Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Warren Laity

Warren R. Laity was an American photographer of the early 20th century. He died in 1936, and thus copyright has now expired on all of his works.

His grandson, Colin Talcroft, owns some of Laity's original work — in fact, for some of these, they may be the only remaining copies. Mr. Talcroft scanned these in, digitally restored them, and posted them on his own website. So far, so good.

Then I found them and uploaded them to Commons, because their copyright has expired and because Warren R. Laity was a skilled artistic photographer and also some of his stuff has historic value.

Mr. Talcroft recently discovered this, and is intent on asserting that he still holds the copyright to these images, because he restored them.

Is he right? DS (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he died in 1936 does not mean that copyright has now expired on all his works. COM:US is far more complex than that, and anything first published 1929-2002 may still be in copyright.

Restoration is a complex subject; it's unlikely to create a new copyright, but if whole parts of the photograph needed it replacement or something, it could.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they were on public display (in , e.g., galleries or competitions), that would count as being published, yes? DS (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That again depends on the circumstances. US courts ruled at the time that if precautionary measures had been taken to avoid copying by patrons, then mere exhibition to the public does not count as publication. This is explained in some detail at Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Felix QW (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One image now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Capitol in the rain (Laity).jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New warning template for copyrighted interior architecture?

In many (most) countries where a Commons-compatible form of freedom of panorama for copyrighted architecture exists, it applies only to exterior views. So, it's for example perfectly fine to upload exterior views of Elbphilharmonie, but we can't host images of the interior such as the concert hall, see Commons:Deletion requests/Interior of Elbphilharmonie. In the case of Elbphilharmonie, a warning was placed manually at the top of the category page. But as this is a recurring issue that applies to all sorts of modern churches, concert halls etc. in countries such as Germany or Switzerland, I wounder whether a dedicated template would be useful, to be placed in the categories for these buildings, something like {{NoFoP-interior-category}}? There's {{NoFoP-category}} but this is for buildings / artistic work in countries that have no Commons-compatible FoP whatsoever (so, also not for exterior views). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I remember seeing that restriction on most countries with FoP, but it's there for a few for sure. So yeah I could see a template for such cases -- even if just a few countries, that could be many building categories. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Germany & I believe Austria & Switzerland. That would be enough to merit a template. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the following: Türkiye, Spain, Poland, Venezuela, El Salvador, Colombia, Panama, Paraguay, and Chile.

However, is {{NoFoP-interior-category}} encompassing interior architecture only, or only interior public art? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most countries that don't have freedom of panorama for interiors don't have them for any kind of copyrighted work in interior spaces - that includes architecture as well as other artistic work (sculptures, paintings...). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: The Europe map at COM:FOP has only four countries with FoP for public interiors (dark green): Portugal, Ireland, the UK, and Austria. Additionally in light yellow-green (how do you call that color?) the Netherlands, Algeria, and Tunisia (not in Europe but still on that map) for "some public interiors"; all other countries on the map have either no FoP at all (red), "buildings only" (but not public interiors; yellow), or FoP, but not for interiors (light green, such as Germany etc.) Gestumblindi (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

̼@Gestumblindi: I'm not sure that is what the distinction on the map means, exactly. The UK has FoP for other works (say statues) permanently placed inside buildings, if those buildings are open to the public -- I think that is what is more meant by "interiors", if the interior of a building can be considered a public place. The interior architecture itself, is far less clear -- the interior is part of the same architectural work as the exterior. Germany certainly has explicit language that only the exterior is part of FoP, and also language about where the photographer is located, but that type of wording is rare in laws. It may well be that any part of the architectural work is fine to photograph (and use commercially), including the interior, but any other works inside are not. It's always possible case law could create such a distinction, but not sure there have been many (or any) test cases on that. For countries where building interiors are not public places, photos focusing on works other than the architecture would violate FoP in the first place, and shouldn't be allowed here in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: I have to agree that things are more complicated than the map(s) suggest. "Public interiors" can mean different things in different countries, and the definition of a "permanent public display" is also varying - what exactly means "permanent"? What are the boundaries of a "public display"? From where may you take the photograph? And so on... So, the Europe FoP map and the world map are certainly only an approximation, though a valiant attempt and still helpful, I think. - I don't know the status of FoP for interior architecture in the UK. But as you say, e.g. for Germany it's clear, and there are other countries like Switzerland where we know that such photographs don't fall under FoP, so I think such a template - to be applied where we are fairly sure - still would make sense. Just don't apply it to UK photos, for example, until we know more. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to think of Template:NoFoP-category. Isn't the solution for these to upload photos to Wikipedia instead (at least for France/fr.wikipedia) but not mentioned there?

A similar looking template on categories that should actually have uploads seems like a terrible idea. Will recent US buildings have that too? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be against adding something along the lines of "If your images are intended for use in another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia, and your local project allows for fair use, you might consider uploading the pictures there instead, if allowed as per that project's regulations", what do you think? - Regarding, US buildings, COM:FOP US says that FoP for architecture in the US applies to "interior public spaces" as well, so I think I would rather not use the new template for US photos (photos of non-public interior spaces would still not be allowed, but I think that's too specific for a template). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the note for France should be more specific than that. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French Wikipedia has a "fair use" policy? For, of course, as France doesn't have freedom of panorama at all, you can't upload images there invoking the Lex loci protectionis (which is something German Wikipedia does for exterior views from countries without FoP - it doesn't have a fair use policy, as copyright law in German-speaking countries doesn't allow for "fair use", but it argues that you can show those images as FoP for a German-language target audience). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of some user who planted Template:FoP-Switzerland on every street category. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings of live performances

Hello! I have some recordings of parts of live performances such as classical works (opera Attila, ballet of Nutcracker, etc.) and folk concerts. (30-60 seconds in length.) Am I allowed to upload them here? If so, what options do I choose for the license? - Klein Muçi (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's presumably going to vary somewhat with different countries' laws; what country? (Still, my guess is that in most cases it will be a problem, because at least some aspect of the performance will be copyrightable even if the underlying work is not.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries where performances are copyrightable per se, they are sui generis copyrightable, not copyrightable as works, and the rights in the recording belong to the recording party alone (although there are sometimes requirements for splitting of royalties, where there are royalties, which there wouldn't be here). However, the main purpose of performance copyright laws is similar to 17 USC 1101 (which isn't copyright per se), mentioned by @Toohool - the performers need to have consented to the making of the recording.

So, basically, if you had permission to record, it is probably OK (at the very least the audio would be - video might contain new stuff). If not, it's not OK. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! But in that case, what does one select in the uploading procedure when asked if it is completely own work or not? Is this considered my own work? Is it considered a mixed work? - Klein Muçi (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may not technically be a copyright issue, but if you didn't get permission from the performers to make the recording, distribution in the United States (i.e. on Commons) would be forbidden by 17 USC 1101. Toohool (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, @Toohool, just so I can give a bit more info, they're performances from Albanian singers in Albania, mostly from the w:en:National Theatre of Opera and Ballet of Albania. I noticed that the theatre's activity was almost non-existent here in media terms, be those images, videos or sound recordings, and I already had some media related to those and thought I could help a bit in that direction. - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most countries these days have "related rights" for performers. The major right is typically one of agreeing to be recorded, without which a recording cannot be distributed, though Albania's law may go quite a bit further (it complies with many EU directives as they are negotiating to join). The current law is here; based on an English translation of a slightly earlier version, you would need to get permission to redistribute such a recording. The portions regarding related rights start at article 103 there, and the main restrictions are in article 109. It may be that the theater company (which may be the government) holds those rights. Secondly, if there is any copyrighted music or dialogue being performed, that may be a separate copyright that needs a license. You would have the copyright to the recording itself but is likely not be the only license we need. If you had permission to record, and there is no copyrighted content in the performance, it may be OK but look over that law. It may also be that commercial reproductions of the performance need royalty payments to somebody, which could also cloud things. I'm not entirely sure which rights would be assumed transferred to the theater, and which of those rights were given permission for.

1. The performers /executors have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit:

a. The registration of their performances and/or executions;

b. The reproduction of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

c. The distribution of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

ç. The rental of a phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

d. The lending of phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

dh. The import of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions, for commercial purposes in the domestic market;

e. The broadcasting of the interpretations/performances and their transmitting to the public, pursuant to the provisions of Article 29, letter ‘c’, ‘ç’, ‘d’, ‘dh’, ‘ë’ of this law, except when the interpretation/performances has been previously fixed or broadcasted. If the registration/fixation has been fixed on a phonogram or a videogram, the performer/executor has the right to a common and fair remuneration, for the other broadcastings and transmitting to the public of his/her performance/or execution. The common and fair remuneration, referred to in this section of this Article, consists of the remuneration received by the user of phonograms that belongs to the performers/executors and to the phonograms producer.

ë. Cable retransmitting of their performances and/or executions;

f. The availability in interactive way of the fixations of their performances and/or executions

Some of those are just for phonograms, but others sound like they may apply. Not exactly sure who would own those rights for the particular performance in question, or what licenses they may have given. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi: if you can get around the rights issues here, I would recommend that rather than wrestling with trying to describe this complicated case to the Upload Wizard you do one of two things:

If you are comfortable filling out {{Information}} yourself, skip the Upload Wizard entirely and upload with Special:Upload.
"Bluff" your way through the Upload Wizard (give the simple answer that it is your own work), then immediately after upload correct the file page to reflect the situation accurately.

The Wizard is simply not built for complicated cases like this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your answers! They were pretty informative and covered everything related to my case. - Klein Muçi (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would these qualify as public domain for Commons?

I've found a number of images I feel could be a good fit for articles from the old BC Ferries archive. [1][2][3][4]

From my understanding, all of these images are owned by BC Ferries, and as it was a crown corporation until 2003, these images would fall under section 12 of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) which states:

Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.

So from my understanding, all BC Ferries produced images from 1973 or earlier should be public domain. However, I don't know enough about Commons' proof of ownership standards and how it handles international copyright law to confirm they're suitable for upload. Emma0mb (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the publication is important here. The images need to have been published by 1974. Ruslik (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So assuming I can get confirmation of publication before 1974, it should be fine? Emma0mb (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Without a copyright notice"

Per the text of one of the copyright tags, some pictures are uncopyrighted because they were, quote, published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years. In searching the loc.gov files for Ricky Van Shelton, it appears that no photos of him had their copyrights registered. From what sources, if any, could I get a picture of him that meets these qualifications and can be uploaded here? TenPoundHammer (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights aren't all that often at the level of individual photos. It is quite likely that he had a fair amount of press during this period, but that entire issues of a magazine or newspaper would have been copyrighted, not single photos. - Jmabel ! talk 04:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: So a back issue of something like Billboard or Radio & Records, if there's no copyright notice within, might work? TenPoundHammer (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: I'd be astounded if Billboard didn't consistently have a copyright notice, but yes. - Jmabel ! talk 20:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: do you think you could help me find one or recommend other sources? TenPoundHammer (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not presume a PD image exists. I would think your best bet would be to try to get a free license from some amateur who might have taken a picture of him. Either that or see of there might have been publicity photos that had no copyright notice. - Jmabel ! talk 22:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: See also en:Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial and Commons:File requests. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US National Archives and Records Administration

I am wondering about the copyright status of images in Category:US National Archives series: Artworks by Negro Artists, compiled 1922 - 1967. The issue was previously discussed here. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they are marked PD-USGov, they probably are incorrect, as mentioned in the old discussions. A good percentage are probably PD-US-no_notice or PD-US-not_renewed, but I'm not sure anyone has had the energy to go through them and do the research, and there may be some difficult decisions there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: I'm guessing quite a few of these are probably legitimately PD-USGov from the WPA era. If anything, the lack of knowing in many cases whose work it was leans that way: the obvious ones (like Jacob Lawrence) are identified, but someone who never got famous and whose style wouldn't have stood out would have been "Negro artist working for WPA" and it's likely no one would have thought past that. But, yes, it would be very tricky almost a century later to work out who made what and under what circumstances. - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the license for a free image that cannot be used for commercial purposes?

and Is a image like that allowed on WC if it provides infomation about the subject?
Hydrogen astatide (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the second question: No, it is not allowed here, see Commons:Licensing#Forbidden licenses. [5] lists the CC licenses, among them those with a NC (non-commercial) clause. --Rosenzweig τ 10:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an image "cannot be used for commercial purposes", then it is not (in the sense used on this project), by definition, "free". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrogen astatide: It is not free enough for Commons. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paises de Ley en Comun

Buenas que significa Paises de Ley Comun en la Commons:Umbral de originalidad#Países de ley común?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22: Países de es:Derecho anglosajón. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.:Por ejemplo si publico un logo simple (ToO simple) creado en Venezuela es posible agregar {{PD-textlogo}},porque según en COM:Venezuela no dice claramente el "Threshold of Originality" en Venezuela pero es posible publicar a Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue about works created for the Wiki Loves Monuments photograph contest

I know I'm not a registered user, but I just wonder to know what you think about this: If the newbie users of Commons who participated in the WLM, they had casually entered private area and took pictures without get the permission from property owners, or even barged into their buildings, then will you accept them as a competition work according to the rules of the WLM competition? If yes, please explain why. My viewpoint is that what their doing is illegal, so their works are not protected by copyright, isn't it?--125.230.85.17 06:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trespassing is often a tort, not a crime, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with their works being protected by copyright. See COM:GRAFFITI for discussions of the copyright protection of graffiti--in short, it's unclear--and graffiti is clearly a criminal act, whereas again, trespassing is often not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome. In most of the world, due to the Berne Convention, sufficiently original works are copyrighted as soon as they are fixed in a tangible means of expression. Non-copyright restrictions do not negate copyright. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It must be noted that the laws of some countries are, however, not allowed take pictures in private areas, and not even in schools that looks like a public space that's open to everyone. This case might be similar to what COM:FOP says: "in countries without freedom of panorama, Wikimedia Commons requires proof of copyright release from the copyright holder when hosting any images of those buildings". That is to say, participants/photographers basically need to go through the COM:VRT process to get permission from the copyright holder (is the property owner). The problem is that we didn't know if photographers barge into a private area, but they also won't admit that they had not got permission. Obviously, it is a flaw of the mechanism of Commons. If you don't think so, then let's bring the topic back on track. Some countries are not allowed take pictures in private areas. If a participant or a photographer has a legal dispute with property owner, regardless of the outcome of the court's decision, are their works still protected by copyright and accepted by Commons?--125.230.85.17 10:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WLM-i organizer here. The issue you are presenting here is not directly related to Wiki Loves Monuments, but a question of decency and courtesy of any photographer. Trespassing is never allowed, not for Commons' photograph competitions, nor for any other of our Wikimedia projects and initiatives. A bit of friendliness goes a long way: this means asking the owner of the property if you can take the pictures (and walking away when they refuse) helps against potential take down requests.

We do not require proof to be send to VRT for self-taken images unless there is a dispute on the matter. Please do not create work for our volunteers where simple common sense, decency and assume good faith are the baseline attitude in participation. Ciell (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@125.230.85.17: No, the property owner does not normally own a copyright on a building; where such a copyright exists, it would normally belong to an architect or other designer unless explicitly transferred.

And while we do not encourage people to trespass, unless the photo violates copyright laws or privacy rights, we would not generally delete a photo over claims of trespass. I'm sure we have many photos of building exteriors where someone stepped onto private property to take the photo, or where someone photographed non-copyrighted content in a museum without proper permission from the museum; that is not our problem. - Jmabel ! talk 16:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The property owner is not the copyright owner -- owning a physical object is completely separate from the copyright in that item, which belongs to the author (the person who actually created it). For a building the copyright is actually owned by the architect, unless transferred via contract (or by being an employee of a company, in which case the company owns the copyright). The licensing rules here are very much specifically about the copyright -- so for a photo of a statue, we need permission from the sculptor, not the person who owns the statue, most likely. Photos of a building are not derivative works in the U.S., so photos of U.S. buildings usually don't matter, but in some countries it does. Restrictions based on laws other than copyright are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and fall outside of our licensing policy. Those restrictions can be very real, but it is up to re-users to follow those. For things like house rules on photography, the photographer themselves is most at risk -- they would still own the copyright, but if they are breaking any laws by taking the photograph, or alienating people or institutions they have a relationship with, only they can really weigh that. So, we often leave that up to the photographer. Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum_and_interior_photography has some information on that. Photos which violate someone's privacy (generally people in situations with an expectation of privacy though the specifics can differ by country) will be deleted, as those can be illegal to simply host here. WLM may want to have photos deleted if there was a specific complaint or some discourteous act involving a particular photo -- I'm sure they would not want to get a reputation of having that type of thing happen. Other situations can be case-by-case -- if community consensus is that we don't want to host a photo obtained by dubious means, that can happen in a deletion discussion. But strictly speaking, property owners generally do not own any copyright of photos taken on their property, so they are not involved with the licensing part of policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading movie poster

how can we upload a movie poster, i get copyright violation. how can we add the credit and correct Creative Commons license? Bfilmy (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bfilmy: Hi, On Commons, you need the formal written permission from the copyright holder for a free license. But you can upload it locally on the English Wikipedia (and some others) under a fair use rationale. Yann (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks dude... Bfilmy (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image of polytope copyright

I'm trying to add this gif to an article: https://polytope.miraheze.org/wiki/File:975-Sisp.gif

It is technically copyrighted, but it says it can be used for any non-commercial purposes.

"This file (or parts of it) are copyrighted by Robert Webb.↵↵The copyright holder of this file, Robert Webb, allows anyone to use it for any non-commercial purpose, provided that the name of the software used (Stella 4D), along with a link to the website https://www.software3d.com/Stella.php are given." Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial licenses are not acceptable on Commons. Trade (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, see COM:LJ. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video game screenshots

At what point are video game screenshots considered PD-text/PD-simple? See Category:Japanese-language video game screenshots for examples Trade (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very hard to imagine anything copyrightable there.

Warning to anyone clicking through: possibly NSFW text. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis?

File:Civic Boulevard Entrance, Syntrend Creative Park 20220806.jpg

There's a deletion request on this file due to NoFoP, and while I believe the contents of the file fall under de minimis, the nominator does not. I'm forwarding this here for more information because I'm not an expert. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not de minimis. The main interest of the photo seems to me to come from the copyrighted elements. - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. The image description provided by the uploader primarily describes the advertisements surrounding the door; that leads me to suspect that they are the focal point of the photo, not the architecture of the building. Omphalographer (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding copyright renewal

Hi all. I’m wondering if I could trouble someone to explain to me how one might go about determining a copyright was not renewed, as is indicated on File:Sylvia Plath - The Boston Globe (1953).png for example. I read the linked Hirtle chart and copyright logs but I’m sorry to report for the latter I’m still not sure what I’m looking at. Thanks for the help! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): to search for 1953 copyright renewals, you'd want to check the 1980 and 1981 copyright catalogs to see what the Associated Press had renewed. AP generally did not renew copyrights on photographs. Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good to know. Thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To start you can look up The Boston Globe in Wikidata then look for "online books" which takes you to https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/globemaboston which says that "no issue renewals found in CCE or registered works database" The newspaper never renewed any images or issues, which takes us to 1964. They did renew at least one article on "May 7, 1940", it can be fun to look up and see what that article was, I have a list somewhere of what articles were copyrighted in papers and it is always a guest writer who may want to include their essay in a book at a later time. For instance in 1927 several papers ran a first hand account by Charles Lindbergh that he later included in his biography. According to the Library of Congress, the Associated Press did not copyright or renew images, even their most iconic ones. Some local papers never included a copyright symbol in the masthead or on the second page that lists the publisher and editors and the address to write the paper. After 1989 those formalities of registration, renewal, and copyright symbol were no longer needed, everything creative was automatically copyrightable. People would still mail in copies to the USCO to get a date stamp, especially for songs, to show priority, in case someone else claims that they wrote the song first. --RAN (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating, thanks so much! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this belongs but...

I uploaded these images and the author did in fact said he was fine with his images being reused. However the only evidence I have is an email. What do i do to confirm that the author did in fact was fine with his images being reused? Hydrogen astatide (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They need to fill out a Commons:VRT form and send it to the Commons addy. --RAN (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, in case it is not clear, only the copyright holder can do that, though you probably should have them cc you on the email. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bultaco logos

File:Bultaco logo black bacground.jpg and File:Bultaco logo.png both probably need a closer look because both of them seem to be potential copyvios. The first file was sourced to this Flickr page and looks to be a photo someone took of en:Boltaco's official logo (offcial website). Since Spain's TOO seems to be fairly vague per COM:TOO Spain, I'm not sure it can be stated with any degree of certainty that this logo would be {{PD-logo}} in Spain even if it was considered to be PD in the US per COM:TOO United States. So, that would seem, at the very least make the Flickr photo cited as the source, a case of unintenional COM:LL that can't be kept by Commons. The png file seems to have bascially been created based on that Flickr image, which again seems (at least to me) to be a copyvio; even if，however, it wasn't, the copyright status of the logo itself would need to still be considered if this png is expected to be treated a true and faithful recreation of the logo, which means (at least to me) that it too probably can't be kept if the original logo isn't PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nigeria national anthem Nigeria, We hail thee midi.mid

I'm not sure that the licensing of File:Nigeria national anthem Nigeria, We hail thee midi.mid is sufficient given the source being cited. Hamienet.com appears to be some kind midi/mp3 hosting site which seems to make no claim of verifying the copyright status of the content it hosts, but instead places total responsibility on the uploader of the content. Given that a musical performance of a national athem could be eligible for copyirght in its own right even if the musical score itself is now within the public domain, it seems like this particular performance would need to be treated as an anonymous work since the author is unknown per COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings, which means it's probably not even close to being old enough to be PD and OK for Commons. The {{Cc-by-2.5}} certainly seems incorrect given that the author is unknown. Can this file be kept by Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we allowed to copy descriptions from Flickr?

Tools like Commons:Flickr2Commons import Flickr files along with descriptions. Flickr argues that copying captions would potentially violate licensing as there's no license for metadata on Flickr [and that only the files are licensed] and copying them to Commons requires a CC0 licensing. Aren't those captions/descriptions "unstructured text" which we share under CC BY SA 4.0 but not "structured data" under CC0? Even so, is copying a violation of licensing / Flickrwashing? (My query is only limited to CC BY 2.0, etc.,. limited licences and not PD works such US-Gov.) -- DaxServer (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If these descriptions are copyrighted and are not licensed at all, then it doesn't matter that we treat them as CC BY SA 4.0 rather than CC0, it would still be a copyright violation.

I don't really know what to make of this. We have been copying Flickr file descriptions for close to two decades and I've never heard of any Flickr user objecting. Flickr themselves don't own any copyright on this content so it's not really their affair. In my experience, most of these are too simple to be copyrightable in any case, but of course some are complex enough to be copyrightable, and for those I guess they have a point, especially given our precautionary principle.

We might want to have some more specific policy here, but certainly it would have to allow for copying over descriptions that are below the threshold of originality. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI, User:Alexwlchan does not represent Flickr, so you are wrong to attribute his views to that organisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the @Alexwlchan's userpage, they work as the Tech Lead at Flickr Foundation. Surely not a legal representative, but we can assume that's what Flickr thinks of the descriptions -- DaxServer (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; and "Flickr Foundation" is not "Flickr". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can count on one hand the amount of times I've had to change a description because it copied and pasted too much from Flickr. So it's possible that there are some that probably need editing, but I don't see it as a major issue for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted a similar question here but no one answered. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the descriptions would have the same license as the user specified and which is set for the file. Captions may be more a problem than anything else and I think just having description may even be better (they could and should start with a short description). Moreover, the reality is users don't care how their little descriptive text is licensed...this may be different for very long descriptions where users put a poem or things of that sort. I think the descriptions should be imported to the descriptions field. People often copy parts of the description to the captions (and this may be the best way these are populated) so this would be a bigger issue than just about flickr. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feastogether brand logos and threshold of originality

Note: I cross-posted this to en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Feastogether is a Taiwanese company, meaning the applicable copyright rule for is Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan. The page says, "Note that any work originating in Taiwan must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Taiwan and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons."

I plan to upload Feastogether brand logos that are in the public domain in both Taiwan and the United States to Wikimedia Commons.
I plan to upload Feastogether brand logos that are in the public domain in the United States but not in Taiwan to the English Wikipedia.

Which of the Feastogether brand logos in https://www.ieatogether.com.tw/admin/upload/website/kv/20240430114655_PC-KV.jpg^{Internet Archive} (linked from here^{Internet Archive} and also available at https://eatogo.com.tw/zh-TW^{Internet Archive}) meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan? Which meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan but not the United States?

Here is my assessment:

A Joy (
中文：饗A Joy
): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
- Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
Inparadise (
中文（臺灣）：饗饗
): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
- Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
Sunrise (
中文（臺灣）：旭集和食集錦
): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
- Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
Eat Together (
中文（臺灣）：饗食天堂
): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the blue-green drawing at the top.
- Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
Fruitful Food (
中文（臺灣）：果然匯
): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the plant drawing at the top.
- Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
Little Fuli Spicy Hot Pot (
中文（臺灣）：小福利麻辣鍋
): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
- Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
Kaifun Together (
中文（臺灣）：開飯川食堂
): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the pepper drawings at the top.
- Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
Siam More (
中文（臺灣）：饗泰多
): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters. However, I am uncertain because the "Siam More" part of the logo uses script that appears like an elephant. Is this enough to make it meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan?
- Can upload to English Wikipedia. But can I upload it to Wikimedia Commons?
Zhiyun (
中文（臺灣）：旨醞
): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the pink and green drawings at the top.
- Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
Doricious (
中文（臺灣）：朵頤餐廳
): The logo does meet the threshold of originality because of the illustration at the top.
- Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
Feastogether Corporation (
中文（臺灣）：饗賓餐旅事業
): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
- Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://eatathome.hoyastore.com/uploads/images/202303/4f941f99ca0585f0d058e3cc2c340002.png^{Internet Archive} (linked from here^{Internet Archive}).

Eat@home (
中文（臺灣）：饗在家
): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
- Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://web.archive.org/web/20160322003020im_/http://dacoz.com.tw/images/logo.png (linked from here):

Dacoz (
中文（臺灣）：大口吃
): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
- Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://play-lh.googleusercontent.com/bRVFib-dahozjAjk5gcQgh1zsZ09AlAtI-h3b4vIWY0FBVR-vc0FVasZ3kXhJ2ML5z4=w480-h960-rw^{Internet Archive} (linked from here^{Internet Archive}).

iEat (
中文（臺灣）：iEAT饗愛吃
): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and English characters.
- Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting only on Siam More: I believe it is over COM:TOO-US. Glrx (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persée

Hello, what is the copyright situation of articles that were uploaded to Persée site (Commons category)? Can I take an image from an article and upload it to Commons?

I'm asking because I want to upload the cylinder seal that appears here Pl. XV (an article in Syria by André Parrot, appears also here), but I would also like to get a more general answer about this website since I often find there images that can contribute to Wikipedia articles. פעמי-עליון (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy clarification - Prohibiting AI/LLM training with a user's uploaded file

I suspect I know the answer, but I wanted to toss the question out there: If I am uploading a file I created (ex: photo I took), I can't try to prohibit a specific use, while allowing all others; as this isn't a truly free file; it'd be 'some rights reserved' and thus not complying with Commons:Licensing policy.

Example: 'File/work not authorized for use in AI/LLM model training; all other uses, including commercial, allowed.'

(Aware this isn't legal advice, looking for confirmation on Commons policy.)-- The Navigators (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Commons content needs to be freely licensed - "usable by anyone, anytime, for any purpose". I understand where you're coming from, but usage restrictions are usage restrictions. Omphalographer (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, suspected this was the case.-- The Navigators (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if the conditions of the license you are granting allows it. I think you are free to express your POV that it doesn't.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No free license can prohibit use in AI. It arguably might require that the AI be under the same license or carry attribution, and if it creates derivative works, those will be controlled by the license (though that has little to do with whether it was used as input to train the AI), but it can't prohibit it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have a good sample of AI doing such attribution and licensing.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR there is an ongoing battle on whether AI output is derivative of everything it was trained on. Commons weakly agrees that generally it isn't - Gabuxae (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without addressing that question at all, even if we accepted that generative AI works are derivative of all training materials, that wouldn't violate the terms of any free license (so long as attribution and, where applicable, copyleft requirements were followed). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maldive government website

I'm not seeing how {{Presidencymv}} is an applicable licence for images such as:

The text of the template reads:

The Government of the Republic of Maldives may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site can only be licensed for reuse through the independent consent of the original content owner.
Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to presidency.gov.mv under the Attribution 4.0 International License.

so the CCC licence only seems to apply to submissions made by visitors to the website; in which case the attribution is missing.

The linked page prefixes the above text with:

Pursuant to law, materials to be published in the public domain produced by The Government of the Republic of Maldives appearing on this site are not copyright protected.

but in that case we need evidence that the images concerned are indeed "produced by The Government of the Republic of Maldives", not "third-party content" (unless separately "licensed for reuse through the independent consent of the original content owner.", and in that case would not be under a CC licence as claimed on the image pages.

Am I correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alien copyright works

I'm noticing files like File:Birkenau Three Jewish men holding an elderly woman looking behind her.jpg have been tagged with PD-US alien property, but there isn't any evidence of the Alien Property seized the copyright to this image. Was there ever a blanket seizure of enemy government intellectual property by the APC (incl copyright) during WW2? Otherwise this image shouldn't be allowed. I found this US government magazine which said During World War II, the U.S. government ... assumed control of the copyrights of alien combatant nationals. Citizens of Germany, Italy, and other countries at war against the United States lost their intellectual property rights in the United States, but I could be misinterpreting it. Thoughts? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any copyrights or claims to copyright owned by the German or Japanese governments during World War II were included within the scope of the Alien Property Custodian's control over government property. The APC controlled copyrights held by governments themselves in addition to those of citizens of enemy countries. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what happened to the copyrights after the war? I know that the State of Bavaria acquired the copyright to Mein Kampf and they used their ownership to block its publication in Germany. However its copyright expired in 2015 (70 years after Hitler's death) and this caused the Bavarian Government some concern. Furthermore, the Auschwitz Album was ever under US control until after the war. Its owner, a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz found it in a drawer after the SS had fled and before she was liberated by the Soviets. This suggests to me that after the war, the copyrights, along with all sorts of other objects were returned to their rightful owners. I know that when William Shirer write his monumnetal book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", he had a limited time to consult the original documents before the US Government retunred them to the Federal Republic of West Germany. As a result, I doubt that the US Government still controls such copyrights. Another point is that we do not know who the photographers were - two names were metioned, but it is not knows who took which photo (or even if they were the original photographers). All that we can say for definite is that the photogrpahs were taken as part of the official duties of employees of the Nazi State and as such are protected as annonymous photographs. Martinvl (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scenario probably falls under {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}, since I doubt the work (photo) itself indicated the name of the author. At least that's what DeepL translates this German law as, it could be a bit off. It's not relevant whether the US government returned the copyrights or not, because s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 104A#(a)(2) says was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian. Therefore, since the copyright would also still have been owned by the German government in 1996, there is no URAA restoration and since there's a very high chance US copyright formalities weren't followed for {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} to apply in the first place, it would be PD in both Germany and the US. Did I make a mistake in this comment? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} is very tricky. First of all, it only applies to regularly published works (“Juristische Personen des öffentlichen Rechtes, die als Herausgeber ein Werk erscheinen lassen, das den Namen des Urhebers nicht angibt, werden, wenn nicht ein anderes vereinbart ist, als Urheber des Werkes angesehen.”), not just any photo created for the state or by state employees. And by published I don't mean that some photographic prints were made and sent to others, which we often consider to be enough for publication in the context of US copyright law. I don't see PD-Germany-§134-KUG applying here. And that no names are indicated on a print does not necessarily mean we can consider such works to be anonymous. Per German law, if the author is known in some way that's enough for 70 years pma protection. It's very hard to find out if an author is known in some way, which is the main reason why the German wikipedia does not accept anonymous works which are only 70 years old; they need to be at least 100 years old and thoroughly researched. --Rosenzweig τ 12:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what this essentially means is that the Auschwitz album is technically unpublished, since the photos weren't published with the consent of the author. Therefore the photos would have to be considered 70pma works, and they should be deleted. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole APC scenario only applies inside the US. It does not affect copyright in Germany. So while the US copyrights to Mein Kampf were controlled by the APC, the German copyrights were transferred (by a tribunal decision) to the state of Bavaria (and finally expired at the end of 2015). --Rosenzweig τ 12:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Vaschem website Walters, in 1965/6, initially tried to deny taking the photos but eventually admitted to having taken some of them (we don't know which ones). According to Wikidata, he died on 7 August 1994. Ernst Hoffman disappeared after the war and could not be found in order to give evidence at the 1965/6 trial. Martinvl (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vivited the New York Digital Collections Website and found similar photographs by anther Hoffman (a very common German surname). This Hoffman died in 1957. The copyright status, as given by the library was "The copyright and related rights status of this item has been reviewed by The New York Public Library, but we were unable to make a conclusive determination as to the copyright status of the item. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use." In other words, they were ducking the issue. Martinvl (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be de:Heinrich Hoffmann (Fotograf), Hitler's favorite photographer. His photographs are still protected in Germany until the end of 2027. --Rosenzweig τ 16:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hoffman is a very common name in Germany. Ernst Hoffman and Heinrich Hoffman were two different people. Heinrich died in 1957 and nothing has been heard of Ernst since 1945, even though the Germans wanted him to testify at the Frankfurt Trial of 1963/5. Martinvl (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were writing about "anther Hoffmann" who "died in 1957". If this is not Heinrich Hoffmann, then who else? --Rosenzweig τ 07:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the website of the United Stats Holocaust Museum and their website stated that there were no known copyright restrictions on the Auschwitz Album. (See for example here). The image in question is from the same collection, so in my view it should have the same copyright notice (ie PD). Since Walters would not identify which photos in the Auschwitz album were his, and Hoffman wad dissappeared, we must assume that the photos are orphaned and that we should count 50 years from the time of the 1963/5 Frankfurt Trial. maning that they are now in the public domain. Martinvl (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original publication of these photos was presumably made without complying with the US notice and renewal requirements. And any work whose rights were ever held by the APC, and which would, if restored, belong to a foreign government or an instrumentality thereof (and these would belong to a government entity in Germany), is ineligible for URAA restoration.

This of course only speaks to the public domain status of these photos in the US. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about the copyright of these images. They qualify for {{Orphan work}}, and there is no way a former employee of a Nazi concentration camp could claim a copyright today. Yann (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German copyright law disagrees with that notion. Even Hitler's works were protected by copyright until the end of 2015. --Rosenzweig τ 10:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But you need to make the distinction between theoretical copyright, and practical possibilities of enforcing it. The potential copyright owner would need to prove that he is the author, which not only practically very difficult, but also very risky as implication for his criminal activities. There is no contest that Hitler was the author of My Kampf. It is very different for an obscure employee to prove his status, and that he was the photographer. Concretely for us, this is way beyond significant doubt. Yann (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should be keeping files like this if they are not PD in the country of origin. The question is about the US side of things, if they are. (This one seems to be PD-anon-70 in Germany, now.) The US and other allies did confiscate foreign copyrights[6], but I think they gradually restored the copyright of any private individuals after the war. Owners likely could not sue for infringement which happened during the war, but did get their rights back for any future infringements. I'm not sure if that happened for government-owned works though. Of course, those rights did include the requirement to have a copyright notice on published works, and file renewals, so most still fell into the PD in the US anyways. The British did something similar -- they extinguished the copyrights in their territory. They did restore copyrights of private citizens, but not sure they ever did for government woks (and the EU copyright restorations may have only applied to expired works, not extinguished works -- there was a scholarly article which argued that.[7]) The URAA of course restored copyright lost to lack of notice; it does have the exception that any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof was not restored. This particular work was never physically owned by the US government it sounds like, though became known, and used in evidence in some 1960s trials. The US copyright would have been conceptually owned by the Alien Property Custodian though, and it would be owned by a government today if it still existed. I'm not sure how such works would be treated, but of course the big reason behind that clause was to not allow suppression of Nazi materials via copyright machinations. It's a gray area, but you could make the argument that it was owned by the Alien Property Custodian. Not sure we should be deleting it, if the only reason is a maybe/maybe-not URAA restoration where we don't have any precedent. These copyright seizures of course only applied within the United States (and the British extinguishments within the UK) -- usage in other countries would not be affected, so we should be looking at the term in the country of origin as well. I would say the file in question is licensed OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we know the author, and s/he died after 1953, then it is clearly still under a copyright in Germany. I am talking about files for which authorship is unknown. For these World War 2 images, the copyright expired after 1996, so URAA may apply. If I understood correctly, that was the initial question, and that's why the Alien Property matters. In addition, for pictures of Auschwitz, Polish law applies, not German law. Yann (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to both Vashem and United States Holocaust Museum photos from the AUschwitz Album are Public Domain. Unless you have a qualification in copyright law (I don't), I believe that it is sufficent that we accept their word. In order to comply with Commons rules, I suggest that it is in order to place PD templates for both the United States and Germany wth a note stating that we are following the advice of Yad Vashen and of the United States Holocaust Museum. Martinvl (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't get the impression that either of these institutions particularly cares about German copyright, they focus on US copyright. In Germany, works by de:Bernhard Walter (SS-Mitglied) (who died in 1979, not 1994) are still protected until the end of 2049. Works by Ernst Hofmann (with one f, not Hoffmann with two f's) are also obviously not anonymous, since we do know the author. As long as we don't know when he died, the only way we could keep his photographs when applying German copyright is with {{PD-old-assumed}} after 120 years, so in 2065.

Yann claimed that for Auschwitz photographs, PD-Poland applies. Inside Poland, certainly. For us – I do have my doubts. The Auschwitz camp was located in a part of Poland that had been formally annexed by Nazi Germany. It's debatable of course if that annexation was legal, but it happened, and I've used the fact to actually keep files (not photographs, but stamps from there with PD-Germany-§134-KUG, one of the cases in which that template does apply). If these were photos taken by Poles somewhere in that annexed territory (not necessarily just the camp), I'd be less hesitant to apply PD-Poland than in this case, where the known authors were Germans taking the photos in a territory which had been officially declared to be a part of Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 11:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These would have been simple photos in the pre-EU German law I think, maximum 50 years from publication, or 50 years from creation if not published. (At the time of creation, that term was 25, not 50. I can't remember exactly when the extension to 50 happened.) After the EU directive they would be anonymous, 70 years from publication, or creation if not published in that time. If Walters did not identify which photos were his, then I'm not sure that's enough to remove the anonymous state (the author must reveal their identity). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Simple" photographs that were "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" (documents of contemporary history) were protected for 50 years in 1985; then in 1995 the distinction was dropped and all "simple" photographs were protected for 50 years. And then the courts basically abolished simple photographs (by declaring them to be photographic works with 70 years pma), with only few exceptions. The protocol of what Walter (not Walters) said is here. To me, it reads like Walter claimed these photos of prisoners arriving at the Rampe were taken by Hofmann. --Rosenzweig τ 14:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality is not a criteria used to determine copyright. It is the place of publication which matters. So unless we would know that the pictures taken in Auschwitz were brought to actual Germany and first published there, and never used at the time in actual Poland, I don't see any reason to doubt that Polish law applies. Yann (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extracted audio from a CC-BY-ND work

I’ve extracted audio (the Saturn and Neptune movements) from a CC-BY-ND work (specifically, the complete performance found here) at IMSLP. I have not altered it in any way. (In my view, as long as I attribute the National Youth Orchestra of Toronto, CC’s answer to this FAQ applies.) I have already uploaded the MP3 files onto the Commons and intend to use them for illustrative purposes on English Wikipedia’s page for The Planets, the same reason the USAF Band’s extracts are on there. Is this an acceptable idea? Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarrod Baniqued: You can't upload those files, please read COM:L#Acceptable licenses. Also you haven't actually uploaded any MP3 files to Commons and you can't because you're not autopatrolled. Indeed, the abuse filter prevented you from uploading the MP3 files. If you can find a freely licensed audio file, you can pop in my talk page and I can upload it for you. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I use the Commons infrequently enough that I didn’t even know the Commons doesn’t accept ND licensed files. I don’t think I can find a freely licensed audio file, so expect no such uploads in the future. Honestly I’m disappointed that the entirety of Holst’s suite isn’t on Wikipedia, but someday soon it might. Thanks. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh

COM:Bangladesh is already outdated; the country introduced a new copyright law last year (Copyright Act 2023, in Bengali text unfortunately and I can't find an English translation online).

Screenshot-"ing" and translating parts of the law using Google Translate mobile app, especially those at Sections 70–73, made me guess that there may be no more Freedom of Panorama there. My guess may be wrong though, it is very hard if there is still no available English text that is reliable, whether official or unofficial translation.

Though this Daily Star article may give a clue: the new law abolishes majority of the British law-inspired exceptions and limitations (including fair dealing ones), replacing with a fewer list inspired by American fair use concept. Since copyright laws patterned after the U.S. law are notorious for lacking Freedom of Panorama (see also COM:FOP Sri Lanka; U.S. FoP itself is not emulated outside the U.S. as it is subject to scholarly criticism within the U.S. itself), my guess is that FoP has ceased to exist in Bangladesh since last year.

Though I would want to have Bangladeshi users analyze the Bengali text of the law. Ping the organizer of Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2024 in Bangladesh, @Aishik Rehman: . Ping also @আফতাবুজ্জামান and Mrb Rafi: from the talk page of WLM-2024 to help in finding a Freedom of Panorama clause in the new (2023) law, if it still exists (hopefully it still exists). Ping also @Moheen: whom I recently interacted on Messenger about FoP. Again, here is the official Bengali text copy of the new law, from the Bangladeshi copyright office website.

Note to Bangladeshi users: the lack of FoP only impacts the inclusion of recent monuments and architecture of Bangladesh in WLM events, typically those whose architects, sculptors, and artisans (of artistic craftsmanship works) have not yet died for more than 60 years (consistent with the copyright terms of Bangladesh). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Memorial to Louis J. Robichaud.jpg

Can File:Memorial to Louis J. Robichaud.jpg be kept as is or does it also need {{FoP-Canada}} for the photographed work per COM:FOP Canada? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accd. to [8], this is a 2005 work by visual artist Luc A. Charrette, and it definitely looks copyrightable. So adding the FoP tag along with information about the artist and year of creation would be a good thing IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 10:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images without valid source

The uploader, KOKUYO is a good contributor but he probably didn't know that Commons cannot accept images with invalid sources. He has some photos uploaded eight years ago, their source is no longer the webpage originally seen by the uploader, so the authenticity of the license cannot be confirmed. For example,

If the source is valid, then we can see information that might be useful for images. Especially the description, we can find more information through the source and then to help it get exactly described, even get properly categorized. But he uploaded images without valid source makes them suspected as copyrighted and is not useful for education.--125.230.65.194 18:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is too bad that these were not license-reviewed in a timely manner, but what makes you think the URLs given as sources were not valid at the time of the upload? - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll know a link is broken when you click on the link in the source field and you come to the web page. Because it shows the main page on the web site.--125.230.65.194 20:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know it is broken now, but that is not reason to think it wasn't a valid link at the time. Links "go dead" continually. I had to deal at one point with the Seattle Municipal Archive rearranging their URL scheme and invalidating about 2 or 3 thousand links we had. Fortunately for me, they were aware of my work here and got hold of me to work with them on how to migrate links on Commons and en-wiki, but usually that doesn't happen. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect propositions in the official policy

Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Examples contains several strings like this: If the photograph itself is demonstrably old enough to be in the public domain, use {{PD-old}}. For me, this looks fundamentally wrong: even if something looks old, it doesn't mean it's author died over 70 years ago (this PD rationale is exactly what {{PD-old}} claims). This leads to numerous unfounded uses of this rationale in uploads where the author's name is not specified. Is it possible to clarify this? Quick1984 (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not factually wrong. But may be it should specified that on which conditions a picture is demonstrably old enough to be in the public domain. Or just a link to COM:HIRTLE? Yann (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the author of the underlying work is not known, or known when they died, then it's probably if {{PD-old-assumed}} can be applied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992)

About [[9]].

Following this previous discussions on the subject, here are sources to demonstrate that Studio Harcourt has officially released the rights to photos dating from before 1992. This evidence is based on two distinct elements: an article published in 2019 in the Canadian national newspaper (Quebec) "Le Devoir", specifically presenting as an example, a portrait of the film director Abel Gance, the date when this picture was taken, and the file uploaded and signed by Harcourt itself in Commons.

The source of the file also distributed by RMN (Ministry of Culture): [[10]] with precision of the date (1957) by the RMN archives for the same series of Harcourt photos: [[11]].

The source on Commons with uploaded by the official account of Studio Harcourt in 2010: [[12]].

The article published in 2019 by Le Devoir (national French-language daily newspaper of Canada / Quebec) about Wikimedia Commons and the public domain: [[13]] where its very last paragraph states that:

"In France, Harcourt studio in Paris has released (has freed), since the beginning of the decade, magnificent black and white portraits of stars. Hundreds of uploads now make it possible to illustrate pages on Abel Gance or Roger Federer in dozens of languages.".

This article therefore clearly states that Studio Harcourt has formally “released” (had freed) the rights of the photographs, including the portraits taken as an example, that of the director Abel Gance (died in 1981) whose Harcourt photo is dated 1957 which illustrates his Wikipedia page and which is cited as a reference in this article; this file was officially uploaded in 2010 to Commons by Studio Harcourt itself[[14]]. How can we explain that a photo dating from 1957 and uploaded in 2010, would be the only exception to the rights released and fallen into the public domain among all the photos dating from before 1992, then entrusted to RMN?

This clearly demonstrates that as an author, the current Studio Harcourt has clearly released the rights to the photos it holds concerning the archives dating from before 1992. These photographs have therefore been in the public domain since 1992. In its VRT ticket (#2020112910005534), the statement of the person in charge of the valorization of the collections, Mrs. Agnes BROUARD of Studio Harcourt Paris, also confirms this free status: "I must inform you that our archives from 1934 to 1991 are now the property of the Ministry of Culture, preserved by an entity called the Media Library of Architecture and Heritage and distributed by the RMN-Grand Palais photographic agency. This photographic collection is not subject to property rights, so anyone who has a portrait from the 1934-1991 period can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet." (notably cited here: [[15]] (« Il me faut vous indiquer que nos archives de 1934 à 1991 sont désormais propriété du Ministère de la Culture, conservées par une entité appelée Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine et diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais. Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial donc quiconque possède un portrait de l'époque 1934-1991 peut l'utiliser librement et vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet. »).

I will leave it to the admins and contributors more experienced than me, to definitively close this contradictory debate on Commons and why not, define a specific model for Studio Harcourt's files (PD-Studio Harcourt?). Tisourcier (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you claim, Studio Harcourt " has officially released the rights to photos dating from before 1992", why did they upload this 1957 photo in 2010 with a cc-by-3.0 license tag and not as public domain? That is not the same. --Rosenzweig τ 11:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig Without saying that the public domain dedication is definitely correct, I don't think this disproves it either. It's pretty common for organizations to mistag PD items as CC-BY or similar when uploading. (You also see this on library/institutional websites, where the wrong copyright tag is put on some files.) A lot of the time, it is because the person using the wizard doesn't understand how it works or doesn't know the difference. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we just ask Ministère de la Culture for confirmation of the tag to use for the 1934 to 1991 collection?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999 :

This point has allready been discussed. On December 17, 2014, this official information report filed with the National Assembly under number 2474, publicly reveals that RMN (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Ministry of Culture) commits multiple "copyfrauds" and that it is appropriate to put an end to them (page 42, proposal No. 9 of the official national publication, here)[[16]].

For intellectual and industrial property in France, unlike the "copyright" of English-speaking countries, the "droit d'auteur", that is to say the recognition of the author of the work, can never be assigned. In this case, because the official "author" recognized by French regulations is not RMN (Ministry of Culture / French State) which manages this "patrimoine" (patrimonyy/legacy), but remains necessarily Studio Harcourt. The quality of author can never be granted, in accordance with French regulations.
Given that the Studio Harcourt company has never been put into "liquidation" (closeout) but has been taken over several times by various successive shareholders and that this company still exists today, the declaration it made to Wikimedia Commons confirming that all photos dating from before 1992 are indeed free of all rights, there is no valid reason for RMN or the French State to disclose a contractual document dating from the same period and covered by business secrets ("secret des affaires"). Since the official "author" recognized as such provides a declaration attesting that the Studio Harcourt photos from before 1992 are free of rights, is therefore clearly sufficient.

Tisourcier (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct templates for illustrations from UK-1849-book

Hello! I am somewhat at a loss as to which copyright-statements I need for the structured data (Wikidata) of illustrations taken from a book published in 1849 in England (see my User-page for more. I am uploading using OpenRefine. A test-image (about 1900 images will follow as a batch-upload) can be found here. The previous discussion can be found in this Help Desk-Thread. Right now, my OpenRefine-Schema uses the following:

"copyright status" = Public Domain = reconciled with Wikidata as 100 years or more after author(s) death (Q19652)
"copyright license" (1) = {{PD-US-expired}}, reconciled as published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828)
"copyright license" (2) = {{PD-scan}}, reconciled as countries where faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art do not have additional copyrights (Q80258411)
"copyright license" (3) = {{PD-old-100}}, reconciled as 100 years or more after author(s) death (Q29940705)

I can upload the file, and the structured data for these licenses is visible at the Commons-page of the above file, but these are listed with a "!" (= Potential Issues). Am I doing something wrong? Note: The Copyright-information section of the above file has this: {{PD-scan|PD-old-100|deathyear=1891}}. Can anyone tell me, what I should use in the Commons-information and as the structured data? Thank you in advance! CalRis25 (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context: This has already been discussed at some length and I would suggest that anyone responding might first want to read my remarks there. - Jmabel ! talk 12:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything published that long ago isn't really in question. Technically, the policy is that something needs to be PD both in the country of origin, and in the US. For the UK, PD-old-100 is the tag. For the US, technically it's PD-US-expired. {{PD-old-100-expired}} is a combined tag which is what most would use for simplicity. Or, {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1891}}, which chooses the correct PD-old-xxx based on the death year (but 100 is pretty much the current maximum, so PD-old-100 is fine). PD-scan is usually not applied to self-scanned works -- only from scans taken from other sites where the scanner appears to be claiming a copyright on it. See Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. It's not incorrect, but taking that out may simplify your situation.

As for the structured data, I really don't know a lot about that. Looking at examples, it would seem as though that distinguishes between files still under copyright but which are licensed (which uses the "copyright license" field), and ones which have expired (which use a "copyright status" (P6216) of "public domain" (Q19652), then a "determination method" (P459) using instances of "copyright determination method" (Q61005213), such in this case "100 years or more after author(s) death" (Q29940705) and "published more than 95 years ago" (Q47246828). Whether upload tools know about that distinction, or the desired usage of the structured data has changed over time, no idea. Questions on this topic may be better asked at Wikidata. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be suitable here?

The cover of this album appears to be a mere crop of this image, which was taken by the US government, and is therefore in the public domain. The edits done to the photo are minimal and the only copyrightable portion of the image would be the graphic at the corner, which I assume would fall under de minimis given that it doesn't take up most of the image.

Would this be suitable to upload to Commons? I'm only considering uploading the cover btw, I won't upload any of the songs. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That image is uploadable. There is no copyrightable material added to the original PD photo. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright :) AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Contents

Warren Laity

New warning template for copyrighted interior architecture?

Recordings of live performances

Would these qualify as public domain for Commons?

"Without a copyright notice"

US National Archives and Records Administration

What's the license for a free image that cannot be used for commercial purposes?

Paises de Ley en Comun

Copyright issue about works created for the Wiki Loves Monuments photograph contest

Uploading movie poster

Image of polytope copyright

Video game screenshots

De minimis?

Understanding copyright renewal

Not sure if this belongs but...

Bultaco logos

File:Nigeria national anthem Nigeria, We hail thee midi.mid

Are we allowed to copy descriptions from Flickr?

Feastogether brand logos and threshold of originality

Persée

Policy clarification - Prohibiting AI/LLM training with a user's uploaded file

Maldive government website

Alien copyright works

Extracted audio from a CC-BY-ND work

Bangladesh

File:Memorial to Louis J. Robichaud.jpg

Images without valid source

Incorrect propositions in the official policy

Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992)

Correct templates for illustrations from UK-1849-book

Would this be suitable here?

Navigation menu

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Warren Laity

New warning template for copyrighted interior architecture?

Recordings of live performances

Would these qualify as public domain for Commons?

"Without a copyright notice"

US National Archives and Records Administration

What's the license for a free image that cannot be used for commercial purposes?

Paises de Ley en Comun

Copyright issue about works created for the Wiki Loves Monuments photograph contest

Uploading movie poster

Image of polytope copyright

Video game screenshots

De minimis?

Understanding copyright renewal

Not sure if this belongs but...

Bultaco logos

File:Nigeria national anthem Nigeria, We hail thee midi.mid

Are we allowed to copy descriptions from Flickr?

Feastogether brand logos and threshold of originality

Persée

Policy clarification - Prohibiting AI/LLM training with a user's uploaded file

Maldive government website

Alien copyright works

Extracted audio from a CC-BY-ND work

Bangladesh

File:Memorial to Louis J. Robichaud.jpg

Images without valid source

Incorrect propositions in the official policy

Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992)

Correct templates for illustrations from UK-1849-book

Would this be suitable here?

Navigation menu

Search