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.
Be be nhat has several uploads ranging from the son of a Vietnamese emperor to a Vice President of South Sudan. Most photos were uploaded on the day of their taking. I can't rule out the possibility the user was just very well travelled, however.
Do you all think this a copyright violation? Tineye isn't turning up anything. Bremps... 20:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I found a match for one of the files. File:Ngodinhnhu.jpg comes from File:LBJ nhu.jpg. The crop is appropriately sourced to the same book but the user records themselves as the author of the crop. While not evidence of systematic copyright violation, it at least suggests a lack of understanding of our template fields. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Truman Library "unaware of any copyright claims"
In the "Rights" section for this photo in the collection of the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum, it says "The Library is unaware of any copyright claims to this item; use at your own risk." I see there are a few other photos with the same "Rights" information which are on the Commons. See here, here and here. So are these photos good to use on Commons?
Denniscabrams (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@Denniscabrams: Tricky case. It's really weird that they say nothing about the provenance of the photo. I'd say go for it, using {{PD-because}} as in File:Dr. and Mrs. Waterman outside of their residence.jpg. The Truman Library presumably did some diligence and came to the conclusion that it is most likely public domain, and no one has come forward to say otherwise. If it is at the New York Times office, there would be a fair chance that it was taken by a New York Times photographer. Still, at that time copyright in the U.S. required explicit declaration, and (as I already said) we can presume the Truman Library did some diligence. I would further presume that this didn't appear in the paper or they'd know its copyright status. Just don't be astounded/offended if someone from the Times were to come forward at some point with a valid copyright claim. - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Ernest L. Sisto was a photographer for The New York Times for a long time, and died in 1989. Sounds like it was for a story on the pictured player, so a work for hire. But if the print was given to the Truman Library (or someone else) before 1989, and there was no copyright notice on it, it became public domain. Looks like E. Clifton Daniel was managing editor for the Times in that era, and was married to Truman's daughter, so this may have been given to him at the time and ended up in his archives when they went to the Truman Library, as a guess. Definitely not PD-USGov, but there was no copyright notice on it given the description of the back, so it is very arguably PD-US-no_notice. If we think it was something from work he just took home, and consider that unpublished, it could be under copyright for a lot longer. PD-because may be the safest out, but I think no-notice is the only way it could be PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The text is by en:W. Douglas Simpson but did he also produce the plan? If he did make it, he died in 1968, so the UK copyright is probably due to expire on 1 January 2039. If 1936 was the first publication, I expect the US copyright would expire in 2031. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
That is the wrong Gustav Wolf – the historian was not related to Deutscher Bund Heimatschutz and to architecture/reconstruction in East Prussia. You are looking for the architect Gustav Wolf (1887–1963). His publications will become public domain in 2034 in Germany. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Na dann, vielen Dank! Crainsaw (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Help needed
I hit upon the uploads of a user who may not have understood copyright. I marked a number of them with "permission missing" already, but it's getting to be a bit much, so maybe someone else can help. Some of the images seem to be o.k., but many of them have the photographer's = copyright holder's name in their file name, and no permission anywhere in sight. The uploader commented most of them with "I got it from the person in the photo" which is obviously not a good substitute for permission by the copyright holder. Note that these are pictures from Germany, and by German law, the copyright is non-transferable; only the photographer can be the copyright holder. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F16:3B00:B4ED:989E:904D:B50A 20:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikimedia #EveryBookItsReader campaign encourages book cover uploads
I was surprised to see that the Wikimedia's #EveryBookItsReader campaign encourages participants to "Add a photo of the book cover to WikiCommons to illustrate the article on Wikipedia", without mentioning copyright requirements, see meta:EveryBooksItsReader 2023/Participate. This has probably resulted in several non-free book covers in Category:EveryBookItsReader, and possibly others elsewhere. The campaign indicates "3.75K Commons Uploads"[1] – is there a way to list these? Mtenaespinoza, you added this suggestion, can you comment? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Mariupol' Theater concern
The category page Category:Theatre of Mariupol claims there is an appropriate permission from the architect (considering Ukraine has no commercial freedom of panorama). But the architect claimed is not the architect mentioned on this site, in which the architects of the iconic building were Oleksandra Krylova and Oleh Malyshenko. Can anyone verify the VRTS ticket as well as the true authorship of the building? JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Tons of derivative work
Hi, I am not sure how to best handle this without having to mark each individual file for deletion or as "permission missing": None of these uploads is "own work" from 2023 as they are marked; they all appear to be derivative work from somewhere. Can someone help please? Thanks, --217.239.14.15 17:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! That would have taken me hours, to mark them one by one... --217.239.14.15 17:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I am not convinced that the files uploaded by this user is copyvios. It might just be a case of trying to educate the user with correct procedures for uploading, tagging and verifying copyright status of files via COM:VRT rather than plastering incorrect warning templates on their user discussion with claims that they have continued uploading copyvios despite being told not to, when they have in fact not been told any such thing. TommyG (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
True, I noticed that too, there had not been any such previous warning.
The uploader has, however, been educated on Urheberrecht on a talk page (s)he had found before, and (s)he is currently ignoring all sorts of information that was put on their German WP user talk page, especially the one about disclosing paid editing. We'll see if (s)he shows up again and is willing to take care of things.
The article all these photos were meant for has, in the meantime, been moved back into her user space because it was totally unencyclopedic. --2003:C0:8F31:D700:E431:71DE:8097:E920 12:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
IMO, All 2024 Paris Olympics and Paralympic logos are just contained simple circular shape combined with silhouette-like Olympic flame and silhouette lips shape. All of simple elements make the 2024 Paris logos far below threshold of originality that cannot eligible for copyright, unlike other Olympic and Paralympic Games logo. 36.68.192.126 13:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
A large collection of free speech synthesis samples can be found at Commons under Category:Speech synthesis and its subcategories. One locally hosted speech synthesis audio sample tagged as non-free is w:File:MS Sam.ogg at enwiki (from w:Microsoft text-to-speech voices), in which a proprietary program reads a presumably Wikipedian-created text sample. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I had asked a related question of the COM:DISCORD channel for WikiProject Music regarding singing synths, and it was recommended to me that I should consider whether the purpose of the file is to display the song or the particular synth. If the latter then it seems analogous to category:typeface samples of nonfree fonts, if the former then I was encouraged to use libre synths like w:en:Festival Speech Synthesis System. Arlo James Barnes 16:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? COM:TOO is a bit sketchy regarding this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
e/c
Some comments.
A simple text-to-speech application will parse the text and convert it to a sequence of phonemes. Part of that conversion will use a dictionary that maps a word to its corresponding IPA phonemes. Text-to-speech programs often have methods to add a pronunciation to the dictionary or to mark how text should be spoken. See, for example, Speech Synthesis Markup Language (SSML) Version 1.1.
The application's parser could be copyrighted. The IPA pronunciation of a word is probably a fact and cannot be copyrighted. Consequently, I do not see a copyright for transformation of text into IPA phonemes. I have not looked for court cases. Courts may disagree.
That still leaves the conversion of IPA into sound.
The DECtalk synthesizer used a vocal tract model. Think an impulse generator (vocal chords) and some resonant cavities (the throat, the mouth, and the nose). Different phonemes involve different configurations of the vocal chords and cavities. The lengths of the cavities produce different voices. Long tracts (low frequency resonance) for men, shorter tracts (high frequency resonance) for women, and even shorter for children. I believe there is an argument that sound generated by this method would be free of copyright. The speech, however, is not great. I do not remember if DECtalk transitioned the phonemes.
Rabiner & Schafer 1978, Digital Processing of Speech Signals.
Modern synthesizers use other methods. Imagine a synthesizer that uses recordings of Taylor Swift speaking every phoneme. The result will still sound odd, but pasting together each phoneme would generate a derivative work of Taylor Swift. The result would be choppy, but I believe there would be a copyright. A better result would record all phoneme pairs and transition between them. Much better sound and copyrightable.
Other techniques may be used. I would lean towards natural sounding text-to-speech probably has a derivative copyright.
I scanned a number of 3-view drawings from aircraft manuals the other day. Two of them, for a Piper PA-32RT-300 Lance II and Piper PA-46-310P Malibu, came from manuals published after 1977, but before 1990 with, respectively, either a defective copyright notice or none at all. (As he latter lacks a notice, it does not include a date. However, production of that particular variant of the aircraft ceased in 1988.)
I tried searching the copyright office's files and I think that Piper did not register the copyright. The results for the name "Piper Aircraft" don't show any registrations by Piper Aircraft from 1948 to 2009. (However, a company called "Johnson Hill Press, Inc." did register two serials titled "Aviation Today" and "Cheyenne" in the 1980s.) A block of 27 manuals show up in 2010-2011, which further suggests to me that manuals weren't registered before then. (For what it's worth, the results for "Cessna Aircraft" shows their first postwar registrations seem to appear in 1979. The results for "Beechcraft" first have postwar hits in 1983. However, after 1946, "Beech Aircraft" again began filing registrations in 1978, according to the results.)
I just want to make sure I understand correctly before I move forward. Can someone confirm whether this is a sufficient level of corroboration that the copyright was not registered? –Noha307 (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, that certainly seems like due diligence to me. I would certainly not contest the license tag if I saw it on a file with this explanation of procedure. Felix QW (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Mass deletion
I have been trying to figure out the mass deletion procedure, unfortunately I keep getting stuck at some point. Can someone help please? The uploads by this user are from varying photographers/copyright holders, and there is no indication of a permission for a CC licensing in any of them. The user has in fact had files deleted before and has been warned about this before, so I am a bit surprised at all these later uploads. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F31:D700:E431:71DE:8097:E920 12:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, we are talking about less than a dozen photos here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Is there a minimum number of files for mass deletion to make sense? This one apparently took three minutes after notification. Why would you expect me to spend half an hour on marking each one of these individually if there is a faster way to do it? --2003:C0:8F31:D700:C5B:88B9:17DD:39D4 22:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, VFC is usually the tool of choice for a mass DR, but I have no idea whether you can use it without being logged in. The other way to do it is to do one DR, then copy-paste the {{Delete}} notice from the file page in question to the pages of the other affected files. - Jmabel ! talk 03:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Is there a comprehensive guideline anywhere on the use of old postcards? How old do they need to be to freely upload them to Commons and use in Wikipedia? Does it depend on the country of origin?
I can get a hold of old postcards from before 1950, but curious if I'm able to freely scan them and use in articles. Podstawko (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Podstawko: As Nosferattus says, it would depend on where this postcards came from. European postcards would generally only be OK if the author has been dead for 70 years or published anonymously, and depending on the country, you'd be restricted to before 1928 because of URAA or to before 1946 also because of URAA. American postcards before 1928 are OK for Commons, American postcards from 1928 to 1950 would require it to be checked if they are out of copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both @Nosferattus and @Abzeronow. This is very helpful and apologies for not being precise enough, I was talking about Irish postcards specifically. Thank you again. Podstawko (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
For Ireland, any identified author has to be dead 70 years (before 1953, exclusive) and postcard has to be published before 1928. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Jmabel, this is helpful! Podstawko (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Most postcards list the publisher, not the photographer, and the publisher may employ multiple anonymous photographers. See: Category:Postcards of the Republic of Ireland for uploaded examples. Load some so we can see what you have. --RAN (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Raspberry Pi logo in board photos and illustrations
To me, that seems fine as de minimis use. Focus is clearly on the board, not the incidentally included logo. Felix QW (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Just querying if the current licence of "This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, taken or made as part of an employee's official duties" is the correct one? The image was originally uploaded as CC-BY-2.0, from from the USFWS's Flickr account and was verified under that licence in 2011 (the USFWS has subsequently amended that licence on Flickr to a more restrictive no-commercial-use one, but I presume the earlier release still stands). Anyway, last year User:Boylarva99 amended that licence to instead label it as "public domain" as a result of it being an NOAA image taken by an employee while working for the NOAA. So is that correct? Firstly, I'm not sure the USFWS really is the same as the NOAA, and secondly, do we have direct evidence that photographer James Watt took this image while working for the federal government and its hence public domain? The Flickr account has never implied anythign of that sort. Cheers - Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Oceanstock.com seems to have been a stock image site which contracted various photographers, so to me it seems very unlikely to have been made by an employee in the course of their official duties. I'd definitely relicense it to CC-BY-2.0. Felix QW (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Petite Rouge Premiere at Imagination Stage.jpg
Hello,
I am not sure why there is still any question about the permissions for File:Petite Rouge Premiere at Imagination Stage.jpg.
A standard Wiki permissions email from the photographer Stan Barouh was received at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and accepted by Moheen Reeyad on August 30 under ticket number [Ticket#2023083010001296]. The email came directly from the photographer's email: <stanbarouh@gmail.com>.
I am the person who posted the image on Wiki Commons with Stan's permission.
Please let me know what additional steps are needed to have the Wiki Commons page indicate the needed permissions have been received.
@LARobinWiki: as you can see from what User:JJMC89 wrote on that page, the email was not considered sufficient, apparently because they could not verify Stan Barouh's identity from the email. They've written back, presumably with an indication of what they still need from him. Most likely this will all be sorted out, but if it's still open in a week you could ask at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard, since only someone with VRT access can answer your question; there isn't really much someone can do for you on this page (Commons:Village pump/Copyright) unless someone from that team happened to look in. - Jmabel ! talk 01:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The website where I got File:SDSF Screenshot from doesn't say anything about copyright. Is this public domain? Albert Lesanu (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a simple list of standard computer terms, so I added a {{PD-ineligible}}. Please start a DR if you disagree. Yann (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Question about a Champions League video
Hello, so I found this video of Eden Hazard's 2019 injury uploaded by Belgian broadcaster Proximus Pickx Sports, and I saw it included the CC tag. Pickx has the official Broadcast rights of UEFA competitions until 2024. We all know that UEFA holds copyrights to their entire video catalogue, including archive material, but what happens when one of the Official broadcast holders uploads a vid with the "YouTube CC-BY" tag? Hyperba21 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I would say that CC BY only applies if it was uploaded by UEFA directly, not some licensee.
Short answer: work of the Smithsonian is not necessarily in the public domain. I would presume the same is true of the National Gallery. - Jmabel ! talk 22:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Is this because of the trust? I know FOIA and several other laws don't apply to SI as they've been deemed "not government enough," but I can't find any documentation on courts' understanding of how copyright applies to SI, aside from the fact that they can still be sued for violating someone else's copyright. 19h00s (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
More or less. It's really complicated. Not all Smithsonian employees are considered federal employees (though the majority are). I'm afraid I don't know all the legal details, but what matters for Commons is that work of the Smithsonian is not necessarily in the public domain. If you want to go into this as a broader research question, possibly to improve the details on this in en-wiki, that would be better asked at en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
UN OCHA image at 2023 Israel–Hamas war
According to this discussion, the images in thesefiles were uploaded from the United Nations OCHA site, but according to a comment there (diff) they have a restrictive reuse ToU, including "None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, ... in any form". Can someone look at whether these uploads were proper or not? Mathglot (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Old book copyright question
I possess The American Railway book which is a 1976 facsimile reprint of 1897 edition. Would you say the book is fair game now? From what I know, copyright term counts from the FIRST publication, not from the last publication. -- Wesha (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Wesha: Yes, if it is an accurate facsimile it it now in the public domain. Of course, any content first added in the 1976 edition would be another matter. - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Want to upload picture from 1921 USA newspaper (Boston Globe) hosted online at newspapers.com
But newspapers.com's Terms seem to nevertheless prohibit uploading the photo to Commons.
1. Introduction and Services:
By using any of the websites, services, and mobile apps that link to these Terms and Conditions (the “Terms”) […] Newspapers.com™ […] you agree to these Terms.
1.3 Use of the Services
In exchange for access to the Services, you agree:
…
Not to resell the Services or resell, reproduce, or publish any content or information found on the Services, except as explicitly described in these Terms;
Or is it nevertheless OK to download the photo and upload it to Commons because the Terms are an irrelevant non-copyright restriction?
@Lovelano: You may upload that picture, as newspapers.com is perpetrating copyfraud in this case. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
In terms of US copyright, any photo published prior to 1928 (as of 2023) is in the Public Domain and you are free to upload them here as you please. You can ignore those terms and conditions for anything PD as Newspapers.com don't hold any copyrights to such materials. A mere scan of a Public Domain photo doesn't create new copyright. PascalHD (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Question about image licensing
For a good article review on the English Wikipedia, I was looking into the licensing of some images of Sveva da Montefeltro. I noticed that the licensing template of File:SforzaSerafina.JPG had some missing parameters. The source website does no longer exist (or was spelled incorrectly), so I'm not sure how to find out when the scan/photo was made and where the website was published, which I believe are needed for those missing parameters. Can anyone help or advise me in this matter? – Editør (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Editør: really, any 18th-century print is going to be in the public domain. Specific sourcing shouldn't be important. It doesn't matter when it was scanned. - Jmabel ! talk 02:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I wasn't sure because the same image can be found on this Italian website with a similar domain name [2]. So if the listed source were also Italian and the image was uploaded only in 2010, doesn't age of the reproduction matter according to Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#Italy? – Editør (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Editør: That's a new one to me. Man, the Italians have some weird copyright laws. So I don't know what the situation is for this image. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. It makes me wonder if this image should be on Wikimedia Commons in the first place. I hope someone can help me with this. – Editør (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The image is replaced in the Wikipedia article, so there we no longer need a solution for the licensing, but the image is also used in other places, so this still may need to be fixed. – Editør (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Italy has special rules for "simple" photographs, which are protected for 20 years from creation. Usually, we are the benficiaries of that, as many photos that would otherwise have pma+70 years copyright are also "simple" and have much shorter copyright term. The flip side is that even photos that would be below the threshold of originality get at least those 20 years.
Wikimedia Commons generally pretends that there is no copyright on these reproductions, following US law in this regard whatever the source country. So, it is unlikely that this image will be deleted on the basis of licensing.
English Wikipedia generally only follow US copyright law, so the image would have been perfectly fine for your Wikipedia GA anyway. Felix QW (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
70.107.111.252 changing verified free licenses to all-rights-reserved
IP user 70.107.111.252 edited the licensing information of a handful of Flickr files, making them look unfree for reuse, especially with that warning in the caption field (BEWARE! This photograph is copyrighted, so do not use on your personal/business website. Otherwise, a 3rd party service called Pixsy will come after you for "copyright infringement" and you will pay a hefty fine.). Is this revertible trolling or something to be taken more seriously? --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I am skeptical that the uploader created this work. Based on TinEye results, I think it was originally created by 5W Infographics, as that is the attribution given here by Smithsonian Magazine (it appears as image 7/13 in the slideshow at the bottom).
I can't find a creative commons photo of an artist who has no photo on their wiki article. I want to try and contact them and ask for a free license image that I could upload to wiki commons.
Hypothetically, if I DM them on Instagram asking for a copyright free image of themselves to use on wiki, and they oblige (even just taking a selfie and sending to me), saying "here, this can be in the creative commons", how do I prove the images are in fact not copyrighted when submitting to the commons? Do I even need to prove this?
I'm guessing I need to use VRT but I want to be sure. Covingtonfan56 (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
@Covingtonfan56: VRT is always required when you are not the author of an image. You can upload the image and tag it with {{subst:PP}}, which gives it a grace period of 30 days before it will be deleted (if no permission is confirmed by then). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Covingtonfan56 and King of Hearts: two other considerations here: (1) a selfie, of course, means they would own the copyright, but if they are going to do this any other way they may not understand that the person who takes the photo owns the copyright, so be prepared to explain that. A lot of people are under the misimpression that they own the rights to photos of them. (2) VRT is not the only way to do this. If they have a publicly visible site or page that is clearly under their control, and if it is clear that they own the relevant copyright (e.g. a selfie), they can post it there and indicate the offered license there. Then you or anyone else can upload to Commons, citing that as your source. - Jmabel ! talk 01:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
This is, or appears to be a stamp, value 1,000 of Vatican City currency units. It has a VRT ticket, presumably releasing it to Commons (etc), but Commons:Stamps doesn't cover Vatican City, and stamps appear to be a special case for copyright. The question for you is "Is it valid that this image remains here?" 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 11:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The reason I've brought it here rather than started a deletion discussion is because I feel it needs more input that a relatively poorly attended deletion discussion. I think the VRT ticket may be a red herring because I believe that what we do with postage stamps prevails over a VRT ticket. So what do we do with Vatican City postage stamps, please? 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:Vatican City, copyright laws in Vatican City supplement Italian law, so if there's no Vatican-specific provision regarding stamp copyrights, then the COM:ITALY § Stamps guidance would apply, which would generally mean the 70 years pma for the artist. In this case, it appears VRT has confirmed that User:Raffi Yedalian is the still-living artist Raffi Yedalian who painted the portrait. It seems like that would be allowable. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tcr25 That makes sense. I am sure you can see why I find it difficult to untangle. Just to be clear, is the copyright owner in this case the artist, if they have created the subject matter for the stamp, or is it the office which issues the stamp, who may have acquired the copyright when entering into agreements to use the stamp? 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
That's how I understand the Italy entry in COM:STAMPS, but I'm willing to be wrong. It defiantly can vary from nation to nation a bit more is a bit confusing. —Tcr25 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The "auto" templates are automatic because of the varying copyright term durations in various countries, from 50 year to 100 years or more. So giving those templates a year they can show that the file is in the PD in countries with a 50 years (ore less) duration, 60 years, 70, 75, 80 and so on. PD-old-assumed however is fixed at 120 years, so "automating" that template doesn't make sense. --Rosenzweigτ 06:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
PD-old-assumed is not fixed at 120 years, though, it has a minimum of 100 years (for regions which copyright length is 50 years pma) and a maximum of 150 years (for regions with a copyright length of 100 years pma). Lugamo94 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
It already has the "duration" parameter for that. And this is specific for certain countries and does not change when time passes. --Rosenzweigτ 06:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The credits you cite are explicit that this image in not created by federal government employees (their respective employers are stated, and none of them are part of the federal government. Those images might be OK on some basis, but they don't look to me like an obvious PD-NASA. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Disclaimer for non-copyright restrictions on pictures of Greek antiquities
Posted this on the main Village Pump page, but it's probably more appropriate here. The question came up in Commons:Deletion requests/Acropolis photos uploaded by User:Schminnte as to whether or not a legal disclaimer similar to {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} is needed for images of Ancient Greek sites considered property of the Greek State (see also COM:NCR Greece). Basically, these images are allowable under Greek law to be posted for educational and non-commercial purposes, but commercial use requires a license from Greek Authorities. Per COM:NCR, that sort of non-copyright restriction doesn't make a CC-by-SA license invalid, but it seems responsible to flag the issue for others who might want to reuse the image. {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} provides that sort of warning for images of Italian monuments similarly protected. Thoughts and comments as to whether or not a similar disclaimer is needed for Greek monuments and antiquities would be welcomed. —Tcr25 (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Sounds to me like we should have a similar disclaimer. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Further authorization may be required for reuse of this image. Further authorizations for reuse may be required under Law No. 4708/2020 (ΦΕΚ Α 140/21.7.2020), published in July 2020, along with Ministerial Decisions issued in 2011 (ΦΕΚ Β 3046/30.12.2011) and 2019 (ΦΕΚ Β 2812/4.7.2019) for this picture of an ancient monument or antiquity that belongs to the Greek State. Publishing photographs taken with non-professional equipment on the Internet is allowed for free when no commercial or economical purpose exists. Disseminating such images to the public for profit, online or otherwise, requires a license from the Greek Archaeological Receipts Fund. These regulations are unrelated to copyright regulations. See COM:NCR Greece.
Any suggestions or edits would be appreciated. —Tcr25 (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Is that applicable only for publication in Greece, or are they claiming that it obtains throughout the world? - Jmabel ! talk 05:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that Greece would apply the restriction worldwide, but it may not be enforceable outside of Greece. —Tcr25 (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I've added "These regulations are unrelated to copyright regulations." - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Mass URAA copyright violation of El Gráfico images?
I've just noticed we have quite a lot of files in Category:El Gráfico (an Argentine sports magazine) which are public domain in Argentina, but seem to not be PD in the United States per COM:URAA. Based on flipping through some old issues (1982, 1989), it seems that the magazine did not include a copyright notice, and I checked it was never registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. I do not know if these issues were republished in the United States within 30 days of publication (per item 1 at COM:URAA#Main tests), so it is technically possible that issues before March 1, 1989, might be public domain in the United States. However, we have over 800 images from past that date. Based on COM:HIRTLE, there isn't any possible way these could be public domain in the United States, so it seems to me that these all need to be deleted as copyright violations. Making a DR with 800+ images seems a tad disruptive though, so I figured I'd post here first. Am I missing anything here? –IagoQnsi (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Anything March 1, 1989 or later doesn't need the URAA -- they have always been under copyright in the U.S., since lack of notice no longer lost copyright as the US joined the Berne Convention that day. Anything else still under copyright in Argentina on January 1, 1996 would have been restored by the URAA. 1971 is the usual line for Argentine photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm going through Argentine images (URAA, FOP, PD-Argentina, etc) and opening DR when I see they are still under copyright in the US. As Carl pointed out anything from 01.03.1989 onwards is protected automatically in the USA and not a URAA issue at all. With previous pre 1989 images we have to be careful. Regarding "EL Gráfico", the magazine was available via mail subscription in the US. You can see it onn the 1982 link you provided. The conditions and prices for the US are on the third page on the bottom of the left column. Even though the issues were imported, I assume it counts as publication in the US, as they were available to the general public. Being it a weekly sport magazine I imagine the availability was almost immediate. In theory the publisher should also register all issues and send two copies to the LOC, so my reasoning for pre 1989 issues might be wrong. Günther Frager (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I was about to suggest the same thing, that one would first deal with the unambiguous post-February-1989 issues. For this time frame, I think a mass-DR or at least one DR for every year from 1989 onwards would not be disruptive or inappropriate, as I cannot see any way at all how they should be out of copyright in the US before 2060. Felix QW (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
That is an interesting point, if pre-1989 issues were simultaneously (within 30 days) published in the United States, then the URAA would not apply. I would agree that marketing to the US (and especially actually distributing them there) would qualify. There is no way to save anything 1989 and later though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Günther Frager created DRs for 1996 and 1997, and I created DRs for all the other years; here are links to all of them: 1989 • 1990 • 1991 • 1992 • 1993 • 1994 • 1995 • 1996 • 1997.
At the bottom of this 1982 issue's masthead (found on the third page), I just noticed some information about the USPS and shipping from a New York address, so it would seem that the magazine was indeed published in the U.S. and thus pre-March 1989 issues would be public domain. –IagoQnsi (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it is more complex than that. We need to find when the magazine started to be available in the US. The magazine is published in Argentine since 1920, although for photos relevant for URAA we have to look at years 1971-1989. This 1977 issue has the price for the US and several other countries in its front page, but this 1973 issue has prices for Uruguay, Paraguay, and Colombia and no price for the US. Günther Frager (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, well, the Nov 16, 1976 issue does not include a U.S. price but the Dec 28, 1976 issue does (and I don't see any issues between those two dates on their Issuu account). I don't know that that definitively proves that pre-Nov 1976 issues weren't published in the U.S. I wonder what the minimum bar for "publication in the U.S." is. I could imagine a newstand in a community with a lot of Argentines importing the magazine before it was officially published here; would that count? Seems like a hard thing to prove or disprove. –IagoQnsi (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The first issue to have US price seems to be issue 2985 as issue 2984 doesn't have it. I wouldn't count informal imports as these kind of magazines needed to be transported by air, something not cheap at that time. Günther Frager (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Some COM:Derivative work concern. May be dismissed as de minimis but UK de minimis is anchored on incidental inclusion, somehow similar to French DM, incidental/accessory approach and narrower than DM of Estonia (based on "not-the-main-object" approach). Can the photos in the poster be dismissed as incidental? Its current use at w:en:2023 Israel–Hamas war#Foreign and dual-national casualties may not make it incidental. If not, are the photos under a copyright-free license like {{OGL}}? JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 01:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree it is not DM, per both filename and the usage on different Wikimedia project, which shows the aim of displaying the poster as the subject. Currently, I don't see any indication of the photo published under a free license. Therefore, I have started a DR. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The posters state, "Take a photo of this image and share i[t?]." Why can't we infer a free license from that text? It seems to disavow any copyright claim. Maybe the instruction could imply -ND, but I do not see a prohibition against -NC. Somebody could make and sell t-shirts using the poster. Glrx (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
foto young birds
Beste, ik heb een originele foto van 'young birds' opgeladen op de pagina van radio gemini maar zie hem niet verschijnen ? hoe komt het? mvg Thierry Missiaen Thierry Missiaen (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
& presumably "de pagina van radio gemini" is nl:Radio Gemini, which looks to me to have too many photos, if anything. I see no mention of that file in the wikitext for that page, so I can't think why you'd expect it to appear there. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Pierre Duhem photographs taken before 1916
The public domain rationale for this photo of Pierre Duhem is that it was taken before 1916. I have found some other images of Duhem but was unsure about their copyright status as I have been unable to find an original source, although they would all have been created before 1916 as this is when Duhem died. Firstly, there is this image I tracked down to Essays in the History of Mechanics (published 1968, also available at SpringerLink). There is also this image of Duhem included on the cover of Pierre Duhem - Homme de science et de foi (published 1991). And this image at the start of Pierre Duhem by Pierre Humbert (published 1934). None of these have any source information, so I am not sure if they were published any earlier, or who the photographer / creator is. Would they be ok to upload to Commons? Shapeyness (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
For France, we would need due diligence on determining who might have taken the photo. If they died in 1953 or later, then it is probably still in copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Are state governments in the public domain?
I have found a picture of a state senator. When uploading the picture do I say it is a work of the federal government? Are state governments also in the public domain? If so what option do I choses for Release rights? LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately PD-USGov only applies to the federal government, not states. So you'll have to find another compatible license or risk the image being deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi LuxembourgLover. As pointed out above and in en:WP:PD#US government works, the license {{PD-USgov}} only applies to works created by employees of the US federal government as part of their official duties; it doesn't apply to state, county, municipal or other types of local government employees. Now, some states like California and Florida have passed laws or statutes that place works created by state employees as part of their official duties into the public domain, but Idaho isn't one of them as can be seen here. So, Commons is going to be unable to keep the file you uploaded as licensed and I've tagged it as a copyright violation. Since Johnson is a local politician, your best chance might be to try and find one taken of him while he's out performing some public duty that has been licensed in accordance with COM:L. You could also try contacting his representatives to see whether they might be willing to provide a photo under an acceptable license as explained in COM:EMAIL or en:WP:Permission. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, per [3] Idaho Copyright Status: Yellow, files from their government may not suitable when lack of free license. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
confused about copyright renewal under URAA
Dear Wikimedia community
I wish to use a 1925 German painting for a book cover in the United States. One image of the painting on Wikimedia Commons has a licensing box that states "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer." This seems to say that this particular image is in the public domain in the US, because the painter in question died in 1940, more than 70 years ago.
However, right below this licensing box is another that states: "This work is not in the public domain in the United States because its U.S. copyright was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country (Germany) on the URAA date (1 January 1996). In most cases, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year in which it was initially published (exceptions are works published after 1977; see Commons:Hirtle chart)."
These explanations aren't clear to me. The first licensing box seems to say "You can use it." The second, "You can't use it." And why should the second licensing box state that the image is not in the public domain in the United States, yet suggest that it is any way since more than 95 years have passed since the painting was created?
Are there other works of art on Wikimedia Commons with seemingly contradictory license information? If so, is there a common interpretation that clarifies whether this sort of image is available for reuse?
Thanks. Caneymo (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
For a 1925 published work, if it's public domain in Germany, then it's fine to use. It became public domain in the US in 2021. If you list the file you are mentioning, I could see if I could fix any issue from an old URAA warning. Abzeronow (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
By the way, are you suggesting that the work is in the public domain in Germany because the German copyright would have expired in 2010 (1940, the year of Klee's death, plus 70 years)? That would make sense.
What makes this issue even more confusing to me is that there are two other images of "The Goldfish" available on Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=The+goldfish+Klee&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image) and neither states that the URAA has maintained the image's copyright. These two other images of "The Goldfish" aren't as good visually as the one I originally wrote about, and the one I would like to use.
Thanks, Abzeronow. Caneymo (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
That URAA warning box was added many years ago when it was still valid. It should have been removed in 2021, but apparently nobody thought to do it. I have removed it now. --Rosenzweigτ 20:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Now the coast is clear to use this image as cover art for my second collection of poetry, and in the process, honor Paul Klee. I couldn't be more delighted. Caneymo (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
One follow-up question--will I need to use a United States public domain tag in crediting the painting? If so, would it be:
PD-US
or
PD-US-expired
Also, does the tag merely consist of the verbiage inside the brackets (for ezample, PD-US), or do you need to include the explanation that follows?
Thanks.
Caneymo Caneymo (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
It would be {{PD-US-expired}}. Also, in 69 days, more Klee works will be restored to Commons as 1928 works will enter the public domain in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I think you might have misunderstood the last question, Abzeronow. As the work is in the public domain, no credit whatsoever is needed for a book cover, for which Caneymo intends to use the image - that's the nature of public domain. The public domain tags here on Commons are just for our documentation (so that we can see that and why exactly something is PD), but re-users don't need to use them. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: Paul Klee is a a bit of a special case, as there are Klee works from Germany and works from Switzerland, which makes a difference regarding the URAA, see the note on copyright in Category:Paul Klee. Switzerland has a copyright term of 50 years p.m.a. until 1993, and did not restore already expired copyrights, so Paul Klee's copyright expired there on 1991-01-01, which makes works of Klee first published in Switzerland free at the 1996 URAA date. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it does appear that I did misunderstand the question. As you say, they don't have to use the public domain tags in reusing the image. And I was referring to at least one of Klee's German works that will be undeleted in the new year (as you say, Klee's Swiss works are exempt from URAA). Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Dear Abzeronow,Rosenzweig and Gestumblindi
I want to thank you all for answering my question so thoroughly. You inspired me to increase my annual donation to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks.
Caneymo Caneymo (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Deletion tagging based on copyright holder in metadata
When patrolling images for copyright violations, there are basically four options: 1) {{Copyvio}} (speedy deletion); 2) {{No permission since}}; 3) COM:DR; 4) leaving it alone (COM:AGF). I've noticed that different patrollers and even admins rather different views on dealing with images which have EXIF metadata or a watermark containing the name of an author or copyright holder (which I will collectively refer to as "embedded copyright info" or ECI for short). This is not ideal because we want similar cases to be treated similarly and not depend on which admin happens to come across the image at a particular moment (this is the same type of situation that led to the creation of {{PD-old-assumed}}). Of course, when dealing with the intersection of COM:PCP and COM:AGF, there will always be a grey area; I'm not attempting to eliminate human judgment completely, but rather examine a few common patterns and ensure that they are not treated in an arbitrary manner. Note: The scope of this discussion will focus only on images uploaded as "own work".
Here is my personal opinion on the appropriate use of each option:
Speedy deletion: COM:CSD#F1 should be used primarily when we can find evidence of prior publication at equal or higher quality on an external website with no free license or indication that the uploader may be the copyright holder. However, in limited cases it may be reasonable to speedy delete based on ECI alone, such as Getty Images in the metadata or a Google Street View watermark. What we definitely shouldn't be doing IMO is speedy deleting an image on the basis of the ECI containing the name of a random non-notable person whose connection to the uploader is not immediately obvious (e.g. User:CoolKid123 uploads a photo whose EXIF indicates that "John A. Doe" is the author). Basically, we are dealing with images with no explicit evidence that they were stolen from the Internet, so we'd better be very sure that the copyright holder is not the uploader and is very unlikely to grant a free license (if the uploader obtained a file from the copyright holder via private means and uploaded it incorrectly as "own work", that still wouldn't be speedy - we would tag as "no permission" to request VRT permission from the copyright holder). With that in mind, I think a reasonable guideline here is: If the ECI indicates that the author or copyright holder is a corporation or other organization which is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then the ECI itself is sufficient evidence. Otherwise, evidence in the form of an external link is required, else use "no permission". (I'm not sure how to handle government works, with all the very intricate rules around the world. I've noticed quite a few mistagged government works in the copyvio pool especially around countries that are not black-and-white, but if we banned them entirely from F1 that might lead to extra load at DR.)
No permission: Should be used when there is significant doubt that the uploader is the same person as the indicated by the ECI. Generally, the way I handle it is as follows. If an uploader has multiple images whose ECI contains different authors, that's automatically suspect and grounds for tagging them all as "no permission" (unless one of those authors clearly matches the uploader; then just tag the remainder). If an uploader has uploaded only a single image and it's not clear if they are the ECI author, I will also tag as "no permission". If an uploader has uploaded multiple images with just one author in the ECI for everything (but not necessarily matching the uploader's username), I'm much more inclined to believe that they are the same person especially if there are additional signs like consistent camera used in the EXIF, as long as there are no obvious signs that make it unlikely for them to be the same person (e.g. the username and ECI author appear to be two different real names). Also, the uploader should be asked (one-time) to prove their identity to COM:VRT if they upload previously published images, even if the ECI author matches their username; once their identity is confirmed via {{Verified account}}, it is no longer necessary for them to send proof every time.
Deletion request: DR can be used for miscellaneous issues that are not appropriate for the two categories above for whatever reason. For example, if you're not sure which side of PCP/AGF to err on, you can start a DR to get others' opinions. Often, these are images from many years ago whose uploaders have long abandoned the project, so we aren't going to get any more evidence or explanation from them and have to make a decision based on what we have. Another use case is when mass nominating a large collection of similar photos from the uploader; a batch DR is more efficient than individual speedy or "no permission" tagging.
No action: There is no significant doubt about the claim of "own work".
I welcome any thoughts and feedback! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for starting this discussion.
I agree that similar cases to be treated similarly. My own criteria are 1. copies on the Internet; 2. quality: professional works are not likely to be free; 3. hints about the copyright holder, including mentions in metadata, but also claims from the uploader, watermark, etc. So depending of the evidence, I would speedy delete or create a regular deletion. Yann (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
1930s Bartholomew map
I've gotten my hands on a Bartholomew half-inch map from 1932, and if possible I'd like to upload photos of it to Commons. However, I can't figure out if Bartholomew maps are under Crown copyright or not (the front of the map says "cartographers by appointment to the King", but I don't know if that means Crown copyright), and even if it is under Crown copyright I'm not hugely familiar with US copyright rules, so would like some guidance on if it would be public domain under US rules too. Suntooooth (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
It seems that Bartholomew's and Sons Ltd. are a private company, whose "appointment" is probably similar to a royal warrant. So it will not have been out of copyright in England until 2003, and the URAA means that it will be out of copyright in the US at the beginning of the year 2028. Felix QW (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Alright, thanks very much! Suntooooth (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
At w:Campbell's Soup Cans, I am using three images of questionable propriety. It is unclear if the free licensing here at commons is proper.
I have been contested on the File:The Souper Dress, American paper dress, 1967 (cropped).jpg, which is dress print with a bastardized soup can label. Whereas the Soup can labels, and w:Andy Warhol's art the depicts them includes flavors and the condensed designation, these labels are not very accurate depictions of labels. w:Campbell Soup Company made these dresses as a promotion. Can we use them as we are to describe how the company embraced Warhol's art for promotional purposes.
Also, if these are not properly licensed, are they eligible for de minimus fair use?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
In File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith.pdf, the US Supreme Court describes one of Warhol's Campbell's Soup prints as "A print based on the Campbell's soup can, one of Warhol’s works that replicates a copyrighted advertising logo." (caption to Figure 7 on page 32 of the pdf), so it is clear that this logo is protected by US copyright. Based on this, any derivative work that prominently incorporates the logo is either making fair use of the logo or it itself a copyright violation. There might be an argument that The Souper Dress is also a breach of Warhol's copyright, but this is less clear-cut than the original copyright on the logo. De Minimis does not apply to the dress or to the front of the cans, see COM:DM#Guidelines. File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 02.jpg shows the back of the cans, and may be acceptable. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
User:Verbcatcher, Thank you for taking time to look at these. As I understand it, w:Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith is not about Campbell's Soup can works. It is about his celebrity screenprints and focuses on his use of a photograph of Prince. The case you mentioned seems to rely on w:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., which has nothing to do with the w:Campbell Soup Company. Eventually, as you point out, it does mention Warhol's soup cans theme and notes that that theme is an acceptable fair use due to a clearly distinguished purpose. By that argument, the Souper Dress is not intended to advertise soup or to comment on consumerism. So I am not understanding what you are saying.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a clear distinction between fair use, which depends on how a copyrighted design is used, and being out of copyright, and therefore free to use for all purposes.
Wikimedia Commons cannot host any images on a fair use basis, so to remain here, they would have to be free of copyright claims.
The first question for us is whether the Campbell's soup can design is copyrightable in the first place.
The next question would be whether the copyright term of the logo has now expired. From what I can see, this would be possible if the logo on the can design advertised in 1905 is fundamentally the same as the can design reproduced by the souper dress and the front of the cans. This is the case since copyright only lasts for 95 years from first publication, and so would have expired at the end of 2000 at the latest.
If it is found to be still in copyright, I completely agree with Verbcatcher that it would be a breach of copyright to host them here, as their uniqueness and their usefulness to us rely entirely on them being derivative of the soup can design.
So, if the dress and the can reproduce specific features that were added to the Campbell logo after 1927, these images should, in my opinion, not be hosted on Commons. Felix QW (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
User:Felix QW & user:Verbcatcher, IMO, I think we are fine on the dress. If there are any specific post-1927 elements, I would think they are de minimus, but I don't see any. The current article includes sourced content that says "When Campbell's Soup Cans was presented in 1962, the Campbell's soup can label had not changed in the previous 50 years." So the dress is largely based on turn of the 20th century intellectual property. The front of the 50th anniversary cans may be trickier because 1965 was the year that Warhol made multicolor paintings. If Warhol's transformative art derived from the 50+year old design presents a new copyright 95-year start date, then the front of the cans may be infringing on protectable elements. The back is probably fine.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The two advertisements seem to be perfectly fine as licensed. I would even say that the can itself is sufficiently similar to the one advertised in 1905 for there not to be any additions above the threshold of originality. Felix QW (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
First, there is a VRT ticket. I do not know if that ticket is just a license for the photograph or it also includes a license for the can labels.
To me, taking an existing 2D artwork (the label) and just changing the solid colors (e.g., substituting yellow for red) is a simple change that does not gain a copyright.
Can 01.jpg. The visible portions of the cans are simple modifications, so the modified can portions do not have a copyright. I do not think the Warhol signature is enough for a copyright. The photograph of the cans gets a copyright because the cans are 3D objects; the photographer gets the benefit of perspective, highlights, and shadows.
Can 02.jpg. The label has a picture of Warhol and significant text. The label would have its own copyright. The photograph would be a copyrighted derivative work of the label. Consequently, the photograph only belongs on Commons if the VRT ticket includes a license from the photographer and Campbells Soup.
Wow. So if I understand correctly, we are good on Can 01, but Can 02 has issues. For Can 02 do we need the photographer of Warhol, the photographer of the Can and Campbell's Soup?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Should we see the prior discussion?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The earlier discussion can be found here. It was part of a larger nomination and therefore doesn't appear with the new DR. Felix QW (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Left comment on the DN. Thank you for continuing to evolve the discussion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
It sounds like we are just waiting for the 7-day clock to run on the Deletion process.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
While in theory, deletion requests can be closed after 7 days, chances are that due to the backlog of deletion requests on Commons it will take a much longer time, up to three or four months. I would certainly not add it to any particular page on a Wikipedia though given its likely fate. Felix QW (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I have already proceeded as if it is going to be deleted and removed it from the page at issue.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
If it is going to be 3 months, I will stop following this discussion. Please ping me on WP if there are any new developments on this page that impact the layout of Campbell's Soup Cans.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Determining copyright status for Wikiloc files
I've encountered several images sourced to Wikiloc.com, a site that provides information on trails, but I can't find license information on individual pages. I notice that some users declare Creative Commons releases in their bios, but it's not uniform. Is there a simple way to check the licensing, or do we assume that the website disclaimer "all rights reserved" applies to all the user-uploaded content?
Except insofar as a particular user has indicated a license, yes, I would assume all rights were reserved. That is, after all, the default in any country subscribing to the Berne Convention, which is now pretty much every country. - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Is this edit fine? My opinion is, even if the license is not correct, one shouldn't remove it without discussion. 188.123.231.18 11:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, right. I fixed the license. Yann (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
De minimis
One of the results of 2023 Israel–Hamas war are the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. My question is: does de minimis apply to this photo? Each small photo is a photo of hostage. The copyright holder of each photo is different. So it looks like each one of them is a trifle. I can get permission to design -- Geagea (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
In my own view, I would say that this is not de minimis. The copyrighted images of the hostages are the main subject(s) of the entire collage/poster. If you were to blur the copyrighted images of the faces it would make the collage/poster pretty useless for the purpose it serves. You'd need to find the copyright holder of each induvial image and get permission in order to upload at the Commons. See more at Commons:De_minimis. PascalHD (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
See the words of Clindberg in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museu Valencia de la Il·lustració i la Modernitat, interior.JPG: "Provided the resulting photo only makes de minimis use of the displayed photographs, you are free to distribute your photo without the original photographer's permission. That determination is made photo by photo; if the next picture you take is focusing on one of the displayed works of art, it'd be best to keep that for personal use only."
I already mentioned, I can get permission for the general design. -- Geagea (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I want to create my own copyright for my contents and my mixes, I would like see your requirements or steps to follow while executing this procedures. K kibet044 (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
You can best select one of the available copyright licenses on Commons, see COM:Licensing. The purpose of Commons (and all Wikimedia websites) is to make material available that can be reused anywhere, and even allow for changes to the work. This is the ideal/vision to make knowledge (and images) freely available for everyone. Ellywa (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Is this a revocation of the MIT/Expat license?
I've noticed that w:Mojang Studioshas a GitHub repo intended for the Bootstrap's theme of minecraft.net. Looking at the LICENSE file, it starts with the message saying that "[a]ll image assets of this project are copyrighted by Mojang Studios and may not be used
outside this project without permission by Mojang Studios", with then the actual text of the {{MIT}} license.
With that, the message was actually added later on, with a commit called "License clarification." And going back to the previous commit, there are actually some assets, most notably the Minecraft logo.
I do wonder though, does that count as a permission revocation? I personally wouldn't upload the images mentioned (mostly because COM:Precautionary principle), but I'd like to hear anyone else's thoughts. SergioFLS (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
If the image were not copyrighted to Mojang Studios, then Mojang Studios would not be able to legally license the image under the MIT license. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Given that the "License clarification" commit was added less than 24 hours after the previous commits, it seems clear to me that the initial license was a mistake, and that there was never any serious intent to release those images under the MIT license. Omphalographer (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
There's not really any way to know if the commits before the License clarification was ever made publicly available without the commit including the License clarification. The repo could have been non-public on github at the time, thus, not released, or all commits by phatgolo on the 19th, 20th and 21st of june 2018 could have all been committed to the developers locally cloned version of the repository and that all those commits was pushed to github in one go, which again means the license without the clarification was never made available publicly and hence no revokation. TommyG (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I do not see any contradiction between the MIT license and the clarification added later. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The way it reads to me is that the source code and documentation are under the MIT license, and the images are not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Someone opened a ticket asking this same question, but it never received a response. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I would ignore the copyright claim. It's not unusual for Getty Images to falsely claim copyright. In fact, we have an entire category dedicated to media "licensed" by Getty Images: Category:Media licensed by Getty ImagesFunnyMath (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't see that category. I'll go ahead and upload it, see what happens. PascalHD (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Informally stated license
The source of File:Ponte_do_Reguengo.jpg is the blog A Terceira Dimensão, where the photographer seems to allow unrestricted reuse of his aerial photos, asking only for reusers to divulge the original blogpost url. I would think this is not unlike {{CopyAttribEmail}} — is the correct? Or should OTRS be attempted instead of just just uploading? (@Royalbroil: This matter also affects the meanwhile deleted File:Setil.jpg.) (@Pcjrm and Ajpvalente: also pinged.) -- Tuválkin✉✇ 16:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The current specific claim of {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is clearly wrong: that requires a specific grant of that license. But I think we probably have grounds for {{Attribution only license}} with the appropriate parameters filled in. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I thought that CC-BY-SA was unwarrented, too, just didn’t know how to procede. Should I just change it to {{Attribution only license}} or it’s better to try and contact the photographer and have him change the terms of his licensing to clearly indicate a CC license thereon? His work seems to be very useful and interesting. -- Tuválkin✉✇ 14:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Just changing it would be fine, but of course if you can contact the photographer and get a clear and irrevocable license, that is better. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thanks! I better do the latter, even though it’s harder work, because we want all his eleven thousand photos, not only this one. (Or these two — @Royalbroil: can we undelete the other one and slap an {{Attribution only license}} on it?) -- Tuválkin✉✇ 16:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
(unindent) I disagree for 2 reasons and they are why I deleted the image. 1) The image has the circled C which means that it is copyrighted. 2) I used google translate to get an approximation of their copyright wishes on the blog: "The approximately 11,000 photographs on this blog were taken during leisure flights. If these images are used, the author would like to thank the authors for sharing the links to the respective posts. Tags preceded by "ZZ" refer to topics related to foreign countries and those with "ZZZ" refer to aeronautical topics. To obtain these images in high definition contact: duarte07@gmail.com". To me that does not imply grant of any attribution license - just that the photographer is willing to provide higher definition images if asked. These 2 reasons combined became a smoking gun to delete. It reads that the author acknowledges that other people might use the images without being specifically given permission and would at least like a link to their blog. An unequivocal irrevocable license is needed in my opinion. Royalbroil 02:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I know almost nothing about copyright law but even I know that your 1st argument is meaningless.
Concerning your 2nd argument, will you trust me (or any other native Portuguese speaking collegue here) over Google Translate to ascertain the authors’ intent?
With regard to the first argument, I agree, but I kind of agree with @Royalbroil that the actual release is a bit too vaguely formulated and it's probably better to get in touch with the photographer, and if possible get them to send VRT a release for all images on the site. A bit more work, but I imagine a general release for the site should be sufficient and it's not needed to have an explicit release for each and every file. TommyG (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
They could also simply indicate the free license more explicitly on the website. That should be easier than having to go through the VRT procedure. Felix QW (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with TommyG and Felix that the best action is to request an explicit general release on the website for all 11000 files in a clearer wording. What is their intention in their own words and is it compatible with a free Commons license? Royalbroil 02:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Government of Qatar
Any chance that images and other multimedia under the Qatari government domain gov.qa or their social media (e.g. https://www.mofa.gov.qa/, https://www.diwan.gov.qa/) are available under creative commons / public domain license, like a number of other countries have done? e.g. Template:PD-USGov-Congress
Thank you for doing the research! Unlike the incredible mess with India's Open Data policy, this one is actually explicitly restricted in its scope and only applies to facts, figures and statistics objectively measured according to a standard or scale such as frequency or volumes or occurrences. It then goes on in its introduction to reaffirm that indeed all Qatari government works are automatically copyrighted, and that only data is freely licensed. So unfortunately no luck for us regarding media, but at least we are spared the ambiguity here. Felix QW (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, This is probably in the public domain, either for lack of notice or renewal, but I can't find the source. There are 2 pictures on Getty from the same photo session (same dress, same pendant) without the photographer's name. However EXIF data says the photographer is Ben Polin. Can anyone help to fix that please? Yann (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Same as above. Here I got the source, but not the photographer's name. Yann (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find any examples of US publishing prior to 1978 without a notice. Did a Google Lens & Tineye search + the usual place of ebay and Worthpoint don't have this image. It's most likely in the Public Domain, but I can't find any examples on the internet to prove it. PascalHD (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone check if this copyright was renewed? BTW on what name should it be? Yann (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
A 1969 renewal was linked to in the DR. Abzeronow (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I deleted the file. Yann (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Mexico, public records
For the article Carlo Curti I was considering to upload a picture of a his death certificate, a government document (page with the image). However, I am not certain now that the document is in the public domain. It is over 100 years old from 10 May 1922, but then on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico I read "Works created by the Mexican government do not default to being public domain, being protected 100 years after publication.[1996-2018 Art.29(II)] This applies to the federal, state and municipal governments."
Am I right in thinking this death certificate is not in the public domain? Jacqke (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jacqke: That sentence from Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico is poorly worded. If the document is over 100 years old and was created by the Mexican government, it is now public domain and can be uploaded. Nosferattus (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I've ran into a problems with that part of the guideline myself a couple of times. It should really be clarified. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your clarification. I thought the wording strange. Best wishes Jacqke (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Would a PD-1996 cover this for the United States? Jacqke (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
No; if it was in copyright in Mexico in 1996, then PD-1996 doesn't work. PD-US-expired is the correct US license for all works published more than 95 years ago.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Booth photographs
Hi, I wonder whether Photo booth strips and photographs should be {{PD-ineligible}} by virtue that the photographer is the copyright holder? So for booth photographs, there is no photographer. Opinions? Yann (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I think that in this case the photographer is the subject of the photo. Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd say the same as Ruslik here. Usually there is deliberate posing involved. A machine clicks the shutter, but the same is true for a shutter-delay self portrait taken with a conventional camera. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@0mtwb9gd5wx: No, it's probably still copyrighted and we don't have a free license. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
It's from 1986 so definitely still copyrighted. —Tcr25 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
It appears the publicity photo is of UK origin, so definitely still under copyright. However, some publicity photos can be uploaded, certain conditions need to be met. Published in the US without a copyright notice, and in some cases no copyright registration later. Examples: File:Buddy Holly Brunswick Records.jpg and File:Prince 1981
@0mtwb9gd5wx: If an image was taken in the UK and also distributed simultaneously in the US, US law takes precedence. Published in the US without a copyright notice would be the correct license. We don't start seeing copyright notices on publicity images till about 1985. the File:Prince 1981 image was part of trying to find the exact year for each of the studios and record labels. Prince images were from Warner Bros. Records and they were not adding notice to at least 1981. --RAN (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Photographs of identifiable people in the article en:Education
Whether such photos are legal or not depends on specifics. It is very easy to make it seem that you are telling something about the specific persons, which could result in accuse of defamation. However, the current use seems unproblematic in my layman eyes. Still, I am from Finland, so I know little about cultural or legal norms where the images are from or in any jurisdiction relevant to you. –LPfi (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@LPfi: Thanks for taking a look at the article and clarifying the issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Spanish FOP
According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#Freedom of panorama the status of freedom of panorama in Spain is unclear due to a couple of court cases where it seems to have been determined that there is no commercial usage for reproductions of works situated in public spaces. To quote the guideline "Spanish courts have ruled against commercial use of works situated in public spaces." So I'm wondering if the status should just be changed to "not allowed" instead of "unclear" since there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity about it and a restriction on commercial usage clearly isn't compatible with Common. I wanted to see what other people think before changing the guideline though. Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Last time this was discussed, there was no consensus to change the guideline. Abzeronow (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Where was it previously discussed? It's not like the consensus from one conversation can overrule longstanding policy from the Wikimedia Foundation that we don't allow for non-commercial usage anyway. So the at least IMO the guideline should be changed anyway. Although that's why I brought it up instead of just editing the guideline. I'd much prefer that the consensus about it change to be more in line with the policies then us just ignore them because a couple of people in a random discussion thought they shouldn't matter at the time. Or there should at least be a warning template for images like with other countries where there's only non-commercial usage but we still allow uploads under certain circumstances. I'd be fine with either, but just not allowing people to upload the images in the first place seems like the easier and more policy based option of the two. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, cool. I somehow managed to forget about that conversation. I guess it isn't linked to in the guideline either, which didn't help. Not to say the original participants opinions don't matter, but it would be good if other people participated in the discussion this time along with them since it seemed like they didn't really agree on it last time. Really, if anything the conversation didn't even go anywhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree to change Spanish FoP to Not OK(red country) per COM:PCP. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The first source given by DarwIn lists a table of fines for breaking copyright of the architects. I think we should protect third parties who use the Commons content while assuming it is free to use anywhere. I have had a problem paying a fine in a copyright case (totally outside the Wikimedia context). Since then, I have been very careful, and one of my personal motivations is to keep Commons clean of such problems, to protect others. So yes, please clarify the FOP text for Spain. And yes, I am aware that possibly many images will have to be deleted as a consequence. The Belgian government finally introduced FOP in 2016, perhaps Spain will do as well, because this is bad for tourism, of course. Ellywa (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I think that we may keep Spanish FOP-related files with a warning template like {{FoP-Sweden}}. Юрий Д.К 11:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ellywa impact on tourism doesn't matter in Spain, I assume. Given that the two cases involved tourism merchandise items that are judged to be violations of artists' copyrights.
@Юрий Д.К. Swedish case is a different matter. Sweden was to become "not OK" after the Swedish SC ruling, but Wikimedia Foundation intervened and stated that Commons should not remove images of all contemporary Swedish buildings and monuments en masse. Unlike the case here, Wikimedia Foundation has yet to issue a legal statement which may be favorable for Spanish Wikimedia community (choosing to follow the word of the Spanish law) or not (choosing to make Spanish court rulings binding on Commons). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 12:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Well.... it is up to them of course... But if no images appear in the Wikipedia articles of the modern arwork/buildings in Seville for instance, they will regret that I assume. These are a reason for a visit. Sevilla. Ellywa (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ellywa it's a "nightmare" for many European wikis, which typically follow local laws. The responses of local wikis, I think, would become varied. German wikipedia may choose to apply German FOP over the impacted Spanish buildings and monuments, but Danish Wikipedia may only host unfree Spanish buildings using Danish architectural FOP, and not monuments. Remains to be seen for Spanish Wikipedia's response.
For English Wikipedia, they can get away from Spanish laws using U.S. laws only; they reached a consensus in 2012 in which they only respect U.S. laws, including U.S. copyright law, and not laws of all other lands. This is why the template w:en:Template:FoP-USonly exists and used in full-resolution images of Burj Khalifa and other buildings from countries with no-FOP. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 12:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not clear. We should follow the Spanish law and jurisprudence, as we do in all cases, as we follow the local situation on copyright (as well as US in some cases when needed). Ellywa (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation intervened and stated that Commons should not remove images of all contemporary Swedish buildings and monuments en masse. I don't think anyone would advocate for deleting every possible image that might violate FOP in Spain in a single go anyway, but just to be on the safe side if or when the status is changed it should come with a disclaimer not to mass nominations of potentially copyrighted images. Really, there's no legitimate reason that images shouldn't continue to be judged on a case by case basis regardless of the change. How the various wiki's deal with it will of course be a "nightmare", especially for European ones, but that's not really our issue and can be somewhat mitigated by us not doing mass nominations. It's unfortunate that more Wikis outside of English Wikipedia don't allow for fair use though since it really puts Commons in a bad situation any time something changes in favor of deleting images. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
My country does not allow fair use, so a Wikipedian would be personally liable on NL Wikipedia. The Foundation waives all responsibility. So it IS really "OUR" problem because this is an international project and we should act according to the appliccable local laws. That is listed somewhere in the guidelines on Commons. Ellywa (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Sure, we should follow all locals laws. Not keep images that violate local copyrights, or can't be used commercially, just because some non-English wiki doesn't allow for fair use. That was my point. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, it's not "some wiki" that doesn't allow for fair use. They aren't in the position to allow something which is illegal or violates copyright in the concerned country, it's the copyright-law. --Túrelio (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Its kind of an irrelevant side thing to the coversation to begin with, but I'm sure there's at least a couple of countries where it would probably be fine depending on the circumstances. None of them are Spain of course, but fair use at least on the the internet is a grey area that hasn't really been tested in court well (if at all) no matter the country. That's not to say any Wiki should try it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 furthermore, a few wikis do not allow local uploading. Simple English Wikipedia is one thing and Kyrgyz Wikipedia is another thing, AFAIK. I think Estonian Wikipedia discourages local uploads but I may be wrong though. The court rulings can have negative effects for smaller wikis. @Ikan Kekek: , this may also force Wikivoyage community to upload locally copies of the same images in all language editions of Wikivoyage, should Spanish courts continue to interpret the Three-Step Test as a NC restriction disallowing uses of recent Spanish landmarks in tourism items et cetera. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 04:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, JWilz12345. Will we be given time to do that? That could be a big task. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Is it retrospective? If it does, it takes a long time to clean up, because we had 10,000+ files are under FoP Spain category. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Right, it would take a long time to delete everything, I guess. Maybe once a decision has been made, if deletion is necessary, it could start with photos that are not used by other wikis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
From what I've seen what we have are two court cases, both from 2006 (so a while ago), both from Provincial Courts, which accd. to en:Judiciary of Spain are a rather low type of court (second lowest in Spain). Are these the only two Spanish court cases concerning freedom of panorama? Are there others, newer than 2006, from higher courts? Two cases from lower courts like these could still be outlier decisions. I'd hesitate to totally nix Spanish fop (for our purposes) based on just these two cases. --Rosenzweigτ 17:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
There's also the sentence in the guideline saying "A number of sources state that 35(2) is entirely revoked by commercial use" and they don't seem to be related to the two court cases from what I can tell. So we don't just have the two decisions by the lower court. Although is there any reason to think the two cases aren't legally sound or would otherwise be turned over by a higher court even if they are were the opinions that 35(2) is revoked by commercial use are coming from? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know. I was thinking about several court decisions regarding freedom of panorama in Germany, where various courts made contradicting decisions about drones and fop. A lower court decision (which still stands, it wasn't overturned) said they're allowed. But then a different lower court said they're not allowed, a higher court confirmed that decision, and it looks like there will be a decision on the matter by Germany's highest court in a year or so. Legal commentaries are mostly on the side which says they're not allowed. So all I'm saying is we should get the full picture before deciding anything. --Rosenzweigτ 05:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
OK. That seems like a complicated case and I don't necessarily have a problem with waiting for a fuller picture in practice. Although it seems wrong to intentionally take a hands off approach to this just because the court hasn't made decision on it yet when both the lower courts and legal commentary both seem to agree that there's no allowance in Spain for commercial usage. COM:PCP makes it clear that anything along the lines of "we can get away with it" is against Commons' aims. In the least continuing to allow for full FOP in Spain could lead to other cases in the lower court, which clearly isn't in line with the goals of the project. You could argue the higher courts needs to clarify it in the long run, but that doesn't stop people from being sued in the lower court up until then or that we should take a laissez faire approach to it until they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I do not think we should paint Spain red without any professional legal analysis. FoP is not just a yes or no issue. There are countries for example where buildings are free and monuments (which also have architects sometimes) are not. I would like to see a conclusion what is exactly not ok according to Spanish laws / legal practice, and I am afraid the only actor in a position to provide this conclusion for us is WMF.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Very nice of you asking a long-term Commons administrator whether he is familiar with the basic principles of the project, but yes, sure, I have read it. Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I wonder, that which kind of behaviors mentioned by both court cases, to let justices to rule both copyvio cases, by missing or mis-providing attributions? (just another COM:FOP China-like behavior, :P) by re-using some small, extra stuffs without separate licensing from those owners? (wow, Spain could be the first ever EU country that COM:De minimis is NOT OK?!) by playing Trick or Treat in courtrooms? or else? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226 you haven't read most of the previous discussion, I think. The Spanish courts took the Berne Three-Step Test to the most extreme level, in which the Three-Step Test, for them, disallows any commercial use like tourism merchandise. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 03:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
If so, then I Support to re-write FOP Spain section as just not ok, @Aymatth2: any against responds? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Rosenzweig and Ymblanter (and other users): few court cases do not change the copyright law of a country, and the PCP is not "copyright paranoia". If there are systematically high court cases about FoP in Spain, that state that it is not OK to do DW of some kind of work in a public place, then we'll modify our rules. But it's pointless to start deleting without being sure of what are the legislator's intentions. Ruthven(msg) 10:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
How about my opinion and Liuxinyu970226's opinion? They support to change Spain to red(no FoP). Ox1997cow (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Changing to "not ok". 2 cases in 2006 by second lowest courts in Spain isn't a valid reason to delete Spanish FOP-related files. Юрий Д.К 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree; it would be good to have further information than to outright delete the files in question. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
We might want to add a prominent warning to {{FoP-Spain}}, so that reusers can judge for themselves whether they want to take the risk. As long as we don't know whether the supreme court of Spain agrees, I don't think we need to delete the images.
Not deleting is especially important as it seems these lower courts think that full FoP is illegal not only in Spain, but in every Berne country (isn't the 40 bis wording similar to that in the convention?).
Deleting them could inspire copyright organisations worldwide to try to get similar court decisions. (The uploader and Commons don't risk prosecution, as neither uses the image commercially.)
I can't see how Spain has suddenly become a non-FoP country just picking 2 random court decissions and assuming that is the general rule to follow in this project. Going further, we would create an absurd scenario if we consider Spain as a dubious or non-FoP country. Let me explain: we assume we can host these images because of FoP issues, but we are entitled to upload pictures considered as "mere photographies" (art. 128 LPI) that were created more than 25 years ago and published before 1996 (to avoid collisions with American law) and that would be fine as per Spanish law, because these works would be considered public domain. How is that even an option if Spain is a dubious/non-FoP country...? Furthermore, in the section Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Spain#Freedom_of_panorama, the two references added go in this line: ref number 8, regarding the Osborne's bull case, the analysis on that paper concludes that the court decission was incorrect and there was not a crime against intellectual property in that case and it was a court misjudgement; ref number 7 mostly mentions the "three steps rule", that the Spanish law pretty much copies from the InfoSoc directive. These steps are:
The limits - exceptions provided for in the act are applied in a strict and restricted manner.
are interpreted in such a way that they do not conflict with the normal (pre-existing) exploitation of the work; and
Are interpreted in a way that does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
Considering all these details, what is dubious about FoP in Spain? Rastrojo(D•ES) 20:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't really buy the argument that the Three-Step Test in the Berne convention matters here or that the court rulings were misjudgments because of it. Since from what I can tell there's nothing in the three points that precludes a country from disallowing freedom of panorama in cases of commercial usage if they want to. Not to mention there are countries like Italy who are signatories to the Berne Convention but allow for FOP in the first place. If a country that has signed up for the Berne Convention can just deny FOP to begin with then there's no reason one can't restrict it to non-commercial usage if they want to.
As a side to that, the status of FOP in Spain has been dubious for a while now, or at least it's status has been "Unsure" for a while. It seems like prior consensus is that when the status of something is "unsure" we discourage people from uploading images in those cases or at least there's a template warning people that the country doesn't allow for commercial usage. Neither of those things are being done in this case though. I could ultimately care which option we go with, but it seems against the guidelines and how we deal with other similar situation to put that the copyright status "unsure" a guideline but then essentially treat as if everything 100% fine and OK. If the status is unclear then there should be something on our end beyond just acting like everything is business as usually. I'm fine with a warning template, but the reasons for not just saying there's no FOP in Spain seem dubious at best and again, that's not usually how similar cases are usually handled. Otherwise the status should just be changed to "OK" instead of treating it like there's an issue when there isn't one. "Unsure" makes it seems like there's a problem though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
As I understand the Spanish law amendment, it more or less repeats the three-step rule. Thus, Spain hasn't decided to make FoP more restricted, but (some of) their courts have interpreted the rule in an extreme way.
I think we should add a warning to the template. Then reusers can make an informed decision. There seems to be a significant legal risk for them, even if the supreme court overturns these decisions eventually. Deleting the images would be to accept the decisions, which I think is premature.
If the supreme court makes a non-ambiguous decision on the same line as these courts, then we should have a policy discussion, like that on faithful reproductions of PD 2D art – as the decision really is about the three-step rule and thus commercial FoP overall.
Adding a warning to the template is a good idea. Although it seems inadequate on it's own if we both agree there seems to be a significant legal risk to reusers, but baring something like a decision by the supreme court about it I'd still support a warning as an interim step so we at least did something to protect people on our end. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Something similar, yes. The sentence "The implications of these decisions on Commons' ability to continue to distribute […]" does not apply to the Spanish case, as non-commercial distribution seems to be allowed. Also some other wordings of that template are problematic, so neither copy the rest verbatim. In particular, I think we should not say "is believed to be protected by copyright".
The original work and photos of it are indeed believed to be under copyright (otherwise we'd use some other template), but the question is about whether FoP applies. We could have a wording like "Some courts have ruled that section 40 bis (introduced non-retroactively in 1998) of the Spanish copyright law severely restricts commercial use of depictions of copyrighted works, regardless of whether they are in public places."
Yes, I now created Template:FoP-Spain/Draft. I did not put in any boldface warnings, as I think the text as such is quite clear, and using the right image (and categories?) would make it clear that there may be a problem. –LPfi (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I actually just got in a big back and forth with a couple of other users about the same thing in this DR and it didn't go anywhere outside of the files being kept. Although I agree that using {{PD-US-no notice}} on newspaper clippings probably isn't correct since whatever notice existed would have been for the paper in general, or if not the paper in general at least specific pages of it. I don't think people should be to crop small parts of larger works and claim they carry the same license though. Since for one, it's just hard to verify, but also because that's not really how copyright works. At least not when it comes to works that have or might have copyright notices on them. If anything, its just a way to get around having to prove the work that the image is a crop of doesn't have a copyright notice. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
My question isn't only about images, but also about the text of the articles: it's possible that both are still protected by copyright independently of the other. FWIW, I commented in the DR you've referenced above, and those files seem to primarily be advertisements and advertisements in print publications were required to have their own copyright notices, seperate from the host publication. I'm not sure the same applies to these three files since they seem to be actual reported news and not advertisements. Anyway, I remembered after posting the above that the "Moon landing" was previously discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/02#Scan of 1969 newspaper front page, but it doesn't seem to have resulted in a clear consensus over the "no notice" licensing. That photo, however, might be different in the sense that it was international news that came from a wire service, whereas the other two files appear to be local stories and photos originating from the local paper en:The Morning Call. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
At least a couple of the images I nominated for deletion that DR had separate copyright notices but were still kept. Regardless, it at least shows that the newspaper itself considered articles or at least advertisements to be separate works that needed their own copyright notices. Although I don't see why say an advertisement for Hollywood film that was probably ran nationally would be out of copyright just because it ran in a local newspaper that is. Really, the same goes for articles that there's no evidence were written specifically for the newspaper. Like if they republish an excerpt from a book or national news story there's no reason it would be in the public domain just because the paper is. Even if in the case of local authors there's no way of knowing what kind of agreement they had with the paper or if it was the works first place of publication. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Works in the US had to have copyright notices on virtually all copies, or they lost copyright. Period. (Advertisements had the additional requirement that they had their own copyright notice.) If it was published outside the US, the first place of publication might matter; if it was published inside the US, it didn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
How that even work? Like say an author in the 30s wanted to publish an excerpt from their book in a paper as part of a story about it, or just for advertising purposes. Would the excerpt have to contain it's own notice or if not the whole book would lose it's copyright status? Say there's a screenshot of a character from a Hollywood film in a newspaper, would that have to contain it's own copyright notice or the film would then somehow be PD? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This had already been discussed internally where we have lowres and small and black and white album covers (derivative copies) in ads in Billboard magazine versus the hires and large and color, actual album cover with a copyright symbol. The ad is not copyrighted and can be hosted, but that does make the original full album cover hostable. After 1989 the symbol was no longer a legal requirement, all IP is automatically copyrighted at creation. However people still send copies of their songs and books to the copyright repository at the Library of Congress so that they get an accession date. This ensures if their is litigation about precedence or participation, a contributor has documented their contributions. --RAN (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
If you don't know how it works, then why are you commenting like you do?
If an author in the 30s wanted to published an excerpt from their book in a paper, they would need to make sure it had a copyright notice, on the excerpt or the whole paper. If they didn't, the excerpt would lose copyright. The whole work wouldn't. Only advertisements needed their own copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand the general idea of how it works. That doesn't mean I know every detail about every single possible scenerio involving newspaper clippings though. Do I have to know all the minutia involved in this to participate in the conversation or can I maybe just ask a question and have it answered without receiving a conceding response just because I don't have a Phd in the subject? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
That newspaper did not renew any copyrights, so issues from before 1964 would be OK. A copyright notice on the entire newspaper will cover any articles or photos inside (unless previously published, or unless they had their own more specific copyright notice). If there is no notice on an article and you want to reprint it, you need to contact the newspaper -- if someone else actually owns the copyright, they would direct you that way, but no way to assume public domain status (unless it's an advertisement). If the newspaper did not have a copyright notice, then these would be OK, but we'd need to see the full issue (or at least the credits area). A newspaper missing a copyright notice probably would not for example inject an AP article (which appeared in many newspapers) into the public domain, but anything done by their staff it would. Advertisements by case law (and later statutory law) always needed their own copyright notices; they are not covered by the overall notice. It's fair to assume that if an ad was missing a notice in one paper, it was missing in another. In general if only a "relative few" copies did not have a notice, then copyright may not have been lost. Normally it would be pretty hard to argue that on something with as many copies as a newspaper. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
If there is no notice on an article and you want to reprint it, you need to contact the newspaper So if I'm reading your comment correctly we shouldn't host images of clipped articles because anyone reprinting them would have to research if they where published somewhere else prior to being printed in the newspaper and contact the newspaper for permission beforehand, both of which we aren't doing on our end. But specific pages or the newspaper as a whole would probably be fine for us to host images of depending on if the newspaper isn't copyrighted. Is that a correct reading of your comment or am I miss-understanding what your saying? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Most newspaper articles are first published in that newspaper. If it's credited to AP or UPI, i.e. something published in a great many newspapers, I would be more leery as one newspaper would probably count as a "relative few" and not lose copyright. Not sure there has been a test case on that scale. Otherwise though, the notice had to be on *all* copies, and if an author printed an article or excerpt in a newspaper without a notice, that almost certainly would not be a "relative few" copies. There is a page here which notes a couple of cases, and a judgement here which notes several cases which ruled on "relatively small number of copies" (part of the 1978 law, but followed from case law before that) and the dividing line seems to be somewhere above 1% but below 2%. I was referring to an article without its own copyright notice, but in a newspaper with a copyright notice -- that means that it would be covered by the overall notice (even if they were not the actual copyright owner), and you would go through that named copyright owner for more information if you needed to use the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
So it sounds like a good line to draw is at clippings from national stories or ads, and excerpts from preexisting works since there's no way to confirm if the lack of a copyright notice was just an oversight in those cases and if the threshold has been met or not if it was. Whereas with articles from the AP or UPI, it sounds like the best option there would be to upload an image of the original or at least the whole page/newspaper to be on the safe side. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Advertisements were different -- the newspaper notice can not apply, so you needed a notice on the ad itself, something easily within control of the copyright owner when giving it out. I think it's fine to assume that ads without a copyright notice were like that in most newspapers (though if we show evidence of other copies with notice, maybe we'd have to debate that). But national stories, yeah I would be leery as those probably assumed that the newspaper notice would cover stuff, and would in most every case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Wasn't the form requirement for copyright notices specifically the copyright owner's name ("sufficient to identify")? If so I have trouble seeing how a copyright notice naming a different party could satisfy the requirement.
Then again, I fail to see how a later partial republication (e.g. an excerpt from a book printed in a newspaper) could invalidate an already extant copyright. Are we really arguing that the number of copies of the newspaper that were sold relative to the number of copies of the original book (to get to that magical 1–2%) is determinative? What about excerpts printed under fair use without the original author's involvement? Lost copyright would be cumulative, so with enough excerpts in enough newspapers The Lord of The Rings would be public domain. Xover (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@Xover: It would technically be an "error in name" copyright notice, however that did not invalidate the notice nor lose copyright, per 17 USC 406. Missing names were an invalid notice, but incorrect names were still a valid notice, though with some mitigating circumstances if you got permission from the named party (i.e. were misled). Third parties were made aware that a copyright exists and a path to obtain permission, which I guess was enough. This is also covered in the Compendium, section 2205.2(I). As for the 1-2%, the law says "a relatively small number of copies", so each situation would be a judgement call, but that is the range in court decisions thus far. Fair use would not count, since that is usage allowed without the permission of the copyright owner, so lack of notice on those would not affect the copyright since it was done without authorization. It would need to be copies distributed by the copyright owner, or under authorization but with no instruction to include the notice. Most of the time, if one copy lacked a notice than they all did, so it's probably OK to assume that. If someone finds another copy with a notice, then it may bear further discussion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The Morning Call newspaper did not have a copyright notice in 1969 or before. I will be checking up to 1977. I found that in 1988 they had "copyrighted" and "All rights reserved" on the masthead on the front page. Now it is just a matter of finding the exact year and issue in which the copyright notice appeared. --RAN (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Done User warned, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eve73. Yann (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment: Someone opened a ticket asking this same question, but it never received a response. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Support to re-write FOP Spain section as just not ok, @Aymatth2: any against responds? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Changing to "not ok". 2 cases in 2006 by second lowest courts in Spain isn't a valid reason to delete Spanish FOP-related files. Юрий Д.К 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://www.santiebeati.it/immagini/Original/92698/92698A.JPG){kind=link}
_-_El_Gráfico_2985.jpg){kind=link}
_-_El_Gráfico_2984.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
