Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

AI-generated media and copyright tags

Hi all! While investigating how to improve the flow in UploadWizard regarding AI-generated media, it seems that the current approach to licensing such media might be improved, but we wanted to double check our impression with you before proceeding.

More specifically, if an image is AI-generated then it should be public domain, and be tagged with {{PD-algorithm}} – and this is already the case. What we are more in doubt about is that uploaders are also allowed to add a CC license to it, ending up with a “double licensing” (PD-algorithm + CC license) which might be wrong.

Do you share these doubts? What would be the best way to proceed here? Should we remove the CC licensing option and leave only {{PD-algorithm}}, or do we want to continue to allow “double licensing”?

Also, in case an AI-generated media is tagged as “not own work”, what should we do? Do we automatically apply {{PD-algorithm}}, regardless of an eventual original licensing, or do we allow “double licensing” in this case?

Thanks in advance for your opinions! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A (very) few countries allow copyright claims for AI artwork, and it is certainly possible that more might in the future, so whatever we do we have to at least allow for that possibility. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We might want a new template that would wrap around {{Self}} that would indicate that a license was being granted to cover the case that the work might not in the future be considered public domain. Or this could be done with an additional optional parameter for {{Self}}. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An equivalent is {{Licensed-PD-Art}} for self-photographed 2D art by Old Masters, which contains a factual assertion that the image is PD in the US and many other countries, with a backup license from the photographer in jurisdictions where the photographer may hold copyright. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel @King of Hearts Thanks for your interventions. We discussed them in our meetings and came out with a potential notice for people who choose "own work" to upload AI media. What do you think about it?

Also, we don't know if it would be a good idea to extend this to "not own work". What would be your idea in this sense?

(Note: I'm going to share this thread also on the Commons Telegram channel to gather more feedback, but if you know someone who is knowledgeable with these issues, or could be interested in it, please tag them along)

Thanks! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While being very widespread – and super popular among the tech bros – the pseudo-legal notion that AI-generated content is per se "uncopyrightable" is not a given. We should not build features on this hasty assumption. See also @Jmabel's comment above. Gnom (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should 1) accept images, for now, under the assumption that AI-generated content is uncopyrightable; and 2) ensure that they are clearly segregated from deterministically generated content like File:2024 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly.svg, in case there is an adverse court ruling in the future. Currently both are tagged {{PD-algorithm}}, but it would be useful to make a distinction here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of mid-20th century China photos on Commons is probably an URAA violation?

We have a ton of photos of events and people in mid-20th century China; 1947-1974 for the purposes here, which happens to fairly-neatly align with the Mao era.

Copyright in China (for works prior to 2021) expires 50 years after publication. This means works published in 1974 or before are PD in China; however due to the URAA, only works that were PD in 1996 are PD in the USA. As Commons is of course hosted in the USA, this means that Chinese PD only applies to works from 1946 or before.

The unfortunate thing here is there are absolutely massive amounts of files violating this. I searched, and I could not find a file in Category:Great Leap Forward that would actually be useable except for the CIA's 1958 documentary China Leaps Forward. (Thanks, CIA!) Generally similar situation for Category:Cultural Revolution or the categories for various important Chinese figures in the period. There are exceptions, mainly from other governments, or the rare cases where foreign photographers have released their collections into PD/CC, but these are rare. I don't know the full count, but I would expect that we have several thousand URAA violations if it was all tallied up. Generalissima (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I noticed the situation myself some time ago and decided to follow up on this at some point in the future. I think mass deletion requests will be inevitable, and they should probably be split into reasonable batches that allow for some checking by commentators. I would be happy to contribute to some preliminary sorting/tagging drive of those that are PD in the US, if that could be helpful. Felix QW (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to do a DR per year (or at least group them by year in the DR) so that the "Undelete in XXX" categories can be processed more easily in the future. Though it may be some time yet before we can undelete any. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should at least try to notify the Chinese Wikipedia community among others, for they could have much better understandings in areas related to these pictures, perpare in advance for possible impact, and even provide reasonable opinions on certain copyright issues. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 15:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We did once have a DR for files with URAA-restored copyrights. The consensus was to keep them. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue there was that the deletion request was far too broad. It was established later (see Commons:Review of Precautionary principle and the synopsis at the top of COM:URAA) that if there actually is significant doubt that a file is free in the US, it should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. I agree that there should not be a single deletion request with thousands of files, and that one should sift through them first to sort out files which do have a reason to be free in the US and tag them appropriately. But ultimately we should not be hosting files that are copyrighted in the US and do not have a valid license, and in my opinion flagging those for removal from Commons is a laudable enterprise. Felix QW (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit Industry Murals and the URAA

Yesterday I added a topic to Commons:File requests for the Detroit Industry Murals, painted by Diego Rivera for the Detroit Institute of Arts. I initially thought that the murals were in the public domain in the US because of publication without copyright notice, and thus it was okay to upload photos of them to Commons. But now I realize that they would have to be uploaded locally because Mexico is their country of origin under the Berne definition, and possibly can't be uploaded at all because they qualify for URAA restoration? Rivera was a Mexican national, and these murals were in the public domain due to a failure to follow formality requirements, so they meet the first part of criteria D and criteria C of 17 USC � 104A(h)(6), which defines "restored work". The second part of criteria D says that if a work was "published", it must have been "first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country". Since no alternate definition of publication is provided, the binding definition is that of 17 USC 101. This would mean that the Detroit Industry Murals, for the purposes of the URAA, are unpublished works whose source country is Mexico per 17 USC � 104A(h)(8), and thus their copyright was restored in 1996. Am I correct here? prospectprospekt (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Law before 1978 was that public display was publication. So these were published in the US and thus the URAA is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But neither the definition of "source country" nor the definition of "restored work" say that publication is different if done before 1978. Since the URAA was applied retroactively, I wonder if it brought the modern definition of publication over to past works as well. prospectprospekt (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source country is where it was first published, in this case, the United States. And so this wouldn't have been eligible for restoration. Abzeronow (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publication before 1978 is by the laws before 1978. That's how the Copyright Office and every case I've read treats it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Berne country is country of publication. The URAA source country is the same, other than a more common-sense tiebreaker for "simultaneously published". If they were paintings in Detroit, the US by pretty much every measure would be the country of origin. Anyways, they are likely PD in Mexico too. Their law had a registration requirement before 1948 (part of their 1928 law) -- see this case about URAA restoration of some films (most were restored but some were not, due to that, and that case was about the remainder). I don't think there is any way for us to check old Mexican registrations so it's not something we can easily do for a tag, but that was the reality. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I think that Mexico is the country of origin under the Berne definition is because the Berne convention says that "the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication", much like the Copyright Act of 1976's definition of publication. I still need to read the court case, but I wonder what the URAA means when it says "is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection". Would a failure to follow formalities be considered an "expiration of term of protection", or does the "term of protection" ignore such requirements? Also, I looked up the ruling and William Patry seems to criticize it. prospectprospekt (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The country of origin for a work of architecture is the place it is located. Exhibition of a movable piece of art is one thing, but placing it permanently on a building is quite another -- Berne may well follow it architecture logic of being permanently placed there. That would also be where it was sold. If photographs of it were published, which they virtually certainly were, that would also do it. The paintings certainly never were present in Mexico, so not sure how they could be published there. The U.S. would absolutely consider them a "United States work" and avoid the URAA that way. If there is no copyright notice on them, they lost copyright immediately. In Mexico, if it was never registered it lost copyright that way and never regained it. The "expiration of term of protection" is an interesting question in that case, as I don't think you are supposed to take formalities into account for that, but since Mexico did not have to restore its own works (and did not much like the U.S. for its own works), that remains the reality -- very few works from before 1948 would have a copyright in Mexico. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The URAA does not follow the Berne definition of country of origin. The URAA test for source country makes it clear that the work is not eligible for URAA restoration since it was first published (according to US law) in the United States. Whether or not this agrees with the Berne Convention is irrelevant. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could rephrase my question as: what does the word published mean in the URAA's definition of source country? What is the basis for saying that published means the definition of publication at the time of publication versus the definition of publication in 17 U.S. Code � 101? prospectprospekt (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a full answer, but (1) if something was published in both its "home country" and the U.S. ("simultaneous" publication, meaning within 20 days), the "home country" publication is irrelevant in U.S. law. (2) In this case I see absolutely no sense in which this was published in Mexico before being published (exhibited) in the U.S. @Prospectprospekt: do you disagree with the latter? - Jmabel�! talk 11:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition of publication in 17 USC 101, the murals were never published at all, so the source country would be determined by Rivera's Mexican nationality. prospectprospekt (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could assume, like Carl Lindberg does above, that the Detroit Institute of Arts sold photographs of the murals. That would satisfy the definition of publication per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US#After 1978. prospectprospekt (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of publication before 1978 was more tortured -- as you saw in Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. The post 1978 law doesn't matter really in this case. Given some court rulings, it would seem statues and paintings in public places where anyone could photograph them were likely published. If the rights were deemed transferred to the institution such that they are the rightsholder, which was also a confused topic under pre-1978 law (often commissioning a work would also by default transfer the copyright) it would be a US-owned work anyways even if not technically published. But the odds are virtually certain it was. You would need a court case precedent the other way to put this anywhere near "significant doubt" territory. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for clarification on Nigerian copyright

I nominated File:Professor Timothy Abiodun Adebayo.png for speedy deletion as COM:NETCOPYVIO, taken from https://acu.edu.ng/acu-vc-wants-varsities-to-remain-vigilant-against-fake-degree-validation-scheme/. The file was duly deleted.

The uploader User:Opyquad has argued that plain photographs do not enjoy copyright protections in Nigeria, contradicting Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nigeria which states 50 years from publish. Could anyone clarify Nigerian copyright on photographs? MKFI (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MKFI Opyquad is citing an outdated copyright law, the 1990 Copyright Act. It would be interesting though if the succeeding Nigerian laws did not retroactively applied their Commons-unfriendly provisions to the images made under previous laws. For instance, the restrictive FoP provision current 2022 Copyright Act (for audio-visual and broadcasts only, not photographs) doesn't apply to images that were uploaded to Commons before March 17, 2023. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, on inspecting the alleged source of the image, it doesn't appear to be from the time the outdated law was in force. Year of the article is 2024, so the portrait is governed by the 2022 Copyright Act. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @MKF for starting this conversation and @JWilz12345 for your contribution

Unfortunately, most parts of the Copyright Act 1990 were lifted without any alteration (except changing sections) and pasted into the Copyright Act 2022. But all citations here shall be from the Copyright Act 2022.

Section 13 (2) of the Copyright Act 2022 states that a photograph shall be protected by copyright if such an image was taken from a still photograph of a TV broadcast.

The Copyright Act 2022 doesn’t govern File: Professor Timothy Abiodun Adebayo.png because it has not violated Section 13 (2).

As for the duration, which @MKFI earlier mentioned, Section 19 (1a) is clear on this. Here is the interpretation as it applies to the file, which has been erroneously deleted:

For most types of creative works (like books, music, or paintings), copyright lasts for 70 years after the person who created the work dies. However, this rule does not apply to photographs, which may have different copyright rules. In essence, the copyright rules that apply to photographs can be found in Section 13 (2).

This is why photographs of academicians and politicians do not enjoy copyright protection, IF:

They are not used to disparage the subject.

They are not used for fraud.

They are not used in a bad light.

They are not used in a demeaning context, etc.

Among the works that are eligible for copyright under Section 2 (1a-f), photographs are not specifically mentioned, UNLESS such photographs are taken from the works mentioned in this section, from a live television broadcast, or have an inscription of a photographer.

A photograph is free to use in Nigeria IF it doesn’t contravene any of the sections or subsections cited in my argument as clearly stated in Copyright Act 2022. Opyquad (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Opyquad I think Nigerian photos are governed under a different provision: section 19(1)(c) which states: "audiovisual works and photographs, 50 years after the end of the year in which the work was first made available to the public with the consent of the author or 50 years after the work was created, if not made available to the public within that time." The section you cited is not applicable as it is for broadcasts: Section 13.—(2) "The copyright in a television broadcast shall include the right to control the taking of still photographs from the broadcast." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 @MKFI Every section of Nigeria’s Copyright Act 2022 can’t be appropriately interpreted in isolation. The provision mentioned in section 19 (1)(c) refers to photographs taken from works that are eligible for copyright under Section 2 (1)(a) - (f).

Photos of public figures that are not derived from the aforementioned list are free to use. File: Professor Timothy Abiodun Adebayo.png is one such free-to-use file, which does not even require consent.

A user may, however, give credit to the source where the photo was first used. In fact, a conflict of rights arises when such a photograph does not bear the inscription or logo of the photographer.

This is the position of copyright law in Nigeria except there is another copyright law that I’m not aware of. Opyquad (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Opyquad -- In many (or even most?) jurisdictions, photographs generally fall under the category of "artistic works" (ie, the category covered by section 2(1)(c) of the 2022 Nigerian copyright Act).

The wording of section 19(1) makes it clear that Nigerian law follows this same pattern, given that at (a) it covers "artistic works other than photographs" before it goes on at (c) to cover photographs.

This interpretation is further confirmed in section 108(1)(d), which states that "artistic works" include "photographs not comprised in an audiovisual work".

In short, a photograph is an "artistic work" and eligible for copyright under section 2(1)(c), which lasts for 50 years after publication under section 19(1)(c). Based just on the Act, this file will be protected by copyright for another 50 years or so, and was correctly deleted.

To contest this, you would need to point to some statute, case law, or expert opinion that proves that photographs are not considered "artistic works" in Nigeria, or that certain types of photograph are ineligible for copyright for some particular reason. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann Photographs are definitely artistic works in Nigeria. The deleted photo is not for marketing or promotional purposes. I think we are not on the same page regarding the interpretation of the provisions of copyright. Photos of public figures are free to use if they are not used for exploitation or in a negative light. Instead of going back and forth, I will get permission from the institution that first used the photo. Opyquad (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might not be sufficient -- you need to get permission from the person or organisation that owns the copyright; generally the person who actually took the photo, or their employer. This might be completely different from the institution on whose website you found the photo.

That aside, I'm curious where you found the provision about photos of public figures being free to use -- I didn't find that in the act itself. Can you point me to a source for future reference please? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authority to release promotional image under CC-BY-3.0

I'm hoping to upload a frame from this video that is published under CC-BY-3.0, specifically a frame of the group photo used in the video.

The image in question is a promotional image with copyright that is, presumably, owned by en:SM Entertainment, the group's record label and original publisher of the image.

The video uploader, KNTV, is stated on SM's "Major Affiliates" page to be part of Stream Media Corporation, which according to their description: "is a TSE listed company that engages in exclusive management of SM-affiliated artists’ activities in Japan and operates the Hallyu broadcast channel KNTV", and per the company's Shared Research report, SM Entertainment owns about 77.5% of Stream Media Corporation's shares.

Is it reasonable to assume that the uploader of this video possesses the authority to release the image in question under CC-BY-3.0?

I'm looking for clarification because I know as soon as I upload it someone will sideeye it because it is a professional promo image. I'm 99% sure the answer will be "yes" but just want to make sure. RachelTensions (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make that assumption, no. Given that although inter-related, the two companies are distinct and separate entities, we would be taking KNTV's word for licensing a piece of content that they themselves don't own. And shareholding doesn't translate to "empowered to release copyright".

We would need to see something from SM Entertainment themselves. Their website has a contact link that actually pre-loads an email with several options, including copyright enquiry: https://www.smentertainment.com/en/ --Rlandmann (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambigrams in free license used in a game shows

Hello,

My works shared on Commons have been fairly used by the BBC in a TV game show called 100% Logique (French version of The 1% Club).

Which precautions should I take before uploading this screenshot for example (or a derivative) here? (English translation of the content: "which of these propositions does not have the same characteristic as the other 3?")

I think it could be educational for Wikipedia or other medias, to illustrate various subjects like ambigrams, Quiz television programmes, Game shows, etc. The designs are mine, made in 2013, 2012 and 2010, and duly credited at the end of the TV program. This page showing the 3 words together has been archived in 2023 before I signed the non-exclusive "Pictures released form" on 4 nov. 2023, sent by email on the same day at 10:12 to the BBC.

The "bonjour" text is just basic calligraphy with nothing special, found in Freepik and may comply with {{PD-textlogo}} and / or {{De minimis}} (because it's just an annex that could be any other word in any other typeface). The France 2 logo is free on Commons and the 100% Logique logo is here (3D text, and very small in the screenshot).

The brief wording of the question does not seem to me to be elaborate enough to justify copyright, and some similar ideas / riddles have been published in books before (example Eye Twisters by Burkard Polster). Furthermore, the question was practically given (in tacit confidentiality) well before the filming and broadcast of the game.

Questions:

Is this standard layout, used in many similar Quiz questions of the program, acceptable for Commons? (just to illustrate the game)
Or this one with blurred background.
Or that one (blurred and no logo)
Or that one (blurred, no logo and different color)
What about this derivative work of mine (with "salut" written using Chiller typeface)?
Or that one with a different question having the same meaning?

Looking forward to reading you -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. After 3 days without objection on this copyright page, I plan to upload here the screenshot and the original layout (1). All the best 🙃 -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this memorial cross the TOO in the US?

This memorial was erected after 1997 in Texas. Its simple geometric shapes and brief, simple text make me think that it probably doesn't cross the Threshold of Originality in the US. Does anyone have a different opinion, though? --Rlandmann (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also guess that to be below TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Ooligan (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a Québec magazine article image

I would like to upload a trimmed version of this image to be used in the person's French Wikipedia page. The image was published in 2016 by QubecorMedia. I emailed them several weeks ago, but I got no response. Can I still upload it and under what license? — Ineuw talk 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ineuw: Nothing you've said there indicates that the copyright owner has granted any sort of license, so you cannot upload that to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel I posted this question without additional info. In Québec, all cultural activities, like films, photos, publications, productions, etc., that receive government funding are in the pubic domain. In this case, the publisher, Québecor Media is Québec's foremost media company, but a publication with such narrow focus and limited audience, receives public funds. I will restate this question on French Wikipédia and Wikisource. Thanks.— — Ineuw talk 00:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Tootsie-Pop commercial "How many licks" under PD-US?

Quick question, I saw the iconic "How many licks does it take to reach the center of a Tootsie Pop?" commercial from 1969 and noticed that both the 1 minute and 30 second versions of the Ad were aired without a Copyright notice, would that mean that the Commercial is on the Public Domain in the US? (as PD-US-no notice) I both checked on the Copyright Library and on Ebay if any of the characters featured were trademarked and got no results. Asking if is this enough so I can upload both commercials to Commons?

(I have my doubts that the 15 second version is PD since it contains APM music, which could be a problem with the use of de minimis, a different narrator and there's no proof to verify it was aired before 1989) Hyperba21 (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Telecasts are considered performance, not publication. An airing without a notice did not put a commercial in the public domain, since no publication occurred. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In something like this, the distribution of a work to unaffiliated TV stations for airing would have been publication. It's hard to tell; I'm not even sure if the version aired had to have a copyright notice if the version distributed did, but they would have been published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airing without a notice isn't publication without a notice. If you can establish publication without a notice, that would be different. But the fact that the airing occurred without a notice is irrelevant. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is placing a sculpture in the public (where people can photograph it) treated differently from airing it on TV (where people can record it)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your "sculputure" example refers to older U.S. copyright law. I think the main reason for that interpretation was that there just was no good definition of what it meant to "publish" a singular work of art, and courts had to come up with something, and until treaties and legislation ruled otherwise, what they had come up with is that exhibition constituted publication. A fair number of sculptors did place copyright notices on their sculptures, and registered their copyrights. That was completely (or virtually completely) under the sculptor's control.

By way of contrast, it was literally never customary for broadcast commercials to carry an on-air copyright notice. Nor did the copyright-holder of the commercial have any real control of how it was broadcast: they distributed it to the networks and/or independent stations, that latter entity (not at all under their control) did the actual broadcasting. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because speeches and performances traditionally weren't publication, because of their transience. Therefore a broadcast wasn't publication, because it too was transient. Note that a recording of it in 1950s would require expensive equipment and result in poor quality output. "The Quatermass Experiment" (1953), a live serial broadcast, is mostly lost because when the BBC tried to record the first two episodes, the results were so bad they gave up. It would take until the late 1970s until a consumer could reasonably record the video from a TV.

As I said above, releasing a physical version of the commercial to third parties for the purpose of broadcast is publication, and would have needed copyright notice, which I'm pretty sure it didn't have. But the actual broadcast didn't need one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Wildfire Cameras

so I wanna upload an image taken by an automated camera in California(but the owner of the cam has to manually rotate and zoom), the organization that owns these companies has a cc by-nc-nd license.Would it fall under pd-automated or would it not be okay to upload because of the license? Wildfireupdateman (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wildfireupdateman: No, it presumably would not fall under PD-Automated if someone has control of re-aiming the camera, and no we cannot accept NC or ND licenses. Plus, it would be rather uncivil to use, on a technicality, something that a non-profit is creating, making available, and licensing NC/ND. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency regarding PD monuments in their no-FoP countries but copyrighted in the US

Perhaps this statue from Japan is already PD in the US since January 1, 2024 (if my understanding on the URAA duration based on the discussion is correct), but its earlier undeletion before its copyright expired in the US suggests we still have inconsistent treatment over monuments from countries that do not allow commercial Freedom of Panorama for such types of works (like Japan and Slovenia). In most cases, these deletion requests end up in deletions, such as many monuments from Slovenia (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kralj Matjaž, Nikolaj Pirnat.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sveti Janez Marija Vianej.jpg), which I applied in my explanation for a more delayed undeletion date for the files I nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Artworks by Emil Nolde in the Collection of Contemporary Art (Vatican Museums).

Still, it appears that the earlier undeletion of the aforementioned Japanese statue demonstrates the absence of consistency on how we will treat PD monuments of no-commercial-FoP countries like Japan, Slovenia, and the Vatican, that are still copyrighted in the U.S. due to the U.S. copyright provided by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, typically those monuments that are no older than 1928 (as of 2024) but no younger than 1977.

A complication is a warning message on {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, cautioning uploaders of the cutoff date of March 1, 2012.

We should have a consensus whether to treat such monuments as OK to be hosted in Commons courtesy of PD status of source countries, or not OK courtesy of both the lack of commercial FoP legal waiver in these countries and the US copyright provided by the URAA – until either these countries embrace commercial FoP for monuments (like what Moldova did in 2010, Armenia in 2013, Belgium in 2016 and both Timor-Leste and Kosovo in 2023, based on meta:Freedom of Panorama#Successful FoP introductions) or the US copyright expires.

Ping users in the mentioned discussion/deletion pages for inputs:

@Sailko and Rosenzweig: from the Vatican FoP case.
@Nnkrkrhhdi, Artanisen, Jeff G., Liuxinyu970226, Strangesnow, Y.haruo, Missinglinkthinking, Taivo, Jameslwoodward, Yann, King of Hearts, and Abzeronow: from the Japanese FoP case and the associated undeletion request.
@TadejM, Ymblanter, and Mdaniels5757: from the Slovenian URAA case.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that Commons has always de facto ignored US copyright when it came to FoP cases (and I am using FoP loosely here to refer to taking photos in public). Some have argued that we should resolve this discrepancy by deleting all photos of public works in the world that are subject to US copyright restrictions and follow US law either exclusively or in conjunction with source country law, but this is a minority view that has never gained consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts I have seen such arguments, including those in discussions where I am involved with (e.g. Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/04#Proposal affecting FoP Chile). Though that will certainly attract disapproval from Wikimedians of countries with complete commercial FoP up to monuments (like Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, Singapore etc.), and will certainly affect the yearly Wiki Loves Monuments competitions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the practice to ignore de facto ignored US copyright, at least when it came to artists/countries not related to US. On Jan 01st I always upload new 70+1 years released artists works, there are just a very few users who have a different opinion about that. In those rare deletion procedures files were always saved. --Sailko (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This situation been brought up before, several times. Since there is no court precedent, I think policy (or at least precedent here and thus de facto policy) has always been to keep photos which are OK by FoP laws in the country of origin, in the hope that status may also affect the US status. The one cross-country FoP court case precedent I know about (a poster OK in Austria but not OK in Germany) would point to the photos being a problem in the US, but we have not seen an actual US case to show whether that status matters by US law (foreign laws regarding ownership of copyright can matter in the US, and it's unclear where FoP laws stand). Photos of works fine in the country of origin only via expiration of the underlying work probably have less chance in the US than that, as there is no FoP law to possibly matter, but maybe we are applying that general principle to photos of works expired in the country of origin. This situation really only exists for photos of foreign sculpture. For the Japan one, unsure when the statue expires in the US. If the original statue was published in 1935, it could be 2031. You say 2024, but I'm not sure where that was shown. If the copyright of the original was transferred to an organization, sounds like it would have expired in the 1980s and avoided the URAA (no evidence for that was brought up). If the 1964 version was a derivative work and not a copy, it may be still later (and still copyrighted in Japan too). But if that was just meant to be a copy of the 1935 version, then not sure a new copyright was created. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I based it from the comment by Strangesnow, which I also couldn't verify if the PD-US term is true or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That comment seems to have assumed a 70pma term, which would only be the case in the US if the statue was technically unpublished in the US until at least 2003. Rather doubtful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I don't know any specific lawsuit relating to a US website hosting a photograph of a some in-copyright artwork on public display in a country which provides for exceptions to copyright allowing for images of the artwork to be reproduced. However, the conclusion that an exception in foreign copyright law would allow for reproduction in the US has absolutely no basis — it requires the making up of new legal principles from whole cloth, and those principles would run against those of established US law.

A key principle in US law is that copyright subsists in works, not in copies — and even when there is only one copy (say, the original), that is a copy, not the work. The "theory" here must be either:

whenever a copy of a work is displayed in a foreign country with an exception to copyright which is not present in US law, that exception is applicable in the US, or
US law allows for further copying of what would otherwise be an infringing copy or derivative work as long as the copy can be traced back to a copy made in a jurisdiction wherever, under the local law in the place where the copy distributed (or the copy from which the distributed copy was made), the item is not infringing.

The notion that additional exceptions to copyright arise with respect to a work based on the jurisdiction in which a particular copy of a work is situated has absolutely no basis in US law.

There are many exceptions and limitations to copyright provided for in the statutes and case law. Nowhere is there even a hint that foreign law's exceptions could be imported into the US in this fashion. Cases relating to foreign copyright holders uniformly apply only US law to determine if infringement occurred.
This idea also directly contradicts the Berne Convention, Art. 5, Sec. 2: "Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention [referring to the optional exceptions for the rule of the shorter term], the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed."

Certain hypotheticals about choice of law with copyright on the internet are unresolved by courts. But the place where the photograph of an item was taken does not mean that the publication of the photograph in the US (a separate act) cannot be infringing.

The more honest (or less disingenuous) interlocutors will argue that the distribution and publication of these photos could be allowed under the fair use exception in US law. And that's true! But this, of course, depends on what the actual use is, and the multi-factor fair use test. You will note that whether or not an exception exists in foreign law is not one of the factors. The most honest among us will just say that these images often are unauthorized (infringing) derivative works, but that the copyright holders don't know or care. When copyright holders did complain, the WMF removed the files.

In any case, potential fair uses and "the copyright owner doesn't care" are not supposed to be acceptable rationales for hosting files on Commons. In order to get around this inconvenient fact, many users instead argue, however disingenuously, that no court has ever ruled on this issue, no matter how inescapable the conclusions might seem. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the undeletion was wrong. Every file in Commons must be free both in source country and in USA. The file in question was free in source country, but not in Japan, so it should be deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As D. Benjamin Miller links to above, WMF has made it clear that ONLY U.S. law matters when they took down photos of Claes Oldenburg sculptures that were under German FoP when there was a DMCA. So unless that Office Action is reversed, we know where WMF stands. However, we as a community have decided to obey local laws as to FOP so absent DMCAs from sculptors, we can continue with status quo where we keep sculptures in green FoP countries and delete architecture in red FoP countries. (EDIT: For the record, I agree with Taivo that the undeletion of the Japanese statue was wrong). Abzeronow (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was extensive discussion of this issue in 2012, which didn't generate much consensus but led to the current policy that such images will generally be kept, even though they are probably non-free in the US. It's inconsistent with the overall licensing policy, but that's where we are. Files should be tagged with {{Not-free-US-FOP}} so potential re-users can be informed of the issue. Toohool (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL license across wikis

Hi! I have been posting about GFDL earlier but I wonder if anyone would like to help check some wikis.

I have made different lists and one of them shows if GFDL (or known variants) are listed on MediaWiki:Licenses. If they are listed there it will be one of the licenses that is suggested when someone upload a file. The list can be seen here.

So if you speak Foo you are very welcome to check foo.wiki and check if GFDL is used as as a dual license or a single license. If it is used as a single license perhaps you could suggest that it is removed.

A copy of the list is shown below. You are welcome to update it and/or the list on meta if you have checked a wiki.

Wiki	Mention	Files	File list	Remarks
w:af:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	9737	w:af:Special:FileList
w:als:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	605	w:als:Special:FileList
w:am:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1784	w:am:Special:FileList
n:ar:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	62	n:ar:Special:FileList
q:ar:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1	q:ar:Special:FileList
s:ar:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	4050	s:ar:Special:FileList
wikt:ar:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1	wikt:ar:Special:FileList
w:as:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1915	w:as:Special:FileList
s:as:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	78	s:as:Special:FileList
w:azb:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	339	w:azb:Special:FileList
w:az:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	15026	w:az:Special:FileList
w:ban:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	119	w:ban:Special:FileList
w:bar:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1293	w:bar:Special:FileList
w:bh:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	54	w:bh:Special:FileList
w:bn:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	18746	w:bn:Special:FileList
wikt:bn:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	8	wikt:bn:Special:FileList
w:br:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2724	w:br:Special:FileList
w:ca:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	11462	w:ca:Special:FileList
w:ckb:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2844	w:ckb:Special:FileList
c:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	107327242	c:Special:FileList	Dual license
w:cs:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1	w:cs:Special:FileList
w:cy:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	11373	w:cy:Special:FileList
w:da:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2	w:da:Special:FileList
b:de:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	7825	b:de:Special:FileList
n:de:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	64	n:de:Special:FileList
s:de:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	6922	s:de:Special:FileList
v:de:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2978	v:de:Special:FileList
voy:de:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	725	voy:de:Special:FileList
wikt:de:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	107	wikt:de:Special:FileList
w:dty:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	3	w:dty:Special:FileList
w:el:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	19020	w:el:Special:FileList
b:el:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1166	b:el:Special:FileList
wikt:el:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	23	wikt:el:Special:FileList
w:eml:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2748	w:eml:Special:FileList
w:en:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	921024	w:en:Special:FileList	Dual license
s:en:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	16218	s:en:Special:FileList
v:en:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	39803	v:en:Special:FileList
w:eo:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	18486	w:eo:Special:FileList
s:es:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	233	s:es:Special:FileList
w:fa:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	91414	w:fa:Special:FileList
b:fa:MediaWiki:Licenses	~~GFDL~~	860	b:fa:Special:FileList	Removed
n:fa:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	30	n:fa:Special:FileList
s:fa:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1	s:fa:Special:FileList
w:fi:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	76701	w:fi:Special:FileList
wmf:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	968	wmf:Special:FileList
w:fr:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	71988	w:fr:Special:FileList
v:fr:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	83	v:fr:Special:FileList
w:fy:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	8094	w:fy:Special:FileList
b:gl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	109	b:gl:Special:FileList
s:gl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	64	s:gl:Special:FileList
b:he:MediaWiki:Licenses	שימוש חופשי עם קרדיט	1710	b:he:Special:FileList
n:he:MediaWiki:Licenses	שימוש חופשי עם קרדיט	54	n:he:Special:FileList
q:he:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	510	q:he:Special:FileList
voy:he:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	125	voy:he:Special:FileList
w:hif:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	192	w:hif:Special:FileList
w:hi:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	4469	w:hi:Special:FileList
b:hi:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1	b:hi:Special:FileList
s:hi:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	3	s:hi:Special:FileList
wikt:hi:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	6	wikt:hi:Special:FileList
b:hr:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	182	b:hr:Special:FileList
q:hr:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	4	q:hr:Special:FileList
b:hu:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	21359	b:hu:Special:FileList
q:hu:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	66	q:hu:Special:FileList
w:id:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	55646	w:id:Special:FileList
s:id:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	305	s:id:Special:FileList
s:it:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	762	s:it:Special:FileList
w:ja:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	4589	w:ja:Special:FileList
b:ja:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	429	b:ja:Special:FileList
s:jv:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	149	s:jv:Special:FileList
w:kaa:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	29	w:kaa:Special:FileList
w:ka:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	15859	w:ka:Special:FileList
w:kk:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	11196	w:kk:Special:FileList
w:kn:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2447	w:kn:Special:FileList
s:kn:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	6	s:kn:Special:FileList
w:ko:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	14029	w:ko:Special:FileList
n:ko:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1	n:ko:Special:FileList
w:ks:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	13	w:ks:Special:FileList
w:ku:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	561	w:ku:Special:FileList
w:ky:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2680	w:ky:Special:FileList
w:mai:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	120	w:mai:Special:FileList
mw:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2783	mw:Special:FileList
w:mk:MediaWiki:Licenses	ГЛСД	9227	w:mk:Special:FileList
q:ml:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1	q:ml:Special:FileList
s:ml:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	605	s:ml:Special:FileList
wikt:ml:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	4	wikt:ml:Special:FileList
w:mr:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	10438	w:mr:Special:FileList
s:mr:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	15	s:mr:Special:FileList
w:ms:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	18417	w:ms:Special:FileList
b:ms:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	92	b:ms:Special:FileList
w:my:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2907	w:my:Special:FileList
w:nds-nl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	567	w:nds-nl:Special:FileList
w:ne:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1312	w:ne:Special:FileList
b:ne:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	4	b:ne:Special:FileList
w:nl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	20	w:nl:Special:FileList
b:nl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	21	b:nl:Special:FileList
q:nl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1	q:nl:Special:FileList
w:pa:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1862	w:pa:Special:FileList
s:pa:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	212	s:pa:Special:FileList
w:pl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	270	w:pl:Special:FileList
b:pl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	932	b:pl:Special:FileList
s:pl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	128	s:pl:Special:FileList
wikt:pl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	46	wikt:pl:Special:FileList
w:ps:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1764	w:ps:Special:FileList
w:pt:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	62852	w:pt:Special:FileList
b:pt:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1031	b:pt:Special:FileList
v:pt:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	114	v:pt:Special:FileList
w:ro:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	117533	w:ro:Special:FileList	Appears to be "good", see note below
b:ro:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	164	b:ro:Special:FileList	Accepted for documents
wikt:ro:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1	wikt:ro:Special:FileList
b:ru:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1862	b:ru:Special:FileList
s:ru:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	33016	s:ru:Special:FileList
w:sc:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	157	w:sc:Special:FileList
w:sd:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	154	w:sd:Special:FileList
w:simple:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	36	w:simple:Special:FileList
w:si:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2981	w:si:Special:FileList
b:si:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	60	b:si:Special:FileList
wikt:si:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	8	wikt:si:Special:FileList
w:sl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	8530	w:sl:Special:FileList
w:sq:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	3902	w:sq:Special:FileList
w:sr:MediaWiki:Licenses	ГЛСД	38036	w:sr:Special:FileList
q:su:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	9	q:su:Special:FileList
wikt:su:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1	wikt:su:Special:FileList
w:sw:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2291	w:sw:Special:FileList
w:ta:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	8425	w:ta:Special:FileList
q:ta:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	8	q:ta:Special:FileList
s:ta:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	42	s:ta:Special:FileList
wikt:ta:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	239	wikt:ta:Special:FileList
w:tcy:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	13	w:tcy:Special:FileList
w:te:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	14233	w:te:Special:FileList
q:te:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2	q:te:Special:FileList
s:te:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	546	s:te:Special:FileList
w:tg:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	519	w:tg:Special:FileList
w:tl:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1894	w:tl:Special:FileList
w:tn:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	4	w:tn:Special:FileList
w:tr:MediaWiki:Licenses	GÖBL	40730	w:tr:Special:FileList
w:tt:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	6754	w:tt:Special:FileList
w:tum:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	140	w:tum:Special:FileList
w:udm:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	9	w:udm:Special:FileList
w:uk:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	114738	w:uk:Special:FileList
s:uk:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	134	s:uk:Special:FileList
voy:uk:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	5	voy:uk:Special:FileList
w:ur:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	12633	w:ur:Special:FileList
b:ur:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	37	b:ur:Special:FileList
q:ur:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	9	q:ur:Special:FileList
w:uz:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	3514	w:uz:Special:FileList
w:vec:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	724	w:vec:Special:FileList
wikt:vec:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1	wikt:vec:Special:FileList
w:vi:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	26346	w:vi:Special:FileList
b:vi:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	1009	b:vi:Special:FileList
wikt:wa:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	69	wikt:wa:Special:FileList
w:zh-yue:MediaWiki:Licenses	GFDL	2858	w:zh-yue:Special:FileList

Some wikis may not allow local uploads anymore but have files uploaded long ago. I could not think of an easy way to filter those wikis away. But the FileList can show if new files are still uploaded. MGA73 (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note on ro.wikipedia: listed under Alte licențe libere (other free licenses), with a warning that it is more intended for documents. There is no explicit statement that the licenses in this section are acceptable, but given that the section includes things like Imagine asupra căreia s-a renunțat la drepturile de autor (images were the copyright-holder has given up their rights), it would appear so. - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is not necessarily a lot clearer for ro.wiktionary and ro.wikisource, both of which say simply Licențe libere - Licența GNU pentru o documentație liberă ("Free licenses - GNU license for free (libre) documentation.") There is nothing explicit there about whether the license is acceptable for images or not. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audio of music likely contain copyvio thumbnails – thumbnail provider database?

The thumbnails are not showing up at the audio file but the thumbnail is embedded in them. However, they are embedded in the file and when downloading the file one can see or extract them. Example.

Many of these thumbnails are copyrighted. This means usually the thumbnail would need to be removed. video2commons already imports audio files without the thumbnails. Could there be some script or bot that categorized all audio files with a thumbnail set into e.g. Category:Audio files with embedded thumbnail?
Then as a next step one could remove all of them at scale and efficiently using some metadata removal tool, for example similar to command eyeD3 --remove-all-images **/*.opus (applied to all audio files in some category). I guess it would be best to not remove the thumbnail for identified cases where the thumbnail is CCBY as well, these could e.g. be moved to another category or audio files whose thumbnails should be removed to a subcategory of the category above. (A more sophisticated method would be to reverse image search each thumbnail for finds via tineye so only non-original works are deleted and thumbnails created by the person licensing the work under CCBY kept (if the CCBY license also applies to the thumbnail) but I don't think this would be necessary as it would cause a lot of manual work of checking whether it's indeed a copyvio and whether thumbnails without reverse search result are indeed not copyvios.)

When removing the thumbnail one could replace it with a link that enables people to easily download the thumbnail again from some metadata provider. So they should just contain a link or an ID with which to fetch the thumbnail but not a thumbnail image. yt-dlp can embed images via parameter --embed-thumbnail Maybe this should be put into bot requests. I think thumbnails should be fetchable via e.g. MusicBrainz. One wouldn't have to fetch them every time one listens to the audio file – instead the audio player could fetch the thumbnail at first play. It wouldn't be stored on WMC and people don't need to embed the thumbnail or replace files just because the album cover thumbnail was missing.

Previously asked about here. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Accidental) upload of image containing a non-permitted (NASA-) logo ?

User Ingaviano uploaded the image File:NASA_FIRMS_2024-10-01_Bolivia_fires_and_hotspots.jpg. I happened to discover that the image contains a small, yet non-permitted NASA-logo. Since the logo has no relevance for wiki[p/m]edia's use of the image, I just uploaded a new version of the image, with the logo crudely cut out. But through the version history of the image, the original version of the image with the logo is still accessible here. So should the image still be flagged and removed as copyvio? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC) PS. Ingaviano, a new image without the logo can be created by unclicking 'Header' in the 'Capture' dialog.[reply]

Hello @Lklundin, just to clarify: We can lawfully host the NASA logo on Commons because it is a US government work, see the maaaany files in Category:Logos and seals of NASA. Therefore, we should probably restore the original version of the file, I would say. Gnom (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. I self-reverted, with apologies to Ingaviano. FYI, what was unclear to me is this note "Use of NASA logos, insignia and emblems is restricted per U.S. law 14 CFR 1221" on {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. Lklundin (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is non-copyright restriction, more like trademarking. You can't use the logos to pretend you have a connection with NASA. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles US sleeves

Hello there. Today I came across the sleeve of "The long and winding road" by the Beatles, first published in 1970 in the US, as seen here on Discogs. The sleeve has no copyright notice. Could this mean the sleeve is in the public domain? Bedivere (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that way to me. More interestingly, I don't see a copyright notice on the record itself either. I'll be interested to hear from others who have more experience with this kind of work. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other pressings ([1] [2]) do not have a copyright notice either. Bedivere (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When does the copyright of Syrian film expire?

The laws of Syria seem ambiguous to me—is Omar Amiralay’s 1970 film Film Essay on the Euphrates Dam still in copyright? The law says that broadcast film works are only protected 50 years from broadcast. Zanahary (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of COM:Syria would say it became PD in Syria in 2021, but URAA restoration makes it under U.S. copyright until 2066. Abzeronow (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that fucking sucks! Thanks for your help. Zanahary (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Media Viewer", copyright status, PD-US-architecture

View any image listed under Category:PD US architecture in "Media Viewer". It erroneously reports that the image itself is in the Public Domain, regardless of the chosen license. This does NOT happen when viewing an image with only a CC license, e.g. File:Crotalus_atrox_diamantklapperschlange_kopf.jpg

That strikes me as a pretty bad bug. It doesn't seem to matter how the license section is formatted. I tried:

{{PD-US-architecture}}{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}{{PD-US-architecture}}
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}<br>{{PD-US-architecture}}
{{Licensed-FOP|1={{PD-US-architecture}}|2={{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}}}
{{Licensed-FOP|2={{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}|1={{PD-US-architecture}}}}

Once "Media Viewer" sees the PD category, the image is suddenly Public Domain. -αβοοδ (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been a bug for 10 years...

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89692

I am removing the PD building tag from my image. -αβοοδ (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@-αβοοδ it has been a common practice to provide licensing tag to the public space artwork, especially due to the Freedom of Panorama policy regarding freeness of works of architecture and sculptures around the world (we only have less than 90 countries that permit FoP for copyrighted architecture). The U.S. does provide liberal FoP for architecture, but it has been a common practice of some here (myself included) to add PD tag for public domain buildings. All U.S. buildings completed before 1990 are in public domain. But if there comes a new consensus that there is no need for such tag, I'll agree to have PD-architecture tags removed from all files for the sake of simplicity. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of simplicity - I originally had it tagged the first way I showed above for the sake of completeness, with both the PD/FoP tag and the CC tag for the photo.

MediaWiki doesn't know how to handle an image with two licenses, and the "zoomed in" view of the image here or on Wikipedia erroneously reports the photograph as being in the public domain when it detects the PD-architecture tag. That isn't OK, it's patently false.

I had no idea it was a known (for ten years) issue until I went and checked phabricator... -αβοοδ (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 see here:

The example on the bottom is using {{Licensed-FOP|1={{PD-US-architecture}}|2={{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}}} like it "should" -αβοοδ (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@-αβοοδ: The image you show correctly shows the object photographed as PD and the photo as free-licensed. If that is supposed to be an illustration of the problem you reported, it looks to me like it doesn't match your description of the problem. - Jmabel ! talk 23:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel You need to look closer. At the red box. The screenshot is a composite, you need to ignore the "Licensing" and below, I did not want to upload multiple screenshots. You only see that AFTER clicking the "Public Domain" in the red box to navigate directly to the full Wikimedia page for the image (and scrolling down)

Check for yourself in Media Viewer or by trying to do the equivalent on mobile

When you are viewing the image in either view - the only license you see is Public Domain. The photograph IS NOT in the Public Domain. -αβοοδ (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg

Hi, Is this picture acceptable for Commons? There is a free license, but it is contested on en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting brightness is not copyrightable imo unless some other creative element was added in the process, which does not seem like it was Bedivere (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complicated one. Let's start with the first publication:

first publication of the image seems to have been in 1942 in US Camera 1943
- I have confirmed that the book carried a Copyright notice, as required ("Copyright by T. J. Maloney 1942")
- I have not been able to find a valid copyright registration, however. I can find other annual editions. For example, US Camera 1942 (Catalog of Copyright Entries 1942 Part I, page 11, registration A 160011, Nov 12, 1941) and US Camera 1944 (Catalog of Copyright Entries 1944 Part I, page 18, registration A 177716, Dec 15, 1943) were correctly registered. The entries are alphabetical, so if it had been correctly registered, US Camera 1943 should appear in Catalog of Copyright Entries 1943 Part I, page 13, but it does not.
If it had been correctly registered, copyright would have been due for renewal in the 28th year, so in 1970-71
- No copyright renewals for T. J. Maloney exist in these years (or any other years, for that matter)

I therefore conclude that copyright on the first publication of this photo either expired in 1970 or 1971, but more likely was never correctly registered in the first place.

Beyond that:

over the decades, the artist made numerous modifications to the negative and is on the record saying that “it is safe to say that no two prints are precisely the same.”
the copy hosted on en is of a later print and not the same as the version published under copyright in 1942, and there is a question about whether the alterations made to the original work cross the TOO to be copyrightable.
One version of the print, made by Adams in 1980 received its own copyright after the photographer's death. Registration VA0000209098 was issued by the US Copyright Office on March 26, 1985. That the print was based on an existing work was acknowledged, but the basis for the registration was "New Matter: unique reinterpretation of negative into printed enlargement." So, it appears that the alterations that the artist made in at least one case were significant enough to be copyrightable.
Adams had a little over 250 copyright registrations to his name. Some of these expired without renewal in his lifetime, but about 240 of them were made after 1964 and will be protected by copyright for decades to come. Most of these appear to be collections of his photographs in book form, and it's probable that at least some of these volumes contained copies of "Moonrise"

Therefore:

the freedom of any particular print of "Moonrise" probably depends on the circumstances of publication of that specific copy and its similarity to any other copies for which copyright might have been registered (via being collected into a book)
en's copy is sourced to MOMA[3], who say it is a print, not a reproduction from a book, but do not say when it was made. This means there is some possibility it is the 1980 version or one substantially identical to it
for comparison, the copy at the Minneapolis Institute of Art website[4] is also a print, not a reproduction from a book, and was made in 1961. Meaning that either:
- ~~this print is substantially similar to the one published in 1942, and is free of copyright or~~
  - Update -- the negative was substantially chemically altered in 1948.[5] If the lighting changes made in 1980 are sufficient for the USCO to approve a copyright registration, it seems likely that this does too...
- the alterations are substantial enough to require a new copyright notice, and copyright will depend on its similarity to versions that might have been published in copyrighted books.

Conclusion:

versions of "Moonrise" that are free of copyright and that we can host here definitely exist. The original 1942 version is one example.
the version on en is not safe and should be deleted. The existence of copyright-free versions means we can't even use it under NFF over there...
the version at the Minneapolis Institute of Art is also not safe
when archive.org and its collection of Catalogs of Copyright Entries for the period 1942-1950 is available again, it might be possible to zero in with more certainty on potentially free versions of the image.

Whew! --Rlandmann (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work @Rlandmann Bedivere (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Like you, I would never have believed that tinkering with the exposure of a photographic print would amount to a copyrightable alteration, yet here we are! --Rlandmann (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ansel Adams took the photo while he had a 6-month contract with the Department of the Interior to photograph land controlled by the Department. he had completed a photo shoot at a reservation and was driving near Hernandez when the opportunity happened. The photo has the Carson National Forest in the background, but that is Department of Agriculture land. There has been a debate about who owns the negative's copyright. The prints of the negative are derivative works by Adams. The prints are not faithful copies of the negative but rather prints that do substantial dodging and burning -- operations that are more than just adjusting the overall brightness. Glrx (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this extra detail! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few points to add:

The lack of copyright registration for US Camera 1943 is not of particular importance, since registration was an optional formality. The fact that neither the book nor the photo itself (nor any photos by Ansel Adams) was renewed in the period around 1970 is more pertinent.
The current version of the file on Wikipedia is this version from MoMA. According to the sources I cited on the file description page, Adams gave a print to MoMA in 1942. (Though I can't re-verify that right now, since Internet Archive is still mostly down.) The description page on MoMA says, "This print is one of the first of many that he made from a single negative." So I think it's fair to conclude that it is the aforementioned 1942 print. Thus the changes to the negative in 1948 aren't relevant.
Giving a print to a museum was probably an act of publication, independent of the publication in US Camera. So even if there was enough originality in that print to make it a copyrightable work distinct from the version published in US Camera, the MoMA print is still PD due to lack of renewal.
The copyright claim for the 1980 print seems dubious. The registration record states "Cataloged from appl[ication] only." Which I haven't seen before, but seems to imply that they registered it without inspecting a copy of the work? And it was registered alongside 70 other prints as part of an edition titled "The Museum Set". Could the Copyright Office have examined all those prints and compared them to the negatives and to all the previous prints of those images to determine if there was enough originality in the new prints to merit a copyright? Seems far-fetched, to say the least.
Adams sold hundreds of prints of the photo through the 1970s. Did any of those have a copyright notice? Seems unlikely. There are numerous museums and galleries that list details of their copy, with none of them mentioning a copyright notice that I've found. See here an auction listing that shows both sides of the print, with no copyright notice to be found. So we have probably hundreds of prints that have gone into the public domain. Leaving approximately zero room for any new originality in the printing process that could justify a copyright even in any later prints that did follow the required formalities, such as the 1980 print. (Even the 1980 print may not have bore a copyright notice. It wasn't registered until 1985, just under the 5-year wire to rescue the copyright of a work published without notice. Seems likely that the Adams trust didn't get wise about copyright formalities until that time.)

Toohool (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is the negative had many problems, so printing the negative took substantial work and each print is unique. That could be a reason that chemically treating the negative was attempted.

The simple path would be for Adams to make an improved print, photograph that print, and then produce prints from the second-generation negative. No one is claiming that Adams took that route for Moonrise prints.

I have some trouble with publication / COM:PUB; see also COM:PACUSA. If Adams sold prints from a shop open to the public, then I'd put the publication at the sale of the print. The article above suggests that making prints was more like a commission. Adams got letters requesting a print, and then Adams made a derivative work. I am not sure that fulfilling a commission is publication. The transaction sounds private rather than public. If I commission a painter to paint my portrait, is the resulting portrait published? I do not believe it is. The public never had a chance to see my portrait.

I do not understand the nuances of publication. Displaying a work in a museum does not necessarily constitute publication. The museum may not allow photography. A gift may be publication, but I suspect that issue is more nuanced. If I gave a photograph to a friend, then that is not a transaction with the public and should not be publication. If I gave photographs away while running for public office, then that is publication. Is a gift to a museum that does not allow photography publication? Why would a gift be treated differently than a loan? Or is that why I see notations that a work of art is on "permanent loan" from a museum patron?

Glrx (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually consider that a picture leaving the photographer's custody constitutes publication. There have been exhibitions of Adams' works. That certainly constitutes publication. I have got a list for Category:Exhibition at M. H. De Young Memorial Museum. November 15, 1932–December 31, 1932. Yann (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that conflicts with a statement in COM:PACUSA: "the court ruled that exhibiting a work in a closed gallery setting that did not allow copying was insufficient to qualify for publication because the location restricted the public's dominion over the work." Other comments also show that limited disclosure does not constitute publication. I see the broad claim as too simple. Glrx (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This only occurs where the gallery was set up such that copying or photography was prevented. Additionally, distribution based on request letters is not limited publication, and is in fact thus general publication. The courts created the doctrine of “limited publication” to distinguish certain distributions from a “general publication” and to avoid the divestive consequences of publication without notice when it was clear the author (or copyright proprietor) restricted both the purpose and the recipients of the distribution. Generally, a limited publication is the distribution of copies of a work to a definitely selected group with a limited purpose and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution, or sale. (Compendium 1905.1). Whether or not there is publication has nothing to do with the privacy of the transaction; it has to do with whether or not there are restrictions placed on the copies and into whose hands they might fall — where there are not. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 1932 exhibition, Group f/64 says that on November 15, 1932, the first exhibition of Group f/64 opened to large crowds and that Edward Weston's prints were priced at $15 each; all of the others were $10 each. The show ran for six weeks. So the pictures were on sale, and there certainly have been news reports about it. That certainly constitutes publication. And confidential exhibitions where journalists can't take pictures are certainly the exception. I can't access to US newspapers archives, but it probably could be done. Yann (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:William D. Hoard.jpg

Hi volunteers, I have been engaged in a discussion with Nikkimaria on English Wikipedia about whether or not the portrait File:William D. Hoard.jpg is public domain or not.

I have searched US copyright records and have found no evidence that the portrait was officially registered at any point between 1923 and today; nor have I found any evidence that the portrait was officially published at any point, beyond, of course, the digital recreation in the Wisconsin Historical Society database. Here's what I have been able to find out, and apologies for the lack of links as the source is not easily linkable (go here and search for William D. Hoard to read it for yourself if you like, the portrait is the first result, object ID 1942.103).

The portrait was created by James Reeve Stuart (1834-1915) in 1891
Stuart was a professional painter and art professor, making it unlikely that he painted this portrait for fun. If he had painted it for fun and owned the copyright, the copyright would last no more than 95 years post-death, and the portrait would be public domain.
It was most likely work-for-hire
It was displayed in the Executive Chamber of the state capitol in Madison -- it is unclear whether this was the governor's office or the governor's meeting room. In either case, it was a semi-public place
In either 1907 or 1908, it was donated to the Wisconsin Historical Society

By my understanding of what Commons says about the public domain, this portrait is an unpublished work-for-hire, making it under copyright protection for 120 years from the time of creation. Its copyright protection, therefore, expired no later than Jan. 1, 2012, and the portrait should be in the public domain.

Nikkimaria's chief concern is if the portrait was officially published sometime after 1929. The only publication I have seen is the digital recreation currently hosted on Commons, and it is not clear to me when exactly the Wisconsin Historical Society published its digital recreation, but it would have had to have been sometime after the creation of the internet.

I would love other opinions on this! It's a fascinating discussion and I am learning much about this topic. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public display without any means to specifically restrict copying by onlookers counted as publication before 1978. So the painting is presumably in the public domain due to such publication before 1929, either via its display in a government building or public display (if any) made by the Historical Society.

Additionally, if published without a copyright notice (before March 1989), or with a notice (before 1964) but no renewal, the painitng would also be in the public domain.

If the painting really hadn't been published before being put on the internet, it would be in the public domain, as long as that first publication occurred in 2003 or later. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I changed the license to {{PD-Art|PD-US-expired}} to indicate that the scanning or photograph of a 2D work of art doesn't create a new copyright. Yann (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviewers? Need some assistance.

The backlog for files moved to Commons is currently at just over 15 years (oldest date to 2009-07-09). See the first page of Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review by date. I'm discovering a lot of images that shouldn't be on Commonsdating all the way back them. Any help is appreciated. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 photos and videos from NIST

Can someone please take a look at the files sourced from the NIST in Category:September 11 attacks and its sub-categories?

A lot of those files seem to have been turned over to the NIST by third parties, and it's unlikely all of them gave the NIST permission to release them into public domain. For example:

File:NIST FOIA 09-42- R25 -- 42A0121 - G25D32, Video -1 (WTC2 Debris, 9-59am-WTC1 104th Floor Fire).webm is credited to Eric Teed of CBS
File:NIST FOIA 09-42- R27 -- 42A0169 - G26D28 (WTC2 Fireball, 9-03am-WTC7 Debris Pile, 09-12-2001-).webm is credited to Andrea Star Reese, who does not appear to have ever been an NIST employee
File:NIST FOIA 09-42- R30 -- 42A0354 - G30D8 (WTC2 Smoke Cloud, 9-03am-Aftermath of 9-11).webm is credited to Greg Silberman, who does not appear to have ever worked for the NIST [6]
File:WTC-7 - IMG16 001.jpg and many others are credited to the FDNY

We should verify these photos and videos are actually in public domain. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're clearly not, and IMHO should be speedied as no-permission.

This is different from the NWS cases you've seen where at least there was some confusion generated by a general disclaimer on the site. Here, there's no evidence of permission offered that copyright was transferred to the NIST (let alone that they were created by the NIST...) --Rlandmann (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the second one, and it gives a reference to the nist.gov website, no longer there but archived here, which clearly says at the top: Image © 2001 Star Reese, and at the bottom, The materials (images, video, documents, etc.) available on this website may be protected by copyrights owned by private individuals or organizations, and may be subject to restrictions on use. Copyrighted materials, in most circumstances, cannot be used or distributed without the permission of the copyright holder. (NIST does not maintain current contact information for copyright holders.). So... yes, these should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I figured. I plan to go through the files and nominate the ones that weren't taken by the NIST for deletion when I have time. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian photographer in the US, 1944

See the copyright question (Revision #905212609) at File talk:John Curtin and Owen Dixon.jpg:

I reasoned that this photo was PD based on Australian law, but if it was taken in America and comes originally from a UC Berkley archive, does that mean that it needs to be considered under US law instead?--Nicknimh

It was taken by the family of an Australian man in the US in 1944. I am not sure if it was ever published in the US. Commander Keane (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an official government image from a US government photographer, it is PD for that reason. If it is an official image from an Australian government photographer, it is PD because Crown Copyright will have expired in 1994. Otherwise, I suppose the question is whether it was published (with consent of the photographer) at all. If it was first published in the 1940s in the US, it is probably PD in the US as an image whose copyright has not been renewed. If it has been published in Australia prior to 1989, it would be PD in the US because it was PD in Australia in 1996 (the URAA cut-off date). Only if it remained in a family archive until after 1989 is there an issue, since it would then still be copyrighted in the US. I am not sure how likely that is though, given that a library has two separate copies from the family archive and the prime ministerial archive. Felix QW (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Public Library Digital Collections

I came across File:"Free Huey, Seize the Time" political button.jpg uploaded under a {{PD-because}} license with the justification being that the work is from the "New York Public Library Digital Collections". There's a "Right's statement" at the near the bottom of [https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/c5b51a80-6be8-0135-c68a-2dfdfd17d363 the file's source page", that begins with the sentence "The New York Public Library believes that this item is in the public domain under the laws of the United States, but did not make a determination as to its copyright status under the copyright laws of other countries." Is this good enough for Commons purposes? If it is, then perhaps a better license than "PD-because" could be created that's specific to the library's collections. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If at all possible, I think we should substitute the actual reason for it to be in the public domain for the library's own determination. In this case, the button is very likely to have been distributed without a copyright notice, and since the party and movement were active in the US, we can safely assume it to be a US work. So I would substitute {{PD-US-no-notice}} for the {{PD-because}} statement. Felix QW (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ohio University Rufus Bobcat.jpg

Given COM:CB#Costumes and cosplay and other discussions regarding team mascots, the photo of the mascot character in File:Ohio University Rufus Bobcat.jpg might be OK for Commons; however, the logo on the blackboard shown in the same image might be a problem since it seems it doesn't seem to be de minimis (i.e. incidental) and is not really essential to the bobcat mascot image. Can this file be kept as is or does the logo need to be cropped/blurred out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the image is the same with or without the logo, that is, it is not essential to the photo, it may be assumed that keeping it in would qualify as de minimis. That being said, cropping part of it out won't change the image intent either. I wouldn't blur it and leave the whole thing in. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisboa 2011 139 (6474542577).jpg

Can anyone determine where File:Lisboa 2011 139 (6474542577).jpg is located? There could be COM:FOP issues depending upon where it's located per COM:MURAL, and it also looks like this might be a case of COM:BASEDONPHOTO. The same mural can be seen [Tupac Wall Mural – divyajanan here], here (where it's attributed to "Tupac Painting by Spray Spotting - Fine Art America") and here (which seems to imply it's in Libson). If this is really located in Libson, then it's not clear whether Portugal's FOP also extends to 2D works of art like this per COM:FOP Portugal. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "Tupac murals in Lisbon" and found numerous different photographs of this same image. That and the image title would affirm that the photograph is in Lisbon, in Portugal Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reverse image search also consistently points to Lisbon, and one of the websites you linked even specifies the area of Lisbon. Note that the EXIF data also says Lisbon. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is precedent for keeping 2D FOP images in Portugal. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:RatoMetroLx3.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salgueiro Maia graffiti.jpg Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 00:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good resource from a Portuguese scholar regarding the Portuguese FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it would seem it isn't even a question, 'works' includes anything that could be defined as 'works' Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that opinion is completely unambiguous. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Owl WTP.jpg

The image file, File:Owl WTP.jpg, must be uploaded onto either Wikimedia or Wikipedia, preferably Wikimedia, by someone who has an account. Oh, and in case you're wondering, it must be a picture of Owl from the Disney Winnie the Pooh franchise, and it must be this image here. Just click on the link [7]. There aren't any images of Owl from the Disney Winnie the Pooh franchise on Wikipedia, nor Wikimedia, for that matter. I need it for my draft article I'm working on Owl from "Winnie-the-Pooh". I need an image of Owl from the Disney Version of Winnie the Pooh. You can either upload any image of Owl from the Disney Winnie the Pooh franchise, or I can find out who deliberately excluded Owl from The Disney Characters Category in the first place. And, please, DO NOT remove this. I spent three days trying to find and remember the name of the page I put this need-to-be-attended-to request on. Isn't Owl supposed to be included as a Disney character anyway? 2601:401:4300:3720:224D:1EA1:47DE:8A26 23:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we CANNOT host this file here on Wikimedia Commons, read COM:L. Fair use is not allowed here, and Disney's Winnie the Pooh is still under copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just un case they forgot, this request was also posted at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#File:Owl_WTP.jpg. Commander Keane (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, a similar request was also posted at en:WP:MCQ#File:Owl WTP.jpg, where it was pointed out that it would likely be quite hard to justify the non-free use of such a file per English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New court decision about freedom of panorama in Germany

Germany's highest regular court, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), has decided that photos taken from above using a photo drone are not covered by the FOP exception in Germany's copyright law. The case was about drone photos of sculptures placed on colliery spoil tips in Germany's Ruhr area. [8], [9]. Discussions (in German) at Commons:Forum and at de.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 07:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of grandma's photo wallpaper declared to be ok after all by Germany's highest court

The photo wallpaper court cases from Germany (Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/05#No mercy for grandma's photo wallpaper at Cologne District Court) were decided a few weeks ago by Germany's highest regular court BGH (Federal Court of Justice). They ruled that showing such wallpapers in the background of photos on the Internet etc. is not a copyright infringement because there is an implied consent for such uses by the original copyright holder when licensing photos to be used for photo wallpapers. “The fact that the exception of incidental works in Art. 5(3)(i) InfoSoc Directive could potentially apply in the present case was deemed irrelevant.” [10], [11], [12]. Note: The BGH is described as German Supreme Court in the English language article, it is not Germany's constitutional court however (that is a separate court). --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Contents

AI-generated media and copyright tags

Hundreds of mid-20th century China photos on Commons is probably an URAA violation?

The Detroit Industry Murals and the URAA

Asking for clarification on Nigerian copyright

Authority to release promotional image under CC-BY-3.0

Ambigrams in free license used in a game shows

Does this memorial cross the TOO in the US?

Uploading a Québec magazine article image

Is the Tootsie-Pop commercial "How many licks" under PD-US?

Automated Wildfire Cameras

Inconsistency regarding PD monuments in their no-FoP countries but copyrighted in the US

GFDL license across wikis

Audio of music likely contain copyvio thumbnails – thumbnail provider database?

(Accidental) upload of image containing a non-permitted (NASA-) logo ?

Beatles US sleeves

When does the copyright of Syrian film expire?

"Media Viewer", copyright status, PD-US-architecture

File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg

File:William D. Hoard.jpg

Image reviewers? Need some assistance.

9/11 photos and videos from NIST

Australian photographer in the US, 1944

New York Public Library Digital Collections

File:Ohio University Rufus Bobcat.jpg

File:Lisboa 2011 139 (6474542577).jpg

File:Owl WTP.jpg

New court decision about freedom of panorama in Germany

Photos of grandma's photo wallpaper declared to be ok after all by Germany's highest court

Navigation menu

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

AI-generated media and copyright tags

Hundreds of mid-20th century China photos on Commons is probably an URAA violation?

The Detroit Industry Murals and the URAA

Asking for clarification on Nigerian copyright

Authority to release promotional image under CC-BY-3.0

Ambigrams in free license used in a game shows

Does this memorial cross the TOO in the US?

Uploading a Québec magazine article image

Is the Tootsie-Pop commercial "How many licks" under PD-US?

Automated Wildfire Cameras

Inconsistency regarding PD monuments in their no-FoP countries but copyrighted in the US

GFDL license across wikis

Audio of music likely contain copyvio thumbnails – thumbnail provider database?

(Accidental) upload of image containing a non-permitted (NASA-) logo ?

Beatles US sleeves

When does the copyright of Syrian film expire?

"Media Viewer", copyright status, PD-US-architecture

File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg

File:William D. Hoard.jpg

Image reviewers? Need some assistance.

9/11 photos and videos from NIST

Australian photographer in the US, 1944

New York Public Library Digital Collections

File:Ohio University Rufus Bobcat.jpg

File:Lisboa 2011 139 (6474542577).jpg

File:Owl WTP.jpg

New court decision about freedom of panorama in Germany

Photos of grandma's photo wallpaper declared to be ok after all by Germany's highest court

Navigation menu

Search