Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/06

Help please on image copyright

Hallo, I found File:FDC 2017 FOR MiNr08920893 pm B002.jpg and wanted to crop a small portion to use as File:Princess of Nolsoy.png in an English Wikipedia article. The original image has copyright statements that say the image is public domain, and that a confirming email has been sent to the VRT team. I copied all that information into the copyright information box, though couldn't find a template to show it in codified form.

I've now had a message at User_talk:PamD#Copyright_status:_File:Princess_of_Nolsoy.png telling me this isn't good enough. I don't often dabble in creating new images derived from existing ones, so am out of my depth.

Is my derived image (ie cropped section of the original) acceptable? How do I show its copyright status? Any advice gratefully received! Thanks in advance. PamD (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@PamD: It looks like you have copied the text from the licences instead of the licence template. The licence templates include a hidden category that records the type of licence used. As you only copied the text, the image has been automatically assigned to Category:Media without a license as of 1 June 2022. Bots check these categories and issue the warning messages but an admin has to review the case before deletion. As you have included the licence text and have a link to the original source, I expect that the admin would fix this for you instead of deleting. However, as you have brought it to our attention, we may as well fix it now. I'll edit the file after posting this message. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: Thanks, I also used {{Extracted from}}.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore and Jeff G.: Thanks, both. I should have thought to look into the code of the licence terms rather than just take the text at face value! And I'll try to remember {{Extracted from}} for the future. There's always more to learn about editing Wikipedia. Thanks. PamD (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@PamD: If you are going to do more crops in future, you may want to use the inbuilt Commons:CropTool. Set it to "lossless" mode to preserve image quality and choose upload as a new file. It will automatically copy the licence and set the Extract templates on both the new and original images. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: Thanks, sounds very useful. I wish I'd known about it a few hours ago before I complicatedly processed this one. Every day is a school day, as they say. PamD (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Cartografía oficial venezolana supuestamente en dominio público (Venezuelan official cartography supposedly in the public domain)

Sorry, I do not speak English. Soy voluntario en la comunidad venezolana de OpenStreetMap y deseo tener asesoría sobre un material cartográfico oficial de Venezuela, que legalmente está en dominio público pero hay mucha ambigüedad e incertidumbre al respecto.

Existen una serie de cartillas topográficas que son la base de toda la cartografía oficial de Venezuela, realizadas durante los años 1960 y 1990, del cual muestro un ejemplo:

Fue realizado por una institución gubernamental (llamada Ministerio de Obras Públicas) que dejó de existir en 1991, por lo que en teoría y legalmante este material ya no tiene dueño.

Actualmente, hasta hace dos años, este material estaba bajo el amparo de la actual institución gubernamental encargada de la cartografía nacional, llamada IGVSB, aunque no existe ninguna ley ni texto legal que especifique que ellos sean los dueños de este material, como sí existe con otros materiales cartográficos.

Un punto a destacar es que, existe un artículo de una ley que expresa que todo material hecho por alguna institución gubernamental está dispuesta a dominio público. El texto legal es la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y Trabajadoras del año 2012, que en su artículo 325 dice textualmente:

"La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora."

Entonces, deseo saber si hay posibilidades de subir este material aquí en Wikimedia, y los pasos a seguir para construirle una correspondiente plantilla como esta:

{{PD-law-Mexico}} {{PD-AR-Gov}}

--Wguayana (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

¿deberíamos actualizar {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} (es)? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Sería bueno crear una nueva plantilla que indique que toda obra hecha por instituciones gubernamentales está dispuesta a dominio público, citando la ley que expuse anteriormente. Wguayana (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Excuseme por escribir en Inglés.

I don't see why Wguayana is unsure about the status of these maps. Just because they think there may be some problem unknown to them? I see several potential problems:

• If the maps got copyright back in 1960 or 1990, and that copyright was to last e.g. for 50 years, then it would still have been under copyright at the URAA date (if they didn't, I don't see how they would have got it later).
• The institution is no more, but wasn't its property (including copyrights) transferred to some other body? Did the authors keep the copyright?
• If the government got to keep the copyright, was it nullified by the 2012 law, or did that law only concern new works?

So, I would like somebody to look at the legal situation and confirm that the maps indeed are in the public domain. I don't think the reasoning above by Wguayana is watertight, although if they think the maps never were copyrighted, they may have an unstated reason to think so. Did, e.g., Venezuela require copyright declaration and registration?

–LPfi (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

A lo largo de nuestra historia en Venezuela hemos tenido 3 instituciones gubernamentales encargadas de la cartografía oficial. Primero la Dirección de Cartografía Nacional o DCN (1935-1989), luego Servicio Autónomo de Geografía y Cartografía Nacional o SAGECAN (1989-2000), y actualmente es el Instituto Geográfico de Venezuela Simón Bolívar o IGVSB (2000-hoy).

Solo tenemos registro de la Ley de Geografía del año 2000 cuando se fundó el IGVSB, en cuyo Título VI expresa que los bienes del SAGECAN fueron transferidos al IGVSB.

No hemos podido encontrar la ley del año 1989 que expresa la fundación del SAGECAN, para verificar que los bienes del DCN se hayan transferido satisfactoriamente al SAGECAN. Solo hemos podido encontrar este resumen.

En el año 2012 el gobierno decreta la polémica Ley del Trabajo, en cuyo artículo 325 da a entender que todo material realizado por las instituciones gubernamentales están liberadas a dominio público. Sin especificar cómo quedan los derechos de materiales anteriormente realizados.

Un gran problema es que actualmente el IGVSB está en "cierre técnico" (shutdown) desde 2018, por lo que no podemos pedirles asesoría. Wguayana (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

De minimis applicable?

Hey dear community,
I would like to upload a video showing the process of "StreetPass" on Nintendo 3DS devices. To better show the process, I used all devices I had and one device (visible in the video) shows a copyrighted artwork (see https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51G31RN-ZwL._AC_.jpg). In total, there are 5 devices visible. Does de minimis apply here? From my perspective, the example is similar to Example 4 of COM:De minimis#Guidelines because the intent of the video is the StreetPass process (the total view of all consoles), not the appearance of this single device.

Also, I took a photo with quite a few Nintendo consoles, where the aforementioned console makes up a small part of the picture, but again, the intention of the photo is the set of consoles in total, not the individual console.

Thank you and greetings, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@PantheraLeo1359531 That's impossible to tell for sure without actually seeing the video. But from your description it seems that de minimis may very well apply. Possible solution: upload it, tag it with {{De minimis}}, and then either put it up for discussion here or nominate it for deletion yourself along with a rationale like "I'm not sure if the artwork on the one device is OK per de minimis or not, please discuss". El Grafo (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a good idea :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

EU Parlimentarian photos

File:Hidvéghi Balázs.jpg is most likely not the uploader's "own work" since it seems to come from fidesz-eu.hu/en/representatives/. There's also no information provided that shows it's otherwise been released under a {{CC-by-sa-4.0}} license. I'm wondering though whether it might be PD for some reason per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/European Union or COM:Hungary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status of museum family tree display

Even though File:Early Habsburg Family Tree.jpg is a photo of a museum display that is primarily text, it still might be considered a derivative work per COM:CB#Museum and interior photography if the family tree itself is eligible for copyright protection, right? A family tree is a kind of list and some types of lists seem to be eligible for copyright protection per en:Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. Since a family tree basically presents factual information without much interpretation and there doesn't appear to be any separate copyright-eligible imagery used for this family tree display, I'm wondering whether it might be OK to freely photograph for Commons purposes. The display can be found at the en:Habsburg Castle, which probably means that it needs to be OK per COM:SWITZERLAND to be kept. There was obviously some effort involved in creating the display, but I'm not sure it meets the "literary or artistic intellectual creation with an individual character" requirement of Swiss copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This question is difficult to answer. However in my opinion that family tree lack originality and display just known facts. Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Works by Nanna Aakjær

I've discussed in wikidata regarding to copyright statements that they have added to tickets of artists - copyright status as a creator (P7763). In the case of David Labkovski (Q55292436) (Israeli painter died in 1991) and qualifier applies to jurisdiction (P1001): countries with longer than 50 years pma (Q87048619). Well, the copyright standard in Israel is Life + 70 years (COM:ISRAEL), so I've asked. The answer was that based on 'Berne convention' - "states a minimum of 50 years copyright".
So I've checked another case. Nanna Aakjær was a Danish carpenter and woodcarver (died in 1962). In the end of the discussion they said that according to the 'Berne convention', works of Nanna Aakjær (Q97011191) are free in Canada (standard: Life + 50 years - COM:Canada). Is this true? -- Geagea (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I have had this conversation with you before over at Wikidata. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Wikidata statement is saying. The statement "works protected by copyright in jurisdictions with 50 years pma and longer" means that the works are protected by copyright everywhere that follows the 50 year rule, the 70 year rule, the 95 year rule and so on. In effect the statement says, "if your country follows Berne, then this person's works are protected by copyright" (though there could always be specific early PD releases by the creator. Your proposed replacement statement of "works protected by copyright in jurisdictions with 70 years pma and longer" (to align with Israel) means that the works are protected by copyright everywhere that follows the 70 year rule, the 95 year rule and so on. It is completely silent on the effect in countrys that follow the 50 year rule. The first statement is better as it tells almost every country "this work is protected." You proposed alternative is less precise and tells a large number of countries "this work is protected."

In terms of the conversation you have linked, Hannolans states they are not familiar with the law in Canada and say "I'm not familiar with country specific rules of Canada, but if you state that it's 50 years p.m.a in Canada, those works (published) should be in the public domain in Canada." That is far different from them telling you that the works are free of copyright in Canada; they are relying on your statement that the copyright has expired and repeating it back to you. Your question here is not "Is Hannolans right," but rather, "Did I give Hannolans the right information that they repeated back to me?" Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about Canada, the Wikidata statement is correct, Nanna Aakjær died more than 50 years ago, so the statement "works protected by copyright in jurisdictions with 50 years pma and longer" is false and can't be used; instead, "works protected by copyright in jurisdictions with 70 years pma and longer" is the correct statement. The works are protected in jurisdictions with 70 pma or more but may not be protected in jurisdictions with 50 pma or more (it is actually silent on the effect in jurisdictions with 50 years pma, so wikidata users have to do research into copyright law in the relevant jurisdictions). Nothing is wrong and nothing needs to be fixed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The outcome of the conversation is that works of Nanna Aakjær (Q97011191) are free in countries with 50 pma. Canada is a country with 50 pma. we have that info in Commons, see COM:Canada. My question is does this is correct according to 'Berne convention'. I did not say that Nanna Aakjær (Q97011191) have a wrong statement. It is correct but 50 pma correct as well if the stament based on 'Berne convention'.-- Geagea (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If Nanna Aakjær (Q97011191) first published a work in Canada (or simultaneously published it in Canada within 30 days of publication in another Berne member state) then life +50 years would apply to those works in Canada. If the work was published in a Berne member state with life +70 years as the copyright term, then it would be copyrighted in Canada as they are required to respect the minimum copyright term of other Berne members. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Um... not sure what you are saying here. Canada's terms are 50pma, so any work beyond that term (no matter where published) is public domain in Canada. The Berne Convention sets some minimums for foreign works, but the terms in other countries don't matter if they are longer. The Berne Convention allows shorter terms for foreign works, if the term in the foreign country is shorter (thus a 70pma country may only protect works from a 50pma country for 50pma if they so choose). This is the "rule of the shorter term". There is no such thing as a "rule of the longer term" in Berne, and I can't think of any country which does that. Many countries (such as the U.S.) don't use the the shorter term rule, and will protect foreign works according to their own terms regardless of terms elsewhere. But no country would protect a foreign work longer than their own, unless their own terms are shorter than the Berne minimums for some reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. I was misinterpreting a section of en:Berne Convention, "Although the Berne Convention states that the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied, Article 7(8) states that 'unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work', i.e., an author is normally not entitled a longer copyright abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give a longer term. This is commonly known as 'the rule of the shorter term'." From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Carl. Let's say that Nanna Aakjær first published all her works in her origin country (Denmark). My question is, what the copyright status of her works in countries with 50 pma. Canada for example.

And, you have a good point. copyright status depends on the country that the work first published. -- Geagea (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

In real life, you would follow the law in whatever country you want to make use of the works. Any works published before her death would be public domain in Canada, regardless of where they were published. Canada used to have a 50-year-from-publication term for posthumous works, so those could last beyond 50pma. While they no longer have that rule, people who died before 1999 are grandfathered and can still have that up to a maximum of 2049. So, if she had any works published posthumously in the last 50 years, they would probably still be under copyright in Canada. Canada does use the rule of the shorter term though, so that could not exceed the term in the country of origin (the country where first published), so I guess that would be another maximum date for her Canadian protection (2033 I guess, if they were posthumously published in Denmark). For the U.S., it would completely depend on date of publication -- anything more than 95 years ago is fine, anything newer almost certainly not due to the URAA (which exists to make sure the United States respected the minimum Berne terms for foreign works, since they previously did not). The only time the term in the publication country matters for the U.S. is the application of the URAA, otherwise the U.S. uses its own terms and laws, and ignores any text in the Berne Convention itself. The Berne Convention really doesn't intrude on a country's own laws beyond that minimum protection for foreign works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Uncertain public domain status for File:انقلاب ایران.pdf

Hi. We are trying to figure out if File:انقلاب ایران.pdf, that we have been transcribing at the Persian Wikisource, is actually public domain. The original book itself was published in 1910 in the UK, and its author died in 1926. So I think we're safe with the UK copyright there. The translator of this work (who has also written a preface to the translation) was born in 1886, but we have not been able to find out when he died. If he has died before 1980 at the age 94 or younger (thirty years before the Iranian law changed from death+30 to death+50), we can assume it's public domain in Iran too, where the translation was first published. But we have no evidence that he has even died, let alone before 1980. What are we supposed to do here? روزبه (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@روزبه: 1886 was 136 years ago, and we have no proof that any human has ever lived to 136 years, so it is fair to assume that the translator is dead. What is the name of the translator? Can you find a copy of the original book? What is the name of the book in English?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree we can assume the translator is dead, but we can't assume he died before 1980 (when he would have been 94). The translator is named "Ahmad Pazhooh". The original book is here: https://archive.org/details/persianrevolutio00browuoft. It's called "The Persian Revolution of 1905--1909". روزبه (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That beyond reasonable doubt. Yann (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violations

There are an incredible number of copyright violations in Commons, I must have added at least 50 copyvio tags over time, yet still nothing is being done about it. Common copyvio categories are: Screenshots, Video games, A, and Fair use. Just look at those categories alone, and you'll see just how bad this issue is. Half of the files are either VRTS approved, or cc-by-sa-4.0 by red-linked users claiming own work. I think that there should be a new role, file reviewers, that review files uploaded by new users (i.e. less than 10 uploads and / or 3 days of service) to make sure they aren't copyright violations, just like how new articles by new users on Wikipedia are in draft space, and some articles need to have their revisions by new users approved. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 19:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lallint: Welcome to the world of Commons! There are currently over 10,000 images uploaded daily, and over 70,000 were deleted during the last month. No wonder some have slipped through. No special right is needed for reviewing images, so you can help. You only need some knowledge about Commons policies (quite complex, that's true). You can start here: COM:L. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've made 5000 edits to commons and uploaded 3 QIs and 1 VI, I'm not really new, but it's good to know that there are a lot of file deletions. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 20:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

There is even a day average of 25,000 files as of 2022, so the amount of files is growing quite fast (December 2019: 79.3M files, June 2022: 83.3M files) :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

December 2021, not December 2019, sorry :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Unknown author(s) but PD claim on 1897 document?

Probably a moot point, but Is the licensing of this file? correct? {{PD-old-70-1923}} with author: Unbekannte Autoren und Grafiker(Unknown authors and graphic designers). Any thoughts? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, I suspect something like {{PD-anon-expired}} should apply. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Technically no, since that tag needs a known author with a known death date, unless older than say the 1850s. The only copyright in that would be in the letterhead artwork, which likely predated 1897; there is no author listed so {{PD-UK-unknown}} and/or {{PD-anon-expired}} would both work. {{PD-old-assumed}} would also work but since that is pretty clearly anonymous I'd go with PD-anon-expired, and maybe the PD-UK-unknown as well, as being specific to the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, changed to {{PD-anon-expired}}. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

PD-algorithm and the state of AI copyrights

We're starting to see increased uploads of AI-generated works. Up to now, the working assumption has been that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted since there is no human author (see {{PD-algorithm}}). However, the law around AI and copyrights is currently rather vague and in flux (although I agree that most jurisdictions probably provide no copyright protection). However, some jurisdictions do actually provide limited protection for AI-generated works. Notably, the UK provides a limited term of copyright protection for AI-generated works of 50 years from creation, with the author being "the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken".[1] The {{PD-algorithm}} template needs to be updated to account for UK law and any other countries with similar measures. Nosferattus (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The question, I guess, is do we do it COM:TOO UK style, where we prohibit UK AI works due to being copyrighted in the source country, or COM:PD-Art style, where acknowledge that UK art reproductions may be copyrighted in their source country but allow them anyway with a disclaimer? And since most of these works are published on the Internet, what does source country even mean? For example, imagine a British researcher who is a professor at an American university. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably we need to write a COM:When to use the PD-algorithm tag page? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Ferrari 2022/Timm-Julian Egner

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I cannot find any mention of Timm-Julian Egner on any Ferrari website or listed as a member of the Ferrari Driver Academy. I'm not sure what the copyright status is of the images uploaded by User:Ferrari 2022 is, but I assume they have been professionally photographed by Scuderia Ferrari themselves rather than the user. My sincere apologies to Mr Egner if I'm wrong! No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Some of these images are posters, so they require a formal written permission anyway. Yann (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Soviet postal items

Hi, Do we need a template for the copyright status in USA for Soviet postal items, i.e. File:Convert_ru_kosmos078.jpg? Which one, if any? (see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Convert ru kosmos078.jpg). Also the author should be fixed for many of them. What should it says, i.e. USSR government / Soviet Post Office / something else (English Wikipedia is poor on this subject)? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Updated Yann (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Are these postcards, i.e. covered by the same status? Yann (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• File:Convert ru Antarctica038.jpg
• File:Convert ru Antarctica037.jpg
• File:Convert ru kosmos077.jpg

I finished restoring all these files. This was quite a bad job: deleted by Fastily without any discussion after being restored by Jim... :( Many files had a garbled page, with an Information template inside another Information template. But help still needed to fix the author. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Someone in the original deletion discussion said they were created by the Ministry of Communication of the Russian Federation. So I assume they would be the author. Other then that a lot of Russian stamps have "Post of the USSR" in the author field, but I don't think that's the official name of the organization or holds the copyright now that the Soviet Union isn't a thing anymore. @Matsievsky: might know since they are from Russia. Either way once we figure what to put in the author field I will go through the files and fix things. A special template for Soviet postal items might be a good idea also. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, these files need to be deleted. Matsievsky (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

There were 2 DRs which were closed as kept. That's not sufficient? Yann (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Singapore Open Data Licence

Hello, I would appreciate if Commons can provide feedback if the Singapore Open Data Licence is compatible with Commons, and if so, an appropriate license tag can be made for it. Thanks. Seloloving (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Four musts required by COM:L:

1. Republication and distribution must be allowed. Yes

“

You can use, access, download, copy, distribute, transmit, modify and adapt the datasets, or any derived analyses or applications, whether commercially or non-commercially (“Use”).

”

1. Publication of derivative work must be allowed. ditto
2. Commercial use of the work must be allowed. ditto
3. The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. Question While

“

The Agency grants you a worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to Use the datasets, subject to the terms of this Licence.

”

I'm not sure if their termination requirements could be considered revocable or not:

“

Termination of Licence: The Agency may terminate this Licence immediately upon your breach of any of the terms of this Licence. The Disclaimers and Indemnity sections, and any other provision of this Licence which is required to give effect to termination or the consequences of such termination, shall survive the termination of this Licence.

”

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the very detailed reply. I consulted an administrator on Commons Discord and received a feedback that the revocation statement is standard and unlikely to be a barrier for Commons. Seloloving (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with this interpretation. CC BY 4.0, a common license on Commons, also has this provision: if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically. EpicPupper (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So there's no problem to believe it as a free license, I created {{SODL}}. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you have taken to create the license tag! Thank you! Seloloving (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Unofficial version of an official insignia

When looking at File:Escudo de Armas de Venezuela 2006.png, I noticed that it was originally published in 2015 on DeviantArt by its author as a... much more refined interpretation of the Venezuela COA, and later in 2016 uploaded to Commons. It reflects the latest COA design accurately compared to previous versions (like this), with the newly added bow and arrow in the top right corner of the shield and an accurate count of wheat ears (24 of them). It looks slightly different from the official version with those added shadings and reflections (I don't speak Spanish and this is the best source I can find).

This new file, including a vectorized version of it, was published under CC-BY 3.0. Yet according to {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}, it cannot be copyrighted since "it represents a Flag, a Coat of arms or another ensign of the Republic".

Which copyright tag shall be applied to this file? Is the copyright law saying that as long as the artwork is about Venezuela's COA, it automatically goes into PD? Sorry I am relatively new to Commons. --痛 (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

w:Leap Year (1924 film)

This silent film was first released in Finland in 1924, despite being produced in the US in 1921. The film would then be out of copyright in the United States despite being first published in a foreign country, because the copyright lapsed, but I don't think it'd be out of copyright in Finland.

But the film was first released in the United States in 1981. So, this gives a very unique situation to this particular film. I could upload it locally to Wikisource, but given that one of the writers of the film died in 1980, I don't think the film is PD in Finland. So in this situation, which country's copyright takes precedence on Commons, Finland (1924) or the US (1981)? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Boy, that's an interesting case. By later case law, the U.S. considers a movie "published" when copies of the reels (or whatever form it takes) were sent to movie distributors. The actual showing of the move is not publication. So, a special "showing" hosted by the production company means the movie is not yet published, but when copies are sent to distributors, it is actually published then ahead of the actual screenings in theaters. IMDB has it being shown in France in January 1924 followed by Finland in April; since it was in multiple countries I think we can assume that it might be considered published, by the U.S. anyways, in 1924, and thus public domain today. The 9th circuit ruling, which Commons does not follow, might have it being first published in the U.S. in 2008 per the IMDB trivia (since it sounds like the 1981 showing was a one-off special showing, and did not involve sending copies to distributors, which did not happen until 2008). So, likely the 9th Circuit would say it is copyrighted for 120 years after creation in the U.S., or until 2042. As for country of origin, that is the country of first publication, which sounds like it is decidedly not the U.S. Those countries today would protect the move for longest lifetime, plus 70 years, between the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue, and the author of the music if composed specifically for the movie (this is the EU copyright term directive). If one of those writers died in 1980, then it would only become public domain in the country of origin (whether that is France or Finland) in 2051, and so could not be uploaded here until then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issues where copyright photos are copied by hand into "Art"

A few images have recently been uploaded by one user which are, quite clearly, photos of art-work but which are also very close copies of original, copyright photographs. While I can see no problem in artists uploading photos of their own work; where that work is a verbatim copy of a copyright photograph, that appears to me to be copyright violation. One example is shown [2] and its corresponding photo here. I would value the opinion of others, before taking any action but it is my belief that they are copy-vios and should be deleted as such. Velella (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Photographs which basically amount to copies of a painting (or another photograph) typically don't have any copyright of their own. So, sometimes we use other people's photographs of public domain paintings, and use the {{PD-Art}} tag on those (see also Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). However, that does mean that the copyright license on such a photo is pretty much meaningless; even if there was a valid copyright on the photo, if it significantly incorporates another work like a painting, then at the least it is a Commons:derivative work and we also need a license from the copyright owner of the underlying work. If we don't have that, then yes we need to delete. File:Contemporary_oil_painting_of_Debbie_Harry_(Blondie).jpg is a pretty obvious problem; there is no copyright in the photo (except perhaps the UK) but we'd need a license from the painting's artist via the COM:VRT process either way. It should be nominated for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Actually I think you've got the situation in reverse. We have photograph of a painting which is based on a photograph. In this case we do not need permission from the photographer of the painting, but we do need permission from the painter (which we have) and from the original photographer (which we don't have). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

My bad, thanks. Yes, a painting directly based on a photo (where you can identify the specific photo it comes from) would be a derivative work, and need permission from the original photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both. That is very helpful. I will action as indicated. Regards Velella (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Logos of school districts in the United States

I'm wondering if some others could take a look at Category:Logos of school districts in the United States and assess the files it contains. Some like File:Ambassador Public School in Deh No 22 Jamrao, District Sanghar Sindh, Pakistan.jpg and File:Changlun(Kedah) Tamil School Logo(1).jpg look mistakenly categorized in addition to having perhaps questionable licensing. My understanding is that most works created by US government employees at the subnational level (e.g. the state, county, municipal levels) are not automatically within the public domain under US copyright law, unless there is a state statute or some other law that declares such work to be as such as is the case for {{PD-CAGov}} and {{PD-FLGov}}. Some of the files in the category (e.g. File:Central-unified-high-school-district-logo-2015.png may just need relicensing (and possible COM:SPLITting), but others (e.g. File:Canton City School District Logo.jpg which isn't being used, but which seems to be for a school district in Ohio and has questionable licensing) may need to be given a closer look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Singapore FOP for models of buildings

Singapore's Copyright Act, Section 265, states that it is not a copyright violation to photograph or draw a building or model of a building. Only clauses b and c) state that the object must not be on temporary display. My interpretation is if it were one sentence, b) would not need to repeat the clause that the artistic work has to be a permanent display when c) would suffice.

As such, COM:FOP Singapore interprets it correctly by separating buildings and models of buildings from the clause of permanent display. It says: buildings or models of buildings; sculptures situated "other than temporarily" in public spaces or "premises open to the public"; and works of artistic craftsmanship.

However, the Template:FoP-Singapore tag says: Section 265 of the Copyright Act states that it is permitted to make or publish a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the following: building, model of building, sculpture situated "other than temporarily in a public place or premises open to the public," or work of artistic craftsmanship. The section also allows the inclusion of the said works in a film, television broadcast, or cable programme.

The use of a comma instead of a semi-colon between model of building and sculpture situated "other than temporarily in a public place or premises open to the public would imply buildings and model of buildings, are subjected to the clause that they have to be on permanent display. Would it be possible for someone to correct the tag? Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Tend to agree that each clause should be treated independently.Geni (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have corrected the template myself after realising it wasn't protected. Seloloving (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyright Confusion over File:Carte de Charles Le Goffic à A.Renault (EMR).jpg

Apologies if this has been asked already, but I am confused as to the copyright status of the following file:

Français : Carte postale représentant un paysan breton, envoyée par Charles Le Goffic à Malo-Renault Date circa 1900 Source Familiale, Émile Malo Renault Author Charles Le Goffic, correspondance à Émile Malo-Renault

The image is still being shown on Wikimedia Commons and I have tried to follow the discussion on the Nomination Page but some of the replies are in French. I am using Google Translation but I am still confused as to where I can use this image or not.

Any advice will be much appreciated.

GCB — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:23C6:1E86:8701:4C09:A3F2:82A0:9972 (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. Please do not invest much time in using the file until the conclusion of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by François Malo-Renault. You may participate in that discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - hopefully I will be able to use it eventually as it is a charming image. In the meantime, I may try to participate in the discussion as you suggested. 2A00:23C6:1E86:8701:4C09:A3F2:82A0:9972 12:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please see COM:SIGN, login, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I've set up an account and a username but not sure exactly how to ping or talk to you. Do I need to? GemGB (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@2A00:23C6:1E86:8701:4C09:A3F2:82A0:9972: The image itself on the postcard is in the public domain although the handwritten text by Le Goffic (1863-1932) might be under some publication right if it was first published recently. You could make a version of the Commons file by cropping out the text. There is also another version of the postcard image on Commons: File:113 Le sorcier de la montagne Laouic Coz.jpg. You can find other copies of the postcard image online. Examples: at CCRB (image) or at Delcampe (image). The postcard is attributed to the collection Villard, which refers to the Villard family of photographers and publishers, in this case possibly Joseph-Marie Villard (1868-1935) [https://francearchives.fr/findingaid/d932b303acca1ce2c2b9f44668e0d91a4f9a1264. See also Category:Postcards published by Joseph-Marie Villard. You can also find online many other photos of the collection Villard. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If only published recently, then doubt even the inscriptions would be under copyright. It would require posthumous publication of certain timing in the 1900s to still be under copyright in either the U.S. or France (the specific timing being different for each country). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Not the copyright but what of the exclusive exploitation right of 25 years after publication of article L123-4 CPI? But the questioner did not specify where they would use the file. The IP is identified by whois as of the United Kingdom, so for a use of the handwritten text in the UK and not in France I suppose it depends if the UK law says something about that. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That is true, forgot about that, though only if first published after 70pma. The UK still has the same clause since that is an EU thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that I haven't been using my username (hopefully it will appear now - if not, it is GemCB). As a hobby I make assemblage pieces which include old photographs. I sell each piece twice a year at a yard sale held in my street. Each piece is unique (no mass production here) and sells for about £5.00. I only use images that I have paid for or have been given permission to use or a definately in the public domain. I particularly liked this image because it was distressed and contained text. GemGB (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Lakotalocalschoolslogo.png

File:Lakotalocalschoolslogo.png is most likely not COM:Own work and I can't find anything at lakotaonline.com which shows the logo being released under a {{Cc-by-4.0}} license. Any opinions on whether this would be OK to convert to {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO US? Otherwise, I can't think of any reason it can be kept other than possibly VRT verification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be PD-textlogo in USA. Yann (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

PD-CAGov and school district logos

Since Template:PD-CAGov lists "Country boards of education" and "School districts" as "Agencies permitted to claim copyright", I'm not sure that the license "PD-CAGov" should be used for logos like File:Mendocino County Office of Education Logo.png and File:Central-unified-high-school-district-logo-2015.png. These files might be PD for some other reason, but the school districts in question do seem to be claiming copyright over their website content here and here which might make the logos COM:FAIR for Commons' purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Music in silent films, in EU copyright

From the EU's Copyright Term Directive, Article 2(2): 2. The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work.

But on Wikimedia Commons, most silent films don't have their soundtracks uploaded, and are in no way represented in any surviving footage of the film itself... So then would it still be copyright infringement in the EU to upload Faust (1926 film) with no soundtrack on Wikimedia Commons, where the composer Werner Richard Heymann died in 1961? @Clindberg: PseudoSkull (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

IMO these films would be OK on Commons. We often remove the sound track from YouTube videos, where the images are under a free license, but the music is not, so this case would be similar. Yann (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

What about moral rights, if the soundtrack is an integral part of the film? I assume the edit to remove it should at least be mentioned. –LPfi (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you upload a film if you remove the dialogue, if the author of that was the longest living of the authors? As I read the quote, the film is copyrighted as a whole, not as separate parts with separate copyright terms, but IANAL. –LPfi (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Not for a silent film at least. Yann (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A key point here is that synchronised sound and motion was not possible before the mid 1920s and the first commercially successful film with synchronised sound is said to have been released in 1927. While this 1926 film may have been an early pioneer of synchronised sound, it is also possible that it was truly silent.

Truly silent films were often accompanied by sheet music, which was played by a musician in the theatre as the film played. In these situations, is the film and sheet music a single work or separate works? From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

In the US they would be separate works. Not sure about the EU though. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

In the US they are still separate works for regular movies (though all elements usually published the same time and works for hire). I would have to guess that music for silent films would be treated differently though, since it was published differently (if at all), could be different for every showing, etc. The Faust movie mentions there was music for the premiere specifically, and some different music for US showings. Most movies of the time used existing music with maybe some original fill-in it sounds like, but it was still a live performance. While I doubt there is a ruling to tell us, I'd guess that music for silent movies would be separate works in the EU. Copies were not made the same way, etc., and could just be for particular showings. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/05#So when exactly do films go into the PD in Germany? (since you mentioned the "Faust" film). --Rosenzweig τ 00:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

20th Century Fox and Studios logos

Hi, More opinions needed about this case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:TCFlogo.png. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And also Commons:Deletion requests/File:FFElogoprint.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:FEGlogo.png. Yann (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

are copyrights for corporate works automatically transferred when a company is acquired?

Probably a silly question, but if a company is acquired by another, then do the first company's copyrights automatically go to the parent company?

For example, I want to request permission for this image of the dog actor Soccer. The image in question is from the TV series Wishbone, which was produced by a division of Lyrick Studios called Big Feats! Entertainment. Lyrick Studios was later acquired by HIT Entertainment, which in turn was bought out by Mattel. Does this mean Mattel is the current copyright holder?

I'm aware that Mattel has been working on a Wishbone movie, which suggests they do own the rights. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't automatic and depends on the negotiation of the acquisition. For example, the purchasing company may only want to buy certain assets to keep the cost of acquisition down. Alternatively, if the company has entered administration in the UK (a stage of managing corporate bankruptcy) the administrator may split the assets and try to sell them separately in order to get more funds to cover the bills of creditors. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

But the intellectual property is probably the most valuable asset of this company. So, it is very likely to be transferred to the buyer. Such acquisitions are often done to specifically get the intellectual property. Ruslik (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'll just ask for permission anyway. The worst that could happen is that the company declines or says they are not the copyright owner. Ixfd64 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Possibly Flickrwashing

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deer-Mongolia (50977335267).png is about a file from Flickr claimed in that DR to be a screenshot of a Youtube video. I've looked at the Flickr uploader of this file, who goes by chachasarra. A lot of the images there, probably all of them, look like video screenshots, which would imply possible copyvios. I'd like some other opinions on this, please take a look if you can and are interested in this.

Several Flickr images from the chachasarra account that were marked as PD were already transferred to Commons, see [3]. If we can agree that this is a problematic Flickr account, they should probably all be deleted and the account added to COM:QFI etc. --Rosenzweig τ 11:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed all PNG files, so quite suspicious. Yann (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Flick account, pretty much every upload I checked is just a bit under HD video resolution, which is suspicious. Maybe cropping away watermarks? They get lots of praising comments from other Flickr users, so lots of them are also fooled if these aren't genuine. The one in the DR is definitely from a video, given the link someone found. Would prefer to find actual video sources on more images from that account, but... would have no problem putting them on the QFI list. That DR definitely found a source video on that one, even if just by way of an obvious video screenshot of a frame very close to the nominated image, but not identical. Maybe someone with a Facebook account could check the actual linked video to be sure, but that one seems clear, and the pattern on the rest of the Flickr user's uploads seems to be the same, and most *look* like video screenshots as well. That goes well into "significant doubt" territory for me, even if not absolute proof. That uploader would have to be part of a video production company for the licenses to be valid, and there is no mention of that -- and finding actual source videos with different copyright owners would be the final nail. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Deer-Mongolia (50977335267).png is not a screenshot of the Facebook video, because that one has those crosshairs added the whole time they show the deer plus that banner text near the bottom. It is the same footage though. --Rosenzweig τ 14:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. So the Facebook video is a derivative work / copy of some original video which this is taken from. Hm. If the Flickr user works for some video company, and these are all from their videos, then maybe they are legitimate. Or they are the Flickr user's employer's videos, meaning they can't license them, but they still may be "own work". That situation would get a lot fuzzier, since it would depend on the Flickr user's right to license them. Maybe we should wait to identify some source videos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there any kind of other watermark you see in the Facebook video in one of the corners? If the Flickr user is cropping watermarks, that might be enough to guess they don't have rights to license them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Just the banner near the bottom with "SBN News" and some text in Cyrillic letters that is there the whole time. The video seems to be about poaching, they use lots of clips of different animals (both alive and killed), who knows where they got them from. Probably licensed if they did it correctly. --Rosenzweig τ 15:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure the Russian video is fine. Just wondering if there was a subtler watermark in the original footage, which the Flickr user may be cropping out, even if it is just their employers. They are all clearly taken from videos, but if the Flickr user was a contractor for a video company, and he actually took the videos, then perhaps they do have the right to license stills. If an employee, then probably not. But this may not be blatant license laundering either, unless the uploader is taking these from random other videos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Trademark protection

Can the name of a public figure who died more than 500 years ago be trademarked by a non-profit organization in 2022? T Cells^Talk 19:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Clindberg any opinion on this? Regards. T Cells^Talk 18:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't deal with trademark as much, since it's a subject that Commons mostly ignores. A living person's name can be trademarked but only with their consent, and it would usually have to have risen to a particular level on its own first. I'm sure an older name is possible, if usage of the name has been established and it has gained the newer meaning to a particular industry. I'm sure there are lots of trademarks with "Shakespeare" in it. These days, trademarks are usually only within a company's area of trade, so someone else could use the same name on an unrelated product or something. I doubt anyone would be granted sole usage of the name; I'd have to guess it would probably be the name in combination with something else, or in a narrow usage area or something, but I don't really know for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Carl. T Cells^Talk 22:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Shapefile with Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons License

I am planning to create a map for the Wikipedia article Poundstone Amendment. Since the current county boundaries do not reflect the date of the election, I plan to use a shapefile from the Newberry Library. The metadata states: "Free access/download and use under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons License." Is is permissible to upload a file using this shapefile to Commons? Presidentman (talk · contribs) 21:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Presidentman: I'm sorry, but the license restriction "‐NonCommercial" AKA -nc- (noncommercial) is not usable by itself for Wikimedia Commons. For the reasons, please see Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Presidentman (talk · contribs) 00:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Presidentman: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Inherited photographs

I have inherited some photographs taken by one Gwyneth Morris Jones around 1940. They could usefully be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons to illustrate a Wikipedia article.

The photographer died in 1999. Hence the photographs are still in copyright, and, as the photographers heir, I control the copyright. The photographs have never been sold, licenced, published or publicly displayed, and nobody else has any claim on the copyright.

When I try to upload these photographs, I am asked to declare that they are my own work (which obviously they aren't) or to get the photographer's permission (which isn't easy, with her being dead). Is there a way around this obstacle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudsambedia (talk • contribs) 11:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

HI Rudsambedia If you legally hold the copyright on the photos, then you should be able to upload them under a {{PD-heirs}} license if you want. You may also be able to upload them under a COM:CC license (e.g. {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}) as well since you're now the copyright holder even though you didn't take the photos yourself. You might be asked to email your COM:CONSENT to COM:VRT for verification purposes, particularly if the photos are low resolution scans, but just explain in your email that you're Jones' heir. Whether the photos are eventually used on Wikipedia, however, is beyond the scope of Commons and might be something that needs to be discussed on English Wikipedia. If, however, they're fairly decent photos which add encyclopedic value to the article, they should be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You can use any free license of your choice or a PD declaration. A few specific license templates are listed in Category:License tags for transferred copyright, but you are not limited to those. You can use the generic wrapper template Heirs-license and use any free license as a parameter. Your question sounds like you're trying to navigate through some fancy upload tool. You can find a way to get past it and fix the information after the upload. Or, more simply, if you upload only a few files, you can use the basic upload form. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that you triggered a filter when trying to upload files from Wikipedia. The filters on such uploads are picky, as it is very common in that context to try to upload non-free files without permission. If you use the upload link here on Wikimedia Commons, you get to the UploadWizard. After choosing files to upload you get to the permission page. Check "not my work", then click "another reason" (or something like that, I don't use English) and add the licence template into the edit box. –LPfi (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest summarising this useful discussion on a page, say Commons:Heirs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There is Commons:Transfer of copyright. Maybe you can edit it. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Advice needed: stock agency passing of private family photo.

While searching online for an old (2004) newspaper article on my late parents I was shocked to discover that a photo of them on their wedding day (in 1964) was on the website of a well-known stock agency and being sold for £11.99+ and credited to a photographer who never took the photo (I still have the original and it's never been put online). I recall that the photographer in question took a snap of the original when he accompanied the interviewer to our home, to be used in the article. To the best of my recollection, the photo was never used, and anyway, if it was, my parents would have only granted permission for it to be used in the context of the article and certainly not for wider use or commercial resale. Can I have this photo removed, and claim back any monies made from its sale or compensation for infringement of copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 543Ready (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You will need to contact the stock agency and the photographer. As long as the image is not hosted here, this is not Wikimedia Commons' concern. Seloloving (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Is that the UK? In Finland, the copyright to portrait photos taken on request of the subject (such as wedding photos) may not be used without the consent of the subjects. I don't know how their death affects the rights. Anyway, the paper's photographer has no right to the photo (other than perhaps to use it for the story, either by explicit permission or by newspapers' rights), and the stock agency thus has no rights either and risk being sued by the real photographer.

Perhaps the newspaper entered a deal with the stock agency, involving giving them usage rights to the paper's archive photos, and the original copyright may never have been registered in the archive. Thus, it might be a simple mistake and the agency may be more than willing to delete the photo from their offerings.

–LPfi (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. This is in the UK (although the original photo from 1964 was taken in Germany, where the wedding took place). The subjects and the photographer are now dead. The photo was a private photo for my parents and as such, I as their next of kin, own the copyright. Having spoken to a freelance photographer friend of mine who works with these agencies, he agrees that it is most likely a genuine mistake. The snap of the photo will have been taken by the newspaper's photographer for use in the article, and permission granted by my parents exclusively and specifically for that purpose only (I was present at the time). Most likely, the newpaper's photo archive will have been passed in bulk to the agency. I have contacted the agency to ask them to remove it. I await their response. 543Ready (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please review File:Zeemeermin Wemeldinge 2019.jpg

This afternoon I uploaded File:Zeemeermin Wemeldinge 2019.jpg from Flickr, it has a Public domain mark. This file has been reviewed by FlickreviewR 2 and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the Public Domain Mark. However, manual review is required to verify the file is indeed Public Domain in the source country (the Netherlands) and in the US. Could an administrator or a trusted user please review the image and remove the tag? JopkeB (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Modification of Template:PD-VenezuelaGov

Hello, I want to talk to you about the modification of the template Template:PD-VenezuelaGov that mentions the public domain license for Venezuela.

Recently in 2012, the government decreed a law that releases to the public domain all the graphic material that is made by any of the government institutions.

The law in question is the Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras (Labor Law in English), decreed in May 7, 2012. In which article no. 325 decrees (in Spanish):

La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.

Translated into English would be:

The intellectual production generated under an employment relationship in the public sector, or financed through public funds that originates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, maintaining the rights to public recognition of the author.

Can be modify this template to add this law? --Wguayana (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

ResolvedThis issue seems to be fixed. Yann (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Image of Charlotte Bischoff

Hi Carl Lindberg, I found an image of Charlotte Bischoff on en Wikipedia here [4]. Would that automatically be public domain. Thanks. Scope creep (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Very little is "automatically" public domain :-). If the photo is from 1901 or before, and we know nothing about the photographer, then we can use {{PD-old-assumed}}. Other than that, knowing the author, and when they died, and usually knowing when it was first published can also be important. Is that image sourced from anywhere else? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Woman, Bird, Star (Homage to Pablo Picasso): PD-Art?

Any opinions on the licensing of File:Madrid07nov 062 (2052531702).jpg? The photo is sourced to Flickr and its licensing appears OK for Commons. It is, however, a photo of a painting by en:Joan Miró and it's the copyright status of the painting that's unclear. The painting appears to be en:Woman, Bird, Star (Homage to Pablo Picasso) and was painted between 1966 to 1973. That's seem quite recent as far as artworks go and I don't think it would be COM:PD-Art because of its age. In addition, Miró died in 1983 which is only about 40 years ago and also doesn't seem to be long enough to be PD per COM:SPAIN because Spanish copyright laws follows 70 years p.m.a. There is also a crop of the photo (File:Joan Miro Reina Sofia.jpg) that may also have an invalid license depending upon the copyright status of the painting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's not OK. It can't be in the public domain, and it can't be de minimis either, as it is the central and only element in the picture. It is also not covered by Commons:Freedom of panorama/Europe#Spain. You can create a DR. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Old photos

Can someone please help my failing memory along: How old do photos need to be that we consider them free to use because in all probability the photographer has been dead for long enough? Like this one for instance: Apparently taken during the Great War (I already adressed the uploader on the probability of this being "own work"), this is probably more than 100 years old, but obviously there is quite a reasonable chance that the photographer has not been dead for 70 years. I don't want to unnecessarily frustrate the uploader by rashly nominating this for deletion if it's considered free to use by some other rule though. Thanks, --217.239.1.129 08:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP 217.239.1.129. Since photos first published in the US prior to January 1, 1927, are now within the public domain under US copyright law, it should be OK to upload such photos to Commons as long as you can reasonably establish first publication prior to 1927. You need to understand that it's the date of first publication and not the date of creation that tends to matter more when it comes to copyright law. Photos that have never been published for which there's a known author who died more than 70 years ago are also within the public domain under US copyright law, but unpublished photos by unknown authors are still protected by copyright up 120 years after creation. So, an unpublished photo from WWI by a known author who died before 1952 is now within the pubic domain under US copyright law, but an unpublished photo by an unknown author is still protected up until the end of 2034. The same also essentially applies to photos taken outside of the US, except that Commons requires that the photo not only be within the public domain within the US but also within the country of first publication, and this can be tricky to sort out in some cases since copyright laws can vary quite a bit from country to country. What you and the uploader are going to need to do is figure out the en:provenance of the photo (e.g. who took the photo, when it was taken, where it was first published, when the photographer died) and then try and work from there. The uploader had to have gotten the photo from somewhere since I agree that it's unlikely the uploader's COM:Own work; so, of the uploader clarifies where they got the photo, then perhaps its provenance can also be clarified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That helps a lot. The uploader has already replied to my question. The photo seems to be from family archives (=unpublished), and the photographer is unknown. So by your information, it seems that this photo is going to have to be deleted. --217.239.1.129 14:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow! Now have a look at that. The uploader himself nominated it for deletion because he understood the questionable copyright situation. What a difference to other cases I have come across today... --217.239.1.129 23:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

:This section was archived on a request by: 217.239.1.129 23:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Help needed

This morning, I have already nominated a number of uploads by this user for deletion because they are almost all of them derivative work, mostly from some book. Some were so obvious that I nominated them for speedy delete. This is getting a bit tiring now because he keeps uploading new copyvio images.

As it is a new user, I addressed him on his German WP user page on this, explaining the matter to him. I also told him that this concerns almost all of his uploads. Apparently the speedy delete nominations do not automatically appear on his user page here, but thus he has been notified immediately in a place where he would be most likely to see it.

All this to no avail; he quite openly admits uploading derivative work but seems totally immune to the idea that there is anything wrong with that. Same thing here. I must admit that my replies have gotten a bit more impatient now. Can someone please help? I don't want this to get too confrontational, and neither do I want to keep on nominating new uploads for deletion. Thanks, --217.239.1.129 23:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I sent him a final warning. Please consider logging in.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

I have (considered logging in). For now, I'd rather not. Doesn't mean I'm the vandalizing type. :-) --217.239.1.129 23:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Whew. That user is keeping us busy on the German WP too. His articles are near incomprehensible, and it's hard to know what to make of them.

Anyway, this can be closed then I assume. Thanks again! --217.239.1.129 00:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 217.239.1.129 00:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Any idea if/how I can host the following image here?

https://history.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2021/07/HIST-363-Egino-Codex_Augustinus.png
https://history.ubc.ca/news/fascinating-ubc-history-courses-you-should-know-about/

I presume it is scanned from an out-of-copyright book, but I can't seem to locate the original manuscript (Berlin Staatsbibliothek Phill. 1676) online. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Vermont Progressive Party Logo.svg: PD-logo?

Is the bird imagery in File:Vermont Progressive Party Logo.svg just enough to push it above COM:TOO United States for {{PD-logo}} purposes? The {{PD-shape}} license seems incorrect, but perhaps "PD-logo" is OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I nominated it, that bird is fairly complex than , though free-licensed, the Twitter bird. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Ice cream single cover copyright concern and free alternative

I went to Wikipedia and found a song called Ice Cream by Battles, and there is a cover image of a strawberry ice cream. However, there is no text on the cover image, I don't know if that image is copyrighted or free. I don't know if the song or the artist labelled the single All Rights Reserved. There were numerous images in Commons that have ice cream flavors, should the single cover image count as one? In that image, the replaceable section said "N/A" on a non-free image.

There is an album image that is part of the Ice Cream song made by the same artist in 2011. It does have the word in the album image called "Gloss Drop." Evan0512 (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Evan0512: Hello. Both of these cover images are copyrighted and non-free. That is why they are being kept at the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale instead of being hosted here at Commons. The ice cream images that we have on Commons are either out of copyright due to old age or were licensed accordingly by the copyright holders. Album covers, however, do usually not belong into either of those categories. De728631 (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

File:MaharajaNarasingh.jpg

Painting that is very likely {{PD-art}}, considering that the person depicted died in 1850, but we need more precise source information to be sure. Who made this painting and when, and which collection is this painting from? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Moirangthemcha who uploaded this. Please note that a faithful reproduction of an out-of-copyright artwork does not create a new copyright, so unless you are the original painter of that image, the Creative Commons licence is not applicable. So what we need to know here is the name and lifetime of the original painter. De728631 (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Chi-FlorencePark-rules-May-2020.jpg

While add location information to this image I uploaded I realised there is perhaps an ever-so-slight slight risk it is a copyright violation. Any thoughts? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the text is rather non-creative stating only facts. The prohibition icons and the wastebin sign might be more interesting though in terms of copyright. Since the entire photograph is about the current rules of the park, I think one cannot claim de-minimis for the graphics because they are part of the set of rules announced on that big sign. What do others think? De728631 (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Modified Pixabay images

As we all know, the {{Pixabay}} license is not acceptable for Commons, because it prohibits "Sale or distribution of Content e.g. as a posters, digital prints, music files or physical products, without adding any additional elements or otherwise adding value". Therefore, Pixabay images from 9 January 2019 or later cannot be transferred to Commons, whereas images from before that date are OK under the {{Cc-zero}} license. My question is: Is a modified version of post-2019 Pixabay content acceptable for Commons, with a license from the creator of the derivative work? See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stijn Van Cauter for context, where Svc nulll has uploaded his album art, some of which are derived from Pixabay images. The most recent discussion I can find is Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/01#Pixabay license renewal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The Pixabay license says, among other things,

"The Pixabay License does not allow:

1 Sale or distribution of Content as digital Content or as digital wallpapers (such as on stock media websites or as NFTs);

2 Sale or distribution of Content e.g. as a posters, digital prints, music files or physical products, without adding any additional elements or otherwise adding value."

Unfortunately this is self contradictory. While (2) appears to permit free use of Pixabay images if they have value added, (1) does not. It is also not clear that simply adding an album title over one of the Pixabay images adds enough value to allow use under (2). I am therefore disinclined to allow these to stay. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

LaLiga photos

From LaLiga, the association of soccer clubs in Spain, we are uploading different photos of which we have the copyright to Wikimedia Commons. Right now we have uploaded 3 photos of stadiums. For this, we created the editing account FotosLaLiga. Last week we sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org informing us that, from this editing account we were going to proceed to upload the photos that are in the image gallery of our website: https://www.laliga.com/sala-de-prensa/galeria-imagenes; and that therefore we permitted Wikimedia Commons for use with the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license. My question is if this is enough or if we need to do the procedure in another way. Thank you very much FotosLaLiga (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I have marked your account as verified, and you may proceed with uploading the photos. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, FotosLaLiga (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

VRT and other visibility

Question: if a Commons item has passed the COM:VRT process, or some other official verification, is there any indication (template, say) that is has done so on the item's main page or talk page? I found it odd to see an image deleted multiple times in the past for having not verified copyright release, but now seems fine, yet I can't find any trace of prior discussion. My interest, incidentally, is more to find the original source of the image and assess its credibility than it is copyright. If VRT already knows the original source, that would seem to be even more worth sharing (in some cases). SamuelRiv (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That file and two others were uploaded the same day. The other two were nominated for deletion and deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bombing at Baghdad Airport 2020.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bombing at Baghdad Airport 2020 1.png. I guess it's just that the one to which you linked in your question was not nominated. Feel free to nominate it for speedy deletion. The answer to your question is usually yes, if there was actually something that needed verification. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Images from Twitter

I'm sure this has been raised here before but I just need some advice on images uploaded from Twitter. User:Stevan Mitnick uploaed six images today, of which three are obvious copyright violations (File:Richard Marles and Wei Fenghe.png, File:Australian Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles and Chinese Minister of Defence Wei Fenghe meeting.png and File:Approval Rating of Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese 23 May to 21 June 2022 from Morning Consult.png) and have been nominated for speedy deletion by me. The other three all come from what appears to be the relevant politicians Twitter account (File:Anthony Albanese and Mark Brown in Sidney.png, File:Australian Education Minister, Jason Clare at Taminmin College in Humpty Doo.png and File:Anthony Albanese and Jacinda Ardern.png). Are these three permitted on Commons?I wasn't able to find anything stating that these have been released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, as claimed. Calistemon (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This is obviously an Australian government account. Many governments publish works by government employees under free licence. It would therefore be possible to check on the government website whether the images come from there and whether they are freely licensed there. If this is the case: Download from there in a reasonable resolution and overwrite the existing image with it here and change the source from Twitter to the government website. C.Suthorn (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Two of the copyright violations have now been deleted, the third one is getting debated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Approval Rating of Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese 23 May to 21 June 2022 from Morning Consult.png. The three I haven't nominated for deletion have now been tagged as Media missing permission by another user. I might look into your suggestion later on and see if the images are available under a free licence. Calistemon (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyright owned by subject

I want to upload a photo of a living person, taken by someone else, but which the subject owns. What do I have to declare regarding copyright? Tony Holkham (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

In such cases the subject needs to email a copy of the contract of transfer of copyright from the original photographer to them. Please see COM:VRT for the address and for further details. Please note also that owning a copy of a portrait does not automatically make the subject own its copyright. In most jurisdictions, copyright needs to be transferred explicitly. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And in many, particularly European ones outside of the Anglosaxon sphere of jurisdiction, it cannot be transferred at all, except by death and inheritance.

In that case you would need the consent of the photographer no matter what the subject tells you about "owning" the photo. What they "own" is the right to use the photo under whatever licensing, but only the photographer can decide about that license. --217.239.1.129 08:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. In addition to the copyright issue, you might have to regard personality rights concerning the subject. It might be a good idea to have their consent too. --217.239.1.129 08:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No reason to give a model release for upload here. You can put the {{Personality rights}} template on an upload to remind people about such usages. Privacy rights are a different matter, but if the subject has no problem uploading here, then that's not an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Signature file copyright status

I'm not sure about the licensing of File:Pearce Robinson Signature.jpg. This can't be "own work" unless the uploader is also the person whose signature this is supposed to be (i.e. "Pearce Robinson"). It's possible that this might be PD per COM:SIG, but the file isn't being used anywhere and there isn't a current English Wikipedia article written about someone named "Pearce Robinson" (it was deleted in 2019). There's also the uploader's user talk page which is filled with notifications for file licensing issues, which also seems to indicate that the uploader probably misunderstands COM:L. If this can be converted to {{PD-Signature}}, then I guess it can be kept; however, there might also be a COM:NOTUSED issue that needs to be considered as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that it is quite possible that the uploader is Pearce Robinson. However this upload looks more like a personal promotion (together with the photo). Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The file is COM:INUSE at Wikidata and has been for a few years. Wikidata editors will need to consider the usage there before we consider arguments about Commons scope. Ruslik0's point about this being promotional is also not relevant; while English Wikipedia wants to avoid promotional material, Commons is the opposite. Much of our modern content is provided by creators wanting to promote their work. So long as the work fits into our scope (and is appropriately licensed) we don't care about the uploader's motivations.

The copyright/licensing issue is something in our remit to consider though. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: Are you sure about that? Please see COM:ADVERT and COM:CSD#G10.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: As I said, "So long as the work fits into our scope (and is appropriately licensed) we don't care about the uploader's motivations." The pages you linked to say, "For the policy, see COM:PS (Project scope: Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose)" and "G10... This includes only content uploaded to promote goods and services, outside our project scope." Both pages appear to agree with what I have said. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Gratisography.com

The {{Gratisography}} template says that all images from gratisography.com are CC-zero.

In practice the site was CC-zero on (and perhaps up to) 2 January 2015 but by the time of 6 February 2015 a caveat had been added to that saying The only common sense limitations I have are that you can’t use any of my images for pornographic, criminal, defamatory or degrading purposes and you can’t build your own free stock photo website using my images.

At some point between 2015 and 2022 the CC-zero got dropped entirely, with the current licence now saying You can’t redistribute Gratisography pictures, including on other stock (paid or free) sites/apps, or give them to other people to use.

I believe those limitations would make the licence incompatible with Commons. Should the template be updated to say that only images taken from the site before 2 January 2015 can be accepted at Commons (and any later images deleted)? Lord Belbury (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury: Yes.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Done and done. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury and Fæ: Most of our Gratisography photos are a mess as far as the metadata. The actual source (gratisography.com) and author (Ryan McGuire) are usually listed in the description rather than in the source and the author fields. And the licensing says that they are licensed under both CC0 and CC-BY-SA, which doesn't make any sense. Nosferattus (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: That was me batch-adding the {{Gratisography}} template to all the files which credited the site as their original source, which automatically adds a CC0. It looks like a lot of the images came here via https://www.flickr.com/photos/free_for_commercial_use which scraped them in 2014 and put them on Flickr under a CC-Attribution licence, which has been replicated here at Commons. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Composite group portrait of members of the International Medical Congress, 1881.jpg

Hello this image Composite group portrait of members of the International Medical Congress, 1881 is available under public domain 1.0 https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0 , https://wellcomecollection.org/works/xwer4dvq. How do I mark it as such? DoctorAB (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The artist, Herbert Rose Barraud died in 1896. The image is PD. Use {{PD-Art|PD-old-70}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion: PD-US-expired + PD-old-100. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

We usually don't use PD-Art for old pictures. {{PD-old-100-expired}} is enough. Yann (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You're right - I hadn't realised from the preview image that this was photography, not painting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

File:AfghanistanEarthquake.png

Judging from the poor resolution and absence of EXIF data i find it likely that this photo was taken from a video somewhere. There is also little indication that the uploader in question have actually been to Afghnistan Trade (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

File:AfghanistanEarthquake.png was deleted @Trade: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Kidney-stones-s2-illustration.webp

The summary for this image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kidney-stones-s2-illustration.webp says the source is the author's own work and that the author is Martingerg. The licensing section says it is "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license."

However, the image itself has a copyright notice on it that MedicineNet, Inc. owns the copyright. The MedicineNet, Inc. website says "The Content posted on this Site is protected by the copyright laws in the United States and in foreign countries." (MedicineNet Terms and Conditions of Use at https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12596.)

Can someone clarify whether this Kidney-stones-s2-illustration is really licensed under Creative Commons?

I also posted this on the file talk page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Kidney-stones-s2-illustration.webp and then discovered perhaps I should post it here as well.

Thanks. PixQuester (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@PixQuester: You could ask MedicineNet and use internal links. Pinging @Martingerg for comment.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G. -- Thanks, I contacted MedicineNet on June 27, 2022 about this. Their auto responder said to allow 2-3 days for a reply. I allowed extra time due to the U.S. July 4 holiday. It's now been over two weeks and still no response. I'll proceed with request for deletion of the image. PixQuester (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You found a file that has many typical looks of a violation of copyright. You can send that type of file to speedy deletion with the template Copyvio. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Asclepias -- Thanks, I have now done that. PixQuester (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 AU) image

I just came across the image File:Official parliamentary portrait of Tony Burke.png, which was tagged with cc-by-sa-4.0 by the uploader, which I changed to CC-BY-3.0-AU, thinking that was the correct one. The image is from the Parliament of Australia website and, looking at the copyright rules there, it appears the correct tag should be Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia. Digging deeper, I found that Template:Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0-au redirects to Template:Cc-non-compliant. Now I'm wondering, what tag to use or whether this image can actually even be uploaded to Commons. Can somebody more experienced with this shed some light? I had a look at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia, but nothing there about images from the Parliament of Australia website. Calistemon (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Calistemon: That website is not mentioned on that page because it falls under the generic COM:NETCOPYVIO.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: The whole arrangement is a little odd, because content on the Australian Government website is released as Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (see here), which should be ok to use as a source for Commons, while the Parliament of Australia seems to use the above licence, which is not. The same uploader also uploaded File:Official portrait of Jim Chalmers.png, which is from the Australian Treasury website, an agency of the Australian Government, which uses Creative Commons (CC) BY Attribution 3.0 Australia licence (see here) which, I believe, is acceptable for use here. There doesn't seem to be a uniform approach in regards to copyrighting by government sources in Australia. Calistemon (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Opinions on these images from a pdf produced by US mil

Hi all. I uploaded several images from this USMC produced pdf (https://www.marcorsyscom.marines.mil/Portals/105/MCTSSA/APBI%20Briefs/RF%20and%20THC%20Comm%20Test%20Devices_Moore.pdf). This is an example of one image that I uploaded. I had looked pretty thoroughly through the pdf to see if there were any statements like "photo courtesy of L3Harris" but couldn't find anything. The images on L3Harris' site are subtly different from the ones in the pdf. But when I reverse image searched this one, I did find a few that were the exact same (but many that were similar but not exactly the same). One I found was here on page 13. I'm not sure if the government truly did make this photo and others used it or if they just copied the image from one of L3Harris' old marketing sheets but didn't get copyright rights.

The image for the AN/PRC-160 is exactly reproduced elsewhere but the pic for the AN/PRC-163 seems to be unique. Any ideas on this? I know the easy thing to do would be to just delete them but it just sucks because they are really good images and it's hard to get images this good if you're not issued with this gear. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Image use without attribution

What's the normal procedure when we discover external website using our images without the licence required attribution or original commons source? Ww2censor (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The images do not belong to Commons: they are not "our images". So, it is up to their authors to enforce the license terms. Ruslik (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed Ruslik0 you are correct to the letter but what suggestion are there for editors, like myself, who find their own work not attributed or the commons not being sourced. Does the commons not care about sourcing even if you leave the lack of attribution to individual editors to follow up with? I have seen several files of mine online but what practical advise is there I can use? Ww2censor (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has some general advice for dealing with non-compliant reuse of its CC-BY-SA content, which looks adaptable for Commons images (and simpler, since there is usually only a single author). --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Lord Belbury based on your links I was able to find a commons page that address the issue Commons:Enforcing license terms. Ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible Contradiction Re: Wellcome Images

In 2014 around 100,000 images largely of old manuscripts and etchings were uploaded to Commons from The Wellcome Trust's collection after Wellcome licensed the images under CC-BY. [5] This was apparently regarded as sufficient by Commons even when there is apparently insufficient information for a Public Domain tag to be generated for the original artwork (eg File:Aesculapius and Hygieia, with Hercules fighting the hydra; r Wellcome V0007561.jpg).

A number of these images (including the above) have now been marked by Wellcome Trust as Public Domain, specifically the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark. However such a mark cannot be added as the copyright tag in Commons as it has been decided that an organisation applying the PDM to an artwork someone else created is insufficient evidence of it being in the public domain.

My question then is, why was Wellcome's statement of copyright status for artwork they did not create sufficient for it to be marked in Commons as CC-BY but is insufficient for it to be marked as Public Domain?

Best wishes ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

We've had this dilemma before: Is it sufficient that a well-respected authority has determined a work to be PD, even if we cannot independently verify the determination? For the Bibliothèque nationale de France, it seems to be yes: {{PD-BNF}} (see April 2022 discussion). So essentially we are saying that PDM is accepted for certain highly trusted organizations that we believe do a good job (as good as or better than ourselves) at verifying the copyright status of works, even when the copyright is not held by the releasing authority. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Are SVG representations of graffiti allowed? Are photographs of non-authorized reproductions of graffiti allowed?

As I understand it, graffiti are generally allowed because it is hard to prove authorship and also because the illegality makes it harder to ask for copyright rights. COM:CB#Graffiti

First question: With that in mind, would drawings of a graffiti be accepted since no one could claim authorship?

Second question: Now, let's complicate it a little bit more. Suppose there is a graffiti, someone not on Wikimedia Commons draw a representation of it, makes a little poster and then glue it on a wall. Kind of a "lazy graffiti", instead of paint it is a paper glued on a wall. Then, another person sees it, takes a photograph and posts on Wikimedia Commons. Would it be allowed?

I think it is a mess of an explanation so I am gonna show real examples.

There is an anti-capitalist graffiti that is a little popular because there are many of them in different locations and they seem to be done by different people since they all have slight different styles:

• 
  Lübeck, Germany, 2006
• 
  Northern Greece, 2011
• 
  Zagreb, Croatia (according to the Flickr page), 2014
• 
  Monastir, Tunisia (based on title of image and the description in French), 2012
• 
  Teruel, Spain (based on title and description in Spanish), 2011

So, I thought it would be useful to have a SVG version of it since it seems to be a popular anti-capitalist representation. That is why I am asking the first question.

Now, explaining the second question, there is an image of a poster of the same anti-capitalist representation:

• 
  Probably Germany (based on author), 2009

Usually posters are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons COM:CB#Posters, but this one is a representation that is most likely from a graffiti. The poster image is from 2009, there are graffiti images that are from 2006. I think it is safe to assume the graffiti came before the poster, so the poster is a non-authorized reproduction of a graffiti (the author seem to be anonymous so it is impossible to even ask for authorization). So, we have a non-authorized reproduction of a certain graffiti that we do not know who painted it or even who made the first one, since there are many of them. I assume in that case the person who made the poster is not eligible to ask for copyright rights and so the photograph of the poster would also be accepted? AnAkemie (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also a question of COM:TOO. Human stick figures are not copyrightable, nor is the idea of pointing a gun at someone's head. I think a specific rendering of this motif would just barely pass the threshold, but I wouldn't consider any of these a COM:DW (in a copyright sense) of the first version to ever exist, simply because the amount copied is not copyrightable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I doubt if Human stick figures are always not copyrightable sic. Based on the gun holding kind of right man, I guess this thing may at least be copyrighted in Common Law countries (UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), or fundamentalism, caesaropapism countries e.g. Iran, that are having very low bar. Though if we have evidences that the very original one isn't from one of em, then taking a common-use SVG won't be problem as {{PD-self}}. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe the art is above TOO in the US. Yes, stick figures are simple shapes and guns are common, but the image has a lot of original drama in the arrangement.

I disagree with the logic of COM:CB#Graffiti. The underlying logic seems to be it is OK to photograph graffiti because a lawsuit is unlikely. Hardly the moral high ground. Claiming that an artist cannot be readily identified invites a backward legal test. If we do not know who the author is, then how can we disprove that somebody isn't the author after he files suit?

There have been graffiti copyright lawsuits. https://www.novagraaf.com/en/insights/when-ip-meets-counterculture-graffiti-protected-copyright https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2019/07/30/street-artist-sues-ellen-degeneres-and-walmart-for-copyright-infringement

COM:CB#Graffiti does not claim to be policy. COM:PCP is policy. I believe the resolution should be we do not allow copies of graffiti on Commons.

Consider w:Banksy, an anonymous street artist who has legal representation. We have lots of his art in Category:Banksy. The "licenses" are usually for the photographer's derivative work but do not include the licensing information for the underlying art. Without a license for the underlying graffiti / art, such photographs should be removed from Commons.

Glrx (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Homenaje á Peral. Elogio a Peral .pdf

@Docosong:

English:

This book was published in Argentina in 1895, and its contents is a speech given by Dr. Severiano Pérez Redondo in 1890. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina/en, books are protected by copyright in Argentina for 70 years following the author's death. To determine whether this book is in the public domain in Argentina, and therefore eligible for hosting on Commons, we would need to know the author's death date.

I have not been able to find information for a Severiano Pérez Redondo who was alive at the right time to write this book. Can anyone find this information? If not, the file should probably be transferred to Spanish Wikisource and anywhere else it would be useful, and deleted here.

Español:

Este libro fue publicado en Argentina en 1895, y contiene un discurso pronunciado por el doctor Don Severiano Pérez Redondo en 1890. Según Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina/es, un libro no se encuentra en dominio público hasta que su autor ha fallecido hace más de 70 años. Para determinar si este libro se encuentra en dominio público en Argentina, y por eso si podemos alojarlo en Commons, hay que saber la fecha del fallecimiento del autor.

Yo no he podido encontrar información sobre un Severiano Pérez Redondo que estaba vivo en la época apropiada para escribir este libro. ¿Alguien la puede encontrar esta información? Si no, probablemente se debe trasladar el archivo al Wikisource español (y cualquier otro sitio en que sería útil), y borrarlo en Commons.

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae and Docosong: {{PD-old-assumed}} should suffice here.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae and Jeff G.: Thanks for the information. It is very reasonable to assume the author died in the period 1900-1925. I have only search one book from the author in 1917 at Biblioteca Nacional de Argentina. So I agreee with the solution of Jeff G. Regards!--Docosong (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Jeff G. and @Docosong! I've tagged this file as {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae: There are a few mentions online, such as [6], page 13 of [7], and an Argentinian government spreadsheet including an April 1904 note "

Aceptando la renuncia al Dr. Severiano Perez Redondo, de Medico Asesor del Ministerio y nombrando al Dr Francisco Medus.

". I made Category:Severiano Pérez Redondo; and an associated Wikidata item. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyright defective notice

If a film contains a defective copyright notice, i.e. "COPYRIGHT 1928" and that's it, per Template:PD-US-defective notice that would mean the film is probably in the public domain, right?

Except, that would mean that Steamboat Willie, commonly thought to be copyrighted, would actually also be in the public domain due to failure to comply with established formalities.

We have Category:The Adventures of Safety Frog and File:The Scarlet Letter (1934).webm (which wasn't renewed anyway), which both had such a defective copyright notice. All examples mentioned did name a claimant somewhere in the film, just not within the copyright notice. So if we are to assume that Safety Frog and The Scarlet Letter are in the public domain for this reason, we would also have to therefore assume Steamboat Willie to also be. inb4 Disney comes after us.

How do you guys feel about the legitimacy, or clarity, of that template? @Clindberg: Any ideas? PseudoSkull (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

US Copyright Office says[8] that the three elements don't have to be strictly on the same line: "a name, abbreviation, or generally known alternative designation for the copyright owner that is separated from the other elements of the notice, the notice may be accepted, provided that the name can reasonably be considered part of the notice". So there's a bit of a judgement-call. Safety Frog and The Scarlet Letter don't appear to have a single well-defined specific potential claimant anywhere in the frames before/after the copyright frame. DMacks (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Copyright Compendiums, as mentioned, allow for a certain amount of variation. The original one is here, which covers stuff under the 1909 Act. They do mention that an error in the name might be correctable when registering for a copyright, which Disney presumably got, though it could still be a problem if brought up in court. Courts have definitely decided that works with ambiguous owner mentions around the copyright notice were public domain, but I guess here the question is that naming the employee (as well as the employer) would negate copyright. It has certainly been argued before; see this blog article which references a 2008 Los Angeles Times article and a law student's thesis. On the other hand, especially then in 2008, you could bet Disney would fight hard any challenge that was brought up. There was a court case where someone got fined for putting out versions of the Mad Doctor, which lacked a copyright notice but was still derivative of the original character. That court ruled that Steamboat Willie had a valid copyright, but did not look at the notice question since that argument was brought up too late in the case. I'm sure it's been discussed here before too. While arguable, the COM:PRP standard is "significant doubt", and there is at least that much chance that the notice is valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright question

@Jmabel: What is the status of a digitized version of a record originally recorded in Russia (1926)? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Ilovemydoodle: No idea why you are pinging me. I already told you I don't know. - Jmabel ! talk 20:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Jmabel: Could you ping someone who might? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  • @Ilovemydoodle: No. Have some patience. Your question has been here all of 16 minutes. Someone knowledgeable will eventually see it. Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ilovemydoodle: I have no more info on the subject than COM:RUSSIA, please read that. You will need info on the names and lifetimes of the composer(s), lyricist(s), performer(s), and production company(ies).   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Jeff G.: In this case would the author be:

    1) The composer

    2) The conductor

    3) The record label

    4) The person who digitized it

    5) The website it was uploaded to

    – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Ilovemydoodle: Probably the first three and performers, depending on contracts.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Jeff G.:

    1) Pierre Degeyter

    2) Stanislav Kort

    3) Muzpred

    – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Ilovemydoodle: Are those people still alive? If not, when did they die? Is that company still in business? If not, what entity inherited that company's copyrights?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Degeyter died in 1932, so the composition would be {{PD-Russia-2008}}. I don't think the conductor would matter. The sound recording... OK in Russia I think, as 70 years have passed from publication. However, not OK in the U.S. until 2027 (100 years after publication), per {{PD-US-record}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Jeff G. and Clindberg:

    "Are those people still alive? If not, when did they die?"

    Don't know.

    "Is that company still in business? If not, what entity inherited that company's copyrights?"

    I can't find any information about the company. I think it was state-owned if that helps.

    – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Do you want the link? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

YouTube CC-Attribution status only verifiable when logged in?

I just flagged a set of screenshots for deletion because they weren't showing a CC-Attribution status in their expanded description when I checked them at the source, but looking at them again after logging into YouTube, the statuses were there. Is this a recent feature or bug over at YouTube, where logged out users see much less of the description, including the licence status? I'm sure I've been getting that information without logging in, in the past. Lord Belbury (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Looked at the pages of two videos referenced in your recent contribs. I don't have a YT account. The YT pages show the CC licence. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm seeing the CC notices again today, although the layout of that part of the page is still different to how I see it when logged in. Perhaps YouTube's been A-B testing stuff. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you happen to have the YouTube Redux extension installed? It hides licensing information by default unless you uncheck the option in the settings. [9] Ixfd64 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Crown copyright (UK)

I have only just realised that:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iraq and Afghanistan Memorial unveiling - 02.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iraq and Afghanistan Memorial unveiling - 03.jpg

were closed - in 2017, by User:JuTa - as delete, with a closing summary of "Source site states crown copyright != OGL."

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. As I noted in the discussions:

The source states "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". "Crown copyright" does not negate that, since it is a statement of the copyright owner, not its licence (note that "crown copyright" is also stated alongside the OGL release).

The fact that an image is "Crown copyright" no more precludes its release under OGL, or some other open licence, than does my saying my uploads to commons are "Copyright Andy Mabbett, released under CC by-sa" (or indeed, the boilerpate "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license..."). Commons has thousands of other images which are OGL-licensed and at the same time "Crown copyright".

Both images should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

These images have been never released under OGL. Ruslik (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

How have they not been released under OGL? The source says at the bottom: "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". And "Crown copyright" in the caption does not count as "otherwise stated"; if you follow the "© Crown copyright" link at the bottom right, it clearly states that "The default licence for most Crown copyright and Crown database right information is the Open Government Licence", showing that the government does not believe that being under Crown Copyright precludes it from being OGL. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah agreed, the caption "Crown Copyright" does not mean "otherwise stated", as that is not a license. But, I think that was the rationale on the DR. This should probably be at COM:UDR and not here, but they seem to be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It was "otherwise stated" as Fæ said here. Ruslik (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

For the most part, a work must be "Crown copyright" before it can be OGL (and doesn't stop being Crown Copyright once it is). If they credit something other than "Crown copyright", then there would be a problem. So I would disagree with that stance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem seems like that why both deleted files are matching their "otherwise stated", as the deletion admin @JuTa: could you please explain that for which kind of exemptions from OGL lead your deletion results? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I remember being involved in the OGL nonsense back then, the reality is that when Fae was incharge of Wikimedia UK, he was told a few times by a few editors to have a talk with the someone from the UK Govt who are incharge of this OGL issue but it never got fixed, the sad reality is that these images are actually OK but because once the images are released, they either forget to or refuse to update the image 'exif data' after a certain timeframe and since a majority of these images were released under the crown licence by the UK MOD (Ministry of Defence), they tend to release such images under their "News" licence, which unfortunately is not free as it specifically says and i quote "It may not be used, reproduced or transmitted for any other purpose" which means its crown copyright but at the same time non-derivative and since we are not a 'news' site, we cannot even use it, there are only one or 2 workarounds for this for example if the same image was released by the original photographer for his military purview such as say the Royalnavy, then it doesn't go through the Crown-News licencing bullshit (pardon my french) and thus can be added to commons under OGL and Crown. Its actually the main reason why we have never added any images from the UK Govt's own flickr feed as one would assume it is OGL as in "OPEN GOVERNMENT" and it is, but because their licencing is so poorly done, its not really worth the risk or time to add images from 'number10gov' to commons cause to date WikimediaUK have not been able to discuss the OGL issue with the UKGovt. The other workaround actually applies to these images specifically, even if these images are owned by the UK MOD (you can see it in the exif of these images if you download them), but because they were added to the UK's gov.uk website, they now fall in their purview of OGL (as you can see at the bottom of the page where the images were taken from) and thus should be allowed usage on commons...--Stemoc 12:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"released under the crown licence " There is no "crown licence". Crown copyright is a statement that the copyright is owned by the crown (i.e. the state); it is not a licence, nor is it an all-rights-reserved notice. A Crown copyright work can be all-rights-reserved, or licensed under the OGL or any other licence. There are even works labelled Crown copyright which are PD, just as there are books labelled as copyright which are PD, because no-one bothers to recall all the copies and erase the copyrights statements in them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the above from the archive, as the matter is unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: What action are you expecting to resolve the issue? If you are trying to restore the images, start a discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm expecting for consensus to show that being "crown copyright" does not preclude any image - including these - from being under OGL, or any other open licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)