User talk:Clindberg/archives 11

1960 AP Photograph -PD?

Greetings, I've come across your contributions in discussions across the site and possibly you may be able to help. I'm interested in trying to determine if this AP photo from September 1960 taken in New York is public domain. I've searched the AP photo archive and found a photo taken at the same event but from a different angle but no result for this specific photo. I've searched the 1960 and 1961 copyright registrations and found no results there. Any thoughts regarding further searches I might undertake or actions I might take to make a stronger claim for public domain? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If a photo was published in 1960, it would have had to be renewed in 1987 or 1988, so the records would be online at https://cocatalog.loc.gov . Photos can be difficult because they could have been renewed as part of a book, or something like that. On the other hand, only the copyright owner could really renew them (a renewal of a newspaper in which they appeared would not matter). Renewal records are marked with the original year of publication on that site, which can make them easier to search for (you can restrict by year in the Set Search Limits). There is not enough there to assume PD-US-no_notice, but at the very least we know it was published then (since unpublished photos would have retained their copyright), so searches should be easier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, that's very helpful. A search of Associated Press registrations shows the earliest item dating from 1963, there's nothing before that. Searching by those depicted turns up nothing relevant from 1960. Would you recommend doing anything else? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Mystery ships

Hi Carl, Have you any views on this picture, dated 1895? Broichmore (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I'm not sure where to even start. Those aren't ship names I don't think, of any navy. Are those warships? They seem like it, but I can't imagine there were many active sail-only ships in the 1890s. Unless those are also steamships, but even those were also rare by then. They could be receiving ships, but can't imagine they would have their sails out in that case. Any idea where the painting was supposed to be located? "Europe Squadron" doesn't make any sense as the name of a ship, nor of a British naval unit. The U.S. did have a European Squadron for a while, based in the Mediterranean. But those aren't U.S. naval ship names either. The 1890 Lloyd's doesn't have any ships by the name of Patrick or Herdman so they aren't merchant ships either, I don't think. I can't quite make out any flags on the ships. I'm having a hard time even figuring out what the artist meant by those names... could this simply be a made-up scene? Or an illustration of a work of fiction? Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, think we'll have to put it in the fictional list. Most likely, the label, has been transcribed wrongly and or misunderstood, but I cant even get a handle on the place. Thought it could be Dublin, but the buildings look too big... Broichmore (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Zeemeeuw or Zeeleeuw?

Hi Carl, Can you slide your ruler over this en:File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Het expeditieschip de Zeemeeuw in de Baai van Menado, met op de achtergrond de vulkanen Lokon en Empung TMnr 60010075.jpg. I think its the Zeemeeuw, 1878. Broichmore (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I can't find any mention of a Zeeleeuw ship in that era. The Dutch Navy has used it since, for as submarine and maybe other ships, but seemingly not at that time. There were multiple Zeemeeuw ships those, as you note, so that seems more likely (though there were ships named Zwaluw). What makes you think it's the 1878 one? I see one from 1870[1], possibly others from the 1890s or maybe 1906 (though they could be refit dates). Are there other photos of that ship somewhere to help verify? On the other hand, the ship in File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Het expeditieschip de Zeemeeuw in de Baai van Menado, met op de achtergrond de vulkanen Lokon en Empung TMnr 60010075.jpg is definitely not the same ship as in File:Children paddling the proa of protestant missionary Van Hasselt, ... - Collectie stichting Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen - TM-60010069.jpg, so not sure why they are in the same ship category. The Gouvernmentsmarine had a bunch of ships in that era, but documentation on them seems hard to come by, though https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.showadvancedform has a ship-name field that sometimes has photos of those older ships. Not had much luck with this Zeemeeuw though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my error; there is another ship, there, the Bensbach. File:Het schip de "Bensbach" op de rede van Manokwari - Collectie stichting Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen - TM-60010071.jpg. I cant find any detail on it though.

As for 1878. The ship the Colonial Government steamer Zeemeeuw had earler paid a visit to the Mapia Islands in 1896. read the reference. Along with the dimensions seem right?

Compare these two images File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Het expeditieschip de Zeemeeuw in de Baai van Menado, met op de achtergrond de vulkanen Lokon en Empung TMnr 60010075 (cropped).jpg and that of File:Het Militair Exploratie-Detachement in Zuid-Nieuw-Guinea, 1907-1910, KITLV 30856 (cropped).jpg. Could this be the same ship or at least the same class? Broichmore (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks closer to the Category:Glatik (ship, 1895)‎, but yes, there were a bunch of similar sister-ish ships, most of which we don't have photos of. I do see here there was a ship in 1917 named Zeemeeuw with a call sign of GSNK. In 1892 and 1890 though, a similar publication had two ships named Zeemeeuw in the area, one a "Schroefstoomschip" with call sign GSCQ, and one a "Loods-transportstoomer" with call sign GRDC. And I do see an 1879 publication that talked about two recently arrived steamers Havik and Zeemeeuw. There is a photo supposedly of the Havik here, which looks somewhat similar. So yes, I'd have to agree that is the one which seems most likely. Forgot to check the British shipbuilders, thanks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Actor Anita Stewart on a 10-inch Ceramic Souvenir Plate. Vitagraph Studios publicity item.jpg

File:Actor Anita Stewart on a 10-inch Ceramic Souvenir Plate. Vitagraph Studios publicity item.jpg is one of the many files that are related to COM:VPC#PD-US-no notice usage. The plate itself may date back to 1916, but obviously that would pre-date {{PD-US-no notice}}. The problem is (I guess) whether the photograph sourced to wfpp.columbia.edu/pioneer/ccp-anita-stewart/ dates back that far. This seems highly unlikely, though it is possible that someone associated with the WFPP is actually the "private collection" the photo is attributed to or otherwise took the photo themselves. Either way, there's no way to verify the photo falls under "PD-US-ineligible". Given that the original content on the source website is likely protected by copyright and that there's no clear way to figure out the provenance of the photo, I'm tempted to tag this as a Copyvio. Is it possible that the photo could be considered a case of COM:2D copying or would a commemorative plate be more akin to a 3D-work-of-art and thus the photo a COM:DW? The shape of the plate itself is almost certainly utilitarian and the artwork on the plate might be PD-ART, but the photo isn't being claimed as "own work" and I'm not sure whether the photo is eligible for its own copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the photo has a copyright (even if the plate does not), and the EXIF dates it as taken in 2011. By our current standards, photos of coins can have a copyright, and that photo is more copyrightable than that. So, we would need a license for the photo. If the plate was much newer, the shape of the plate is not copyrightable (it is utilitarian), but the separable artwork on the plate is copyrightable, so the photo would be a derivative work -- but given that the plate is likely pre-1926 that is moot. But there is still the copyright in the photo which needs a license. Giving fair use rationale on the image page is usually a red flag on Commons. Possibly if the photo was cropped to just the artwork it might be OK (if that is pretty much a copy of the 2-D artwork at that point). But not the whole photo. (We crop photos which contain painting frames, for example.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Cropping is an option that can work well with paintings because the frame isn't really essential to the painting itself. Would a crop need to just get rid of the lace background or would it also need to remove everything outside of the gold center circle? Personally, I think the image is used pretty decoratively with the only mention of a souvenir plate being quite general in en:Anita Stewart#Vitagraph Studios and thus losing it wouldn't really be a great loss; moreover, it's unlikely use of the photo could be justified as acceptable per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy despite the claims made in the faux-rationale on the file's page. If, however, cropping is a way to save it then perhaps that should be at least explored. I can ask about that at COM:GL/P. What would be the best license for the artwork? {{PD-Art}}? {{PD-Old}}? {{PD-US}}? Some combination of licenses? For reference, en:Vitagraph Studios was based in the US, but I've got no idea who did the artwork for the plate. I'm assuming that given how old the plate is and that it was likely a work-for-hire that there would be no p.m.a. issues, but that's nothing I can verify for sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, you'd have to crop it enough for {{PD-Art}} to apply. That gets a little difficult with a circular subject, and removing any 3-Dish aspects. The art itself is PD-US-expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I started COM:GL/P#Crop a commemorative plate. Maybe someone can create a decent crop. If not, then I'll either nominate or tag the file for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone cropped the photo as File:Actor Anita Stewart on a 10-inch Ceramic Souvenir Plate. Vitagraph Studios publicity item (cropped).png. Do you think the crop is OK for Commons? Should the uncropped version be tagged for deletion if the crop is OK? If the crop is OK, then perhaps the thing to do would be to get rid of that faux-rationale and relicense the file. Do you think the {{PD-US-expired}} license is sufficient on its own? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I would use PD-Art|PD-US-expired . Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the licensing and description of the cropped version. Would you mind checking it to see if what I did is OK? If not, feel free to tweak things as necessary. As for the uncropped file, I will ask a Commons admin about it to see whether it should go to DR or can be tagged for speedy deletion. Thanks again for all your help in trying to sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I asked an admin about this at User talk:Explicit#Question about original and cropped versions of same image and it seems there might still be copyright issues with the crop. So, perhaps the original cannot be cropped without VRT verifying the copyright holders CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

What matters is if the remaining portion of the photo qualifies for {{PD-Art}} or not. If it does, then there is no copyrightable expression left in the crop. If the remains are effectively 2-D, and the photo is straight-on, it should be fine. We have, in the past, kept photos of paintings where we cropped out the frame (a 3-D element) and left just the painting portion, as that portion of the photo was PD-ineligible. There is some gray area around when exactly does it become "effectively" 2-D when the original object isn't quite 2D. If someone wants to nominate on that basis, that's fine, we can have the discussion then. But just because a photo is copyrightable does not necessarily mean a crop is -- the copyright in a photo is not the subject itself, but the framing, angle, timing, and element like that. PD-Art is ineligible for copyright precisely because those elements become unoriginal -- the framing is decided by the painting itself, the angle is straight-on, etc. In this case, the framing of the photo and the choice of background to create the full image is probably enough -- but those are gone. We do deem photos of coins as 3-D objects (out of caution), so it doesn't take much, but I'm not sure the very slight curve of the bottom of a bowl is really enough to give rise to a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

What you're stating makes sense to me; however, what Explicit stated also makes sense to me. Ideally, a crop of freely licensed photo uploaded to Commons would be much easier to deal with, but this is not really that kind of situation. Could it possibly depend on who took the original photo that was cropped? Just for the sake of argument, if I take a photo of a PD painting and its frame, then there are three elements in play, right? The painting, the frame, and my photo. If the painting is PD and the photo is freely licensed, then that only leaves the frame to take care off. If the frame can be cropped out then everything else is OK, right? I'm not totally sure, however, what happens when were dealing with the same situation except the photo was taken by a third-party. I'm trying to make the best out of this and keep the file if it can at all be possibly kept, but I'm not going devote tons of time trying to argue in favor of keeping a file that I didn't upload if there are reasonable concerns as to whether Commons should keep it. This is particularly true in a case like this where the uploader doesn't seem to care one iota and seems to be expecting others come in and clean up their mess. I will feel a little bad though if it turns out I asked someone at COM:GL/P to crop a file that really shouldn't have been cropped. Please understand I'm not venting in your direction per se and truly appreciate all of the time and effort you've invested in this so far, even if the uploader probably doesn't care or know what's been going on. I just want try and get things as right as possible. I tagged the original file for speedy deletion with {{Npd}}. Maybe the thing to do would be to start a DR and see what the consensus might be. It seems a bit odd to keep a crop of a deleted file, but maybe that's not so uncommon a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it does not matter who takes the photo. If the photo is copyrightable, it needs a license -- in the end, it is copyrightable expression that needs a license. As PD-Art shows, there are certain photos which lose their copyrightable expression. When cropping to the painting, that removes any possibly copyrightable aspect of the photo, so the remainder is simply a copy of the painting, and the painting's copyright is the only thing left (no matter who took the photo). We allow such photos here, even if the photo itself has no explicit license (though that is still preferable, certainly). There is no identifiable expression left to license. It's not the frame which has a copyright (it's utilitarian usually), it's just that a wider crop puts the copyrightable aspects of a photo back in play. To me, what's left is simply a copy of the plate, with no additional creativity in the remaining part of the photo -- it's a straight on photo, and cropped per the plate itself. So I think it's fine. Agreed that it may be too much effort to help someone who does not understand copyright, doesn't care quite enough, for our standards -- but if that file is in use, then it could still help the project. The original photo definitely needs deletion; the crop though I think is PD-Art -- if you want to start a DR on it so that others weigh in and someone else decides, that's fine to. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I tagged the uncropped version with {{Npd}} and the uncropped version is using {{Extracted}} to link to the cropped version. The uploader has been notified that the uncropped has been tagged for speedy deletion; so, if they do nothing, the file will end up deleted. If the deleting admin also then deletes the crop, then that's the end of the story to me. If they don't delete the crop, then perhaps the crop is OK. At that point, I will ask the deleting admin about the crop to see whether it's OK. I don't think there's anything else that can be done with respect to that one particular file.

As for the other files, there were two which fell into the "After-1964" category: one seems to be licensed correcty but just had an incorrect date in the file name and the was licensed as "PD-US-no notice". I just made a {{Rename}} request for the former, but did start a DR for the latter at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seconds (1966 film). Joel Productions, Paramount Studios. Publicity photo. Director John Frankenheimer at left. Actor Rock Hudson, in background center.jpg. Once again, the uploader has been notified so they can comment if they want. There are seventeen files in the "Pre-1926" category and among these three (File:Herbert Brenon, film director, Cropped image of original photo, July 8, 1916.jpg, File:White Tiger (1923 film). Universal studios, publicity still. Tod Browning, director.jpg and File:King Vidor, American film director (1894-1982).jpg) are licensed as "PD-US-notice" and one (File:Cinélux poster for M-G-M's 1925 The Unholy Three. Directed by Tod Browning.jpg is licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. The first three might simply need to be converted to a different license (though I'm not so sure about the colorized publicity still), but last one licensed as cc-by-sa-4.0 is a concern because it's sourced to the website of "fine artist, painter and muralist" and it's unclear whether it's a derivative work of the original poster. I'm also a little unsure about File:Motion Picture Magazine, April 1919. Anita Stewart. Publicity portrait.jpg and File:Outside the Law (1920 film), Universal Studios Lobby Poster, 1921. Directed by Tod Browning.jpg because of their colorization. The remaining seventy files all fall in the "1926 to 1963" and these are probably going to be the more difficult ones to resolve since most of the sources provided are COM:PRS type of websites. It might be better to divide these up by source website than try and discuss them all in the same DR. -- 04:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I went through the ones you mention, and fixed some to be PD-US-expired. The licensing on a couple others was also fine (one done by Prosfilaes). A couple of the colorized ones were colored at the time (magazine cover and poster), no issue. File:Cinélux poster for M-G-M's 1925 The Unholy Three. Directed by Tod Browning.jpg] is a French work with a named author, so I nominated that one since we need to find that author's life dates. If you want to do a bulk nomination for the 1926-1963 works, and see if anyone wants to do the copyright searches to save particular ones (provided we know the copyright owners to to search for, and years), that would be fine I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I'll give the 1926-1963 files another look over and see if I can find any information on some of them before starting a DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Just adding a link to Commons:Deletion requests/PD-US-no notice files uploaded by Lord Such&Such as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Just letting you know about User talk:Yann#Crop from a deleted file as a courtesy. You might also want to take a look at User talk:Lord Such&Such#File:Cinélux poster for M-G-M's 1925 The Unholy Three. Directed by Tod Browning.jpg since the response posted there appears to be intended for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I saw your response to the uploader's user talk page post about File:Cinélux poster for M-G-M's 1925 The Unholy Three. Directed by Tod Browning.jpg. I'm not so sure that this photo could be moved to Wikipedia unless you mean it would be OK to do so under a en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad license. If, on the other hand, you mean as it could be reuploaded as non-free content, then I think it would be pretty hard to justify another non-free movie poster's use in en:The Unholy Three (1925 film) and the file would likely end up deleted given the way it's currently being used. Anyway, thank you for at least trying to help sort of these files out and helping to try and explain things to the uploader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It's PD-US-expired-abroad on en-wiki. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Ciudad de Valencia (ship, 1984)

Thanks, as always, for the ship IDs! I'm not sure that File:At La Palma 2021 0291.jpg matches Category:Ciudad de Valencia (ship, 1984) though - the ship shown in File:Barcos atracados Almería.JPG looks quite different? Possibly it's a new one from 2020? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Right you are, thanks. Usually those ferry ships already have categories, so I barely even looked when the category name autocompleted itself with no alternatives. Turns out the category did exist, but with a typo in the name, and no IMO parent cat. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, looks better now! And thanks in general for your work with categorising ship photos! I always take a photo when I see a different ship nowadays, knowing you'll identify and categorise it, while trying not to take too many duplicates! :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Another no-notice photo

Hi Clindberg. What do you think about File:War and Peace (1956 film). Ponti-De Laurentiis Cinematografica, Paramount Pictures. Publicity still.. L to R, actor Audrey Hepburn, director King Vidor.jpg? Another one just recently upload by the same uploader as before where there’s no real information provided that this was actually published without a notice. The source provided for this file is not as questionable as some of the ones provided for the other files, but it’s almost certainly not the original source of the image and there’s otherwise no other information provided about the true source of the image. I’m beginning to think this editor actually believes that a photo taken sometime between 1926 and 1978 that appears anywhere online (even decades after it was supposed to have been taken) without a notice automatically makes the photo PD. -— Marchjuly (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: No, again. To be PD-US-no_notice, a photo had to be actually distributed at the time, with no copyright notice on it. A notice could technically have been on the back. So the preferable upload is a scan of the back, followed by a scan of the full front of the physical item (no crops), which an overwrite that first upload. If you want to crop, that would be a third overwrite upload, so at least the evidence for PD-US-no_notice is present. If there's no indication that the photo was actually published/distributed at the time, or it's not a scan of the entire photo (i.e. a crop), it's not enough evidence by itself. For a pre-1964 work, you almost hope to find a copyright notice, because then you know what to search for at www.copyright.gov (and what year), and proving PD-US-not_renewed becomes much easier. I have not found any source which shows this as an actual publicity photograph at the time, though it certainly could have been. This different publicity photo from that film shows a copyright notice, so most likely (if this was a publicity shot published at the time, and not years later) it did have a notice. Given that, a picture of the full original front may be enough evidence, but we would need at least that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. There is also another PR photo from the same file found on that eBay page and it has the same copyright notice; so, I think it's fair to assume that they most likely all had. Now, the question is whether it that would be enough to reasonably assume {{PD-US-not renewed}} as you've queried above. I think that maybe might be best to DR separately instead of mixing it in with the others since it might be easier to sort out on its own. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do here. The uploader has just seemed to randomly change the licensing of File:King Vidor (director) and actor Marion Davies on the set of The Patsy (1928 film). Davies imitating Gloria Swanson.jpg and File:King Vidor (director) and actor Marion Davies on the set of The Patsy (1928 film). Davies imitating Lillian Gish.jpg to {{PD-US-not renewed}} without giving any clarification as to why. Perhaps there was a reason for doing this and they will eventually clarify what it was, but if they're just going to start relicensing their uploads as "not renewed", then they're not really addressing the issues with their uploads. I'm more concerned, however, about the uploading and licensing of File:Cover of the first edition of War Porn.jpg. I can't see how this possibly is {{PD-text}}, but again I might be missing something important. Basically, this kind of boilerplate claim could apply to any book cover that happens to have text (e.g. a book review) on the cover in addition to images. This indicates (at least to me) that there's something about COM:L that's not really being understood and there's no indication that it's ever going to be understood. That perhaps is a bit harsh of an assessment, but I'm not seeing any reason to think otherwise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

They are still marked for deletion. Changing to not-renewed doesn't really change anything, at least with no provided evidence (what years did they search for, what copyright owners, etc.). That said, the first two show on Alamy as stock photos, so they aren't particularly worried about a copyright owner, so they probably actually are PD. I have not found evidence of their actually being publicity photos though -- it's possible they only showed up years later, but no idea. But if they are in multiple collections, then they were published at some point. The odds are very low for them still to be under copyright. No evidence was supplied, but I wouldn't worry too much if those are kept. The third one is clearly copyrightable, and has been nominated already. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The book cover has already been deleted. I'm not sure why the uploader thought it might be {{PD-text}}. but there's probably nothing to gain by asking them at this point. The other files are, as you point out, still part of that DR. Perhaps the uploader will clarify their reasons for changing the licenses. That DR is likely going to remain open for quite some time given the number of files that are listed; so, perhaps the uploader or someone else will be able then in the meantime. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Assistance request

Hi Carl: Please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Surboni who says that a particular Iranian publishing house is entirely free of copyright. As you will easily see, the uploader provided maps with no provenance, during the DN, he has stated the origin and the copyright free nature of the material. I am seeking your advice on this as I do not have your experience with this. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Super Mario Bros World 1-1 2021-12-26.gif

Hi Carl, Your opinion would be useful here. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright of 3D objects in free license pictures

Hi Carl, Your opinion would be useful here: COM:VPC#Copyright of 3D objects in free license pictures. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Mexican copyright question

Hi Clindberg. I believe the OP has a follow up question for you at COM:VPC#Mexican copyright question. The OP also subsequently asked about the same thing at COM:HD#Using images I created from pictures taken of a mural in Mexico. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

copyright status of mural in UK

Hi Clindberg, would you mind to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Street Art by Graffiti Life.jpg, which is about an elaborated mural (labelled graffiti) in the U.K.? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Photos of Logos

I am planning to meet with some people from Suffolk Camra this week to discuss Wikidata and collaboration. However I came across File:Camra bar towel.JPG which I feel might have copyright problems. I have tried looking for a way to raise this with the community, but have not found a clear way to do so. I would appreciate any help you could offer as you are experienced in this area. Leutha (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Leutha: My guess is that the logo is below the U.S. threshold of originality, but the UK may well be different. The file en:File:CAMRAlogo.svg, which is the straight logo, is marked that way and is uploaded to en-wiki only accordingly. The towel photo could be moved to en-wiki to preserve it. But otherwise, you could use the "Nominate for deletion" link in the left-hand sidebar when viewing the image page to raise the discussion. If there is any chance that CAMRA could license the logo (copyright only; trademark would not need to be licensed), that would be nice of course. But that doesn't happen much. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Clindberg: , that's really helpful. I'll think it through before I meet with them, and maybe raise the matter with them and see what their response is. They're a consumer group and maybe more open than other sorts of organisations. Leutha (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Casting a bell.jpg

Would you please discuss (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Casting a bell.jpg) for problematic license with a credit line "© Rob Fritsen/SIRIS" from Flickr, also carries copyright symbol. --GibbonConnection (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Wolseley photo

Thanks again for all that help. Do you think the Bassano photo would be okay to upload on en-wiki, assuming the copyright has expired in the US? Surtsicna (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The U.S. copyright depends on the date of publication. You would need to show it was published more than 95 years ago. Most of the time it would have been, but since the explicit source is a glass negative given to the NPG in 1974, it's possible it was an unused negative until then, in which case the U.S. copyright is still valid. So yes, if U.S. copyright has expired you can upload it there, but if that's the case then copyright has also almost certainly expired in the UK (70 years from publication) and you could also upload it here. The NPG sometimes also has old prints as well as the glass negatives, which demonstrates publication at the time, but it's dicier with the glass negatives alone. If you can find some evidence of publication before the 1920s, it should be fine to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll do some more digging then! Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

UDR

Hi Carl, Your opinion would be most useful in this UDR about interpretation of Bridgeman, and in this one about the Pokemon Jet. Thanks in advance. Yann (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Ferrari F1-75 in Melbourne.jpg

Hi, User:Túrelio referred me to your advice regarding this discussion :) ---- BouncyCactus (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion can definitely be closed due to both reaching consensus and removal of the contentious issue. Would you mind doing it? Thanks :) ---- BouncyCactus (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

sorry, I mistakenly thought you were an admin ;) BouncyCactus (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi

Hi Carl, I would like your opinion about the US copyright status of these books, mostly because of URAA. There are in the public domain in India, but the copyright status in USA is unclear. 99% of Gandhi's works were published in his life time, so these are reprints in a compound collection by the government of India. Translators and prefaces' author(s) are not mentioned, so the copyright essentially belonged to the Indian government, except may be for short texts by Rajendra Prasad, then President of India, and Jawaharlal Nehru, then Prime Minister. So the question is whether URAA applies for works copyrighted by the government of India, and for reprints of earlier works. See the first volume: File:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 1.pdf (I uploaded different scans, one over the others). I intend to delete the volumes 32 and later (works first published after 1926) if they are still copyrighted in USA. Thanks in advance, Yann (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in the URAA which would avoid restoring works owned by governments (other than the Alien Property Custodian works, avoiding restoration of Nazi stuff). I'm not a huge fan of deleting other government works beyond the term they set for themselves though; it seems to me that could be a form of PD-author. The UK, and some other governments which inherited their copyright such as Canada and Australia have confirmed that the expiration there applies worldwide, but don't think we have similar confirmation from India, though they also inherited UK copyright law.

On the other hand, the copyright on the book does say Navajivan Trust, so the core material is likely not the governments'. India went from 50pma to 60pma in 1991, non-retroactively, which means died before 1941 (or published before 1941 for publication-based terms) is the URAA line. Gandhi of course lived to 1948, so his works were still copyrighted in India in 1996, so I don't see how the underlying work would not have been restored. For any translations published anonymously before 1941, the derivative expression is OK, and if additional material authored by the government was published before 1941, also fine. For government-authored works after that... depends on how strict you'd want to get with the URAA as mentioned above (may not be worth it). But Gandhi's own copyright on the originals seems quite plain that it was restored, and is still under U.S. copyright, and these are at best derivative works of that (if not translated by Gandhi himself). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but please note than Navajivan Trust is not a private editor, it is the government publishing house for Gandhi's works. Each volume has a mention published by "the Director, Publications Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India". Yann (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: Navajivan Trust says it was founded in 1929 by Gandhi, which would seem to be completely a non-government thing. The publication you mention was indeed published by the government, but it also says the content was "By Kind Permission of Navajivan Trust, Ahmedabad" and gives an explicit copyright to the trust (although with a year of 1969, so that would only be any additional expression added in that second edition). The government there was only the publisher, not the author or copyright owner, other than the foreword. It's possible the originals were published by Gandhi in English; no idea. Obviously, anything first published before 1927 is fine in the U.S. today, regardless of the URAA. New editions would not change that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but today Navajivan Trust is not a private company. It sells Gandhi's books at a subsidized price. Yann (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The question is what it was when those works were published. And honestly, I don't see anything at http://www.navajivantrust.org to indicate it's part of the government -- they can still be a private company yet still be subsidized by the government. For the UK, things like the BBC are separate enough to maintain their own copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleting category IMO 9871529

Hi fellow wikipedian

I would like to inquire about the rason for deleting the IMO Number I have added as category to all World Voyager images listed on wikimediacommons. The IMO number is the only permanet identifier linked to a modern day vessel. Name, call sign, MMSI number and various other attributions may change during its life cycle. From my point of view the Category IMO number is therefore the most valid and useful one to follow a vessel all the way from cradle to grave hence I added it Is there anything wrong with adding the category IMO 9871529 to these 28 frames of World Voyager (ship, 2020) ?

Best --Virtual-Pano (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Virtual-Pano: I removed them due to COM:OVERCAT. For each IMO number, we have a subcategory with a ship name (and build year). That category (Category:World Voyager (ship, 2020) in this case) is in the IMO category, thus by proxy, all images in that category are also inside the IMO category. I did a "move" to the named subcat, but I guess all photos were also already in the ship name category too, so it effectively just removed the IMO setting. The ship name page should have a box with a link to go back to the IMO category, where I typically put the ship details. For links coming from other wikis, they would go to the IMO category, but we break up the photos by ship name first, and basically never have any photos directly categorized into the IMO. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I did make a mistake that also removed the IMO category from the ship category; I need to remember to avoid that in Cat-a-lot. I did fix that, thanks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Smirnoff Red Label 8213.jpg

Hi Clindberg. Do you think this possible has issue per COM:Packaging? Are to five coat-of-arms like elements at the bottom of the label significant enough to require blurring? Just curious because of this discussion about another similar (but perhaps more complex) file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That is pretty much directly on point with s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.. Photos of the entire bottle are not derivative of the label, even if it is copyrightable. Only photos focusing on the label. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm assuming then that same reasoning would be applicable to something such as en:File:Evolutionbisson.jpg as long as the copyright status of photo isn't an issue. Does the same reasoning also apply to other bottled products or does it only apply to alcohol? Does it also only apply to glass? Could the same be argued for a bottle of window cleaner, fabric softener, hot sauce, contact lens solution, soda, etc.? I've seen some files on Commons in which the labeling has been blurred out and these were photos of the entire bottle not just the label. I've only seen photos of bottle products treated as non-free content on English Wikipedia since the labeling was deemed too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection. I'm wondering how Ets-Hokin might apply to such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the principle is that a copyrighted element that is incidental to the overall subject seems to be OK. In other words, the photos is focusing on the utilitarian bottle, and the label is unavoidable. So when taking a picture of a larger subject, copyrightable works that happen to be there are OK. The problem comes in when the subject of the photograph itself is copyrightable, or when a photographer intentionally includes copyrightable expression that was not inherently there. Photographs of packaging boxes are harder, because often it's entirely covered with the copyrightable artwork. Another example was a photographer taking fashion photos, who had the model wear a pair of very fancy glasses (which were copyrighted). Since in that case the photographer intentionally included someone else's expression to enhance his photograph, it was derivative. On the other hand, a photograph of a motorcycle with a painted design on it was OK, since the focus of the photo was the entire motorcycle and the artwork was inherently there. Or a case in France, where a photo of a street which had a prominent skyscraper at the end was ruled not derivative -- the focus was a wider scene, the street, and the building was inherently there. There are no clear lines, but those seem to be the best lines I can guess at, using those limited court cases we have on stuff like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for clarifying. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask about a couple of specific files. File:Siracha sauce.jpg seems fine based on what you posted above, but File:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg and File:PixelatedHuyFongSriracha.jpg had their label imagery partially removed (see file's talk page for more) or pixelated. On English Wikipedia, there are sometimes files like en:File:Cola Couronne bottle.jpg which have a non-free license for the labeling and a free license for the photo. Do either of those files fit in with your understanding of Ets-Hokin or does their touching up or multiple licensing seem odd. I understand that US case law might not directly apply to them per se, but just wondering if, in principle, they were originally OK as uploaded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2022-04#File:Volker_Burkert.jpg

I've been working on the VRT ticket for this image from Jefferson Labs, and got word that it's clearly in the public domain. The relevant bits from the representative's email are "All of the images that we generate are in the public domain ... Images that were not generated by the lab are credited with the “Image/Photo: credit” or “Image/Photo courtesy of credit” wording in the image caption", so there should be a number of other useful images available from jlab.org. In that undeletion discussion you said "We should probably have a custom license tag for that site". Is that something you work with, or is there someone else more suited to it? I haven't made a licensing template here on commons in a decade, and I can't say I particularly want to dive back into it just at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If their works are public domain via contract with the government, maybe PD-USGov works. But if we have a VRT ticket which says that, it probably deserves its own tag, with the guidance they give. It's been a while since I've done a tag. I don't have access to VRT though, and some of that would need to be incorporated. Maybe it could be similar to {{PD-LosAlamos}} if it's an attribution-style license, or maybe {{PD-USNWR}} if it's truly public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me at those. I guess I'll try to find the closest one and just copy from it. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Bag balm.jpg

Hi Clindberg. Do you think Ets-Hokin would also apply to this file? It actually appears that two tins were photographed side-by-side to show not only the side labelling but also the top labelling. While this could be similar to a bottle in which it's hard to photograph the side of the tin without including the logo label; the addition of the top imagery seems unnecessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, would have to think that is there to focus on the packaging artwork -- the topside artwork was explicitly arranged to make it visible, and the artwork is pretty much the entire top. The right half probably OK as de minimis anyways, as it's only a small graphic in the middle which would be copyrightable, but the one on the left, not so much. That is intentionally focusing on the artwork, to me.

On the other hand, that looks like a very, very dated illustration. If that was pretty much the same artwork as on pre-1989 versions of the product, which given a quick Internet search seems to be the case[2], then it would have been PD-US-no_notice long ago. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. Apparently, based upon this discussion at en:User talk:JJMC89#BagBalm refund?, there was another file being used prior to the uploading of this Commons file. The other one was a local file uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free content. A non-free file wouldn't be allowed if this one on Commons can be kept or if another freely licensed photo of product the could be taken and uploaded. The company's official website, however, shows a slightly different logo being used on its products: similar cow imagery but looks a tad bit different to me. If the cow imagery dates quite a ways back as you opine, then perhaps a cleaner version of the logo could be uploaded to Commons; if not, then it might need to be treated as fair use and uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Even if it's a tad different, most of the expression would be PD, and only the changes (which could easily be de minimis) would be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll wait and see what happens over on English Wikipedia. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If the company's products appeared in print ads prior to 1977 without a copyright notice, then would that apply to just that particular ad itself or to the product packaging as well. For example, an old ad for XYZ Chocolate shows the entire front face of the product packaging which includes the company's logo. There's no copyright notice provided for the ad and there's no copyright notice visible on the front of the packaging as well (the back is unclear). Does the lack of either notice mean the packaging logo is {{PD-US-no notice}}? What if there's no notice for the ad but a visible notice on the product packaging and vice versa? What if the same ad is published in multiple papers, sometimes with a notice and sometimes without? This is an interesting question to me for a number of reasons, but also because of COM:HD#Help with Copyright. Was a visible copyright notice required for each instance of publication under the copyright laws during that period of time? Would a single instance of publication without a copyright notice (for whatever reason) mean that all prior instances of publication and future instance of publication be considered "no notice"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

War of the Worlds 1938 Radio Broadcast

Hi Carl, Could you please give your opinion about this file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:War-of-the-Worlds-1938-Radio-Broadcast-136kbps-cleaned.mp3? Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

US Advertisements

Hi Carl, Do you confirm that these advertisements (Commons:Deletion requests/File:December 1983 One on One Dr J vs Larry Bird advertisement by Electronic Arts.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:November 1983 Pitstop advertisement by Epyx.jpg) are in the public domain? Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Great Seal of Montana.svg

Hi Clindberg. I some questions about File:Great Seal of Montana.svg. FWIW, I came upon this file via User talk:Yann#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dell Chromebook 3100 2-in-1.jpg since Montana was specifically cited as a state for which the work of state employees are legally within the public domain. This file's licensing isn't making such a claim per se, but it does seem to claim that the state seal was created by US government employee (CDC employee) which seems odd for an official state seal. Something similar seems to be being done for File:Montana-StateSeal-NARA.svg. I'm wondering if these files are OK because the original seal (File:Seal of Montana.svg) appears to have lapsed into the public domain because of its age. I'm also wondering whether File:State seal of Montana with text removed.png is OK as licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The actual drawing of a design is an independent copyright from the general design, which is almost always public domain (see Commons:Coats of arms). Each drawing can therefore be different, and carry a completely different copyright tag. The U.S. Government did have a series of state seals presumably drawn by federal government artists for government-wide use. Vector versions showed up in some CDC documents I found and then uploaded as SVGs a long time ago, and a U.S. embassy site had bitmap versions of the exact same drawings (see the {{US state seal from usembassy.de}} tag for bitmaps uploaded from that source). File:Montana-StateSeal-NARA.svg indeed was in a NARA document that I found, so I did presume that the actual drawing was done by a federal government employee. Drawings that you find on state government sites are typically then under copyright by the state, and we can't upload those. Very old drawings have likely lapsed, of course, regardless of who drew them. The drawings themselves are not considered a derivative work of a written design (since no expression is copied really), rather they are separate expressions of the same idea, and thus have independent copyrights (see Idea–expression distinction). Additionally, the written seal design is typically part of state law, so is {{PD-EdictGov}} anyways. So, the seals from federal government sources are OK, and seal drawings from very old sources are OK. Specific drawings from other sources would have to be evaluated independently. I don't believe Montana is a state where state government works are considered public domain (Commons:Deletion requests/Montana government works, and the Harvard site does not have any indication that the state considers its works public domain). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I understand what you're saying about the en:blazon being not eligible for copyright protection and, thus, any visual representation (i.e. interpretation) of it not necessarily being a derivative work. However, I'm wondering if the updated version of the file based on "workover from multiple sources" is an issue since it's slightly different from the one you originally uploaded. Do these multiple sources need to be identified or can it just be assumed to be another "representation"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought he just made coloring changes; when I looked at them closely I did not see any actual linear changes other than removal of the outer black outline. But if he did retrace a portion based on a copyrighted drawing, then yes there could be an issue. When I put both versions in separate tabs in Safari, and flip back and forth between the tabs, I pretty much just see coloring changes which I don't think is enough for a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. FWIW, that's all it looks like to me as well. Would such a thing, in principle, be considered another representation? What would be the case if the blazon mentions a specific color or colors for that particular element? What about the removal of certain text like is done in File:State seal of Montana with text removed.png? How much deviation from a blazon is allowed before a representation is no longer considered to be a representation (if that makes sense)? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It could be a different representation, I guess. Most descriptions specify a basic color but virtually any shade of it would be technically OK. If the blazon specifies a particular color and a drawing does not have that, it would not change the copyright aspect at all but it would be an incorrect emblazonment which should probably be fixed for educational purposes unless it was intentionally that way for some reason. The text removal one likely means it's technically not a representation of the seal as-is (though not all seals specify that such text need be there). In heraldry, you aren't allowed to add any major pictorial elements that the blazon does not mention, but small decorations can still be OK. But just about any artistic approach that still conforms to the blazon is a representation of the coat of arms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

20th Century Fox and Studios logos

Hi Carl, It's me again... ;) Could you please give your opinion about Commons:Deletion requests/File:TCFlogo.png. What are the requirements for these to be in the public domain? Does one copy missing a notice or a renewal is enough? See also my post on COM:VPC#20th Century Fox and Studios logos. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The law allows a relative few to be published without notice. It wasn't mentioned in law before 1978, but courts kind of did the same thing. I can't find the paper now, but someone compiled some court cases, and up to around 100 was often "few" (compared to a widely-issued publication), and 200 or so was often not. But if an advertisement was likely run in many many papers, we could probably assume that was enough. You did need notices on all copies, other than after 1978 when you could actually register the work within five years to regain copyright. On the other hand, just being *similar* to old PD versions may not be enough -- the more modern additions could carry a derivative copyright on their own. It would be best to find pretty much that exact drawing in older publications. Small variations would not add much, but say a different drawing of the searchlights would. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No Known Copyright

Hey there! Since there are a few examples of "no known restrictions" templates that have lasted for years on Commons without being disallowed, I wondered what you thought about having a new copyright template for the RightsStatements.org "No Known Copyright" statement, which is applied by many cultural institutions. There are about 150K items in DPLA using this statement, so it's not just hypothetical. Some could be uploaded right away, but I have shied away from it so far. I started a draft template at {{NKC}} just to demonstrate. Do you see any issues with this? And do you have any idea of the best way to get assent form the community before using it widely? My main idea would be to run it by COM:VP/C, unless you have other thoughts as well. Thanks! Dominic (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"No known copyright restrictions" (a term first used by the Library of Congress, and then by the Flickr Commons stuff they helped start) is really just a more-accurate synonym for what we call "public domain" (which we use in a copyright-specific context, though in general use it may not be copyright-specific). However, Commons has long required a specific reason something is public domain -- {{PD}} is a disallowed template, which is what a template like this would amount to. I don't think it's a good idea for general use. We generally trust the institutions which have made this determination, at least for the institution's country, so those works should usually be uploadable. However, the tag itself should then be a specific reason it's public domain, which may be hard for a bot. It is rather similar to the {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} tag, though. That is an actual tag for reasons 3 and 4, though reasons 1 and 2 really should have another more specific tag applied. Maybe we could have a version for DPLA institutions which is similar, to make bot-uploading easier, with possible later vetting by the community of individual files much like the Flickr one. I'd be wary of making it a general-purpose tag that anyone can use though, since for individual uploads a more specific tag should be required. So something with "DPLA" in the name, which can only be used on files from that location, might work. I would run it by VP/C like you suggest, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Definition of publication

Hi Carl, Could you please add your opinion about the definition of publication in this discussion? There are also undeletion requests about this issue. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

How about Carl writing a few sentences at Commons:Publication on the case law where an image leaves the custody of the creator. Rosenweig was the biggest obstacle, and now appears to be onboard with the concept. The current wording just uses ambiguous legalese. --RAN (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on transitionary provisions

Hello Clindberg! May I request for an input from you regarding transitionary provisions in pending IP amendment bills now being discussed at WP:WikiProjoct Philippines? At w:en:Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Copyright law amendment bills. Since I could remember you made me familiar with such part of copyright laws, though I couldn't remember where area or forum in Commons the old discussion is found. Thanks for your reply, be it affirmative or negative. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Clindberg. The said bills are:

• House Bill 799 (transitionary clause at Section 266)
• House Bill 2672 (no transitionary clause, perhaps just an amendment by itself and not replacement)
• House Bill 3838 (transitionary clause at Section 263, apparently more straight to the point as repealing clause).

The FOP clause of the 3 bills are identical to the deprecated House Bill 8620 in the 18th (last) Congress. For HB 799, Section 206(m) [p. 79]; for HB 2672, Section 48 of the bill; for HB 3838, Section 203(m) [p. 85]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Usually when something becomes legal like this, there isn't much appetite to prosecute any previous violations, which would have been legal today. There isn't anything special in terms of repealing old laws which are getting replaced; any acts going forward would be judged by the new law. Section 262 in the first link (and 259 in the third), which preserves rights, could be a gray area -- if you claim that derivative rights over public works were previously acquired. But that seems like a stretch. Other than that, I don't see anything offhand which specifically addresses existing works which would qualify for FoP. Any new exploitation would seem to be covered under the new law, so FoP should be fine going forward, I'd guess, if laws like that end up getting passed.

BTW, most FoP provisions in law include the text (or something similar) to Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention when giving possible exceptions to copyright, "provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author". I usually take that to mean that you can't for example take photos of other photos, since copies would directly compete with the original, but most laws simply repeat the (somewhat vague) wording in order to be sure to comply with the Berne Convention. I did not look to see if that text was anywhere in the proposed laws, but did not see it nearby the FoP provision. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Clindberg, I meant that if the bill really "repeals" the current law (which is evident at House Bill 3838), it may not cover works that by then have been destroyed or removed, even if the artist's or original owner's intent was to have it placed permanently, notably w:en:Bust of Ferdinand Marcos and w:en:Filipina Comfort Women. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If they were permanent at the time that the photograph was made, would seem fine. I don't see anything in the law which would prescribe different treatment for older works like that versus new ones. A new exploitation of the older photograph would almost certainly come under the newer law, so if the new law doesn't treat existing photos different than new ones, don't see where the problem could be. The only slight gray area there would be the "preservation of existing rights", if such derivative rights on permanently-placed works are considered existing rights, but ... that seems like a stretch to me, since that would also cover new photographs. Basically, I don't see how the same act of exploitation would be different based on the age of the photograph, without something explicit in the law specifying a difference. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood Clindberg. Anyway the "preservation of existing rights" provision already exists in the current law, as Section 237 of Republic Act 8293. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Cosplay

Do you happen to know of any references that might help me on this, other than the various Lucasfilms cases in the US and UK? --MichaelMaggs (talk)

(un)deletion of some of our files

Many thanks for your help and suggestions. We will proceed accordingly. With best, ESDC Secretariat

Help ...

Hello ... Pls Delete all Old & New version of this file

commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Harminder_Singh_official.JPG

• File:Harminder Singh official.JPG

Thanks  :)

« Wemmick's Castle »

Thanks for the information. You're absolutely right. The best thing is to remove the file from Commons. It's not all that important, since it's not a genuine illustration. Personally, I'm deleting from the article Les Grandes Espérances. Best wishes, Robert Ferrieux

VPC

Hopefully you took my comment in the spirit it was meant, as a 'teasing' joke. What you said was quite apt, just a bit of a 'wall of text'... I try to keep things friendly.. the OP's comment was rather not, so a bit of a digression seemed in order. Revent (talk)

Oh, no offense taken ;-) That's hardly my worst example of a stream-of-consciousness wall of text reply on here either... I have some pretty long ones sometimes ;-)

FYI

this got archived within hours. :-( Missed it?

Defend this licensing claim

Please defend this licensing claim for this anthem file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:State Ceremonial Music - God Save the Queen.ogg Also explain the en:Open Government License for non-commercial uses?

Image license on Indian state government

Hello Carl, I didn't check out your reply at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/09#Can_I_use_these_images_under_free_license?, untill today. Like you've suggested me that's it's fine to release these images mentioned on that website to be released under free licensing. However how sure are you about that? Because I've faced many several mixed reviews from it. Do let me know your views on it, Thanks.  Rejoy2003  21:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I wrote most of my opinions in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Indian Army, which had substantially the same wording, and that wording appears on some other (not all) Indian government websites. The wording rubs some people the wrong way for sure, but if it's interpreted as being part of moral rights, I think it's OK. I don't see that we should be rejecting some and allowing others when it's the same license really. But, we do need to be careful a work comes from a site with that license, and not assume all Indian government works are OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So what appropriate license tag should I use for this, if you could recommend one. Because for me it's very difficult to actually interpret and do anything  Rejoy2003  02:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That one may need its own tag, unfortunately. It would be similar to {{Indian Army}}, unfortunately that one was changed to look more like a CC license instead of the actual terms. The older version is likely better. That is a custom statement which a few Indian government websites use. At the moment, we probably need a special tag for each one, since we can't assume it for any Indian government site. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Ravensfire/Goa-Govt. Kind of a mix of the current version of Indian Army and what you had. Not finished quite yet, need to get docs copied over and give it a once-over, but suggestions/edits appreciated. Ravensfire (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: that's an interesting approach. I do prefer to use the explicit wording of the licenses, but it seems like you are doing that. Sure, go with that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that makes sense. Thanks for helping me out in this. So how can I start with the template suggestion? Do I need to bring this to the notice of the admins? Because I really would like to have all of my files uploaded on commons to stay instead them being deleted.  Rejoy2003  06:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Searching the US Copyright Office's online records

Hi Clindberg. Do you know how to search for copyright registration using cocatalog.loc.gov? I'm trying to find information that might help sort out Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hot Wheels logo.svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You can search on name of Mattel, but that has hordes of results. The "Set search limits" can help a little bit; you can look for a particular year, or you can limit to visual art registrations. Mattel registered a ton of stuff though. You can use "Hot Wheels" as a title instead; that also gets a fair number of hits. In the end, they could have registered something else with the logo on it, and that would count. Given the number of their registrations, I would have to assume the logo was registered one way or another. They would only have records from 1978 and onwards, though. Of course, being from after 1964, they never needed to register it anyways -- only if they published it without notice between 1978 and 1989 would that matter. I'm sure they did, likely as part of some other Hot Wheels product if nothing else. If they published it without notice before 1978, it would get more interesting, as you could argue no-notice on the logo of that era, and only small modifications between that older logo and newer ones. Of course, it's possible the vectorization could carry its own copyright separate from that of the visual result (the specific control points, etc.). That happened in one court case for vectorized versions of public domain property maps. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this. I tried as many keywords as I could think off (including the ones you mentioned), but also got lots of hits: apparently there are even some non-Mattel related entries for "Hot Wheels". Anyway, I think the subsequent comments made in the DR at least demonstrate that COM:PCP will kick in and the file will end up deleted, unless someone is able to find something that unequivocally states (e.g. a declined application for copyright) that the version of the logo uploaded to Commons is not eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:N72EX by Don Ramey Logan.jpg

Hi Clindberg. Would you mind taking a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:N72EX by Don Ramey Logan.jpg? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg

Hi Carl. This is a follow up on my previous comment here. I am inviting you to comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg, as court cases were recently found supporting the deletion of the image (i.e. commercial reuse of 2D outdoor artworks were ruled to be infringing). Thank you for your consideration. Wcam (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

ENI 04032640

ok, did i forget something? Are there exact dates for the extension? greeting Georgfotoart (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Georgfotoart: No, just that if there is detail in the page locally, may as well keep it -- there is frequently more information there than Wikidata (or not visible in the infobox). By all means add the {{Wikidata Infobox}} if an entry exists, but keep existing information, that's all. And even if it is complete, it may be easier to update for some users here. All I intended to do was restore the text that was on Commons; if I reverted something further let me know. But yes, the date precision can be helpful for dating some photos, and things like that. The reference links being visible here can be helpful, etc. There really should be a manufacturer entry in Wikidata for Werft Schulte und Müller, probably, and so on. I don't have the older sizes, but the ship was lengthened at some point, which could explain differences between old and newer photos -- that detail was dropped. In general, we use Wikidata to augment info here, but not replace. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Georgfotoart (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

1958 Herbert Hoover photo question

Hi Carl. Would you mind taking a look at COM:VPC#1958 Herbert Hoover photo? A post card with the same image found by another user does seem to show it's not a "PD-USGov" work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Carl. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Walter Gircke

Please have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Walter Gircke. I would highly appreciate your comments on the country of origin of File:Richard Adolf Zsigmondy LOC.jpg. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Dallas, Texas, 22 November 1963

Hi Carl, Your opinion would be useful for (at least) 2 files I mentioned on COM:VPC#Dallas, Texas, 22 November 1963. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Com:VPC#File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Com:VPC#File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Clindberg. Would you mind taking a look at this VPC discussion if you have some time? Perhaps you can help sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Question about COM:PUBLISH

Hi Clindberg. I've got a question about COM:PUBLISH#United States that perhaps you might be able to answer. There's no rush, but I thought you might know the answer. My reading of the section is that distribution of a copyright work constitutes publication as long as the intent is to further distribute the work to perhaps a greater number of people. Perhaps I'm totally misreading that, but I'm wondering how such a thing might apply to a photograph taken by a professional photographer of an individual that is solely for individual private use. The individual might show the work to their family and it might be passed down from generation to generation, but I'm wondering if the original act of the photographer giving a copy of the photo to the subject of the photo constitutes first publication. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Probably. The sale of copies is (and was) usually publication. That may not hold for something like paintings or statues, but should for photographs. But unless in writing, the photographer does retain copyright usually (at least since 1978). There may be some sort of implied license, though. Like many things, copyright probably "works" in these cases by never really being enforced -- if a photographer were to sue someone he took pictures for, they could lose a lot of future business from others. As such, not much court precedent over stuff like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things. The particular file that started me think about this is Commons:Deletion requests/File:1918 Pearl St Shop.jpg, and part of my concerns had to do with whether the photo would be considered "published" and with the way in which the uploader was claiming that the photo had been released to them for publication purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI (piers in Seattle)

Correcting an edit of yours. The history of Seattle in the Gold Rush era is really complicated. I've been sorting it out. - Jmabel ! talk 02:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Great, thanks. I think I copied categories from a another photo which showed the same pier, without truly knowing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

These piers have been really hard to sort out. Working on it at en:Talk:List of structures on Elliott Bay#Piers_A,_B,_and_C. I'm Coming to believe there were two successive similar-looking but distinct piers named "Pier B" (with a much more distinct pair of piers named "Pier A"). - Jmabel ! talk 03:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at COM:VPC#PD-Art for File:Kapodistrias2.jpg?

 You are invited to join the discussion at COM:VPC#PD-Art for File:Kapodistrias2.jpg?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Clindberg. I'm wondering if you could take a look at this and see if there's some way to relicense the file. I'd like to get one more opinion if possible before starting a DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

File:The Path to the Stars, by K. E. Tsiolkovsky, English transl., AD0644808.pdf

Hi Carl, Could you please confirm the license of this document? There is no copyright notice, so it could also be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Also I couldn't find a category for the translator. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: When were the originals published? If during the author's lifetime, then it should be fine as {{PD-Russia-1996}} (or {{PD-Russia-expired}}). If first published posthumously, it could get dicier. The PD-USGov license is good for the translation (and sure it's PD-US-no_notice too), but we need a license for the original as well. I'm not sure Commons has an equivalent of s:Template:Translation license, but probably should. It may have been taken from a collection published 1960 in Moscow, and in fact there is some introductory text with that date in there. In fact... it seems Moscow published an English version that year, but it's a completely different translation. Heh, there is a version on archive.org as well, with no copyright status mentioned. Moscow published a Russian version at the latest in 1964, though probably earlier as well. I'd have to guess it was a collection of previously-published works, but I'm not completely positive on that, and the introductory text might technically still have a U.S. copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I used {{PD-old-70}}, but I assume that it was published in Russia during its lifetime. What would be the status of the original if published in Russia between 1928 and 1935, i.e. what was the duration at that time? Yann (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It was still 50pma in Russia in 1996, though I think posthumous works got 50 years from publication. So published before 1946 would be fine. Retroactively restored to 70pma in 2008, though that would not have affected his works published in his lifetime (since he died 1935). But the 1960 introductory text is probably still under copyright in Russia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and technically {{PD-old-70}} does not give the U.S. copyright status of the original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I removed the introduction, and changed the license to {{PD-Russia-1996}}. Thanks, Yann (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction

Hi, This is another publication by the same agency. However the Russian author seems to be still alive. What's the copyright status of the English translation ([3], [4])? May be it could be uploaded to the English Wikisource. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how. Original published in 1962 it looks like. The US and USSR had no copyright relations at the time (USSR joined the UCC in 1973), and the original was probably no-notice anyways. But that had to have changed in 1996, meaning the copyright would have been restored, unless it was also published in the United States at the same time. Will be fine in the U.S. in 2058, but sounds like it could be under copyright in Russia for far longer than that. I guess could look into the publication history of the original -- I presume it was published in Russia, but maybe it was published elsewhere too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I understand that it was OK before 1996, but it was restored by URAA. Thanks for your answer. Yann (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Publication at creation when an image is found in the wild

Publication at creation when an image is found in the wild. See comments at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:John_Nicholas_Luff_(1860-1938).jpg and express your opinion either way. RAN (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• See this set of deletion nominations by the same person, arguing that we have to prove earlier publication in Russia. These are early images republished more recently. Russia appears to default to the URAA and Berne definitions, and I don't see any case law disagreeing with what "made public" means. Some countries distinguish between "creation" and "made public": Commons:Deletion requests/Russian copyrights. Express your opinion either way. --RAN (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked, can't spend long at the moment, but if that same image was European I'd have voted delete, since there is no way to know it was anonymous without at least some older publication info to see if an author was named or not. Without it, those need to wait 120 years, often, and Russia is now no different (and even worse since they have "rehabilitated" authors which get longer than 70pma sometimes). However, "made public" is not the same thing as "publication" -- in the EU, "making available to the public" also includes broadcast or public display. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Res Nova

For your information: I found the year of completion via the ENI number. Method: skip the zero in 03140121 and find 314. According this

Teboekstellingskantoren	Nummer	Afkorting
Alkmaar	311	Alkm
Almelo	312	Alm
Amersfoort	313	Amersf
Amsterdam	20	Amst
Appingedam	314	Apping
Arnhem	315	Arnh
Assen	316	Assen
Breda	317	Breda
Brielle	318	Brielle
Den Haag	301	sHage
Deventer	319	Dev
Dordrecht	21	Dord
Eindhoven	312	Eindh
Goes	322	Goes
Gorkum	323	Gor
Groningen	22	Gron
Haarlem	302	Haarl
Heerenveen	324	Heerenv
's Hertogenbosch	325	sBosch
Hoorn	326	Hoorn
Leeuwarden	327	Lwd / Leeuw
Leiden	303	Leid
Maastricht	328	Maastr
Middelburg	329	Midd
Nijmegen	331	Nym
Rijswijk	24	Rijsw
Roermond	332	Roerm
Rotterdam	23	Rott
Sneek	333	Sneek
Tiel	334	Tiel
Utrecht	335	Utr
Winschoten	304	Winsch
Zierikzee	336	Zzee
Zutphen	337	Zutp
Zwolle	305	Zwolle

we know that the office was Appingedam, App

Go to zoekscherm liggers and fill 121 in (last digids of the ENI number, without the 0) at "Zoek op het brandmerk" via 121 B App It gives three results, the oldest the year of completion, unfortunately not the yard. This is how this information via the ENI number can be found. Only one question: where did you find the ENI number?--Stunteltje (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stunteltje: Ah interesting. I have used s2ho.nl before a little, but did not know of the mappings of the ENI number. That makes sense at least for old ships, as they likely used the brandmerk registration numbers to map into their EU numbers when those were introduced, which in turn became the ENI number. As for the ENI, one of the marinetraffic.com photos has it on the side of the ship. marine traffic.com also lists the ENI number on the main ship page at the top (though they omit the leading "0" unfortunately, quite consistently). Searching for "Res Nova 1908" on Google now comes up with this link as the first hit, which gives Berend Niestern, Delfzijl as the builder. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You are right, just for old ships. Kadaster does not use this system anymore, just a sequence computerised number anymore. Stunteltje (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yellapragada Subbarow's pictures and stamps

Hi Carl, Could you please give your opinion about this case: COM:VPC#Yellapragada Subbarow's pictures and stamps? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.pdf

Hi Carl, Here is another disputed case where your opinion is welcome. Yann (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atwngirl

 You are invited to join the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atwngirl. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC) ‎

Hi Clindberg. There are multiple DRs with the same name on the page, but the most recent one is at the very bottom. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)