copyrights, so I would not make statements about US copyrights in French template. Ideally we would also have separate PD tag related to US, but very few PD works do. --Jarekt (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arflhn: There's still something to know before putting too much effort on this template. Is it really necessary? It is used for only a few files. For those few files, was there sufficient research to be certain that no information could be found for the use of a normal template such as PD-old-70 ? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I support Asclepias' rationale above. This template might be useful when no other option is available. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright - Map published in the Geographical Review (US)

I was wondering if a map designed by and published in 1942 in The Geographical Review (The American Geographical Society) is still under copyright. There is no copyright notice as such, just "Geogr. Review, Apr. 1942" showing inside the frame of the map. Thanks.--Lubiesque (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lubiesque: According to the hirtle chart, if it is published in the U.S. without a copyright notice, then it is public domain and its Commons copyright tag is {{PD-US-no notice}} --Red-back spider (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if there is no copyright notice on the map itself, it probably would have been covered by a copyright notice for the whole magazine. The concordance of periodical renewals shows that at least some issues of Geographical Review from 1938 onward had their copyrights renewed, which strongly suggests that they were published with copyright notice. Toohool (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup. You can then go look for the renewal of that actual issue -- there are links to all the renewal volumes here. A 1942 work would have needed to be renewed in either 1969 or 1970; it shows up in 1969 here, renewal number R459138 for the April 1942 issue. So it will become PD in 2038. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Question whether it is acceptable to upload the Daisie App Logo

Question whether it is acceptable to upload the Daisie App Logo ~ to be used in the Maisie Williams English Wikipedia article

Hi I am editing the article on Maisie Williams (on Wikipedia), who apart from being an actress has, also developed and launched a social media app for creators called Daisie, which had over 130,000 users in its first year in 2019. Would it be acceptable to upload non free image of the Daisie logo here with the intention of placing the logo image of her app on her article in the relevant section, to help re-enforce that is a real endeavour. I have not created a separate Wikipedia article for the app, as it is early days and I never feel confident to start articles. The Daisie logo can be viewed here @ https://www.daisie.com/ Bodney (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be a UK startup, so the custom handwritten "DAI" might be above the threshold of originality in the UK. However, this logo is certainly uncopyrightable in the US, so you can upload it to the English Wikipedia under Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about a hand-drawn pie chart (threshold of originality)

I'm working on an article at the English Wikipedia about a defunct independent record label, and looking for free images to illustrate it. This hand-drawn pie chart appears in a few sources about the subject and would be nice to include as an example of the label's humorous early advertisements, but I'm uncertain whether it passes the threshold of originality for copyright. Though it's basically just a circle and and some words, I think the content of the words might make the whole thing sufficiently original enough to qualify for copyright protection. I don't have a great deal of experience making these determinations and would appreciate input from anyone who does. Unless others think that it doesn't pass the threshold of originality, I'm going to err on the side of the precautionary principle and not upload it. Thanks in advance. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The pie chart itself if you delete the words would be OK. But yes I think the inclusion of the words makes it copyrightable -- a "selection and arrangement" of otherwise uncopyrightable elements can still hold a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

US & UK copyright tags for a 1923 postcard

File:1923 - East Knoyle postcard - front.jpg was published sometime between 1920 (when the East Knoyle War Memorial which it pictures was unveiled), and 1923 (when the back was postmarked). The postcard credits the photo to a R. Wilkinson & Co. Could someone please suggest the appropriate US and UK copyright tags for it? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

{{PD-old-70-1923}} is an easy option. As the credit is to a company, the copyright expired 70 years after publication or earlier. --Fæ (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean {{PD-anon-expired}}. PD-old variants are for when there is a known human author, not for anonymous works. "R Wilkinson & Co" is a corporate credit, and may just be a printing company as well, so I think that is anonymous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I said 'easy' because of the possible debate about whether 'corporate' is the same as anonymous, which literally it isn't. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"Anonymous" means published without naming a human author. That is true here, corporate or not, and is what defines the copyright term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status of Kirby's Dream Land 3 ability icons

While editing at WiKirby, I noticed that the ability icons of Kirby's Dream Land 3 might be simple enough to become public domain. So I looked at Japan's TOO, and it says that a work is eligible for copyright when it is a production in which thoughts or sentiments are expressed in a creative way and which falls within the literary, scientific, artistic or musical domain. So if I interpret it right, it means all of the icons except maybe for the burning, clean, and probably ice ability icons are in the public domain in Japan? Or maybe all of them are PD? What I'm most sure about is that all of these icons are public domain in the U.S., which has a relatively higher TOO than Japan. What do you guys think? pandakekok9 03:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we use audio files that are in the public domain

I tried to upload an mp3 file that was in the public domain. It was put there by the creator's nephew. The creator died in in 1970. I tried to upload it and it was rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celloheidi (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Celloheidi: You have no deleted contributions. You should be more specific when you are saying "it was rejected". Ruslik (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Celloheidi: That's not a copyright issue. Your account is new (in the sense of doesn't have many edits yet), so Commons does not allow you to upload mp3 files yet (see Commons:File_types#MP3). If you can provide a link to your source, somebody else may be able to upload it for you. --El Grafo (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Музей политической истории

Предложены к удалению около 30 архивных фотографии из Государственного музея политической истории России [12]. Музей в общем случае разрешает только некоммерческое использование [13], но возможно у него есть другие варианты для архивов, типа [14]. Не мог бы кто-либо, кто имеет опыт подобного общения, связаться с музеем и попросить их прояснить ситуацию с авторскими правами на "старые" архивные фотографии. Вопрос не тривиален, так как неизвестно авторство и дата обнародования. Спасибо. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ссылайтесь на сделанный мною вот здесь перевод . -- Wesha (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

В том-то и дело, что эта страница [15] неоднозначна. Её заглавие - "Разрешение на использование текстов", но далее есть текст "информация об авторстве будет сохранена в истории правок статей (если речь идёт о текстовой информации) либо на сопроводительных веб-страницах (если речь идёт об изображениях и иных медиафайлах)". Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright question

I am looking at this page, and it claims that this video is Public Domain. I intend to spend my own money to purchase this video and upload it to Commons (which, given that it's allegedly Public Domain, should be fine). I want assertion that my purchase will be accepted on Wikipedia as PD before I spend my money buying it. As such, please specify what sort of evidence will convince you, and I will demand that evidence from the company along with my purchase. ("none" is not an acceptable answer). -- Wesha (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I found some more information about that particular newsreel: "In 1974, the films' owner, MCA, made the decision to donate all its edited newsreels and outtakes collection to the National Archives, without copyright restrictions." See also [16]. So, if someone wants to object, speak up now or forever remind silent. -- Wesha (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Just be careful of any terms you need to agree with in order to purchase them. They may be public domain, but the site could be seeking to limit what you do with them contractually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wesha: Commons has many of these newsreels already. I found this one on DVD on Amazon for a much lower price, and there's also a version here that can be accessed probably from most university networks (though I'm not sure if it could be downloaded from there). Toohool (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, but unfortunately only 3 cover the year 1960 and none of them are from March where the episode of interest is. Also, this site promises high-res versions (1920x1080, and yes I know the film quality will not be perfect, but still.). -- Wesha (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request

I realized that an image that I contributed to the Wikimedia Commons some time ago is in error. I'd like to put in a request for deletion for that image. It is the Nylon-6,10.png image. How do I put in a deletion request? I have separately uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, as Acid Chloride Preparative Route for Nylon-6,10.png, a corrected version. Thank you for your help. Nolabob (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You can click on the link "Nominate for deletion" on the side of the file description page and explain the reason for deletion. Or if, as implied on the discussion page of the file, it could illustrate Nylon-4,10, you can request a change of the file name. Note that the file is in use in two Wikipedias. You might want to look if those uses are relevant. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Google icons might be a copyright vio

So, I came across Category:Google Cloud Platform and I notice a lot of the logos say they are licensed under a creative commons license. The source links are 404s. I don't think any of these logos are released under such a license. I did find this page on Google's site where you can download the icons but no where on the page does it mention them beign released under creative commons.

Is this a copyright violation? 86.6.54.239 22:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure. They should probably go through license review. I do see an announcement here of their availability, and another download page here, but no explicit license even though they do seem intended for others to re-use, at least to a point. Likely not a copyright violation per se, but they may not be licensed enough per policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion. The discussion at the admin's notice board leads to an  Unsure answer: While the Google logo is in a file, it is not a copyvio. (I think) --Red-back spider (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The Google logo itself may well be under the TOO. It's a tough call, given the shading (and that's about all a copyright claim can rest on). As used in a PDF like that, it's de minimis I would think even if it is copyrightable.

However, the icons in question above do not involve the Google logo -- they are graphic icons created by Google to represent various components of their cloud. Some may be below the TOO, some probably not. And being SVGs, there are some possible authorship aspects (choice of vector points) that may go beyond the visible result and make them copyrightable. They all seem to have a CC licensing claim, which I do not see at the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Scans of a collection of books in public domain

I have uploaded scans of a collection of Chinese ancient books (Category:Book series in Chinese). The ancient books are definitely in public domain. However, the uploads are scan of collections of books and each scan contains several ancient books reprinted one after another. (Except for Category:叢書集成初編, where each book is a individual file.) These books were published by press in China mainland and Taiwan region and copyright of collective works displaying originality in section or arrangement are protected in both regions. Since law expert believes "too simple compilations does not have originality" and I believe they are simple because they are just some books printed together, I planned to upload them. After I published my plan in Chinese Wikisource and no one raised objections for a month, I uploaded the books. But I just realized I may need to discuss it here. --維基小霸王 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with uploading them. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

DR in need of attention

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ajajr101. We are keeping blatant copyvios in the mainspace. So the DR needs to be closed as soon as possible. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There are unfortunately many copyvios upload. Thank you for noticing those. They have been here seven years though, so letting the DR play out on a normal schedule seems fine. The DRs can get a little backlogged. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you and Túrelio for the quick action. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, Túrelio did the work. As an aside, I don't mind DRs for files which have been uploaded for a long time and thus more likely linked from elsewhere -- it gives a better record as to why they were deleted, which speedy deletions do not, in case someone comes wondering why the images went away. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

New user on English Wikipedia copyright questions

A new user on English Wikipedia has made some great contributions to a new article, but they've uploaded some media to Commons about which I had some questions about copyright. The discussion is here (on Wikipedia). Essentially, they've uploaded some images for which the copyright owners have apparently given permission for their re-use with attribution, and the user uploaded them with a Creative Commons licence. Could someone have a look at what's happened, at the discussion on their talk page on Wikipedia, and advise them what should be done? Thank you! Seagull123 (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seagull123: No project allows uploads of files that have only limited permission for use by Wikimedia projects. If the owners are willing to release the content under a compatible free license then we can retain the content, and they will need to send permission verification in accordance with instructions at COM:CONSENT. If not, then the claimed creative commons license is fraudulent and the content should need to be deleted. GMG^talk 11:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

contradiction

What is the procedure; if the name of the Author/photographer that is mentioned in the lable of pictures be diffrent with name of the Author/Copyright holder in Metadata?
For example in the uploaded files ([17] or [18]) from FarsNews; name of Author in the lable or summary of pictures is «Mohammad Ahangar» but in metadata Copyright holder/ Author has been mentioned as «Khalil Mousavi»! Thank you for your help.--Déjà vu • ✉ 02:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• @DejaVu: It depends. Generally, in all cases, if uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, such files would most likely be tagged with {{No permission since}}, which would direct the uploader to contact the copyright holder to contact OTRS. Then, if contacted by the former, OTRS will certainly ask them about the discrepancy between their assertion of authorship and the assertions made in the metadata. Now, if the latter contacts OTRS, then there would already substantial evidence of authorship. Regardless of who contacts OTRS, other queries would be made, and an OTRS agent would make a determination on the verification of authorship and the image's copyright status. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• @DejaVu: If the OTRS agent handling a ticket concerning these files is unsure, the best course of action would be for that agent to use the OTRS wiki to ask for input or help, or to contact a OTRS admin directly. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The photos watermaked to Ahangar taken with the Nikon camera do not have the EXIF contradiction and the photos watermarked to Ahangar taken with the Canon camera have the authorship and copyright to Mousavi in the EXIF. Some Canon photos with the contradiction were uploaded recently and are not license reviewed yet (Category:Farsnews review needed). I would suggest you wait and see what the reviewers will do with them and not upload new such photos unless the photos already uploaded are positively reviewed. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

ِDear @Asclepias: main reason for my question was license reviewing because the uploader of those files is one of admins and I didn't know the suggestion, but I will take your advice and see what the other Admin or license reviewer do. by the way thank you for your helps specially about difference of EXIF between Canon and Nikon cameras. Déjà vu • ✉ 01:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Tagging new Unsplash files

All I want to do is to add a relevant template to File:Quetzaltenango City at night.jpg (which was uploaded to Unsplash after 2017 per Special:PermanentLink/422173732) to replace {{CC-zero}}. I don’t want to muck around with these crazy template parameters. Surely there’s an easy way of doing this, but I can’t find it. Brianjd (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything, the file is a copyvio, it will delete itself. --Red-back spider (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• It seems that speedy deletion candidates, including copyvios, aren’t deleted quite as speedily as one would like. And there ought to be a way of explaining to anyone who comes across the file, why they should not use it. A standard {{Copyvio}} clearly won’t cut it, given how many people get confused about Unsplash, and the fact that someone thought {{Discontinued free license}} was necessary.

Before I put in the effort to make a new template for this purpose, I want to check with the rest of the community. I’m sure I saw such a template somewhere (though perhaps they were just using {{Discontinued free license}}). Brianjd (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

All my stuff

I want all my stuff to be licensed — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALI SHURIE AFFEY (talk • contribs) 10:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@ALI SHURIE AFFEY: What do you mean by that? Do you want all your files to be public-domain/creative-commons? Also, you didn't upload any files to commons. --Red-back spider (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Tate no Yuusha no Nariagari stage play timetables

Hello everyone,

I have a question which someone of you may be able to answer: I published a German-languaged Wikipedia article about the stage play for The Rising of the Shield Hero. On the official homepage are two timetables for the play in Osaka and Tokyo which were postponed due to Coronavirus outbreak in Japan. I want to use both timetables in that article (Link 1, Link 2) but I don't know if they fall under copyright. Does anyone know the copyright situation in Japan? If the works are copyrighted would someone be able to create a deriative work of both timetables (there needn't to be a shield in it). I would be glad if someone can help me out. Thank you very much and sorry for my bad English skills. --Goroth (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goroth: Where did you get the images? And here are the copyright rules of Japan, COM:JAPAN. --Red-back spider (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Red-back spider: I got the images from the official homepage of the stage play. I read the copyrights but I can't find the passage which is dealing copyright for the timetables images. --Goroth (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goroth: Does the stage play have a website? If yes, I need the link for the stage play.

--Red-back spider (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Red-back spider: Here you go :-) --Goroth (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goroth: They are not to be published on Commons as it says, on the #footer-bottom, "It is prohibited to copy or reprint any text, illustrations, photographs, etc. posted on this website, regardless of means or forms.". --Red-back spider (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goroth: : the images may be subject to copyright but the timetable information itself is likely not eligible for copyright protections, and so can be reproduced. Simple statements or depictions of fact like "performances are on Monday and Wednesday at 13:00", or a grid of lines cannot be copyrighted by anyone, no matter what a website says in its general copyright notice. See COM:TOO Japan. {{PD-ineligible}} is the appropriate license template. Note: If the timetable information you are seeking to upload can be expressed purely in text or Wiki markup, you might not need to upload any files to Commons at all. --Animalparty (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Animalparty: : How do I do this? I am not used to it. --Goroth (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

See Hilfe:Tabellen in German Wikipedia. --Animalparty (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Portraits of the French presidents

What I should license some portraits of presidents of France anyway? for example, some sources like Vie-publique.fr and Gouvernement.fr (that uses Creative Commons licence). But, it would be possible to request for OTRS? --TheMuscovian (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Not all of the pics are Creative Commons or Public domain. See their terms of use: https://www.vie-publique.fr/credits-photographiques and https://www.gouvernement.fr/mentions-legales#Photographic_credits --Red-back spider (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

But only pictures before 1959 instead. --TheMuscovian (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:PD-Iran contradicting with COM:CRT/Iran

Those who are familiar with Iranian copyright law are invited to offer their input at Template talk:PD-Iran#Contradiction with COM:CRT/Iran. Thanks, pandakekok9 03:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Brezhnev official portrait

Is Brezhnev's portrait is in the public domain by the Russian government? Whenever it is still copyrighted perhaps. --TheMuscovian (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheMuscovian: Which exact picture of Brezhnev's portrait do you want to use? But you probably can't, World War Two ended about 1945 and the portrait has to be +70 years from creation or death of artist and the artist made it in about that time like 1951 etc. --Red-back spider (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If the unknown creator it would be? What do we do? --TheMuscovian (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we know when it was published? Also, is there a link to the photo? --Red-back spider (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This link [19] from Russian history website, but smaller image. --TheMuscovian (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Maps from National Assembly of Quebec without proper licence

I'd like to upload maps on Wikimedia Commons from the Assemblée Nationale du Québec. The maps haven't proper licence but it says :

Voici les images incluses dans le zip. Notez qu’elles sont libres pour des fins éducatives lorsque vous citez la source.

English version:

Here are the maps included in the zip file. Note that they are free at educative purpose if you cite the source.

The website says :

Licence

À l’exception des logos de Par ici la démocratie et de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec, les contenus peuvent être reproduits et modifiés sans autorisation et sans frais :

• s’ils sont utilisés à des fins éducatives ;
• s’ils ne sont pas utilisés à des fins commerciales ou dans le but de retirer un avantage ;
• si la source spécifiée sur le contenu est indiquée sur le support de diffusion (ex : BAnQ, Collection Assemblée nationale, etc.). Pour les textes, la source est « Assemblée nationale du Québec ».

Licence

Besides logos of "Par ici la démocratie" and of the "Assemblée nationale du Québec", the contents can be reproduce and modify without authorisation and without fee :

• if they are used at educative purpose ;
• if they are not used at commercial purpose or in the purpose to get a benefit from it ;
• if the source speciefied on the content is indicated on the diffusion medium (ex : BAnQ, Collection Assemblée nationale, etc.). For the texts, the source is « Assemblée nationale du Québec ».

I'm not sure if these maps are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. --Nicryc (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No -- our policy (and the concept of "free") requires that they be usable by others for all purposes, including commercial. It's not just Wikimedia's own use which has to comply with a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ghidorah poster

The poster from Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster, released by Toho. In fact, this poster which is now in the public domain in Japan before 1967. --TheMuscovian (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation?

File:ColouredDisk1.jpg and File:ColouredDisk2.jpg have been marked as a possible copyright violation. But:

• I have not found a justification for this
• Images on Category:Colored vinyl records do not differ

Do we have to delete the entire Category 'Colored vinyl records'? Ralf Pfeifer (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not because they're colored vinyl; it's because they have a picture on them. File:Audio-Technica turntable playing coloured vinyl.jpg is not problematic because there's no disc label or art visible. File:QFX - You Got The Power Pink Vinyl.jpg has a disc label, but it's probably not complex enough to be copyrighted. A number of others probably should be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, it's the fact that a copyrightable graphic is on the center of both of those records, which is also copied by the photograph of the record. The first has a drawing, the second a photo. There are probably other specific images which should be deleted for similar reasons, but it's not inherent in colored vinyl, or even vinyl records in general. Some older U.S. records may have forgotten a copyright notice, or were from before 1964 and were not renewed. The first of the above though has a copyright notice, and the second seems to be from Germany. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

File:ColouredDisk2.jpg is an interesting one. If the label were to be blanked out, would it be okay? The description suggests the coloring of the vinyl is unintentional, but if it were intentional to mix up the colors like that, would it be creative enough to be copyrightable? It seems similar to tie-dye. clpo13_(talk) 17:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is an interesting question, but the details of how it was done would matter. The intent to mix up colors by itself isn't copyrightable -- the copyright would be in the explicit outlines, or at least some identifiable expression. So if an artist basically painted the lines like that, yes it's copyrightable. If someone dripped paint (or mixed paint) onto a spinning platter of some kind, letting the natural effects of where the paint globs ended up stand, then more probably not, since nature effectively chose the specific outlines. I would have a hard time believing that most tie-dye is copyrightable for similar reasons -- the basic patterns are all common, and the tiny details are generally left up to chance, and not sure that color choice alone is enough for a copyright. Of course, if someone actually made a painting that looked a lot like a tie-dye, then yes that would be copyrightable. It can be hard to tell sometimes :-) It's also something that could differ between countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nazi German propaganda posters

I just trying to upload some Nazi German propaganda posters which are subjected during WWII. Unless, if is definitely (not) in the public domain, but which is kind of anonymous work. --TheMuscovian (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Which exact picture of WWII you want to use, see COM:GERMANY. --Red-back spider (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Luckily, I found this from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum's webpage, [20], and mostly which is now in the public domain, when author died in 1949. --TheMuscovian (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is in fact out of copyright in Germany because the artist Ludwig Hohlwein died in 1949, but it is still copyrighted in the US until the end of 2031. De728631 (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

... unless it was seized Nazi material from during the war, in which case the URAA is avoided ({{PD-US-alien property}}). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I should tag {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} instead. --TheMuscovian (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay then, I should change my license to that poster. --TheMuscovian (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

U.S. National Guard FlickR CC image

Regarding File:CNGB USO Tour 190708-Z-DZ751-202 (48595989502).jpg (and numerous others) from the Chief National Guard Bureau is tagged as CC Attribution, based on FlickR status, which is appropriate. But, I wandered if it should instead (or also) be tagged as public domain, as it was apparently created by an employee of the U.S. Government. --Rob (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Not "instead", because the license is useful for reusers outside the United States. "Also" can be ok, if you believe you really must add it, although users usually just leave it as it is on flickr. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well, it’s either a PD US federal government work or it isn’t. If it is, then it’s PD everywhere (as I understand it) and the file description should show this. If it isn’t, then it’s not PD anywhere and so no PD tag should be added. Brianjd (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

From what I understand, works of the US federal government are uncopyrighted in the US. However, it is not clear as to whether such works are uncopyrighted everywhere outside the US. In particular, there is this FAQ entry from CENDI and also this blog entry from Creative Commons. If a work of the US federal government is released under a license (such as CC BY) that allows reuse, then reuse of the work in the US would not be subject to the license (since the work would be in the public domain in the US) but reuse of the work outside the US would be at minimum allowed under the terms of the license. --Gazebo (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It certainly makes things more explicit -- but just to note, U.S. claims of their works in other countries is highly theoretical at best (and never been tried). The legislative note (and thus the CENDI reference) was based on an opinion from the U.S. Copyright Office in the 1970s, which was based on particular wording in the Universal Copyright Convention, and when the same question was pressed to other countries there was a range of opinions -- the final conclusion was muddy at best, it being a country by country whether any such U.S. claim would have been respected -- it's not entirely their choice. Since then the U.S. has joined the Berne Convention which muddies it further, and likely removes any obligation for other countries to protect such works. So PD-USGov may well be PD in many other countries, and the U.S. could not count on protection for their works anywhere, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Files in the category Mr. Bean

For the logo depicted in File:Mr. Bean (animated TV series) logo.svg, the license is given as {{PD-textlogo}} + {{Trademark}}. However, there is the question as to whether the logo is below the US threshold of originality. From what I understand, and from what is said in Wikipedia, the animated Mr. Bean series originated outside the US, so there might also be the question as to the threshold of originality in other countries.

Another image in the Mr. Bean category is File:Mr Bean in Serbian (4333769801).jpg. According to Commons, Serbia has freedom of panorama but Bosnia and Herzegovina does not.

The File:Bean wikiworld.png image claims to incorporate text from the Rowan Atkinson and Mr. Bean Wikipedia articles. Though the text of Wikipedia articles is licensed, at minimum, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, there may be the question of properly attributing the article and identifying the license. A similar issue may apply to the image File:Bean wikiworld he.PNG. --Gazebo (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Logo is probably fine for the U.S. -- unsure that bordering shape is enough for copyright. UK, much less likely, if it originated there. The FoP one looks to be an issue. The cartoon seems fine -- the articles are credited, and the given license is accurate. Well, it could be mentioned that the quoted text is also licensed GFDL. Technically though, you only need to mention one since that is the one being used -- that is the idea of dual-licensing. So I don't see a problem there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Should File:Mr_Bean_in_Serbian_(4333769801).jpg be nominated for deletion? --Gazebo (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gazebo: Interesting, tough call -- by the standard of many of our DRs, probably. It's certainly focusing on the advertisement as a whole. It's probably only the photo of Mr Bean, part of that advertisement, which is copyrightable. An argument that the photo is of the whole billboard, and not focusing on the Mr. Bean photo in particular, might be possible -- but it's also arguable that that portion substantially enhances the expression in the photo itself, which would then be more than "incidental". It differs a bit from Ets-Hokin in that the bottle in that case was a utilitarian object, which had separable matter on it -- but in this case, the advertisement isn't utilitarian, just happens to be partially PD-ineligible, and the photo is mainly reproducing the advertisement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Double standards for Public Domain Mark

We seem to have very inconsistent handling of whether to accept licenses that state the copyright status as a fact and/or do not explicitly state that they are irrevocable. For example, Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images decided to not accept the Public Domain Mark for two reasons: 1) it may not always be clear who is the copyright holder and why it is in the public domain; 2) even if the Flickr user is obviously the copyright holder, it is considered a statement of fact rather than an explicit release and does not mention irrevocability. That's a reasonable interpretation, but it is at odds with how we've handled similar situations. For example, we've accepted many third-party licenses in Category:License tags attribution that don't mention irrevocability, not to mention all the governments which could take back their PD works with the stroke of a pen, as well as {{PD-self}}. Another complaint about PDM is that it is a statement of fact rather than an explicit release, but in analogous situations we've never made a fuss about whether a website says "This work is available under (license)" vs. "I hereby release this work under (license)".

Take a look at Flickr's licensing dropdown. It does not attempt to explain what any of the licenses mean, does not even mention "Creative Commons" for the Attribution et al. licenses, and does not state the version of the CC license (considered a deletable offense on Commons). You only get a link to the official license after you've selected the license, by clicking the PD/BY/NC/ND/SA buttons at the left. How can a normal Flickr user be expected to understand the difference between "Public Domain Work" and "Public Domain Dedication"?

My opinion is simply that we should strive for consistency regarding how rigorous we want our licensing requirements to be. Either we can tighten up all our requirements across the board, requiring an explicit statement from the copyright holder that they have read and understand the license that they intend to release their work under. Or, we say that the uploader's intent is clear, and accept the PDM for Flickr images where the uploader is clearly the copyright holder. Thoughts? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My vote, as always, is to accept PDM when it is clearly done by the copyright holder. It's not a license, but an abandonment of rights is never a license anyways. I think the Flickr situation in particular is frustrating because CC0, which is an abandonment of rights but also with a fallback license in case a country's laws do not allow abandonment, is easily available there -- but as you say, the naming of CC0 is not great and people often choose the PDM since that is the term they know. The usual concern in other countries however about rights you cannot abandon is generally more in the area of moral rights, which CC0 also tries to abandon, but which is not a policy reason at Commons to delete, so I don't have as much concern there. I find it strange for transferrable rights, like the economic rights which our policy is based on, to not be abandonable. I come from a US point of view though so I may be missing something, but I still don't think it's worth deleting photos over. The other claim is that Creative Commons did not intend for PDM to be used as a license -- which is true, but not relevant. It matters what the copyright owner's intent was. CC0 is definitely preferable, but a copyright owner using PDM on his own work has made an explicit claim that their own copyright is no longer operable, which is generally the type of act required in the U.S. to give up your copyright, so I'm guessing such works are fine in the U.S. and likely most other countries, particularly if moral rights are followed (i.e. attribute the works). An abandonment of rights is also irrevocable, so no concerns on that score either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think the licence vs abandonment of rights is of no relevance here.

The issue is legal enforceability, which is technically lacking with PDM. I note Carl Lindberg’s comment that if the copyright owner’s intent is clear, then it’s legally enforceable in the US and likely other countries. The Free Software Foundation seems to have a slightly different view:

However, many other countries have a more rigid approach to copyright licenses. There is no telling what courts in those countries might decide an informal statement means. Courts might even decide that it is not a license at all.

That page is about licences, but I assume that similar concerns would apply to abandonment of rights. Brianjd (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

My point is again, we should be consistent in our enforcement. If selecting "Public Domain Work" on Flickr is not enforceable, then I don't see how selecting "Attribution" is enforceable either, because "Attribution" is not a license; "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0" is a license. It is questionable whether you can really agree to a license that is not even named until you have already clicked to release your work under it. If PDM is insufficiently rigorous, I don't see how any of the licensing options provided by Flickr are rigorous. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• This might be considered licence laundering on a massive scale by Flickr itself. I think YouTube has a similar problem with not making it clear to users which licence will be applied if they select the “reuse permitted” (or something like that) option. Brianjd (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

With a license, there is a scope of allowed behavior and disallowed behavior. With abandonment, all rights are being given up -- the scope is clear. If you are allowed to transfer (i.e. sell) rights, I see no reason why you can't abandon them. I agree with the FSF on that type of statement, as the scope of allowed actions is so unclear -- but this is completely different to me. The PDM says: This work has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Attaching that statement to your own works pretty much means you are giving up your rights -- surely someone knows their own copyright, so the only way that statement can be true is if the owner's former rights have been given up. I really don't see the difference between that and PD-self. It's not a vague statement that leaves much question to me. I would agree "do what you want" is unclear; "no restrictions under copyright law" is rather specific. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• PDM might just mean “I (wrongly) believe that this file was never copyrighted to begin with.” But I’m no expert on this and, as far as I know, it’s never been tested in court. Brianjd (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That's saying an author is unaware of their own copyright, but is aware of copyright law. If that means the statement is invalid, picking "CC-BY" on Flickr is just as meaningless since they could claim the same thing. And no, I don't buy that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think PDM is fine except in cases where there is doubt about the uploader being the author. 99.999% of the world has no idea what the difference between PDM and CC0 is (and probably don't care). As it isn't practical to force everyone to understand the difference and educate them on the nuances of licensing vs. rights releasing vs. copyright expiration, our only practical solution is to rely on intent and hope it holds up in court if it ever comes to that. Kaldari (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kaldari. Most of the population can not see the difference between flicker's "Public domain" linked to PDM and flicker's "Public domain" linked to CC0. On the actual page both just show as "Public Domain". Flicker users will randomly choose one or the other and do not care that here on Commons one PD release is honored and the other is sometimes honored and sometimes rejected. When I verify the flicker's (or other external website) license I check that page does say that author released it to PD (or other license) and that as far as I can tell uploader is the author of that image and has the right to release it. "Public domain" linked to PDM is sometimes used by US National Park to release {{PD-USGov}} images or by GLAM institutions to release {{PD-old}} or {{PD-US}} files so in case of PDM files special care is needed to separate them from usual {{PD-Author}} files. --Jarekt (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to allowing PDM photos on commons where the photos are not already in the public domain. By its terms, it has no legal effect. Although it'd probably be an effective waiver in the US, other countries may interpret it differently, and we should protect our editors and reusers in those countries. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the basis for your claim that it has no legal effect? It most certainly would in the U.S., and likely most other countries, and maybe all (at least for the economic right). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Creative Commons. From [21]: "The PDM is not a legal instrument.... It should not be used to attempt to change a work’s current status under copyright law, or affect any person’s rights in a work.... PDM is not legally operative in any respect" (emphasis added). That said, as discussed above (and as I mentioned), it probably would effectively waive the owner's copyright if they applied it to their work in the US or certain other countries. However, it also probably would be found to not be an effective waiver in some countries, and we should protect our editors and reusers in those countries. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That is their intent, but that does not matter. It matters what the intent of the copyright owner is. When it came to removing copyright notices from images, CC's original intent with their license was to allow it so long as the same text was still associated with the image somewhere, but I think a judge ruled that the actual wording of the license may not have. So Creative Commons' intent on how it should be used doesn't really mean anything -- they can't make the same words operable or inoperable based on a FAQ of theirs. In the end, the author is putting the statement You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission on their own work. And I would like a reference for a country which does not allow the economic right to be abandoned -- if it's transferrable (i.e. you can sell it), I don't see why you can't abandon it. And the economic rights are transferrable in every country. Moral rights, which CC0 also tries to deal with and which PDM does not, are another matter -- but those are not reasons to delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand the issue to be not whether economic rights can be waived or abandoned (they can, and if they couldn't, CC0 and all CC licenses would be invalid), but whether it can implicitly be, and the exact steps required to implicitly do so in each country our editors and reusers are in. Compare "This work has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission." (PDM 1.0 summary) with "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission." (CC0 1.0 summary), "To the greatest extent permitted by, but not in contravention of, applicable law, Affirmer hereby overtly, fully, permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders all of Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights..." (CC0 1.0 legal code). Also, Flickr doesn't show any of this. For PDM, you select "Public Domain Work" (with no reference to the PDM at all); for CC0, you select "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)". This could go either way in a waiver analysis, but adds more uncertainty. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, we'd need to change important principles of COM:L ("Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed", "All copyrighted material on Commons (not in the public domain) must be licensed under a free license that specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose") --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, choosing "Public Domain Work" is an explicit act. I don't see a real difference between choosing "Public Domain Work" and "Public Domain Dedication" -- those are both intentional acts. I don't see how declaring your own work to be public domain is implicit, really. The owner identified the work as being free of copyright restrictions, and surely they know of their own copyright. I don't think the lack of the actual magic word "waive" or "dedicate" makes a real difference -- if choosing the PDM on your own work doesn't waive your own rights, then I don't see how choosing CC0 does either. Choosing that on your own works specifically and irrevocably waives your economic right, to me. The thing that CC0 also does is explicitly try to waive related rights as well, including moral rights and publicity rights, and I don't think those can be assumed at all with a PDM -- just the economic right. CC0 also contains a fallback license in the case the waiver is inapplicable -- which may certainly be the case in the related rights, but I find highly doubtful for the economic right, which is what our policy is based on. Certainly the CC0 legal text is more clear, and it's preferable, but I also think choosing PDM on your own work also does the same essential task of irrevocably waiving the economic right and as such easily conforms to our licensing policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The thing is that unlike Commons, Flickr makes no attempt to ensure that uploaders understand the ramifications of their actions, including irrevocability. Unless we want to reject all Flickr images, I don't see how we can accept CC-0 but not PDM when the actual Flickr UI for the two is practically the same. The inclusion of CC-0 in parentheses next to "Public Domain Dedication" is not the determining factor. Flickr also allows uploaders to select "Attribution", which is technically not a license. How do we know that the uploader didn't mean {{Attribution}} rather than CC-BY? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if there's still a consensus against accepting PDMark alone. Some of the previous discussions:
• RFC, 2015: Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images
• 2016: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/12#Creative_Commons_Public_Domain_Mark_on_Flickr
• 2017: Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_2017#Public_Domain_Mark_(PDM)
• 2018: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/11#Images_from_flickr_with_Public_Domain_Mark_by_the_author
• 2018: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2018/06#Imminent_deletion_of_many_high-quality_educational_images
• 2020: Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2020#Category:Photographs_by_Scot_Nelson
• I suppose a request to change the policy should be taken to Commons:Village_pump/Proposals. A new template would also be required, such as {{PDMark-author}} with text such as "The author of this work has published it with a Public Domain Mark. Although the Public Domain Mark mark is not technically a public domain release, the assumption can be made that they have released the work into the public domain." --ghouston (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Per Ghouston, this is ready to take to proposal as it has had a long history. Past deletions on PDM grounds where the copyright holder is obvious, could be usefully examined as quick UNDEL candidates if a proposal is agreed. Fæ (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There’s already a proposal there to ban “custom licenses”. Now we are going to start a proposal to accept something that’s not even a licence? I can’t figure out how this works. Brianjd (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A public domain declaration isn't a license, let alone a custom license. It's really a different issue entirely: Commons accepts public domain files, but should self-declared PDM files be accepted as public domain? There has been plenty of objection to the idea in the past, so that the current policy is not to accept these files, and I don't know which way a new vote would go. Maybe there's no real enthusiasm for having a new vote, and it's not a good idea to change a policy multiple times when a small majority flips one way or the other. I suppose the template I proposed above should refer to copyright holders, instead of authors, to cover more cases, such as {{PD-PDMark}} "The copyright holder of this work has published it with a Public Domain Mark. Although the Public Domain Mark mark is not technically a public domain release, the assumption can be made that they have released the work into the public domain." --ghouston (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ghouston: The key word in the “custom licenses” proposal is “custom”. To me, a self-declared PDM is kind of like a “custom PD declaration”, to the extent that there is such a thing, and therefore analogous to a custom licence. Brianjd (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the key word to me is "license". Custom licenses often contain phrases or conditions which may steer the work into being non-free (sometimes unintentionally), and so can create gray area and debate in that area. A waiver of copyright is complete; there is no gray area -- this is only an argument that the waiver did not actually take place at all. If copyright was waived, it's fine by policy. PD-self will remain a valid tag. Secondly, the proposal is about barring custom licenses made by Commons users themselves; it is not barring "custom" licenses found elsewhere. And it also says that licenses used by more than 10 people don't count as "custom" by its definition anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I suppose, since the original vote was five years ago, and as Fæ says it has a long history of subsequent discussion, and Carl Lindberg supports changing it, it's probably time for another vote. --ghouston (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I created a proposal at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Accept_files_published_by_the_copyright_holder_with_a_Public_Domain_Mark. --ghouston (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny

I have looked at the archives and cannot find an answer. So, here is the question: Why isn’t File:Bugs Bunny statue in Butterfly Park Bangladesh (01).jpg considered an illegal derivative work of Bugs Bunny?

One possible answer is: “It is, in fact, an illegal derivative work.” I’m going to rule out the answer, given the thorough description and widespread use of this file, its status as a valued image, and the lack of any resulting DRs.

Another possible answer is: “(This version of) Bugs Bunny is in the public domain.” Certainly not all versions of Bugs Bunny are in the public domain, and if some were and some weren’t, this would surely be documented. So I’m going to rule out this answer too.

But I can’t think of any other answers. So can someone suggest one? Brianjd (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a combination of {{FoP-Bangladesh}} (which should be added) and the existence of PD representations like File:LooneyTunesMerrieMelodiesNo125.jpg, assuming the statue isn't copied directly from a copyrighted version? --ghouston (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Do we get to make that assumption? Surely this should have been discussed somewhere? Or at least documented in the file description? I looked at the file description again; it looks like there is no information about the statue except for its location. Brianjd (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• The file description has weird markup in it, added by the uploader. I have left a message on the uploader’s talk page about this. Brianjd (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• {{FoP-Bangladesh}} added based on your comment and the existing file description. Brianjd (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We allow photos from FoP countries. The status in Bangladesh would seem to be OK. The US is very uncertain, but given there is no U.S. precedent it's unsure whether U.S. law would take the foreign FoP law into account when deciding on infringement, so current policy is to allow them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"current policy is to allow them", yes and no. Yes per the resoning of Carl. But no, as Bangladesh being part of the Berne convention, Bangladesh is engaged to respect USA copyright protection, and USA protection implies the agreement ofthe copyright holder to a specific publication/displaying. I don't think it can be any Fop exemptions anywhere, in the case of an illegal displaying. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh is obligated to protect US copyrights yes, but only to the contours of their own law. The Berne Convention allows FoP provisions. If the statue was made without permission, I think there would be an issue. But if the statue was done with permission, should be fine in Bangladesh. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. However I won't bet my arm that the permission have been asked to/given by the copyright holder, thing that would be of course a copyright infringement in both Bangladesh and USA. Secondly not sure too that the statue fit the definition of "permanently displayed". But well.. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

and it is moreover for this reason that permanent displays often require that copyright authorizations be provided to the local administrative authorities. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, sure. And even if it is 100% OK in Bangladesh, I probably wouldn't risk using it commercially in non-FoP countries either. Still, we would need some specific evidence that it's not OK in Bangladesh to delete, I think. The information is provided; re-users can make their own decisions based on their intended use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that to be displayed here a work must be free in its country of origin, if I missed nothing Bugs Bunny isn't free in USA, it's country of origin. In my eyes it looks like a kind of "involuntary" license laundering made by our interpretation of FoP, or at least resulting from the lacks of info that we have about the legitimity of a permanent display of this statue, or even if it is even permanently displayed. You must pay the entry to the park, therefore a potential profit is made from such attractions/statues. I seriously doubt that the copyright holder of Bugs Bunny so easily gives up rights of such a lucrative character. And even if the park give a retribution to the copyright holder for the duration of use (even if the use lasts 50 years), this makes the clause "permanently displayed" de facto fail. Furthermore not sure that this park is a public place. And also, statues and decorations in almost all amusement parks are very rarely permanent, but can disappear within the will of the park, that is not that we can call to be "permanently displayed", that is just "displayed". Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The uncertainty is how much the U.S. would use foreign law in such situations -- they will respect foreign law with respect to a copyright transfer, i.e. to determine ownership of copyright. It's very possible that you can't use it in the U.S., at least commercially (in real life, fair of course comes into play, which would cover most situations). But we don't really know, so for allowing FoP uploads we use the law where the item is actually located -- since presumably permission was needed to put it there in the first place, so the copyright owner did that knowing the laws. The copyright owners most certainly aren't giving up all rights -- FoP is limited to depicting the work in its public setting. If you crop out the public setting or make derivative works using the character's expression itself, then it's a direct derivative work of the original, and is not allowed. Bangladeshi law just says it needs to be in a public place or "place accessible to the public"; in the UK (where their law derives from and which has similar wording) that includes places like museums you pay to enter. "Permanently displayed" is generally when something is displayed without an intended end date where it will be removed from display. It's not a matter of if it *can* be easily removed; it's a matter of if it's *scheduled* to be removed. This is discussed in Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent_vs_temporary. So I would say that most amusement park statues are "permanent", unless it's a documented limited-time display. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks you for the discussion and for the infos. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think there's a very low chance you could use this image commercially in the United States and get away with it. Thus I don't think we should be offering it for re-use and I would vote delete if it were nominated for deletion. Commons is rather lenient and inconsistent on character copyrights, however, so I wouldn't be surprised if others supported keeping it. Kaldari (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it rather unlikely you'd have problems with using this image commercially, even assuming you were sued over it by Warner Brothers. What are you going to do that isn't fair use? Perhaps if you isolated out the character, which is generally not allowed with FoP anyway? I suppose if you tried to use it as pure decoration, instead of as illustrating something? It just seems a far more theoretical risk than anything else.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any huge difference between the character design in the free and fair use versions of Bugs Bunny, suggesting that the only copyrightable part of modern depictions of Bugs Bunny are the specific poses, shading, etc. This particular statue does not derive any copyrightable elements from the modern version IMO. So the only question is how US courts would handle the rights of the artist in Bangladesh. While it can be argued either way, so far as a community we have decided to accept foreign FoPs which are more lenient than the US. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd argue the free version you listed is not free as a derivative work of a character whose copyright had already been established. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, that is an interesting issue. I believe that for {{PD-US-no notice}}, the copyright holder must be diligent at ensuring that all authorized copies bear a proper copyright notice; if it's used in multiple places, one defective or missing notice might be enough to void the copyright. The question is whether the same applies to {{PD-US-not renewed}} for a derivative work by the copyright holder, assuming that the copyright holder has renewed the original work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There are several cases where a renewal was forgotten on something, but it was derivative of a still-copyrighted work (say a character or book), so copying it still infringed on the underlying copyright. As for no-notice, a relative few copies missing a notice would not void copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything specific in the text of the Copyright Act of 1909; could you provide some examples from case law? It would be helpful to add this to the documentation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I can pull up a few examples of lawsuits that held that if a derivative work of a copyrighted work fell into the public domain, the use thereof would still be limited by the copyright in the underlying work (some of which came from this deletion request):

• Russell v. Price: 1938 film version of Pygmalion had its copyright not renewed, but the underlying play of the same name was renewed.
• This blog goes into a lawsuit where some episodes of The Andy Griffith Show that were not renewed but were derivative of the properly-renewed earlier episodes and thus could not be freely distributed.
• Warner Bros v. Avela (the 2011 8th Circuit ruling): while two other films were involved, the most relevant bit is this: We also held above that the characters of Tom and Jerry are not in the public domain. In addition, because the characters achieved copyright protection through the short films before all but the first movie poster entered the public domain, and the later movie posters necessarily exhibit those characters, even the use of any movie poster but the first requires Warner Bros.'s authorization. (Warner Bros. said that they would not challenge the reproduction of those posters as posters, though I can't tell if this only applies to the defendants or if anyone else can do the same.)
• Stewart v. Abend is a Supreme Court decision which reached the same conclusion regarding a short story (It Had to Be Murder) and its film adaptation (Rear Window).
• And, of course, see w:en:It's a Wonderful Life#Ownership and copyright issues: the film It's A Wonderful Life had its copyright lost, but the story came from the still-copyrighted short story The Greatest Gift.

More examples exist, I'm sure, but these should be enough to tell where the courts stand. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's fortunate that we're able to use so many good images of It's A Wonderful Life because individual stills obviously do not tell a story. While not directly related to this case (as both the film and its trailers are PD), I do recall that for certain films (e.g. Dr. Strangelove) the trailer has fallen into PD due to no notice despite the original film remaining copyrighted. So it looks like there is a genuine difference between no notice and not renewed when derivative works/republished versions are concerned.

As for no notice, is there case law showing the extent to which the copyright holder or authorized distributors must have failed to comply with formalities in order to be considered PD? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Warner Bros v Avela case did say that material released before the character copyright was established was OK. However, it can also be easy to fall back into a derivative work -- If I remember correctly, I think Avela used a publicity picture from The Wizard of Oz which was public domain since it was published before the movie was, but then added "There's no place like home" to it -- which is a line from the movie, but not the book, so the judge ruled the combination of the image plus quote derivative of the movie. So yes, for movie trailers, they may have been published first before any character copyrights were created, so the movie may technically have been a derivative work of the trailer ;-). If the no-notice trailer is derivative of an earlier work somehow, then it would still be a problem -- there is no real difference between no-notice and no-renewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

As for notice... the Copyright Compendium, particularly earlier editions from when the older copyright laws were in effect, probably give the best guidance. From the Compendium I, pages 4-6 and 4-7, it says (for works published in the U.S.): If the Office is informed that the great bulk at the published copies of a work bore an appropriate notice, but that the notice was accidentally omitted from a very few of the published copies, registration may be made. [...] If a considerable number of copies have been pub­lished without notice, registration will be denied. If the entire first edition of a work was published without notice, registration will be denied even if the first edition consisted of a relatively small number of copies. The Compendium II (which pertains to the law in effect from 1978, where registration was allowed within five years of publication without notice) says there are two exceptions for beyond five years -- 1) where the notice has been omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public; or 2) where the notice has been omitted in vio­lation of an express requirement in writing that, as a condition of the copyright owner's authorization of the public distribution of copies or phonorecords, they contain the prescribed copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that two uncopyrighted elements (a noncompliant picture and an ineligible short phrase) can combine to create a copyrightable work in the end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If the business of "PD image + below-TOO quote = infringement of film copyright" bugs you, here's a Techdirt article criticizing the ruling on these grounds, noting that the visuals of the Wizard of Oz characters have been around since 1900 and that audio does not come into play on purely visual works. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: There is also the text of the 1909 law: Where the copyright proprietor has sought to comply with the provisions of this title with respect to notice, the omission by accident or mistake of the prescribed notice from a particular copy or copies shall not invalidate the copyright or prevent recovery for infringement against any person who, after actual notice of the copyright, begins an undertaking to infringe it, but shall prevent the recovery of damages against an innocent infringer who has been misled by the omission of the notice; and in a suit for infringement no permanent injunction shall be had unless the copyright proprietor shall reimburse to the innocent infringer his reasonable outlay innocently incurred if the court, in its discretion, shall so direct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess here's my ultimate question. Alice creates a copyrighted work and publishes it with full formalities in, say, 1950. Alice authorizes Bob to make a derivative work of it, and Bob publishes it in 1955 with no notice, with Alice's full knowledge and consent (i.e. all copies are without notice, with no attempt by Alice or Bob to rectify the situation). Does that cause Alice's work to fall into the public domain? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Only the additional expression added in 1955 -- the original is completely unaffected. Anything that is still derivative is still subject to the original's copyright, which either Alice owns, or maybe Bob still owns if he had bought a still-valid exclusive right from Alice originally. The text of the old law: Compilations or abridgements, adaptations, arrangements, dramatizations, translations, or other versions of works in the public domain or of copyrighted works when produced with the consent of the proprietor of the copyright in such works, or works republished with new matter, shall be regarded as new works subject to copyright under the provisions of this title; but the publication of any such new works shall not affect the force or validity of any subsisting copyright upon the matter employed or any part thereof, [...] Courts did rule that a derivative work did cause the amount of expression of the original present in the derivative to be considered published, but it could not lose the copyright. That latter ruling was to avoid someone forgetting to renew a movie, but then claiming it's derivative of the unpublished screenplay (where copyright lasted forever, at the time), thus giving themselves infinite derivative rights. So you can't claim that. But Alice's work, and all the rights that go with it, are still fully in effect. 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, so it looks like if Alice authorizes Bob to republish it verbatim, and he does so without a copyright notice, that could cause Alice to lose her copyright. I'm wondering where the line is then. What if Bob publishes a "2nd edition" of Alice's book and adds a preface but leaves the text otherwise untouched? What if Bob adjusts the colors and contrast on Alice's photo slightly and reprints it? (By the way, this is a scenario that has no analogue in the renewal case; once a copyright is renewed, it can't be somehow "unrenewed".) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A renewal did not eliminate the obligation on a copyright holder to place a copyright notice on all copies of the work, so I believe it's possible for a renewed work to have fallen into the public domain for lack of copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my point was that if Alice renews her copyright, there is no need for Bob to do any renewal whether he is publishing an authorized copy or a derivative work. Whereas, it appears per Carl that there is an obligation (if Alice wishes to retain her copyright) for Bob to include a notice if he is merely publishing copies of her work, but not if he is making a derivative work (in that case he only loses his own copyright). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If Alice instructed Bob in writing to include a copyright notice on copies as part of his license, and Bob did not (at the time or a 2nd edition), copyright would not be lost, per the Compendium. If Alice allowed copies and did not ensure the notice was there, then yes it could be lost. Some small edits to the photo as you mention would likely be considered copies and not a derivative work. Adding a preface is basically a composite work of the preface and the rest of the text; the preface would have its own copyright, and straight copies the text. One copyright notice could cover everything though. I would imagine the same conditions would apply -- if there were instructions as to notice which were not followed, copyright would not be lost, but if no instructions, then it could be. I would guess though that courts today would probably try to find more reasons to keep copyright than courts did at the time; they can be pretty creative sometimes (Disney vs Twin Books for example). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Clindberg: Did you mean “if there were instructions as to notice which were not followed, copyright would not be lost, but if no instructions, then it could be”? Brianjd (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Whoops, yes, thank you -- corrected. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your help. I've made a new section at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Copyright formalities; please give it a read for any errors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

So far, it looks good, though it may be worth mentioning the URAA and how many non-US works are no longer subject to such formalities (unless you're a reliance party and no Notice of Intent to Enforce was ever filed, the work was simultaneously published in the U.S. and the source country, or the work was PD in the source country on the date of restoration). In addition, the Twin Books v. Disney case may be worth bringing up, though its applicability and reasoning are highly questionable; more on this can be found on meta:Wikilegal/The 9th Circuit and Works Published Without Formalities, as well as this blog and this website. That said, some more comments on the derivative work piece:

• I could definitely see this sort of problem of "copyright-expired derivative of still-protected work" to exist in the future, what with corporate-made film adaptations of books whose author died over 25 years after the film was released, a book by an author who dies in one year that is an authorized derivative of a book by an author who dies several years later, and most anime, which tend to be corporate-made adaptations of manga and light novels (exceptions are those based on video games that are also subject to corporate authorship as well as works that are not derivative of anything, such as Neon Genesis Evangelion).
• I think it might be possible, using the lack of notice, to use the original trailer for Disney's Cinderella (1950) to make your own adaptation of the same PD fairy tale, as long as you stick to the original story and whatever's in the trailer. This even includes parts of "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo", the dance scene, several character designs, the addition of cat-and-mouse antics, and the slipper falling off sequence - all from the Disney trailer. That is an absurd result, and I don't know if that's even possible, but that really might be the conclusion we have to reach.

-BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)