This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Can an administrator take a look at the deletion request. There has been a lot of back-and-forth between editors, with several !vote changes and strikethroughs. It was opened back on 17 May, so it is two weeks old. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
As the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has released a new channel, I am trying to find out what level of copyright or creative commons licence it has but I cannot find any information. Any help? Imageuploder (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Imageuploader. Under the current copyright laws of most countries, copyright holders are no longer required to clearly claim copyright ownership over their content. So, you probably should start out under the assumption that the new channel's logo is copyrighted and that the copyright holder is the Australian Broadcast Company. Unless you can either (1) show that the logo has been clearly released by its copyright holder under a free license that satisfies COM:L or (2) demonstrate thet the logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:TOO Australia, the logo shouldn't be uploaded to Commons. You can check (1) by looking at official statement (print or online) made by the company related to the new channel to see whether any make any mention of the logo's copyright status; for reference, no mention is equivalent to saying "this logo is copyrighted". Checking (2), however, is a bit harder without actually seeing the logo itself, but Australian copyright law is quite restrictive when it comes to the copyright status of logos and even those which seem to have very little creative input tend to be considered eligible for copyright protection. Assuming you want to use this new logo in the main infobox of en:ABC Entertains, you probably should be OK to upload locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content using the English Wikipedia Upload Wizard. Once you've uploaded the file locally to English Wikipedia, you simply relace the syntax of the old logo currently used in the |logo= paremater of the article's main infobox with the syntax of the new logo, and the old logo will eventually be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Image - plan created by Tasmanian government (state of Australia)
Hi, this post provides more information on a query I made about a month ago. I'm new to this aspect of Wikipedia. If possible I would like to upload to the Commons, for inclusion in an article, a national park plan (simple park boundary lines on a sketch map, made prior to the first topographic map of the area). This was produced by the government of Tasmania, a state of Australia, in 1955. I can provide a very small thumbnail of the image if that would help in understanding my query, or possibly a link to it on the web. I went to a government office in Tasmania and asked for a copy of the plan, which they provided me free of charge. While it's never been published the plan has, since 1955, always been available for perusal or copying at Tasmanian state government offices. The national park which the plan describes/outlines only existed from 1955 to 1968. What are the options to be able to get the plan uploaded to the Commons? Also, if uploading is not possible, what are the options for somehow making the image available to readers of the intended Wikipedia article? For example, by using a reference to the map; a link to where it resides on another website (would this be the only feasible way?). Thanks in advance for your help. Cheyne (talk) Cheyne (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Reasoning: According to {{PD-AustraliaGov}} and the discussion at its talk page, copyright in Australian state works now depends only on the creation date. Therefore, whether it would count as published or not is irrelevant. While this would usually be an issue for American copyright, which is also relevant for Wikimedia Commons, the Australian government has declared that expiry of Crown Copyright is valid globally, including in the US. Felix QW (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
As long as I carefully sourced the screenshots with URLs, the two screenshots of Qiuwen Baike (all have been tagged with {{npd}} have a blacklisted link. I couldn't tag the source because it is already blacklisted Found a short link to prove that they are legitimately under the same license. As the forks follow the same license as Wikipedia, are they safe to upload here? Ahri.boy (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
My question concerns the limits of {{PD-Art}} or {{PD-old-100-expired}} for in situ photographs of ancient frescoes (see, for example, File:Nereid pompeii fresco.jpg. That's a photograph taken between 2020 and 2024, presumably by a professional Italian photographer. The artwork pictured on that photograph is clearly older than 100 years, since it was buried under Vesuvius' ashes in 79 AD. While applying categories, i flagged it because there were no information regarding the picture's author. Am i right assuming the following:
In such cases {{PD-Art}} should be preferred over {{PD-old-100-expired}} (since the photograph is clearly not over 100 years old - the PD status is derived from the pictured artwork);
Photographs of ancient frescoes in situ can't be seen generally as faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works. For sure, picturing an ancient fresco displayed in a museum is the same case as picturing a medieval/classical painting that hangs 0.5 meters left of it. That's IMHO a faithful reproduction of two-dimensional public domain work. But taking pictures of archaeological objects in situ requires decisions regarding choosing which details to show in the in situ context. Especially for frescoes originally occupying the whole wall area, in situ photos are usually based on artistic choices, thus {{PD-Art}} isn't applicable as a matter of principle.
To be clear: My assumptions don't exclude own photographs of ancient frescoes taken in situ from usage on Commons, but it would restrict treating other (living) people's work as PD work. People are still free (while respecting other restrictions, see e.g. {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}) to take photographs of publicly accessible archeological sites and upload their own pics. They aren't free to take such pictures floating around on Pinterest or other sites and upload them as {{PD-Art}}. Is this correct? Fl.schmitt (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding "regarding choosing which details to show in the in situ context" does it mean that after I take a image from Commons, which depicts a whole fresco, crop out a small part of it and save the result into a separate file then that cropped file cannot be regarded as a faithful reproductions of a two-dimensional public domain work any more? After all, when a photographer chooses to take a photo of only a part of the fresco instead of the whole work, they basically do what is an equivalent of cropping. Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Hmm - what's the effect (regarding the applicable license) of cropping a photography of a painting? Is cropping a way of demonstrating "originality (typically through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on)"? Then "it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted", or not? Please bear in mind that one of the rationales of the WMF standpoint is to counter "an assault on the very concept of a public domain. If museums and galleries not only claim copyright on reproductions, but also control the access to the ability to reproduce pictures (by prohibiting photos, etc.), important historical works that are legally in the public domain can be made inaccessible to the public except through gatekeepers.". For me, it seems that this rationale doesn't apply for archaeological sites which are in general publicly accessible (of course, not in its entirety, but in general). Fl.schmitt (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
If it's basically a straight-on photo of all or part of a 2-dimensional public domain work, it's hard to see how that qualifies for copyright. If it's an unusual angle, or is a broader image that shows how the work sits in the context of a room, or something like that, I could imagine a claim similar to photographing a sculpture. - Jmabel ! talk05:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but this isn't really helpful (especially in the case of the Nereid fresco). If 2-D or 3-D is crucial, this would imply that {{PD-Art}} never applies in those cases, since originally, the rooms of the roman villas were entirely painted, thus a 3D work. Additionally, as in the case of the Nereid fresco where only a small part of the wall is preserved, the pic has obviously a 3D subject. So, i don't see any reason to assume that {{PD-Art}} could ever apply in those cases, based on the 2D/3D criterion. For frescoes that were removed from their original place (a sad practice quite common in 19th century) and now be found in museums, i agree to see them (now!) as 2D works (as i explained). But it's the very question if this is justified for works in situ which originally were 3D works. Fl.schmitt (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I think we largely agree. I would imagine that most third-party photos of such works would be unacceptable for Commons, because some copyrightable creativity would be involved. However, a straight-on image of part of a flat wall would be OK, because the thing it depicts is 2-dimensional. A straight-on photo of a wall doesn't become a photo of something 3-dimensional just because the room has another wall, a ceiling, etc. - Jmabel ! talk17:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Did the United Arab Emirates had a copyright law before 1992? An online article claims the 1992 law was the Emirates' first copyright law. But, did UAE ever had one before 1992, and did it protect works automatically or even architecture? If not, it may be possible that architecture before 1992 may be in PD, but I am not sure about this. The UAE was a former British protectorate known as the Trucial States. Further info is needed. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)23:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 please ping local Commoners and/or email the affiliates (yes, UAE has an UG) in these countries. It's great that you are deep diving in these topics, but (as you did with NL copyrights and FOP in Europe) you seem post it in general Commons discussion areas only, and don't reach out to the locals that might have significant input, or the human connections to get this, for the questions you want to answer. Ciell (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Please, remove this copyrighted photo! (File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg) The owner is company "BabaPhoto" and they don't want to everybody use it, it is copyrighted by them, and I have some issues because of downloaded it 9 years ago. I downloaded it in 2015, but times changed since then and it is not allowed to use it on a free site anymore.
Thank you! Kalocsaizsuzsa (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The copyright policy of Prolewiki says "fuck copyright, comrade". Does it mean {{attribution}} will be granted? I was asking if screenshots of the wiki are allowed here. Ahri.boy (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ahri.boy unreliable IMO. Such a statement is not a guarantee that their content can be reused commercially in accordance with COM:Licensing. A more valid statement would have been like or similar to this: "We, at Prolewiki, aim to build a collaborative Marxist-Leninist encyclopedia that opposes any idealogies of capitalism, including intellectual property which is a form of private property. As part of this common mission, we are releasing our content into the public domain for the benefit of all our readers and future comrades of the communist world. This release into the public domain is also part of our advocacy in continuously opposing the imperialist and capitalist copyright principle." This would have been more obvious instead of plain remark "The socialist science should not be held by intellectual private property. Fuck copyright, comrade." At the very least, COM:VRTS confirmation may be needed. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)01:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Update: Just asked one of ProleWiki admins privately and they will relay the message to other admins of the site. Ahri.boy (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
{Wikisource Discussion} National Weather Service - Partial not free-to-use
A discussion regarding copyright stuff with the National Weather Service publications, a branch of the U.S. government is ongoing on Wikisource. The Commons is involved as publications need to be uploaded in PDF form here before transcribing onto Wikisource.
I'm not that familiar with what Wikisource's policies are on this, but I'd think redacting the nonfree works would be the best way to deal with uploading it here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm looking to use this image : https://twitter.com/MIRALLESMP/status/1798310798399607173 to illustrate a relevant wikipedia article - It's an image published on twitter by the French Veterans' Minister and seems to attribute the photo to various government agencies. The objective of using the image would be to illustrate the special edition of the thing on the photo (the Bleuet) created. I can't seem to find another image of it and as it's a special edition have no idea where one could be tracked. Is this suitable for uploading? LazareouJanus (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Certain French government works are exempt from copyright too (and it's a photo of an official item - the national symbol of Remembrance - from an official twitter account. (Article L. 321-1 of the CRPA provides that administrative documents aren't subject to copyright). LazareouJanus (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@LazareouJanus: Bonjour, Non, les documents publiés par le gouvernement français ne sont pas dans le domaine public. Seuls les lois et les décisions des courts de justice sont dans le domaine public, i.e. ce qui est publié au Journal Officiel. Yann (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Is the threshold of originality of this logo ([1]) considered to be low enough for it to be under public domain and its upload to be acceptable? Many thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Photo of 2024 New Hampshire US presidential Republican primary ballot
File:Primary republican ballot.jpg seems incorrectly licensed as {{PD-US}} given that it wasn't published prior to 1929, and that it also wouldn't be covered by {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} given that it's from January 2024. I believe that most ballots for state primaries of US federal elections are not published by the US federal government; so, I don't any of the {{PD-US-Gov}} licenses will work. Moreover, New Hampshire doesn't appear to be one of the US states that releases works created by its employees as part of their official duties into the the public domain per Harvard's State Copyright Resource Center. Can this be kept per some other PD license, perhaps {{PD-text}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
New Hampshire is a "public records are not public domain" state, so it's not automatically public domain by that method. Most ballots are going to be {{PD-text}} though, and I think this ballot qualifies as well. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Given that the state seal is PD (it dates back at least to the 19th Century), there is certainly nothing copyrightable there. - Jmabel ! talk00:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
check this out. user has over 16K images, at least half of them is from wikimapia which is free licensed website. BUT, images that are upload is really free licensed? i saw nothing about licenses in these images in wikimapia. please enlighten me, thank you. modern_primatඞඞඞ ----TALK18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Diese Datei hat schon zwei Löschanträge hinter sich, die binnen kurzer Zeit vom gleichen Admin verworfen wurden. Ich kann diese Entscheidungen nicht nachvollziehen. Meiner Meinung ist das Urheberrecht für das Wappen keineswegs geklärt. In der zweiten Löschdiskussion sei insbesondere auf den Trugschluss hingewiesen, der sich um den Geschäftseinstieg der Familie Dorfner (1817) und das Wappen dreht. Wer sagt denn, dass das Wappen so alt ist? Es könnte (wie jedes PR-Symbol) erst vor kurzer Zeit entworfen worden sein. Das Wappen in seiner Darstellung ist meiner Meinung auch deutlich über der Schöpfungshöhe.
English: I'm still in doubt about the copyright for the coat of arms in the image. I think the decisions about my deletion requests were wrong. GerritR (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Per Commons:Coats of arms, it doesn't really matter what the age of the general design is, it matters more who made that particular drawing (including the vectorization). If it was truly drawn by the uploader, it is OK. If it was traced from another drawing, then the copyright on that drawing matters. If this was extracted from a publication elsewhere, it's not "own work" and we'd need a license for that particular drawing. So... I'm not sure either, but not sure the deletion reasons directly addressed the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
That's definitely a derivative work (or both from a common source). The vectorization did fix a coloring mistake around the neck of the swan, so it may have been from a common ancestor. But the copyright of that other drawing matters. Any idea of when it was from? I see it on the website here; there are similar drawings of the same arms but that one has the particular details. Another copy is here (from https://web.archive.org/web/20220816133148/https://www.european-beer-star.com/ebs-en/gewinner/unsere-gewinner/ this web page] (does not have the coloration mistake); that seems like a more or less modern drawing. The upload is either a derivative work, or they found a vector drawing somewhere and copied it (the details seem extremely close, so that may be likely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I went ahead and re-nominated it for deletion, under new reasoning. I did find a PDF with what seems to be the exact design. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
btw, there's something strange in this coat of arms: The white cross in a red field, showing up in the helmet. I've never seen something like that.--GerritR (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Created new template on Wikipedia for Uruguayan works PD in the USA but had revived copyright in Uruguay due to retroactive extension
Uruguay had a term of life + 40 years prior to 2003, when it was retroactively sxtended to Life + 50 and Life + 70 in 2019. However, it also had copyright formalties (registration).
"The National Library will keep a Registry of copyrights, in which the interested parties will be obliged to register, compulsorily, in accordance with article 6, the title of the works published for the first time in the territory of the Republic. A period of two years is indicated for the registration of works that are published, exhibited or reproduced in the country from their publication, exhibition or performance. The term will be three years when the publication, exhibition or representation takes place abroad, and the author is Uruguayan.
In other words, a work had to be registered with the Uruguayan Register of Copyrights within 2 years of its publication in order to be copyrighted, or 3 yeaea for works made by Uruguayan authors but published abroad (but those works will be covered under different countries). In 2003, the copyright was extended to Life + 50 years and not only were copyright formalties abolished:
The National Library shall keep a register of copyright, in which interested parties may register the works and other intellectual property protected in this law. The registration in the Registry referred to in this article is merely optional, so that its omission does not in any way harm the enjoyment and exercise of the rights recognized in this law. The application, collections, procedure, registration and publication regime will be made in accordance with the relevant regulations. All disputes arising on the occasion of registrations in the Registry will be resolved by the Copyright Council.
But copyright was revived on all previously PD works under the old terms! In 2019, it was further retroactively extended to Life + 70 years.
However, the registration requirement means that a whole lot of Uruguayan works are PD in the US under the URAA, despite most of them having revived copyright. Works published prior to 1994 and not registered had no time to receive copyright protection left as of January 1, 1996. So I created the template w:Template:PD-URAA-Not-PD-Uruguay because of the copyright formalties which were abolished in 2003 and the copyright extensions applied to most non-registered works.VTSGsRock (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Bettmann Archive photos
Over at Category:Bettmann Archive, there is a decent number of photos that use the {{PD-US-no notice}} tag, however they show no source or evidence it ever was published at the time without a notice. Perhaps a book or newspaper source, or a press photo would suffice? Yet the only source is from Getty - but how do we know for sure these images weren't just scanned in the last 10 years as their first instance of publication? I mean one could also argue because they are in this collection, they were infact published as Otto Bettman got a copy somehow, yet we cannot confirm if there's ever a notice. For example, this photo: File:Ronald Reagan, 14 May 1974.jpg. A little hard to look for a copyright registration/renewal when the author is Unknown on almost all photos. I'm looking for some other opinions on this, I don't want to go mass deleting just yet. PascalHD (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Ugh. If Bettman got copies, there was something distributed at the time, so they were probably published. But agreed that we need to see the distributed copies to see the lack of notice. Of course, if Bettman did not own the copyright, Getty is also publishing them without permission, which means they are comfortable enough that there won't be repercussions. That could well be because they are public domain. But, not sure that's enough to make an assumption on. Eventually there will be a real problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The file linked in the original post is actually credited by getty originally to UPI, a press agency. I see no reason to assume that such images have been distributed without copyright notice. The Bettmann archive obtained the UPI collection in 1984 (according to its English Wikipedia page), and as far as we know it could have had any sort of copyright agreement with UPI. Felix QW (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh man, I somehow missed that. Even with the 'copyright' holder being UPI, I didn't find many registrations past 1978. Still, without actually seeing the photo lacking a notice, all the photos are being uploaded on the mere assumption they are PD - I'm sure most photos are, but without being able to confirm is bothersome. PascalHD (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Pre-1963 images are a very different case, since they would have had to have been renewed. However, I really don't see a way to keep post-1962 photos like this without any direct proof that they were published without notice. They could well have been given to publications under the condition that a notice is affixed or kept merely in their own archive until Bettmann purchased it in 1984. Felix QW (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I think they should only be uploaded if there is proof. Whether you can find registration/renewal or lack there of, or a copy that shows no notice. All anyone has to do is go on eBay, one can find a large number of UPI or AP / press images that don’t have notices. If only Getty would tell you which ones were PD, but of course they need to make money… I’ll have to open a mass DR on certain files to further discuss them. PascalHD (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I was doing a review and I came across some images that were made in the 1910s/1920s with no provided authorship, but had "In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable" and "Copyright undetermined". Would these be able to be under a license like {{PD-US-expired}} or something similar?
I am not entirely sure about photos such as File:Mary and John Keeley.jpg, which are likely to be private amateur photos from a family archive. Although the contemporary American definition of publication is sufficiently liberal to accommodate professional photographers handing copies to patrons, such family photograohs are far less clear. In those cases, they could be in copyright until 120 years after creation. Felix QW (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Reading the previous discussion, I am inclined to think this may be eligible for copyright in the Philippines. I have changed the licenses to PD-textlogo/PD-simple, but it may be a copyright violation anyway. Bedivere (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Is email permission by official copyright holder adequate -- WA State Legislature Portraits
I'm leading a volunteer project with high school students to upload WA State legislator (reps & senators) public portrait photos from app.leg.wa.gov (example [2] ) to Wikipedia Commons
I have written permission from WA Legislative Information Center (app.leg.wa.gov) , House & Senate that The portraits on the legislative webpage are downloadable for public use.
I recommended the agency add a Public Domain license to the website, but that may take some time for technical reasons.
Can I use the recorded permission from the WA Legislative Information Center as license to upload the Legislator portraits to Wikimedia Commons? Tonymetz (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Cases like this are handled through VRTS. Please notice that Permission grants must specifically contain a free license grant. ‘Downloadable for public use’ is not quite enough as it is too vague about the granted rights. --Geohakkeri (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed that our template {{PD-Moldova}} is still based on the pre-2010 law, while the new rules (which are in line with the standard EU terms) are apparently retroactive per CRT/Moldova. Am I missing something, or should this template be updated or deleted and the 38 transclusions checked for compatibility with the current state of affairs? Felix QW (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not know much about Moldova copyrights, but I think the template is so little used that nobody noticed the issue. Reviewing the files using it would be a great start. than we can decide if we want to delete or improve the template. --Jarekt (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems as if none of the tagged files are affected, as they are all hosted either under {{PD-MD-exempt}} or under the claim of anonymous authorship and are from before 1946. This is a natural cutoff regardless of the change in law, since images from 1946 or later would have had their copyright restored by the URAA. In that sense, the change in the law does not have much impact on what content from Moldova we can host. Felix QW (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
A crop would have been covered by the CC license at the time. The license allows derivative works, and Claude Renault is properly attributed as the photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
No matter how many times the file is nominated for deletion, it is not going anywhere. It was checked as CC back in 2006 and nothing will change that. Bedivere (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Renault gave the CC license (and thus permission to use under those conditions) on his Flickr page. That was verified by license review at the time. The crop almost certainly does not generate a new copyright but keeps the same copyright status. Sandstein (the uploader) was simply using it under those terms; they are the uploader but not the author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
My photo of a museum display
Specifically, a photo of part of a display at the City Museum of Ljubljana that presents images of notable people and asks the museum visitor to identify the person in the image (photo, painting, etc).
@Rutsq: no way to guess without seeing the image. Some of the photos might be copyrighted (or not). There might be enough un-obvious text to merit copyright (or not). The arrangement might be original enough to merit copyright (or not). - Jmabel ! talk17:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Copyright of overseas US government work
I recently uploaded File:Saulos Chilima.jpg and File:Samantha Power and Saulos Chilima.jpg. The works were created by the US Government. I believe there is a significant probability that these works were created in Malawi, however, and I do not understand Malawi copyright law. Can someone confirm that these images are in the public domain in Malawi for me? Or are these images not suitable for Commons? Bremps...17:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I came across this photo (see title) of the Asiana Airlines 214 crash and saw that it was published under "Own work" but when I looked closer, I thought that this photo looked an awful lot like a AP photo by Marcio Jose Sanchez (links below). The Commons photo just seem a little bit smaler. So since I'm quite new to Commons and all that, I wonder: Is this actually Alexander Novarro's photo?
Possible issue with the image of a flyer in the Heaven's Gate (religious group) Wikipedia article
This post concerns an image of a flyer for a meeting in Berkeley, CA in May, 1994. I picked up the flyer at the now defunct Mo's Bookstore. I thought it was utterly crazy and so I saved it. Only in 2009 following the Heaven's Gate cult mass suicide did I connect the flyer with the group. Several years later in 2014 I realized the historic value of what I had. So I scanned the flyer and posted it as part of the Wikipedia article "Heaven's Gate (religious group)." Here is a link to the image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)#/media/File:HeavensGateRecruitmentMeetingFlyer.jpg .
The scanned image has been an important part of that article for the last ten years. If you examine the image you will see that the original flyer completely lacks a copyright indicator mark as well as any indication whatsoever as to authorship, the group organizing the meeting, a claim for restriction of rights such as subsequent distribution, prohibition of sale of copies, etc., etc. Even labeling the flyer as a Heaven's Gate meeting is an inference that I made years after its posting based upon its content.
All was well until yesterday when I received a notice from someone named PARAKANYAA arguing that the image should be removed from the Wikipedia article for possible copyright infringement. Since then PARAKANYAA and I have argued back and forth regarding this matter. The purpose of this post is to obtain advice as to determine whether the flyer image should be deleted from Wikipedia.
In brief, I cannot believe that the image in question is problematic. It was posted ten years ago. No one has ever raised any issue with it. The mere fact that the image has been online for ten years without prior complaint itself
constitutes evidence that the document is now public domain (estoppel by laches). There is no hard evidence who authored, produced, or distributed the image. The original flyer completely lacks identification and was freely distributed. Even labeling the flyer as a Heaven's Gate meeting is my inference based on the content. Presumably anyone trying to claim rights to the document would have a very hard time doing so given that all of the people associated with the image's authorship, production, and distribution are long dead. Furthermore Wikipedia is a non-profit. So the rules for use should be looser, not more restrictive, than for for profit media such as commercial newspapers. A newspaper writing a news article on the Heaven's Gate cult would have no problem using this image. So why should Wikipedia have a problem with its use?
While PARAKANYAA's desire to protect Wikipedia is laudatory, clearly PARAKANYAA is being overly zealous. If the image in question is deleted, it will significantly reduce the information value of the Wikipedia Heaven's Gate article.
What is your opinion as to whether some Heaven's Gate suicide might have a relative or assignee who would try to sue Wikipedia for copyright infringement?
Since this file is currently being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:HeavensGateRecruitmentMeetingFlyer.jpg, it's not really a good idea to try and seek other input here at VPC or anywhere else; doing so runs the risk of spitting the discussion and making it confusing to follow. It's probably OK to post a link to the discussion to let others know about it, but that's about it. Everything else is really best left to the DR where the file is being discussed because that's where its fate is going to be decided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
CROSS-POSTED: @Wsjacobs: it might well be a valid part of an en-wiki article (and could probably be uploaded to en-wiki as non-free content, but if it is not either in the public domain or free licensed, then it doesn't belong on Commons.
If it was produced in the U.S. in 1994, it is certainly not in the public domain, because copyright has been the default ever since 1 March 1989. That copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author, so assuming the author died in the mass suicide, that would mean it is copyrighted until 1 January 2080. We apparently have no idea who the heirs may be, so there is no one to grant a license.
What about posting this image being a fair use exception to copyright concerns?
Clearly the image is being posted solely for informational purposes. It is a historic document. Removing the image from the article deprives the public of an important piece of information, namely that it is an example of the sort of recruitment activities in which the Heaven's Gate cult engaged. Wikipedia is a non-profit. No one is seeking to profit from posting the image.
The arguments being made against posting the image would deprive Wikipedia and the public of an important piece of historic information and, if followed more broadly, would serious negatively impact the study and writing of history. I cannot believe that that was the intent of the copyright law revisions.
@Wsjacobs: (1) I have no idea why you are splitting the discussion between here and the DR. (2) Yes, the document is valuable. Yes, it is doubtless legal to reprint it on a "fair use" basis in a discussion of the Heaven's Gate. No, Commons does not accept images on a fair use basis. This is a policy matter about this site, not a legal matter. Any given site has a scope; this is outside of ours. As for the policies of the English-language Wikipedia, Commons is really not the place to discuss them. - Jmabel ! talk00:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@Sriveenkat: you seem to be implying that Corel's copyright is somehow violated. Can you give a specific example (link a video you think is problematic, and indicate the time range of a portion you believe violates copyright). - Jmabel ! talk17:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not the original poster, but I imagine the most likely issue would be that the whole user interface of Corel Painter is shown for most of the time in the majority of the videos. Felix QW (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Which is only a problem if some aspect of that interface is copyrightable (and shown in enough detail that it is not de minimis). - Jmabel ! talk14:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Can anyone validate if this image, imported by Primium from a Crimean government site, is under a free CC license? The website notice indicates CC 4.0 license but does it extend to photographs posted om the government site? COM:Russia (Russia de facto controls Crimea so Russian laws apply, not Ukraine) does not indicate copyright-free licensing for Crimean government works. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)03:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Bulgarian archival image of Cyril of Bulgaria
Does anyone understand what is going on here? The archive tag suggests that it is in the public domain, but then there is also a CC-BY-SA license attached. It is indeed unlikely that the image is PD in Bulgaria, which has 70 years pma as a copyright term, since the subject ascended to the patriarchy only in May 1953 (unless the image was taken for that occasion, but I don't really see any evidence for that). The source link leads to a form which seems to describe a completely different set of images, and I cannot see any evidence for the claimed CC license there either. Is anyone familiar with this archive upload project and could help out? Felix QW (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
PETScan reveals 146 images under a CC license from the Bulgarian State Archive. One of them is a photo from a Chicago photography studio and should be PD as {{PD-US-not-renewed}}, but the remainder are a mix of CC-BY-SA-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0 with no indication of that license at the source and no evidence of VRT correspondence. Pinging BASA Randona.bg as the most recently active uploader from this project: Do you perhaps know how these licenses came about? Felix QW (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'll check the case with the State Archives. We also have to check the Bulgarian Law of 2007 (last amended 2022) on the National Archives Fund and the Regulations for its application. --Randona.bg (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I have a question about the licensing for some of the images on the Margaret Maltby page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Eliza_Maltby
The 1892, 1908, and 1918 photographs were uploaded by a descendent of Margaret Maltby who inherited the photographs. They weren't published elsewhere before 2003. Is the licensing information that is currently used with the images appropriate? (It's under a free CC license.) And if not, how would I change it? Thank you! Physhist (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The two earlier ones would have been considered published by contemporary American law as the commercial photographer handed over copies to their client. So they should really have a {{PD-US-expired}} tag. The latest one is a tad more difficult, as it looks like an informal family photograph, that arguably could have been remained with the photographer and never left their private sphere. In any case, its copyright would then rest with the photographer rather than the subject, so being a descendant of the subject doesn't really help. Felix QW (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
We usually assume that old pictures were published near the time of creation, i.e. when leaving the custody of the photographer, unless proved otherwise. I fixed the license. Yann (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: we assume that for professionally taken photos, but not for personal photos by relatives. - 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
If it helps, the 1918 photo is also almost certainly a professional photo because of the staging and the time period. Physhist (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Re: evidence for professional staging: the son is wearing a uniform, likely home on break or about to leave for training. (the son never went to the front.) Also, it was highly unlikely to have been taken by a relative, both because Maltby was not that interested in photography as a hobby, but also there are only two cups of tea on the table, suggesting the person behind the camera was not there to take tea but instead to take pictures. Physhist (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
What permission do I need from the heir to upload images of his father's sculptural works?
I wrote an article about one Russian sculptor (died in 2023). His son (his name is also in the article) sent me an email with a link to a large number of photographs of his father’s work. The son is the owner of these photographs and the sculptural works that are depicted there. What power of attorney should he give me so that I can upload images to Wikicommons and receive a ticket for CC-BY-SA-4.0. Thank you. Wavepainter (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Wavepainter: You don't need a power of attorney. You just need them to go through the COM:VRT process (have them cc you on the email, which can be a continuation of the thread you've already started), and make sure they indicate what license they are offering. If, for example, they offer a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, then you can upload with {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}}{{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. - Jmabel ! talk18:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification. I understand that they should write a letter following the example on the VRT website. The problem is that I have now seen that the link they sent me is their own OneDrive Live online files storage where you can only log in with a password. So they are giving me permission to take files from their own site. What's the solution to this? Wavepainter (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Wavepainter: Assuming the copyright-owner trusts you, they can write a rather open-ended permission letter to VRT: that you will be uploading on their behalf, with their permission, and that they authorize you to use some particular license (I recommend either CC-BY-SA 4.0 or CC-BY 4.0, and of course you will use the "heirs" version of the template) when doing so. I think that will work, but if you want details on what would be acceptable for VRT, that's really not a copyright issue, that's something for Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Please send us a clear statement that your Commons account (or some other Commons account) is authorized to license your works, either any work or some set of works, e.g. "My images from event X, 2013-10-15". We will make a note of this for your future uploads.
The sort of thing where it is very hard to determine whether that underlying work is copyrighted. Strangely, this is one of the few cases where I can more imagine a court upholding a copyright claim related to a photo of the work than if someone were actually to replicate it. - Jmabel ! talk21:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
BTW of the 20 years-rule (peculiar of Italy) about the non-artistic photographs, I remember that discussing the compatibility of photos matching the rule under the URAA agreement had to be in PD in the US by 1996.
Now though I have a second thought. In a old discussion, it was said that "Any such photo created after 1976 is definitely still copyrighted;" (not " Any such photo created from 1976 onward is definitely still copyrighted;").
But yesterday I kept a file created in november 1976 and I was told that 1976 is already under protection in the USA. I have uploaded in bona fide 1976 some non artistic photographs of Italy, thus now I need to know whether I did good or not. -- Blackcat13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The 20-year Italy protection would have expired at the end of the year of the 20th anniversary, so would have become public domain in Italy on January 1, 1997. That means it was still under copyright protection on January 1, 1996, so would have had its U.S. copyright restored (unless it was published in the United States within 30 days of publication in Italy). It would need to have been created during the calendar year 19951975 to have a chance. So "created from 1976 onward" is correct, or "on or after January 1, 1996". Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Blackcat: Correct. A photo produced on January 1, 1976 would have expired in Italy on January 1, 1997, so the URAA acted on it, and it got a term of 95 years from publication in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: the funny thing is that all these problems would be easily solved if the Commons farm moved, say, to Netherlands or Germany, where these files would be free. Only the US protects photographs which copyright in their respective country of origin has expired. -- Blackcat22:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Nope, there are many places which do not use the rule of the shorter term. Germany and the Netherlands do, but not for other EU countries -- these would be protected for 70pma in those two countries, which could be even longer than the US, and we can't use the 1976 cutoff. You just shift problems around, usually, and in most cases would be worse. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Also did USA Today register copyright for each of its photo slides or it only applies to the whole newspaper as a whole? Hyperba21 (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Before 1978, you could omit the year if it was anything other than a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work. You could still omit it in some situations from 1978 to 1989, though less often, and not sure this qualifies. Unsure if judges would give more leeway given the rules which had been in place for decades before that. The other problem though, is that copies without notice (or defective notice) had to be distributed. If this was a photo that USA Today took, but this particular copy remained private and was not actually distributed outside the company until after 1989, there is no loss of copyright. So photos from old archives becoming available today would not change anything, copyright-wise. You would need to prove that more than a relative few copies of this photo were actually distributed without notice before 1989, if it came to a court case. For this one, we would probably need more info on the provenance. If this copy was kept private internally at USA Today until at least 1989, then the question on the notice is moot and copyright would likely still exist. As for the last question, it was always possible to register copyright for individual photos. But, a copyright notice on the entire newspaper (a collective work) also covers all contained works which do not have a separate copyright notice. Registration itself was furthermore never required. Renewal was after 28 years, but that is only for works published before 1964. Anything published after that, renewals are automatic. And copyright exists, even if not registered (that only affects the possible penalties). Publication without notice is the only way for works published between 1964 and 1989 to be public domain today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response! Yeah, I'll hold off on uploading this to Commons until we get clearer confirmation if this picture was released and/or distributed publicly in any capacity. Hyperba21 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Flickr license history
Is there information somewhere, or a previous discussion, about the license history on Flickr for licenses changed before mid-2008? (This is in the context of observations in this DR.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
"Please remove the statement "When using this template, please provide information of where the image was first published and who created it." Publication date is not relevant to Australian images." - Hawkeye7
As a template editor but not a license expert, I wanted to run this proposal by VPC before considering completing the request. It appears at odds with other information I see on that template about publication date, and frankly odd that publication date could really be irrelevant to determining PD status. Any ideas? Josh (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
In countries using p.m.a. + 70 publication date is irrelevant if there is a known author. Is it really irrelevant in Australia if there is not a known author? - Jmabel ! talk23:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I replied there. Yes, it's still very relevant for anonymous works. It's still relevant in edge conditions sometimes even when the author is known. It also can be relevant for users in other countries even if not important for the Australian term, so it's always good info to provide if known. But it is true that it will be used less often going forward in Australia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
In practical terms, the restoration of The Immigrant involved the scanning at L'Immagine Ritrovata laboratory of a nitrate safety negative, with no indication of digital interpolation, and the "reconstruction" of intertitles similar to the original ones. The copyright is held by Blackhawk Films Inc. and covers the "new restoration and special contents". IMO it is ok to upload on Commons a copy stripped of the additional music, the introduction and the end credits. — Racconish💬05:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
As the Center for the Study of the Public domain puts it, "If a film has been restored or reconstructed, only original and creative additions are eligible for copyright; if a restoration faithfully mimics the preexisting film, it does not contain newly copyrightable material. (Putting skill, labor, and money into a project is not enough to qualify it for copyright. The Supreme Court has made clear that 'the sine qua non of copyright is originality.')
Generally I would say that restoring the image and sound quality won't involve enough creativity to pass the threshold of originality. Acts such as adding a soundtrack to a silent film, colorizing a film, or reassembling a "lost film" from raw footage probably do involve enough creativity.
On Commons, we also have to consider the country of origin. Those two restorations by an Italian organization presumably were first published in Italy, so would have to be public domain under Italian copyright law. The EU requires that a work must represent "the author's own intellectual creation" to qualify for copyright, which seems to lead to a similar conclusion as US law. Toohool (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
There would not be a separate valid copyright in a new cleaned scan of the film. In order for there to be one, the new version would have to have more the modicum of creativity — enough for the new material to be a work of authorship in itself. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Copyright of US Government's Potentially Unauthorized Translation
US government works are not under copyright. And Google and HathiTrust believe that this document is Public Domain: File:The 'Gang of Four' Sabotaged the Campaign to Learn From Tachai in Agriculture in a Vain Attempt to Restore Capitalism.pdf. But I'm wondering if there's a copyright issue either with Taning CCP Committee or with Taiyuan Shansi Provincial Service for this article, since this document was apparently authored and broadcast in Mandarin, and it seems unlikely that the FBIS received authorization to create a translation. Note that the US government translation includes omitted words where there were words not heard properly, etc. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Translations are usually considered derivative works and have their own copyright protection separate from the underlying work. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
At the time the translation was written, there were no copyright relations between the US and PRC. However, the underlying work probably later received a US copyright under the URAA. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Maine Historical Society
I was hoping to upload this ship portrait, clearly signed by Everhardus Koster (1817-1892), of the clipper "Grecian". But at the foot of that page is a note "Use of this Item is not restricted by copyright and/or related rights, but the holding organization is contractually obligated to limit use. For more information, please contact the contributing organization. However, watermarked Maine Memory Network images may be used for educational purposes." The MHS Catalogue has a large-size watermark, while the others have a nano-version top centre. Although I don't comprehend what the "contractual obligations" are, I supposed that the image is off-limits, even for the watermarked image due to the educational purposes limitation.
The artist Everhardus Koster died in 1892 so its PD. This is a bit dark, and you would have to crop off the frame. I have a clean full copy, but its only 47.5kb big. The dark one comes in at 27kb. Their just useable. There might be something here here, but I dont have access. Broichmore (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. If you are confirming that the unexplained "contractual obligations" can be ignored, then I'll upload the 217kb frameless version that I extracted, which should look OK. - Davidships (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
They could be something like donor restrictions. Nobody else is limited by those agreements, just the entity which signed the contract. If we do something which gets the institution in trouble, that could make it less likely for people to donate and/or the library to make things available. But, they don't really give any indication of what the restrictions really are. Either way, if they make something available, then it should be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I asked in a previous thread if the version of "Manos: The Hands of Fate" that Ben Solovey restored is also PD, I ended up doing some digging about this topic and I found such an interesting set of details about "Manos" and its Copyright.
First of all I watched three versions of the movie to determine if the changes made in the restoration were "Substantial and creative" to gain new Copyright, the one in Commons, the Restoration and the MST3K version and basically the only differences I could find aside from the improved quality of Audio and Video of the Restoration, is that both MST3K and the Restored version has two additional minutes in the Intro that the Commons version doesn't have, the only other thing that I notice is a bit of small (but not too substantial) editing fixes, such as the removal the frame that had the Clapperboard in the kissing scene (around the 6 minute mark in Commons, 7 in Restored and 29 in MST3K).
Also at the end of Restored it shows that Solovey didn't put a Copyright to the film itself, but only the additional contents. (SPECIAL CONTENTS OF THIS EDITION COPYRIGHT 2013, MOTH INC.) The blu-ray cover also doesn't assign copyright to the film itself (Copyrights of the "Program Content" and the Cover) See here
Solovey himself in 2017 in a Kickstarter post would declare he's championing for the movie to keep it's PD status. ("Joe Warren has attempted, without success,...incorrectly claiming “copyright infringement” on this public domain work"). So I find it weird that inexplicably the Playboy article from 2015 mentions that Solovey "was successful in copyrighting the restoration" it could be just a legal threat to Warren state or misinterpretation by the article's writer mixing the words "Copyright" and "Trademark".
I also found this blog post that details more than the Playboy article did but also does a really great job explaining the Copyright legalities not only of this film but other examples such as "Raging Bull". It's a long read and it concludes that the original screenplay written by Warren under the title "Fingers of Fate" is definitely under Copyright, but it also concludes that the PD status of the film itself is safe and since neither the Warren Trust or Solovey has taken this into court matter or set a precedent "Manos" the film is still PD.
TLDR: Since the thread above has stated that a Restored film wouldn't gain new Copyright if the changes are not substantial, the Warren state hasn't seeked legal action since 2015, the Manos Trademark has been abandoned in 2018 and it's safe to assume Solovey would be happy to see the PD film distributed everywhere clearly showing that he didn't put any Copyright notice on the restoration. While the only thing that couldn't be uploaded is the original screenplay "Fingers of Fate", which again we wouldn't obtain since the Warren state doesn't want to release it publicly. I think it's safe to upload the restored version of "Manos" into Commons.
Possibly relevant statement regarding licensing issues during Wiki Loves events from an archive entry, which can be found in the section "Massive image deletion requests by user A1Cafel":
Organisers speak directly with the government etc and if permission is granted then you can upload images from that country providing it's within a specific month and that the WLM template has to be applied and that FOP is not applicable to WLM images (because special permission has been granted)
The comment that was posted in response to the above statement is also interesting. Basically, they say that there are special exceptions to the usual copyright rules during such events.
As the response says, that was about cases where permission was obtained from the owners of the copyright of the artworks. It does not mean that their permission was not needed. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nakonana WLM template alone does not signify an artist has gave his/her permission to the uploader or the organizers to have their images of his/her work disseminated here under commercial licensing. Hundreds of images of Ukrainian monuments have been deleted even if those were submitted through Wiki Loves Monuments, because those images lacked tangible evidence of permissions from the sculptors or their heirs / estate. Either a visible tag indicating correspondence of licensing authorization (COM:VRTS) or an organizer's repository of letters of permissions from copyright holders (like what Wikimedia Italy maintains) are the only valid forms of permission/authorization that Wikimedia can accept. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)16:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Question about album covers
Would a copyright notice placed on an album's inner sleeve or record apply to the album cover? I would assume not, since a cover is not permanently attached to an inner sleeve or record, just like how a book is not permanently attached to its dust jacket, but the reasoning given in this deletion request and the uploader of this file saying that he checked the LP record for a notice seem to suggest otherwise. Prospectprospekt (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I doubt that each separate piece of paper in a packaged LP or in a CD jewel box needs a copyright notice. Certainly every page of an (unstapled) newspaper does not. So the dust jacket analogy may not apply. - Jmabel ! talk20:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I can see the merits of either argument but it's assumed that the dust jack will be included with the record and visa versa. So I don't see why they would need (or even have) separate copyright notices. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: by "the dust jacket analogy" I meant the analogy to the dust jacket of a hardcover book (which did need a separate notice under the old U.S. copyright law); we (or at least I) wouldn't normally refer to the "dust jacket" of a vinyl record; I'd call it the "record jacket", "jacket", or just "cover". For CDs as packaged in that era (the "jewel box") it is even more complicated, because the back cover is usually attached to the box in a way that would require disassembly to remove it; the front piece is easier to remove but usually not routinely removed; and other pieces may be inserted loose. Plus, back then, there was often a separate larger box the height of an LP jacket but only half the width, which pretty much everybody except some collectors threw away. - Jmabel ! talk22:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Since this was published in 1971 and there doesn't appear to be a copyright notice, am I right in thinking the photo in it can be uploaded with a PD-US-no notice tag? Shapeyness (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Я пишу статті про загиблих військовослужбовців свого підрозділу. Відповідно, що беру фотографію, яку зробили їх побратими під час служби. На жаль не всі багато фотографій і доводиться використовувати наявні. Часто є лише одна фотографія, яку також використовують в медіа виданнях. І я дуже сумніваюсь, що вони мають хоч якісь права на дані публікації, утім зі статей такі фотографії регулярно видаляють посилаючись на авторське право.
Як такі фотографії публікувати? Mykhailo Zinenko MLT (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Publication of photos of fallen servicemen
I write articles about the fallen servicemen of my unit. Accordingly, I take a photo that was taken by their brothers during the service. Unfortunately, not all of them have a lot of photos and we have to use the existing ones. Often there is only one photo, which is also used in media publications. And I very much doubt that they have any rights to these publications, but such photos are regularly removed from articles citing copyright.
There have been inconsistencies in the deletion requests concerning the said Greek bridge. Some resulted to deletions, citing lack of COM:FOP Greece. Others, resulted to being kept, on the grounds that bridges cannot be considered architecture and that there is no protection for bridges under the Greek law, similar to U.S. law's treatment on U.S. bridges.
To complicate things further, there is a censored image of the bridge, used as a protest image by Greek users during the 2015 discourse on the FoP at the EU Parliament.
There should be a discussion to determine the finality of the community consensus for Greek bridges, before either (a) conducting more deletion requests on the bridge, or (b) requesting undeletion of the deleted images (as well as deleting the censored image because it is misleading, as the bridge is not protected by copyright).
Rio–Antirrio Bridge has a section saying Photography by both professional and amateur photographers or cinematographers is allowed and encouraged by the bridge management without the need for a permit...Yann (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Yann seems a good starting point for free shooting. But it doesn't address the issue if it can be a work of architecture falling under restrictive Greek copyright law (not allowing commercial uses) or just an ordinary structure that can be freely used even without bridge designer's permission. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)09:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
If counted as architecture it needs to show somehing unique eligible as work of art to be protected. The bridge shows nothing apart from commonly known structures so nothing eligible for protection. The deleted files should be reviewed and possibly undeleted. --Denniss (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Imho we should stay away from framing this bridge as not being a work of art or architecture. It surely is designed by a team of architects and structural designers. COM:Greece is not clear, that is the issue I think. Ellywa (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Yann sounds like something Wikimedia France should encourage builders to promote there as well. Agree that it solves the issue for this bridge. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999 easier said than done with regards to French cases. The management of Millau Viaduct, in their website, asserts they guard Architect Norman Foster's exclusive rights over visual appearances of the bridge, and does not allow commercial uses of the bridge without prior authorization from them. This is on top of French-based ADAGP's continued opposition to Wikipedia and the FoP movement, unless Wikipedia finally chooses to accept using CC-BY-NC-ND licensing (ADAGP treats both Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a single community under the helm of WMF). The bridge management tolerates non-commercial/personal uses, as well as images that only show the viaduct in the background, thus not making it the intended focus of the images. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, old story. Obviously, they wont all promote this. Also, maybe Commons needs to do some changes for architectural photography. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Which will end up in another, heated debate on FoP policy of Commons (perhaps you are aware of the discussions that I got involved early this year). The current policy is already stable enough. Not OK to mandate U.S. FoP-only policy on Commons, as several Wikimedia chapters, user groups, and affiliates outside Europe are trying their best to have FoP introduced in their countries (FoP that includes public sculptures too), like those of South Africa and the Philippines. FoP was discussed in the most recent forum held by East Asia-Southeast Asia-Pacific (ESEAP) Wikimedia region last month, in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, and ESEAP groups agreed to consider initiatives in FoP lobbying. Also, Wiki Commons shouldn't ignore the opposition from ADAGP, Cavada and other French anti-Wikipedia individuals and groups. ADAGP once sent a graffiti artist's cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia France to take down an image of an illegal graffito; for sure, upon learning that Commons shifted to only respect U.S. architectural FoP and not French laws, ADAGP and their fellow peers will certainly protest by persistently demanding take downs of undeleted images of Millau Viaduct, European Parliament building, Grande Arche et cetera. In a nutshell, the current FoP policy mainly anchored on the law of the work's country of physical origin must remain. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)08:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think these issues all need to be combined. With the changes Commons needs to do, I was thinking of how architects could go about to authorize photography. Currently, this doesn't really seem obvious. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The only inconsistency here in the Greek cases is that no one previously pointed out for the deleted images that we have no evidence from statute or case law that bridges are protected objects. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Greek Law 4412/2016 defines 27 categories of engineering design activities. This law is related to expertise of engineers for design of Public Works and not to copyright issues, but may be used as guidance. Of interest in our case are categories 06, 07, 08 and 10:
6. Architectural design of buildings
7. Special architectural design (external spaces, places, parks/gardens, monuments, traditional buildings etc)
8. Structural design (of buldings and large or special bridges/viaducts) The jargon phrase "τεχνικό έργο" (lit. technical project) is used by Greek transportation engineers to refer to bridges and related structures and is used in Law 4412.
10. Transportation design (roads, railways, small bridges and culverts)
Therefore the design of Rio-Antirrio bridge, if it was procured as a traditional public work, would be contracted to a structural engineering office and not to an architect's office. If it has any effect to copyright, it's up to the courts to decide. SV1XV (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@Sv1xv pending a court case, can we host images of the bridge as a mere non-copyrightable structure? ({{PD-structure}}) However, some users may insist that it goes against the spirit of both COM:PRP and the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" principle formulated by freedomdefined.org. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)12:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe that we can keep them. However there are copyright extremists on Commons who may disagree. BTW maybe a coincidence, but the Rio-Antirrio bridge is the only modern structure in Greece which features on modern postcards issued after the introduction of the current draconian copyright legislation. All postcards of modern buildings (Athens Hilton Hotel, Telecom Tower of Thessaloniki etc), quite common in 1965-1985, have disappeared. SV1XV (talk)
@Sv1xv: was the bridge project procured as a public work? Greek Wikimedians may need to seek information (and if ever, licensing clearance) from the holder of the design through email (COM:VRTS?). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@Sv1xv: Why do you use terms like "copyright extremists" and "draconian copyright legislation" (of Greece?). On Commons we respect the copyright law in various countries, including the right of makers/designers/artist to earn a living with their work. If you on second thought think these words do not help to find a solution, please remove these from your contribution.
Meanwhile, it is a good idea to try and obtain permission through the design company. I am willing to try, if somebody can find a point of contact. Ellywa (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, How is it possible that FlickreviewR reviews a file with a bogus license? If FlickreviewR is not reliable, we have a serious problem. Yann (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
FlickrreviewR just confirms what the Flickr page says. It has no way to know whether someone might be committing copyfraud on Flickr. - Jmabel ! talk18:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
You're right, at least up to a point. We don't have an equivalent of PD-Mark, so there is only so much the bot can do. Yes, the uploader (now blocked) used the wrong PD tag. We require a PR rationale, Flickr doesn't, so I'm guessing that all the bot can do with "PD-Mark" is to see whether some sort of PD tag is on the file. User:Zhuyifei1999 is listed as operating that bot, but their user page says they are no longer active, so I have absolutely no idea who to ask about the bot. Is it just running as a zombie? - Jmabel ! talk20:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
To me it seems far preferable to flag pages with the PD-Mark for human review rather than to attempt to verify them. Even {{PDMark-owner}} is not valid if the Flickr user is not clearly the copyright owner, so there is no on-size-fits-all tag for images with Flickr PD-Mark. The situation is much more akin to a non-Flickr-upload than to a reviewed Flickr upload with license. Felix QW (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems as if the listed bot operator "retired" in March 2020 (by putting the retired-box on his userpage), with sporadic contributions until May 2023 afterwards. Apparently Stemoc rebooted it when it got stuck in February. I found a recent talk page discussion regarding the bot's treatment of PD-Mark files, but I am not sure that it became clear what the current behaviour is exactly. Of course, it doesn't help if such discussions are on a talk page of an inactive user with 1-day archiving in place. Felix QW (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
village photo chungchang hi uplod hi media ah a lang kim thei lo, engvang nge ni ang
@Lalchhanhima hmar Zote: Hi, leh kan lo lawm e. I ngaihtuahna chu i watermark chu a lang kim lo tih a nih chuan COM:WATERMARK angin paih chhuah hi ngaihtuah la.
@GerritR: Gibt es denn irgendwelche Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass diese Zeichnung kein eigenes Werk des Benutzers User:Mattatja ist? Ist die Zeichnung, bevor sie als Datei hier hochgeladen wurde, schon anderswo gedruckt oder im Internet veröffentlicht worden? --Rosenzweigτ14:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Nein, nicht dass ich wüsste. Trotzdem habe ich Zweifel, ob Zeichner und Hochlader die gleiche Person sind. Das Bild könnte zum Beispiel in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt sein.--GerritR (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Der Hochlader User:Mattatja hat übrigens auch historische Fotos, die eindeutig nicht von ihm sein können, als "eigenes Werk´" hochgeladen. Dies spricht nicht gerade für urheberrechtliche Sorgfalt bei der Zeichnung.--GerritR (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@GerritR Wer würde denn bei einem vermeintlichen Werk aus dem Jahre 1856 das Copyright haben? Laut Wappenrecht scheint es beim Heraldiker zu liegen, der das Wappen entworfen hat, aber dieser ist bei einem Wappen aus dem Jahre 1856 doch sicherlich schon lange tot, wodurch das Wappen wohl gemeinfrei wäre. Nakonana (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Da wäre zum einen COM:Assume good faith zu nennen. Es gibt keinen Grund, anzunehmen, dass dieses Wappen keine eigenhändige Zeichnung ist. Das Wappen hat keine sonderlich schwierigen Elemente, besteht zum Teil aus geometrischen (Teil-)Figuren und man braucht entsprechend kein großes künstlerisches Talent, um es selbst nachzuzeichnen. Es gibt also zahlreiche Leute, die so eine Nachzeichnung, wie man sie hier sieht, problemlos anfertigen könnten. Wenn du annimmst, dass das Bild in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt wird, so bedeutet dies, dass Mattatja scheinbar Zugang zu besagten Archiven hat oder besagtes Mitglied sein müsste; denn anders käme man an keine Kopie des Bildes. Du könntest die Verbindung also bei Bedarf kontaktieren und auf diese potentielle Urheberrechtsverletzung aufmerksam machen. Aber, wenn du mich fragst, ist das Wappen wirklich nicht schwierig nachzuzeichnen, also sehe ich da keinen Grund zur Annahme einer Urheberrechtsverletzung, es sei denn, es gibt konkrete Hinweise dafür. Nakonana (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Ich sehe mich keineswegs in der Pflicht, hier irgendwelche Nachforschungen zu betreiben. Hab ich etwa die Beweislast? Was die Annahme, die Zeichnung sei eigenhändig, absolut nicht stützt, ist die Hochladehistorie des Benutzers. Dem unterstelle ich übrigens keinen schlechten Willen (COM:Assume good faith), sondern nur Unachtsamkeit bzw. Bedenkenlosigkeit beim Copyright. Und hier gilt nach wie vor com:pcp.--GerritR (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Ich würde das Copyright bei der Zeichnung aber in diesem Fall trotzdem nicht anzweifeln, weil dieses Wappen wirklich nicht schwer ist nachzuzeichnen. Ich habe es mal mit dem Kugelschreiber (also ohne Möglichkeit Fehler auszuradieren) ausprobiert und habe in knapp 5 Minuten folgendes Ergebnis zustande bekommen: File:Wappen Wirttembergia 1856 by Nakonana on 20240623 191803.jpg. Mein allererstes eigenhändig gezeichnetes Wappen. Wenn du also Zweifel an dem anderen hast, können wir stattdessen meine Kreation verwenden, die, denke ich, eindeutig und zweifelsfrei als mein Werk identifizierbar ist :) Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Du argumentierst nicht zum Thema "einenes Werk", sondern zum Thema Com:too. Eine Handzeichnung eines Werks ohne eigene Schöpfungshöhe ist aber wie das Foto eines Grashalms: Irgendjemand muss es machen.--GerritR (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Und selbst wenn es jemand macht, wenn es unter COM:TOO fällt, wäre die Urheberrechtsfrage unbedeutend, weil es bei dem Werk gemäß COM:TOO nichts urheberrechtlich zu schützen gäbe.
Es gibt bei dem Wappen einfach keinen Grund, die Eigenständigkeit des Werkes anzuzweifeln, weil es selbst einem ungeübten Menschen mit Leichtigkeit gelingt, eine passable Nachzeichnung anzufertigen. Nakonana (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Bloss weil es vermutlich recht simpel ist, das Wappen nachzumalen, heißt das noch lange nicht, dass der Hochlader sich auch tatsächlich selbst die Mühe gemacht hat. und was die sonstigen Beiträge des Hochladers anbelangt, siehe oben. GerritR (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment The job of the administrator to determine consensus is to review the evidence provided. You provided the shortest of context and no evidence. No indications of anything else. On the basis of the evidence provided there was not a consensus to delete. PCP says "significant doubt" and the case presented did not reach that standard. Quick Google Lens and TinEye searches presented nothing. It was "in use" so personal artwork isn't ours to determine, and there are so many COA on site, and this is one with an old date. Kept. — billinghurstsDrewth22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@GerritR: Letztlich war der Löschantrag ja ziemlich wortkarg, ein bisschen mehr solltest du den schon begründen. Was hier übrig bleibt, ist, dass du die Angabe "eigenes Werk" anzweifelst, weil derselbe Benutzer auch andere Dateien als "eigene Werke" hochgeladen har, obwohl sie offensichtlich keine sind. Das ist durchaus ein nachvollziehbarer Gedankengang, und der sollte auch im Löschantrag stehen und nicht erst in einer späteren Diskussion. Ohne weitere Anhaltspunkte, dass es sich tatsächlich so verhält, kann der abarbeitende Admin aber durchaus entscheiden, dass er die Angabe "eigenes Werk" akzeptiert, weil er eben keinen erheblichen Zweifel (Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle/de) hat. So wie in diesem Fall. --Rosenzweigτ07:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Wenn noch jemand diese meine Zweifel an der Autorenschaft für nicht ganz abwegig hält, dann könnte man ja über eine Erneuerung des LA nachdenken, mit Verweis auf diese Diskussion. Ich selbst lass es lieber. GerritR (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Sued for using image from Wikimedia Commons
I uploaded an image - an eye posted by Hercules_hippo - which apparently has been removed by Wikimedia - and am now being sued by Pixsy for $1750. The image was apparently posted on Flickr by Tom Tolkien but it ended up in Wikimedia Commons.
I run a patient supported chronic illness website and fees like this are egregious for a website like ours.
Any ideas? Pixys is willing to come down to $1550 - an amazing amount of money for a one-time use of an image I uploaded from Wikimedia Commons.
I have argued that because the image was used for educational purposes - the website does not sell anything or have paid memberships - that it should be exempt but they're discarding that. 2600:1011:B192:E6BC:4911:8FAC:8B9:A2CD15:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
If you are indeed a party to ongoing litigation ("[I] am now being sued by Pixsy"), which you may be conflating with a mere demand/cease and desist, it is extremely unwise to be making public comments, and potentially soliciting legal advise ("Any ideas?") You alone are responsible for your use, if any, of copyrighted works and for verifying the accuracy and limitations of purported licenses. We cannot offer you assistance. Consider retaining competent representation promptly. Эlcobbolatalk15:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, the two images pointed out by Felix QW were uploaded to Thomas Tolkien's Flickr account as CC-BY ([4][5]). Anyone reusing these images needs to properly attribute the photographer, according to the terms of the CC-BY license. Tolkien states on his profile page that he uses Pixsy to enforce his copyrights. (Not that this automatically means you should pay what they're asking. There is a lot of information and advice out there about Pixsy.) Toohool (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't pay what they ask. US$1750 for a single use is extortion. You may have to pay something, but you should be able to negotiate a much smaller amount. Yann (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Not a single dime would be appropriate. The file was licensed as CC-BY. The problem apparently comes because the re-user did not give proper attribution, so they can ask whatever they want, but ultimately it'd be up to the judiciary... Bedivere (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I've always wondered where the line is legally with someone reusing a file without attribution that's licensed as CC-BY. As attribution really kind of seems like a secondary requirement that runs counter to the nature of the thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
If the author didn't want attribution, they should have used a CC-0. The nature of the thing is that a CC-BY work can be used if attribution is properly given. I don't know how to communicate that better.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The whole thing is convoluted. Especially for something that's suppose to simplify the licensing process. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, quite disagree. Someone making minor mistakes (misspelling the attribution, or failing to name the license overtly) may constitute a good-faith effort to conform to the free license, but use without any attribution at all when the license requires attribution is just as clear a copyright violation as if the free license had never been offered. - Jmabel ! talk04:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1 likely a major requirement. At least as per a 2008 U.S. court ruling mentioned in this article of Encyclopædia Britannica: "In 2008 a U.S. federal appeals court ruled that, although they are commonly viewed as contracts, free licenses—which grant freedom to use copyrighted materials in exchange for adherence to certain terms of usage, distribution, and modification—are nonetheless enforceable under copyright law because they "set conditions on the use of copyrighted work." In the event that the conditions are violated, the license disappears, resulting in copyright infringement as opposed to the lesser violation of breach of contract." We might have overlooked a single court ruling that seems to legitimize free licenses as valid enforcements under copyright law. The amount of money requested may be too drastic, though. US$1550 is equivalent to more than ₱91,000 (in our currency), which is higher than the local prices of some of high-end models of appliances from Fujidenzo/Asahi/Hanabishi et cetera! JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)05:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Admittedly we don't know the exact circumstances in this case, but I assume the whole "failure to allow a good faith re-user the opportunity to correct errors is against the intent of the license" thing would apply. It seems like Pixsy didn't and doesn't follow it on there end though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
You should report Thomas Tolkien to Flickr for violating their Community Guidelines. Flickr has a strict policy prohibiting copyleft trolling: "Failure to allow a good faith reuser the opportunity to correct errors is against the intent of the license and not in line with the values of our community, and can result in your account being removed." To report Tolkien, you can either go to https://www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-us/requests/new and select "Trust and Safety" for "What can we help you with today?" or you can just email helpflickr.com. As far as Pixsy is concerned, I would completely ignore them if it were me, but I'm not a lawyer and you shouldn't take any legal suggestions from me. Nosferattus (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Is Thomas Tolkien doing the trolling or is Pixsy doing the trolling, though? Maybe Tolkien wasn't actively engaged in the current demand and Pixsy is just patrolling on his behalf without informing him of each and every case. If it's the latter, Pixsy might not be aware of Flickr's site rules, but that doesn't mean that they can just ignore them. I'm just wondering whether one should go straight to getting Tolkien banned or whether one should assume good faith on Tolkien's end and lack of knowledge and Pixsy's end and therefore send a message to Pixsy to inform them they go against site rules, and also send Tolkien a message that Pixsy is acting in a way that might get him banned from Flickr. Nakonana (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind. Just read a little bit on it and it looks like the copyright holder is always involved in the process and that this is a systematic problem. Nakonana (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
According to threads at https://copyrightaid.co.uk/, one person offered Pixsy 1/10th of the original amount demanded and Pixsy accepted the offer. Another person offered half, which Pixsy did not accept, and since then has just been ignoring the demands for almost a year and still has not actually been sued (as of their most recent update a month ago). I imagine it is ultimately up to the photographer whether they accept a counter-offer or pursue actual legal action (instead of just extorting you with threats). Nosferattus (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I was just reading about someone who got a bill from them for like $500, offered them $150, and then got ghosted. So I'm kind if or to what degree they are willing to sue people who won't pay the full amount. It seems like they are more into bullying and attempting to extort people then they are actually going to court over an infringement claim. Which I guess makes sense. It probably wouldn't be a sustainable business if they took everyone who didn't immediately pay up to court over a $500 bill. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Copyright status of "restored" or "complete" works
I recently got in a row with a couple of other users over some DRs having to do with "restored" or "completed" stained glass windows, which IMO were different enough from the originals to warrant a new copyright. Although it was the opinion of other people in the deletion requests that restoration work on something or completing it (whatever that might mean) doesn't create a new copyright. I can understand that position in cases where the restoration is minor, but it seems like there should be a line there were if the artist doing the restoration takes artistic liberties in the process or otherwise alters the original to add modern elements to it that those parts of the window (or whatever) would then be copyrighted by said person. I'm wondering where the line is though or for that matter if my opinion about it is completely wrong. Adamant1 (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Going to vary from country to country and (within most countries) on the amount of creativity required. For example, only the few countries with "sweat of the brow" rules (which Commons usually ignores) could even possibly grant copyright for a faithful restoration of a known prior state of the work, but probably even some color decisions would be enough to get copyright in many countries, if not all. - Jmabel ! talk19:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The Office often receives applications to register preexisting works that have been restored to their original quality and character. Merely restoring a damaged or aged photograph to its original state without adding a sufficient amount of original, creative authorship does not warrant copyright protection.
The registration specialist will analyze on a case-by-case basis all claims in which the author used digital editing software to produce a derivative photograph or artwork. Typical technical alterations that do not warrant registration include aligning pages and columns; repairing faded print and visual content; and sharpening and balancing colors, tint, tone, and the like, even though the alterations may be highly skilled and may produce a valuable product. If an applicant asserts a claim in a restoration of or touchups to a preexisting work, the registration specialist generally will ask the applicant for details concerning the nature of changes that have been made. The specialist will refuse all claims where the author merely restored the source work to its original or previous content or quality without adding substantial new authorship that was not present in the original.
The specialist may register a claim in a restored or retouched photograph if the author added a substantial amount of new content, such as recreating missing parts of the photograph or using airbrushing techniques to change the image.
This general guidance can change by country, along with their threshold of originality. In general, restoring something to its original state seems unlikely to generate a copyright unless maybe there is sweat of the brow (and not sure the old UK law qualifies, as something must "originate" with the author there, which is harder to argue in cases like that). Adding new elements would be based a country's threshold of originality, which is somewhat variable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I just realised something. Doesn't a flag count as applied art? Looking at the COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS ACT NO. 42 OF 2000, applied art is defined as "an artistic creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article". A flag clearly fits that description: it is "a usually rectangular piece of fabric of distinctive design that is used as a symbol ..., as a signaling device, or as a decoration" (MW). Flying a symbol of a nation is clearly a utilitarian function. Since applied arts only have a 25-year copyright span, that means the copyright expired in 2006, which is even before the URAA date for Vanuatu. @JWilz12345, thoughts? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
That maybe so, but a similar case was the Australian Aboriginal flag which was copyrighted in Australia until recently (which meant it couldn’t be uploaded to Commons). Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The author of the SVG is the one who drew it. Whether that could be considered a derivative work of another drawing, not sure. As far as U.S. law goes, it would appear the original drawing is PD-EdictGov since it was included as part of their law. They do have an explicit copyright claim in their law, but not sure that can hold for third-party drawings like this. As an aside, a flag drawing is not utilitarian. The cloth itself may be, but the design is entirely separable. In most cases, the design is an idea, and each specific drawing of that idea is a separate expression with an independent copyright (if it's complex enough to be copyrightable in the first place). See Commons:Coats of arms. So, taking drawings of flags from other websites can be a bad idea if not licensed. If an actual drawing is included in the law, you get into PD-EdictGov territory. The main thing which is copyrightable is the drawing of the fern leaves, and that does not appear to be derivative of the drawing in the law -- that appears to be original, or maybe the vector was copied from some other PD source. The drawing of the tusk is likewise not the same copyright-wise as the drawing in the law, if the one I'm looking at is correct.[6] It's similar, but a different expression of the same idea. You can't use copyright to prevent someone from drawing something similar; you can only protect the actual expression (the very specific lines drawn). If you are trying to prevent commercial use as a symbol, that is a trademark-like restriction. While you cannot explicitly trademark national flags or seals, you can certainly make {{Insignia}} type laws, and Vanuatu definitely has done that -- but those are non-copyright restrictions. That seems to be what their government means by "commercial use", more in the trademark area. Getting into deletion of self-drawn versions of national flags is probably not a good idea. If the specific drawing was taken from another website, that is another matter, but deeming a national flag as inherently unable to be on Commons, we may need some better precedent as I'm not sure that is possible, from a copyright perspective. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I raised the issue at the file's talk page on en:wiki 4 months ago, but there was no input, so I'm copying said talk entry of mine here, in hopes that someone could offer some guidance:
This image [mentioned in the header] was published in the "Japanese pictorial magazine about the Sino-Japanese War Asahi-ban Shina-jihen Gaho published on Jan. 27, 1938." according to the information provided in the information box. The page w:en:Talk:Nanjing Massacre denial/Disputed material has further images from that source and those other images have been uploaded to Wiki Commons. So, I'm a bit surprised to see the current license warning for this image. Is the source information for this image incorrect? Is it ok to transfer it to Commons? Or were the other images from this source uploaded to Wiki Commons despite not being in the public domain?
In my opinion the photo should be fine. If first published in Japan, it could be uploaded here as {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. If for some reason or other its first publication turns out to have been in China, then {{PD-PRC}} will also ensure that it is in the public domain in both the source country and the US. Felix QW (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Not a copyright-related concern, but we can't take the file description at face value and may need a disclaimer on Commons. We don't want to inadvertently repeat Japanese-nationalist revisionist propaganda. Bremps...02:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Iceland, like many European countries, does not grant regular copyright to non-artistic photography but a much more limited exclusive right valid for 50 years after creation. This term was 25 years until 2006 so at that time, such works created on or before 1980 were in the public domain in Iceland. However, because of the URAA, such works are probably only in the public domain in the US if they were already in the public domain in Iceland on 1 Januar 1996. This would mean that only non-artistic photographs created in Iceland on or before the calendar year of 1970 qualify as being in the public domain in both the US and Iceland and thus eligible to be uploaded to the Commons. This would then also mean that Template:PD-Iceland50 was only relevant up to 2020 and will probably never be relevant again because the assumed copyright protection in the US under URAA is always much longer than 50 years. This template should probably change to PD-Iceland 1970 to reflect that later works will not be in the Public Domain in the US until 2065 at the earliest. Is my thinking correct here? Bjarki S (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Many tags here are country-specific, ignoring the U.S. status. However, in that case it should also have the standard note that this tag does not represent the status for the U.S., and a separate U.S. tag is required. A combined tag which has the 1970 date may be useful, or maybe editing this tag similar to {{PD-Sweden-photo}} to note dates where PD-1996 would apply. But if this clause remains in current law, it could still be useful in some cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
New to Wikimedia, don't know how to determine copyright status
I want to upload the picture of Hardeep Singh Nijjar brandishing a rifle in this article-[7]. This is a commonly circulated picture that has used by various media outlets, including the Globe and Mail. As I have zero experience in Wikimedia, I don't know what license/Creative Commons license the image falls under. I would appreciate any help in determining the copyright status of it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, sorry to bear bad news, but probably don't upload it. If a photo is copyright-ambiguous, it is likely to be copyrighted. Then it would not be suitable for Commons (or allowed at all). Don't get discouraged, ask for more help here if it is needed. Cheers, atque supra! Bremps...01:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I would encourage you to learn more about Copyright before uploading anything. Start here at COM:Licensing. The photo you linked is by default copyrighted to whomever the photographer/creator is. In order to use that photo here, the photographer would have to license the photo under a Creative Commons license themselves. Otherwise, cannot be uploaded until it becomes Public Domain due to expiry. PascalHD (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
At least 95% of what is on the web, probably more, is copyrighted and not free-licensed. Without a good basic understanding of copyright, you are very likely to stumble upon an image online that we can use on Commons, unless you stick to stuff that is 19th-century and older (and even late 19th century has some pitfalls). But if you are taking pictures yourself -- especially of people rather than of other people's creations -- most of that should be OK. - Jmabel ! talk05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I've thought about uploading to Commons this session from a 2002 session of the National Assembly of Venezuela ([8]), but I wanted to ask about the copyright first.
The logo in the upper left suggests that the author is the state television station Venezolana de Televisión, but being an official act I was wondering if this could be under the public domain per {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}. The YouTube uploader says he received the recording in a VHS from a friend, although I don't know if this is relevant. Cheers. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@NoonIcarus;Buenas según el último párrafo de la licencia en Venezuela ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) dice claramente que fueron creados por el sector público o financiado por ellos se considerará del dominio público (osea VTV forma parte del gobierno entonces si puede publicar a Wikimedia los logos qué fueron creados por el sector público) AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Translation (as the person who originally asked speaks English): According to the last paragraph of the license in Venezuela (PD-VenezuelaGov), it clearly states that works created by the public sector or financed by them will be considered public domain (meaning VTV is part of the government, so it can publish to Wikimedia the logos that were created by the public sector). Bremps...00:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Are the works of Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo in the public domain?
Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo died in 1937. Could unaltered texts authored by him be uploaded to Commons or Wikisource? Zanahary (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Zanahary: Certainly seems likely. The only thing that might get tricky is if something was initially or simultaneously published in the U.S., but given that he wrote in French that seems very unlikely. Translations would typically not be OK, because the translator would probably have lived until less than 70 years ago. - Jmabel ! talk05:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
No, why? I think everything which was published in 1929 and later hit the URAA in 1996 and is still copyrighted in the US? Or there is something I am missing here? Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Ymblanter here. It seems like Madagascar already had 70 year pma copyright periods in 1996, so that all post-1928 works will still be copyrighted in the US.
Do I understand correctly that even French simultaneous publication wouldn't help, since although France had 50 years pma in 1996, the 8 year 120 days wartime copyright extension made it copyrighted until April 1996? Felix QW (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
If you take the 8 years and 120 days from the actual date of death, and ignore the end-of-year expirations (which did not happen until after those extensions were given), it may have expired at the end of 1995. I'm not sure there is any guidance on that, but does not make much sense to me to extend to the end of the year first -- I would probably add the 8 years and 120 days to the date of death, then go to the end of that resulting year. So, it might. Madagascar is also interesting... before late 1995 when the new law was in place, they apparently used France's law from 1957 -- but that version did not yet include the wartime extensions, it seems, so they were a straight 50pma.[9] The 1995 law has no mention of repealing the earlier law nor any transitional provisions, so I can't tell if it was retroactive. It has no mention of treatment of works which were public domain at the time of the new law, which is a usual feature of laws which bring back works from the public domain. If it was not retroactive, then this author's works may have also expired in Madagascar, as of 1988. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
About France, was this not discussed many years ago? Although the prorogation for WW2 had been added in 1951, it seems logical that the copyright owners could benefit of the copyright computation according to the 1957 law, first going to the end of the year of death, plus fifty years. And then the war extension, being an extension, would still be added at the end. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
It may be the case, but the intent of the end-of-year stuff was to have stuff expire on January 1, not in April. Secondly, the wording of the law is specific that the extensions extend the rights in the earlier 1866 law, not the end-of-year terms which only started in the 1957 law. The wartime extensions were not in the 1957 law (though were inherited from earlier laws and not repealed); I'm not sure they were part of the law which was applied to Madagascar (given that territory would have had different impacts from the wars, and the "died for France" extension may not make much sense there.). It could well be our policy is to take the most conservative possibility, though it makes little sense to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Zanahary: In France, old unpublished works get a new 25 years term. So anything published before 1999 (in 2024) is OK. Or if you have the unpublished manuscript, scan and publish it yourself, you get an exclusive 25 years copyright. Yann (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, putting anything on a website is publication. But may be they are willing to publish them under a free license. It usually depends on the commercial value of the documents. Yann (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Posthumous works get a protection period of 70 years from publication, per Madagascar law. Looks like there is infinite protection for unpublished works there, still. If publication happened after the 70pma period, then that right is owned by the publishers. So, you would need to find publication dates for anything he did, to start with. Works published during his lifetime have a decent argument, afterwards gets a lot less likely. I think the former French law was similar, though with a term of 50 years instead of 70. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Can someone check User:Studio Harcourt ticket #2010061710041251 to see what images it covers, just the ones loaded, the entire historical archive, or those images taken after 1991. RAN (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The way it was stated on the page of User:Studio Harcourt by the OTRS member who processed the ticket in 2010, and consequently the way we, ordinary users, have understood the situation since then, the ticket #2010061710041251 is essentially a confirmation that the Commons account User:Studio Harcourt officially represented the Studio Harcourt. Consequently, we can conclude that the license (which is CC BY 3.0), placed by that account on the photos uploaded by that account, is valid. The matter is also referenced in the press reports listed on the page Commons:Studio Harcourt. The reply that you obtained yesterday from a VRT member at Commons:VRT/Noticeborad likely means the same thing. Given that the ticket is essentially related to that Commons account, it covers the photos uploaded by that account, nothing else. Other photos from after 1991 are assumed to be not free, unless there is evidence of a release by the copyright owner. That was also the essence of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roland Copé.jpg last year. Photos from before 1992 are covered by the VRT ticket #2020112910005534 from Studio Harcourt in 2020. For a more detailed recapitulaton of the whole situation and of the different possible cases, please see the page Commons:Bistro/archives/2023/09#Studio Harcourt (2) (in French). -- Asclepias (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Can't imagine any chance. I can't see any license at the source, nor on archived versions from late 2022, which was before upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure it is necessarily under TOO UK. The interesting thing is, though, that this advertisement suggests that the logo may have been in use already in 1927, in Germany. It does not seem to me to be above TOO Germany, and if it was used before 1928, its American copyright would have lapsed on the design in either case. This is separate to issues with the specific svg and potential vectorisation copyright. Felix QW (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
As indicated by images from discogs, history of singles, and an image from archive.org, the use of the "L" (which almost resembles the pound sterling sign £) goes back in 1910s, so I figured it must've been a German work rather than British. Furthermore, Parlophon(e) started out as a German record company in 1890s and established its British asset in 1920s. Right? George Ho (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not an expert in the British threshold of originality, but to me that could already be beyond it. My comment was directed at the logo itself rather than this concrete image of the record. Felix QW (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Any thoughts? UK-filmed film that was also released in US. Unclear if image originates from US or UK trailer. Movie itself almost certainly still copyrighted. Bremps...00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I found the trailer on the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/vm982760352 & also on Commons here. There is no notice and is credited to being published by Warner Bros; the American distributor. I would imagine it was the American film company that would have handled the distribution of the trailer and would likely have been first published there. PascalHD (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Files on Commons need to be public domain in their home country and in the United States (excepting free licenses, of course, but that's not happening here). Would this be free in the UK? Or does this not count as UK-made at all? Bremps...02:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
If the trailer was first published in the US, that would be the country of origin - not where it was created. PascalHD (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
And is there a distinction between us hosting the U.S. trailer in its entirety (U.S.-made, PD in U.S.) and taking a frame from it, when that frame is clearly of UK origin? - Jmabel ! talk05:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel @PascalHD @Bremps - If the trailer was first published in the United States, or published within the United States within 30 days of its publication in the UK (availability within 30 days is called simultaneous publication in the law), then its country of origin for the purposes of US law is the United States. In other words, it is treated as a US work under US law (and so, for instance, failure to include notice means it is in the public domain, whereas if it were a foreign work it would be copyrighted due to the URAA).
The work might also be considered a domestic work under UK law for any number of reasons. However, when a work is simultaneously published in the US and some other country, it is a US work (under US law) and we allow for it to be hosted here — if, of course, it is in the public domain in the US. We have a template for this: Template:Simultaneous US publication.
Remember that "country of origin" under copyright law is not the same as "country where something was made." In fact, they have very little to do with one another for published works. Many films were shot in one country but first published in another country. The country of origin is the country in which the film was first published. The original Star Wars was largely shot in Tunisia but first published in the United States — and is a US work under US law.
Even if the trailer was edited in the UK, this isn't relevant. Only publication is. In order to be treated as a work of UK origin under US law, a frame of the video would have to have been first published in the UK, and then not published in the US within 30 days.
Everything in a US trailer published in 1971 without a copyright notice is in the public domain if the trailer is published before the film. Publication of the trailer without a notice is divestive publication, because the copyright holder lost common law copyright by publishing the work. Since no statutory copyright was claimed (because no notice was included), all the published material entered the public domain. All of those frames are in the public domain, too — even taken out of the context of the trailer. (The same frames are still in the public domain if found in and extracted from a print of the larger film, but, of course, they are only a very small minority of the frames included in the full movie. Sometimes, trailers were made only from outtakes, rather than including any of the actual frames used in the released movie — but I know nothing about this particular trailer.)
@D. Benjamin Miller: isn't that dependent on the trailer having been made by the (prior) copyright holder? Would the distributor have owned that prior copyright?
If that first is not the case, does that mean that every time an "underground paper" that didn't bother with copyright used an AP or UPI photo, that photo passed into the public domain? - Jmabel ! talk18:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The trailer maker/publisher did not need to be the same entity as the prior copyright holder. It did need to be acting with the authorization of that copyright holder, though. If, say, someone stole the print and released a copy without a notice, that wouldn't be a lawful publication and there would be no divestment.
Needless to say, the makers of these trailers were universally acting under the authority of the copyright holders for the film.
Your other case is rather different anyway, but an unauthorized newspaper printing pirated AP photos without a notice didn't put those photos in the public domain. But it should also be noted that stock photos were already published when offered by the wire service for distribution to newspapers, and not only when the newspapers printed them; the photos normally (if copyrighted) included a notice as distributed by the wire service. Still, though, many press photos were published without a notice (although this was not so much for wire photos as it was for publicity shots and the like). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Photograph of 1850 painting that may have never been publicly displayed until recently
When I searched for advice, it seemed to differ depending on the country and whether the painting had been publicly displayed, which left me confused.
I'm not a lawyer but based on Commons:Hirtle chart, if the artist died in 1853 and the work was not published before 2003, then it passed into the public domain on January 1, 2003 on the basis that the author had been dead over 70 years. (This change in status was due to a change in U.S. copyright law effective on that date.) There is no way that copyright could be regained; faithful reproduction of the work does not create a new copyright; it is almost impossible to imagine what intellectual property right Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc. is claiming, or how they think they came by that right. Perhaps they are over two decades out of date in their knowledge of copyright law; perhaps they are just bluffing. Your guess is as good a mine. - Jmabel ! talk06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The painting predates US copyright protection for paintings anyway (it came in 1897 I believe) so I think it's fine, Hirtle chart or not. Bremps...01:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard about pre-1897 paintings not having copyright protection in the United States. Can you point me to what your talking about? grendel|khan18:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Grendelkhan: It's 17 USC § 303(a). [11] (The "the term provided by section 302" is 70 years pma, unless it is "an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire" in which case it is 95 years from publication, or 120 from creation.
An unpublished work from an artist who died in 1853 would have had a "common law" copyright (right of first publication) until Jan 1 1978, after which it would have received federal protection as an unpublished work. That copyright would have expired Dec 31, 2002 unless the work was published before that date, in which case it persists until at least December 31, 2047. Jarnsax (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
As far as paintings not having a copyright in the US before 1897, this is wrong. The 1870 Copyright Act (in section 86) explicitly includes "paintings" in its list of eligible subject matter. Jarnsax (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Belgian FOP and heavy retouching
The English version of {{FoP-Belgium}} it states «[...] provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there [...]» and if I'm not mistaken it restricts the modification that one can make on a photo. So, my question is if File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png is an allowed DW of File:Comic wall Asterix & Obelix, Goscinny and Uderzo. Brussels.jpg. My intuition suggest it is not as the DW doesn't look like a photo taken on a mural and part of the DW is interpolating the gaps after removing the surrounding characters, but maybe the experts on the Belgian copyright have a different opinion. Günther Frager (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@Günther Frager I can't speak on the condition imposed by the Belgian FoP that was lobbied by the Wikimedians there way back 2016 (ping @Romaine: who actively lobbied for introduction of FoP there). My understanding tells me that the FoP of Belgium seems aligning to its peers (Dutch FoP, German FoP), in which excessive modification to the point that the integrity of the depicted work is affected is already a breach of the FoP rules. Cropping out all surrounding elements (like the sky, ground or grass et cetera) so that the image consists of an exact reproduction of a building, sculpture et cetera is one of such excessive modifications. Germany, where FoP originated, does not allow radical forms of digital editing, such as changing the colors of their public monuments. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)01:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1 I cannot comment on the possible conflict of the German FoP to both commercial-type CC licenses (like {{CC-zero}} and {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}and the FreedomDefined.org position that some German Wikimedians claimed as "extremist" and unrealistic, in the context of images of buildings and public monuments of Germany. It was debated on FoP talk page (see Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 1#Germany). Let's ping again the participants on that late-2000s discussion that have still contributed/made edits on Commons from 2022 up to this day: @H-stt, Historiograf, Wuselig, Jeff G., Micheletb, and ALE!: . At worst, meta:Creative Commons Foundation should have a public and solid statement regarding the nuances of Freedom of Panorama even in countries that we consider as having suitable FoP for Commons, like Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Malaysia, Hong Kong, mainland China, Singapore, India, Australia, and New Zealand. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The Definition of Free Cultural Works is a good tool for identifying free licenses — that is, for defining what permissions a copyright holder must give in order for a work to be considered a free cultural work. While the Definition incidentally encompasses works whose copyright has expired, defining the bounds of the public domain was never its main purpose. This background should be taken into account especially with respect to the boundaries of exceptions to the rights of copyright holders and the boundaries of what kinds of works are subject to copyright in the first place. I think that some of the interpretations given on the page you link are too literal, and, by applying the Definition in a context where it was not meant to apply, sort of miss the forest for the trees.
I hope to make this make sense by addressing the US' FoP for architecture that @Clindberg discusses below. When the US joined the Berne Convention, it had to apply some form of copyright to architectural works per se, which it had never done before. In many (though not all) Berne parties (including those which joined before the US), there have long been exceptions to copyright which allow for pictures of buildings to be used freely. While Berne does not have a provision singling out this specific exception, it seems to easily fall within the freedom of member states to legislate exceptions to the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, as long as each exception "does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author."
In particular, this sort of exception makes perfect sense for architecture. The "normal exploitation" of architectural plans is done by constructing the building. The core interest of an architect is in the construction of buildings, not their depiction. Even in those (relatively few) countries which, like France, provide for the compensation of architects whenever a building they have designed is depicted in other art, the interest in the actual construction is necessarily more crucial, since those depictions cannot be made in the first place if the building is not actually constructed and placed somewhere where it may be photographed. The design of fantasy buildings — those one might see in a cartoon or video game — does not require actual architectural work, further emphasizing that the central interest of an architect is in the construction of actual buildings, rather than the depiction of mere appearances of buildings.
If we interpret the "for any purpose" clause entirely literally, then, presumably, any photo would be non-free which has, for instance:
Some de minimis copyrighted poster in the background... because the photo could be cropped to highlight that copyrighted element
Some copyrighted building... because someone could perhaps attempt to design and construct a new building based on its appearance in the photo
I think this ultra-strict interpretation of the Definition of Free Cultural Works is totally implausible, especially in light of the fact that it says that a free work remains a free work even when it (for instance) includes some limited quotes from non-free sources (with the caveat that those quotes themselves don't become free by incorporation) — not to mention the other exceptions in the Definition.
In terms of freedom, though, I think we can distinguish between architectural and non-architectural works by drawing the distinction I give above based on the purpose and use of a work type (i.e., the central interests). It is impossible to actually build a building just by manipulating a photo; transformation of a pictural representation back into an actual work of architecture which can be exploited is essentially impossible (it requires, in essence, doing the architecture all over again). In a country where there is architectural FoP, the normal re-use of a photo of a building is highly unlikely to interfere with the central aspects of normal exploitation of the architectural work per se.
Sculptures are easier to reproduce from a reference photo than buildings, and photos of sculptures are far closer to the sculpture's core normal exploitation than photos of an architect's building. So, even in a country where FoP for sculptures exists (I discuss the distinct matter of jurisdictional issues below) a photo that primarily depicts a sculpture is arguably "mostly non-free" because of how close to the central aspects of normal exploitation the reproduction gets. (Where you draw a line is a different question.) Still, though, the free aspects of the photograph — the positioning and lighting — can be worth something; the creation of a photo of a 3D work can normally create a new copyright, and so the licensing of the photo as a free work is still potentially relevant. Relatedly, casting the work from a 3D sculpture into a 2D image is transformative rather than being completely literal copying.
For flat images, though, matters are quite different. If the image is copyrighted, then the reproduction of the flat image is the main way in which the work is normally exploited, and the work can trivially (and perhaps carelessly) reused in exactly the same way the work itself would normally be exploited. Even if the image is off-axis in the photograph, restoring it to its proper alignment is a technical and mechanical adjustment, not a creative one; in most countries, it is unlikely that a simple photograph of a mural would even quality as an original work. Extracting the original 2D image from a (even potentially off-axis) photo of a mural is the reproduction of the original creative work in its actual form, with no transformation whatever. This is akin to scanning a 3D sculpture or getting the architectural plans of a building. Even where FoP does apply to 2D works, it is almost always primarily intended to allow for the capture of entire scenes, not for the duplication of the 2D artwork itself, just as the freedom of panorama in a sculpture garden would not permit the 3D scanning and duplication of the copyrighted sculptures.
To whatever extent the Definition of Free Cultural Works (as opposed to jurisdictional issues/legal requirements, which are entirely distinct) is an important factor, I think this test can be used to roughly estimate the prominence of the non-free portion of the work in comparison with the free portion. Taking this info account:
Photos of buildings — Highly unlikely to interfere with core exploitation of architectural work (construction). Photograph itself is generally copyrightable (positioning, selection, angles, etc.) and its licensing as a free cultural work is valuable. Free work with small non-free component.
Landscape with de minimis inclusion of non-free elements — Difficulty of interference by a user who wants to interfere with core exploitation depends (on kind of work, how it's depicted, what quality is even left in its context, etc). Nevertheless, the non-free component is necessarily small in comparison to the free work itself.
Photos of sculptures/3D art — Transformative, but has significant potential to interfere with core exploitation (both because sculptures can be made AND because derivative photographs are more key to exploitation of sculptures than to that of buildings). Photograph itself is usually copyrightable (positioning, selection, angles, etc.) and its licensing as a free cultural work is valuable. Free work with potentially significant non-free component.
Photos of 2D art — Interferes almost trivially with core exploitation. To the extent that it is a faithful reproduction of the image, almost always uncopyrightable (compare PD-Art). Status as an actual "work" is debatable to begin with, and if the real work depicted is non-free, this is at best a fundamentally non-free work with a thin "free" wrapping.
Hi Günther Frager, The example File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png is modified, shows only a part of the image and no longer the situation as it is on the location. FoP in Belgium states that objects photographed are allowed as long as they are depicted as on location. As that is no longer the case here, this image is copyrighted and not allowed on Commons. (PS: I lobbied in the Belgian parliament for FoP and FoP came officially in force in 2016.) Romaine (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The Berne Convention allows FoP type of limitations to copyright, but they also say that any such allowed uses cannot go to the point they prejudice the normal exploitation of the work -- I've always taken that to mean you can't make a sculpture of a sculpture, or make an effective copy of a 2-D work by cropping to just that work and exclude its public context, etc. I think once you remove the public context, you are also going outside any FoP permissions, and are a direct usage of the original work (i.e. the photographic expression, the work using FoP, is gone). It is a direct usage/derivative of the original, without the photographic expression being present. So, I would say this is a problem. We have always accepted that as an OK limitation to host FoP works -- you can make a derivative work of the photograph, but not to the point there is no photograph left. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg the Berne Convention does not mention anything resembling FoP. It only states that member states can make a list of exceptions/limitations to copyright, as long as normal exploitation of the work is not prejudiced. FoP may be one of these limitations, but there are also limitations on educational, research, and other uses. At least, there was an attempt in the past to have an architectural FoP be explicitly-mentioned in the treaty, from the meetings between WIPO and UNESCO in 1986 (see meta:Freedom of Panorama#A close call: 1986 WIPO-UNESCO proposal for global architectural FoP). For some reason, though, no such architectural FoP provision is present in the treaty. In fact, a few scholars and architects, like Architect Clark Thiel (1990), argued that the American FoP (Section 120(a) of U.S. Copyright Act) is a violation of the treaty, since the treaty "requires that copyright protection extend to the exclusive right of adaptation for all protected works, including architectural works." Unsure if there is anti-FoP sentiment among a few American architects and scholars today. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)05:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Correct, Berne does not mention FoP, but does restrict limitations such that the normal exploitation is not prejudiced. Effectively making a copy of the work on display is pretty much squarely in direct competition with the original, and I think would violate that Berne clause. FoP clauses are typically in the list of limitation clauses that laws have, pursuant to that Berne article. So I don't think FoP provisions can go that far. Interesting that a Berne clause specifically about architecture was discussed. I don't think the U.S. law violates Berne -- another architect making a derivative work of a building is a problem without permission; architecture has derivative work protection. The law simply states that the specific case of photographs of buildings (located in public places) are not derivative works basically (it's not within the scope of the architectural copyright). It's in line with FoP clauses elsewhere. Photographs of buildings are not part of the "normal exploitation" of a building. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg I think that the minority group of U.S. architects who opposed AWCPA's Sec. 120(a) way back in early 1990s based their arguments on the French copyright rules, that unambiguously does not allow commercial uses of images of architecture. Still, at least in a small circle within the scholarly and architectural community, the Section 120(a)'s compliance with the Berne has been put into question. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
That was from when the law was first going in, and architecture (beyond the drawing copyright of plans) was getting protection for the first time. The U.S. law also plainly stated that the text of the Berne Convention is not legally binding in the U.S.; only the text of the incorporating law. They could file a complaint with the WTO these days I guess but that type of limitation seems clearly in line with what Berne allows. (The U.S. did try to avoid restoring copyright; countries did complain about that, which eventually led to the URAA restorations as that was the compromise.) What France chooses to allow has no effect in the U.S. I don't think there is any serious challenge to it; the lawmakers clearly did not want to change the ability to take photos of buildings which had been fine forever in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The picture being in Bruxelles, Belgian law applies. It states two conditions :
«the reproduction [...] is as it is found there», which implies that the picture cannot be edited and modified.
«this reproduction [...] does not cause unreasonable harm to the legitimate interests of the author», which means that it cannot be used comercially without limits (as explicited by the legistative discussion).
Tipically, File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png cannot be printed on a T-shirt to be commercialized, which is equivalent in effect to a CC-NC licence, not accepted on Commons (even though its presence in Wikipedia pages would be legal with respect to that point of view). But in the first place, its being cropped and edited infringes the first condition, which is equivalent in effect to a CC-ND clause in that case. The picture therefore cannot be uploaded on Commons and must be deleted.
Freedom of panorama in Belgium allows for instance pictures of the atomium, because such pictures can be reproduced without authorization or payment, and their reproduction cannot cause an unreasonable harm to the author's rights. This is why it is acceptable on Commons. It does allow for pictures like File:Comic wall Asterix & Obelix, Goscinny and Uderzo. Brussels.jpg, because the wall is reproduced as-is, and that reproduction does no harm to Uderzo's interests. But {{FoP-Belgium}} is definitively not equivalent to a CC-BY-SA, so derivative works should be considered with caution. This is why it is in Category:Restriction tags. It is the same problem as with the de minimis clause : a picture may be acceptable on commons even though an excerpt of it would not, it is the responsibility of the editor to remain within the legal limits.
My (very limited) understanding of the Belgian law is that while cropping of the mural is permitted, isolating elements is not, as they don't appear as shown on the public wall. Here both the individual figures have to go as copyvios. h-stt!?18:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
This entire discussion highlights the legal and practical absurdity of the Commons community's position on the freedom of panorama.
First and foremost, Wikimedia Commons is based and hosted in the United States. Much as a work falling into the public domain in its country of origin does not mean it enters the public domain in the United States, some exception or limitation to copyright law in a foreign country does not mean that limitation or exception applies in the United States. Under United States copyright law, photographs of buildings don't infringe a copyright in the architecture depicted. However, photographs of artwork do reproduce that artwork, and, where that artwork is not in the public domain in the US, such photographs can be infringing.
The basic argument here boils down to:
Claim: This work is displayed in a public place in Belgium.
This much I think we can all acknowledge.
Claim: There is a "freedom of panorama" exception in Belgium that allows for the free reproduction of this work.
Art. XI.190. When a work has been lawfully disseminated, the author cannot prohibit: [...] 2/1. the reproduction and communication to the public of works of plastic, graphical or architectural art designed to be placed permanently in public places, so long as such reproduction or communication is of the work as it is found [in that public space] and neither interferes with the normal exploitation of the work nor unjustly prejudices the legitimate interests of the author.
There are two key problems here, which mean that this "freedom of panorama" is actually quite limited, and clearly does not allow the kind of use we see here.
The reproduction must depict the work as it is found in the place where it is displayed (telle qu'elle s'y trouve). There are two potential readings of this clause, both of which cause problems.
The work must be displayed within the context of the place where it is found, and cannot be separated from that context — since it would then be reproduced in a way other than that in which it is actually found on display. In other words, isolation of the work and its separation from the situation in which it is displayed would be outside of the scope of the exception.
The work can only be reproduced in the form in which it is displayed, and the exception only applies if no changes are made. In this case, retouching of the work would be outside of the scope of the exception.
The reproduction of the work cannot interfere with the normal exploitation of the work or prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
The reuse of the isolated work within many contexts would interfere with the normal exploitation of the underlying copyrighted work. For instance, if these drawings of Astérix and Obélix were used as the basis for new derivative works (comic books featuring these character designs), that would clearly interfere with the legitimate interests of the author — or otherwise copyrights would become worthless in Belgium for any work permanently exhibited in a public place.
My real question is this. What was the meaning of the law? Which of the following was intended?
(As some propose) That any work permanently displayed in a public place is, for most intents and purposes, fair game to be reproduced and reused, including in derivative works? That is, that the display of comic book characters in an authorized poster or mural would mean that these characters could be freely reproduced in other contexts (e.g., in a collage) as long as the user could point back to this public display?
(Or, as I propose) That the exception is intended only as a limited one, allowing for the reproduction of images of public spaces, even where copyrighted artwork is displayed within that public space — as long as the purpose behind the reproduction was not to interfere with the interests of the copyright holder of the artwork? I think the intended meaning is that, say, a picture of the unmodified mural could be included as a prominent part of a depiction of the public place in which it is displayed, but that most depictions of the mural itself, or of its constituent elements, would not fall within the exception. The purpose of the law was clearly not to make any item on public display freely reusable — only to allow for easier photography of public places themselves, with strict limits on reuse of those work outside of the depiction of how they are publicly displayed (telles qu'elles s'y trouvent).
The mural itself is a comic book illustration recontextualized by its display on a public wall. I cannot understand any sensible explanation for how undoing that recontextualization by isolating the illustration and placing it back in the essential form of the illustration itself (whether in print or on a computer screen) would be any different from taking the image from an original comic book page direction. I'll acknowledge that within a certain new context, use of an image of the character Astérix might fall under the other more general exceptions in Belgian law (which, though narrower, are the rough conceptual equivalent of fair use in US law). Whether the illustration is sourced from a wall or a printed page, the effect on the interests of the author are the same. The depiction of a work's public display is another specific context in which a limited reuse can be made (similar to other reproductions which do not affect the core interests of the author), not a free pass for general reuse.
Separate Claim: It is OK to reuse this work freely on Wikimedia Commons (based in the United States) on the theory that exceptions in foreign copyright law can be applied within the US context.
I find this claim extremely implausible. It is true that there is a lack of US case law on the specific issue of foreign freedom of panorama laws. However, the notion that foreign exceptions to copyright are intended to apply in the United States is without any real justification. It is clear, for instance, that US law, not foreign law, determines a work's term of copyright in the United States; this term may be longer or shorter than that in other countries. While in certain cases (e.g., determining the ownership of a copyright), foreign law may be relevant, there are specific reasons why, and those are the exception, not the rule.
In particular, the TRIPS Agreement's provision on National Treatment (TRIPS, Part I, Article 3) requires that each country grant IP protections to foreign nationals no less favorable than that accorded to its own nationals, subject to the exceptions provided for in existing conventions. The Berne Convention allows for both exceptions based on use (which can be used to carve out exceptions such as fair use, as the US does). But the exception allowing for fair use is not an exception to the national treatment rule, unlike the rule of the shorter term (which is allowed but not required under the Berne Convention, and which the US does not apply, except for determining URAA restoration eligibility). The US allowing for fair use on an equal basis for works (independent of the nation of origin) is OK; allowing for the application of exceptions from foreign law specifically in order to weaken protections based on the source country of a work is a clear violation of the National Treatment principle.
Similarly, the Berne Convention says (in Article 5), "[A]part from the provisions of this Convention, 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." No provision provides for the application of foreign exceptions appears in the Berne Convention.
Some editors point to the Oldenburg DMCA claim, where a DMCA takedown notice issued for pictures of a statue located in Germany was complied with by WMF Legal, as a sign that the WMF "endorses" lex loci protectionis (i.e., the application of US law, despite whatever exceptions may exist in a foreign law) to Commons. While I think this "endorsement" is correct, it is really not important whether or not the WMF "endorses" the principle; it is important what the principle is.
This is a more general issue — one for a separate and larger conversation — but one which WMF Legal really needs to address. Right now, Commons users generally feel free to reproduce objects found in public spaces, so long as the country in which the item is displayed (or from which the picture is taken, but that's the same country 99.9999% of the time) has some sort of freedom of panorama-type exception allowing for such reproduction.
US law says this is fine for buildings — but not for copyrighted sculptures or murals. So there is a ton of content which is non-free in the US, even if free in its country of display. (As we see in this case, though, the freedom of panorama exception is not necessarily a free-for-all permission to reuse the work. In many cases, the exceptions are limited in scope and rather context-dependent — much like other exceptions, such as fair use.)
While some uses of depictions of publicly displayed (non-architectural) art might be acceptable under US law's fair use provisions, this depends on the actual use made; such images are not free to use for any purpose. (Nor, in many cases, are they free to use for many purposes in the country of display.) These works are not free in the sense required by the Definition of Free Cultural Works, which is the sense incorporated into the Wikimedia Licensing Policy. And Wikimedia Commons has never adopted an Exemption Doctrine Policy defining the context in which non-free works may be used on the project.
Implied Claim: Belgium is the relevant source country for this work.
Even if we accept the application of foreign copyright exceptions under US law (which, as I detail above, we shouldn't), I don't think this is really plausible. This is, as discussed, either a direct reproduction or close derivative of artwork from the Astérix comic books. The Astérix characters were designed and first drawn by the French artist Albert Uderzo, and the original works were published in France. The fact that artwork from Astérix was later displayed in Belgium doesn't make this a "Belgian" work — why should the Belgian exceptions apply just because a French work happened to be displayed in Belgium.
What this rule amounts to — and this is one that is commonly naively applied in Commons FoP cases — is the application of whichever country's exceptions can be seen as the most relaxed. When the same work is displayed in multiple countries, where some have an exception which can plausibly used to justify reproduction, while others do not, the de facto Commons community position is that whichever exception is the most liberal can be used to justify the (worldwide/US) reproduction of the work.
Taking this rule seriously, reproduction of a work first published in the US by an American author can be justified on Commons if a copy of this work can be found on public display in a country whose FoP exception is interpreted by the Commons community as allowing such reproduction. There are many such cases relating to US-origin cartoon characters on Commons. (While this mural is authorized by the Astérix copyright holders, the Commons community seems to apply FoP even to clearly unauthorized graffiti of cartoon characters, allowing for an absurd kind of FoP-laundering whereby a copyrighted image can be uploaded to Commons as long as it is a photo of a pirated copy put on a wall in a public place in the right country.)
This relates to a more general problems with the "country of origin" principle. The "country of origin" of a copyrighted work is not necessarily the country where it is displayed, nor the country with which it is popularly associated, nor the country in which it was created or even just a single country (as various countries could consider a work to be a domestic work under their own law, e.g., based on publication or the nationality of the author).
The country of origin principle is problematic for works displayed in multiple countries, or which are derivative of works from another country. The display in Belgium comes long after initial publication of Astérix, but it is undeniably the display (either directly or as a derivative work) of the original Astérix illustrations and/or characters. Was the original Astérix comic even simultaneously published in Belgium and France? It's plausible, but, for all the previously given reasons, that's highly unlikely to have any relevance.
Under the Berne Convention, simultaneous publication means that one image can have multiple countries of origin; a foreign work is considered . Depending on how this is interpreted, this image could be considered a domestic work by many countries (those which recognize it as "published" because it is, through Commons, accessible in that country), in the US (because Commons is based in and serves files from the US) and so on.
The US incorporates its own "source country" test into the URAA. Under that test (Copyright Office explainer), the (single) source country for non-US works simultaneously published in multiple countries is determined based on which country has the strongest connection to the work. Being exclusively created by French authors in France, and without any potential ties to Belgium other than (let's hypothesize, for the sake of argument) simultaneous publication there, the underlying work here is a French one, not a Belgian one. (And France infamously does not have any FoP exception that could plausibly support reproducing murals in this context.)
TL;DR: These images are not eligible for Commons.
There are significant restrictions on Belgian FoP, meaning these images are non-free (by any sensible reading of the Definition of Free Cultural Works) even upon applying the most liberal reading of the Belgian exception
This is especially true for elements of murals. While the same exception (textually) applies to works of architecture in the Belgian law, there is little practical chance that a photo of a building can be easily transformed back into an actual building design (compare the US law's allowance for photos of buildings but prohibition on building a new building based on a copyrighted design); these drawings have already been transformed into (essesntially) the best form for infringing upon the author's (still protected) interests.
It's highly implausible that foreign copyright exceptions ever apply directly in the US — and Commons is based in the US.
US copyright exceptions might sometimes apply in the same circumstances where Belgian ones do, but this is totally different from Belgian exceptions applying in the US.
Even if foreign copyright exceptions did apply under US law, this is either a French-origin work which happens to also be displayed in Belgium or derived from a French-origin work.
Good catch. You're right that this isn't the latest version, but you're wrong to think that the condition was removed. The version in WIPO-Lex is apparently a few months older than the current version of the law. The current version does omit the "normal exploitation" condition from that clause. But that's only because it was moved to another clause. This restriction still fully applies (it's part of how Belgium implements the Berne three-step test); it's just put in one place rather than repeated in different sections.
In the current version of the law, we find the following article, added in the 2022 amendment:
Art. XI.192/3 The exceptions provided for in articles XI.189, XI.190, XI.191, XI.191/1, XI.191/2, XI/192 (Section 1, Paragraph 2), XI.192/1 and XI.192/2 are only applicable insofar as much as they do not affect the normal exploitation of the work or database and so not unjustly prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholder.
As this exception falls under Art. XI.190, this restriction on its application still applies. Accordingly, I am going to edit the COM:FOP Belgium page in order to reflect what the law actually says. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The "normal exploitation" wording is part of the Berne Convention, so any country where that is self-executing (a good many of them) that limitation is in the law even if not explicitly mentioned. Even where countries have 2-D FoP, I don't think you can crop to just the work (since that would compete directly in the marketplace with a copy or print from the original copyright owner). A 3-D sculpture is usually fine, if there are FoP provisions, but particularly for 2-D, it really should almost aways show the public context. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I opened an extended topic at the section "Copyrighted characters from no-FoP states displayed as murals et cetera in yes-FoP states" below, as it may also impact hundreds of images and Flickr / panoramio imports. Some past deletion requests with "kept" closures may need to be reassessed and (if found to be showing a character from a no-FoP country like France, Japan or U.S.), reopened/renominated. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
thank you so much!!! modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Done Speedy deleted per G7. Abzeronow (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg/220px-Rio_Antirrio_-_panoramio_(27).jpg)
.jpg)
.png){kind=link}
![[1]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1730578177095770112/LgZqhHez.jpg){kind=link}
,_Sergeant,_Machine_Gun_Company,_1st_Missouri_National_Guard.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:HeavensGateRecruitmentMeetingFlyer.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png){kind=small}
Comment The job of the administrator to determine consensus is to review the evidence provided. You provided the shortest of context and no evidence. No indications of anything else. On the basis of the evidence provided there was not a consensus to delete. PCP says "significant doubt" and the case presented did not reach that standard. Quick Google Lens and TinEye searches presented nothing. It was "in use" so personal artwork isn't ours to determine, and there are so many COA on site, and this is one with an old date. Kept. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
flickr.com. As far as Pixsy is concerned, I would completely ignore them if it were me, but I'm not a lawyer and you shouldn't take any legal suggestions from me. Nosferattus (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
