Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg - Copyrighted?

Continued from Wikipedia, File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg was used on a few pages, which I've since reverted since it's unclear what exactly the copyright status is. It's been labeled as an "official" photo of the 119th United States Congress even though it hasn't yet been uploaded on Congress.gov or another official government website, since the 119th Congress has yet to start. It's only been uploaded on Representative-elect Hamadeh's newly-created "official" Twitter account, which leads me to believe that there may be an issue with copyright, and it might not yet be public domain (if it's the official photo in the end), since he's not officially a member of the U.S. government. AG202 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past we have used official images and I have also found this old discussion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anna_Paulina_Luna.jpg for Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna's official image which the consensus was to keep the image in place. (You can also see that I was around during that and I didn't even remember me taking part of it!) Wollers14 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to that, but it looks like it wasn't kept until after she was sworn in. Also, honestly, I don't see that strong of a consensus there on keeping the image before she was sworn in. I see a few comments saying to wait, with some other comments solely giving information. I'd hope that there'd be an official policy on this, hence why I brought the discussion here and not nominated the image for deletion. It's also not just the copyright issue for me, but also calling it the "official congressional photo" without it being posted on an official government website or social media from a current government official. It's also has the author of "Office of Congressman Abraham Hamadeh", even though that office does not yet exist. This would be helpful to explicitly clarify for future situations. CC: Participants in the aforementioned discussion: @A1Cafel, @Curbon7, @Connormah, @Mdaniels5757, @Reppop, @Putitonamap98, @Frodar. AG202 (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the offices do exist even in the physical format. I don't know about the House but Senators-elect are given temporary offices to prepare to be sworn in and take over official duties so they are technically some kind of official as they will also share caseloads of constituent work so it can be completed when the incumbent leaves office and the new member can take it over. As for the images if they were created by the House Creative Services I'd say it is public domain even if not posted by them because they give it to the member for them to use however they see fit such as their government websites when they are created. Wollers14 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy is of the utmost importance here so I'd like to see what others think of this specific scenario before making, though educated, guesses. AG202 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file name used and how the file is described aren't really pressing issues for Commons, or at least not as pressing an issue as copyright status. The caption used on Wikipedia can always been worded to say whatever is encyclopedically correct. What matters most to Commons, in my opinion, when it comes to "PD-USGov" licenses is whether a photo was taken by a federal government employee as part of their official duties. The subject of the photo, where the photo was taken, when it was taken, which website it ends up being published, whether the subject has an official government office or an official government media account/website on aren't really that relevant because the subject of the photo isn't considered to be its copyright holder. You might argue the subject has personality rights, or the file should be renamed, but those things are unrelated to the file's copyright status. So, what needs to be determined is who took the photo, whether they're an employee of the US federal government and whether they did so as part of their official duties. If official photos of newly elected members of the US House of Representatives taken by the House Creative Services are considered "PD-USGov", then the photo should be OK s long as the subject of the photo states as much when posting it online; otherwise, the argument just seems to be that the subject of the photo isn't to be believed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so based on that I think some criteria should be established with these kinds of images when they are posted on social media. Feel free to add points I'm just throwing out suggestions out there. 1. The photo must look like one normally taken by the House Creative Services and 2. The photo is confirmed to be their official portrait by the member themselves. Wollers14 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that I participated in that discussion to say that someone didn't tag their image correctly which is why another, related image was deleted. Otherwise, I somewhat agree with Wollers14, in that there must be a confirmation that it was taken by House Creative Services and is an official portrait. As I recall from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene official photo, 117th Congress.jpg, the image may as well be by a private portrait photographer, which isn't under {{PD-USGov}}. reppop^talk 04:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So there's a way to tell if its done by the House Creative Services because they take their pictures the same way with details such as an American flag in the background and a blueish background along with it. Also to tell if it is by the House Creative Services it can be posted by the member elect on social media. The MTG example you provide was clearly not one done by the HCS as there is no Flag background or blueish back drop. Wollers14 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those cannot give 100% clarity that the image is public domain. there was a period in a time when the House official photos were simply a blue background like File:Greg Lopez 118th Congress portrait.jpg. I don't think that there's a precise way to tell without A. the member being an official member of the government (so that we can assume that it's public domain) and/or B. it's been officially published on House.gov or a similar government-run website. In fact that second MTG photo deletion (also in a blue background with the American flag per archive) is very similar to the situation that we're in right now, and that's why I want to wait until we have official confirmation from House.gov (or a copyright release from the congressman-elect). Again, there's really no harm in waiting. AG202 (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Greg Lopez doesn't have an American Flag behind him nor the traditional blue backdrop. What I'm essentially saying is that you can use the flag and blue back drop to tell or you can email HouseCreativeServices@mail.house.gov for more information. In fact I'll email them to see if we can get answers here. I doubt that they will respond though. Wollers14 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different photograph thing for Lopez, see File:Gabe Amo 118th Congress Official Portrait.jpg. I see it as a Cleark portait photograph, rather than an official House portrait but it's still under a US Government unit. The best way is for a website to actually host it with metadata, but we would just need to actually get confirmation that it's by a government unit. reppop^talk 08:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is to look at familiar details to other images of freshmen in the house such as the previously mentioned above. Also we can call or email the House Creative Services to confirm with them though I imagine it will be hard to talk with them since we are Wikipedia users Wollers14 (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Jameslwoodward's conclusion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg: "Most such images are taken by private portrait photographers because the subjects want the best possible image." If the photograph is hosted on a congressional website, or has metadata that says that it's by a photographer for House Creative Services, then its fine. We just need a way to find out if this is truly a House photograph. reppop^talk 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks to both of y'all, but in that case, yeah if we can't get in contact with them and there's no metadata, then imho it's just best to wait and see. AG202 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can reach out to them too just so you know the email is above and they do have a phone number that you can find online Wollers14 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I’ve reached out to the HCS and they said that best bet is to contact the member-elect’s office to verify but the lady I talked to who is one of their directors said that images done by the House Creative Services are public domain so the only way to verify is to contact the office of the member-elect and ask them. So I will reach out and ask Hamadeh’s office and see what I get from there.Wollers14 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to do this, I do appreciate it. AG202 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I also got a response to the email I sent from the House Creative Services and they are saying that the post by Hamadeh (They linked the post) is by them. So I think the image is fine to use. We good now here? Wollers14 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be fine. Maybe a statement that an email correspondence confirmed that it was by House Creative Services, maybe forwarding via COM:VRT but I'm not sure if that's really needed. reppop^talk 00:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think VRT accepts forwarded emails but perhaps a VRT member could clarify by asking at COM:VRTN. Anyway, even if one's not needed, it might be better to ask the consider sending one anyway because it would be on record if this thing comes up again with respect to another similar image. The HCS could actually word the email to cover not only this particular image, but other images it takes. This could possibly allow a specific copyright license template to developed for HCS images that could be used for its images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have the names of the people who responded to me. I'm sure they'd be willing to talk if you ask them. You will however probably need to use an email that looks like it came from a real person. I used my real name in my emails to them. Wollers14 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we good to add the image back now that we've cleared this up? Wollers14 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the image back to the pages since there seems to be no more objections Wollers14 (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lim Nang Seng.jpg

Tagged as {{PD-Singapore}}, but would this comply with U.S. PD status as well? According to Clindberg at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Singapore, the term before 2004 was 50 years, non-retroactive. So, 1950+50+1=January 1, 2001, which is perfectly well in PD in Singapore. But as per COM:SINGAPORE, URAA date for Singapore was 1996, and this was caught up by the implementation of U.S. copyright overseas, including Singapore, through URAA. Is this old photo unfree for Commons considering the U.S. copyright? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether it's used upon governmental purposes, if yes, {{PD-EdictGov}}, but if not, feel free to request a deletion. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is EdictGov is more for literal laws, executive orders, juridical decisions, etc. Per the Wikipedia article: "It is based on the principle of public policy that citizens must have unrestrained access to the laws that govern them." (w:Edict of government). I don't see how this photo is an edict of government. Intervex (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-positioned recording devices in Syria and Ukraine

I know there's no FOP in either of the countries (though one could argue DM and below-TOO for some buildings), but what about pre-positioned recording devices (kamikaze drone footage, permanently situated cameras, etc)? JayCubby (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NickK: for some Ukrainian copyright insights. In the US, if those are operated by a human operator or specifically placed in order to record an event, they would be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. This goes for the fpv drones as well? I feel they'd fall under the same category as bodycam footage, where there is no originality JayCubby (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be affected by COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings, so they might unlikely be PD in US? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: In Ukraine photographs from pre-positioned recording devices are most likely not copyrighted per Article 8.8, as they are considered photographs that have no signs of originality. For FPV-drones, the question whether there was any creativity involved, if a drone was flying in an unusual trajectory to make a particularly spectacular photo, probably the result is still copyrightable — NickK (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see why being "specifically placed in order to record an event" could be considered relevant to the assessment of creativity under US law in any way. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angle and framing are major parts of the creativity of a photograph. What it captures (unless also arranged by the photographer) is usually irrelevant; the copyrightability would be the same if it caught something interesting versus boring. Not sure why a video camera would be any different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most security cam footage involves minimal creative action; the camera is positioned purely out of practical requirements, and it's continually running, with then the bits submitted for copyright being a tiny snippet of the recorded footage, in a minimally creative snip around the interesting parts. But if you're trying to make a film, then you're controlling the angle and framing with an eye to how the result will look, and instead of something happening by coincidence under the camera, you're acting with creative intent to catch something on camera. I think the phrase comes from a comment on mine on a video from a camera, set to watch a hurricane, that was discussed here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeomap License Conflict

Everyone, I apologize; I may have violated the Commons policy and now feel heavily guilted, especially since all the time and effort I spent on Wikimedia for the past month may be undone.

On this site, https://zenodo.org/records/10659112, I uploaded what appeared to be Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) licensed files (published in 2024) from it to the Commons and other Wikimedia Projects (mainly Wikidata and the English Wikipedia), and modified them to transparent PNGs (example file: File:Mollweide_Paleographic_Map_of_Earth,_120_Ma_(Aptian_Age).jpg).

However, there was ANOTHER license (from 2010 by one of the files' authors, Christopher R. Scotese; http://www.scotese.com/license.htm) I never knew about that had restrictions denying its use on the Commons, quoting:

 These maps may not be copied, resold, used or modified in any manner for commercial purposes, such as consulting reports, trade journals or the popular press, textbooks, videos, educational CD-ROMS, computer animations, museum exhibits, web sites on the Internet or for any other commercial use, without the express written consent of the author.

At this point, there are four things I want to find out:

With the files ON THE WEBSITE shown through the CC BY 4.0 license, do they dominate over Scotese’s license? (their apart by 13–14 years of age)
Can all of Scotese’s PALEOMAP files be used on the Wikimedia Projects, or at the very least the ones on the Zenodo website? (As of this message, I emailed him 2–3 days ago, but I’m becoming restless over it and am considering to call him, as his contact information is on his homepage)
For those same files published ON THE WEBSITE, is it really under the CC BY 4.0 license? It feels misleading at this point, and I want to know the truth.
How do you all feel about this, or how do you think I should respond?

Again, I apologize for this misstep that went over my head. Still, it’s better to express my concerns than keep them to myself, right?

(I originally made this message longer, and sent this message to Wikimedia's Discord page before coming here) — Alex26337 (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First; don't panic :) None of us are infallible, and we're all capable of innocent mistakes (even if there's a mistake here at all).

The fundamental principle here is that if the author has validly published their work under a suitable free license, we can host that work here; even if another copy of the same work published elsewhere has a more restrictive license.

This document has the CC-BY 4.0 licence embedded in it, and I think there's no question that the authors of the paper have released it under that license. At first glance, it looks to me like the supplementary materials on Zenodo are also uploaded there by the authors of those materials, although I haven't been able to locate the specific document that File:Mollweide_Paleographic_Map_of_Earth,_120_Ma_(Aptian_Age).jpg came from to verify its license details. Can you please point me to where you found it?

Materials from Scotese's personal site that are not included in his other joint publications can't be uploaded here; their license is incompatible with the Commons. Did you take any straight from there, or are they all via Zenodo?

--Rlandmann (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the files from the Zenodo site only. As for the file's location, look under "4b1. Paleogeographic Maps (Rectilinear).zip" and "4b2. Paleogeographic Maps (Mollweide).zip". — Alex26337 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the paper itself, Scotese et al, 2024, "The Cretaceous world: plate tectonics, palaeogeography and palaeoclimate", Geological Society, London, Special Publications carries a CC-BY 4.0 license notice both within the paper itself and on the Geological Society website that hosts it. The paper also contains internal links to the the archive on Zenodo (along with an archive of similar material for the Cretaceous). The archives themselves do not contain any other licensing material, and the host page on Zenodo carries a CC-BY 4.0 license notice. Any image from within those archives is very definitely licensed under CC-BY 4.0 and can be hosted on the Commons. Where a valid free license exists, we can use that license, even if the same material is licensed under a less free license elsewhere (and whether the less free license is newer or older than the free license is irrelevant). While I'm sure that @Hemiauchenia: was acting in good faith, their advice to you was mostly misguided and incorrect.

(They are correct though that images from Scotese's own website, not licensed anywhere else, are not free enough for the Commons). --Rlandmann (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, Alex26337's uploads basically mirror the entire map content of Scotese's website to which he has explicitly disallowed commercial use. It seems reasonable to ask whether this was something to which Scotese had properly consented. I am grateful for Alex's decision to email Scotese for clarification. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia @Rlandmann: So after almost a week from sending my message to Scotese, I got an emailed message from him saying I have permission to use the maps from the Zenodo website, and that the license at scotese.com applies ONLY to the maps on that website. Would you guys like me to tell you the whole email word-from-word for proof? — Alex26337 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you reaching out about this. I am willing to take you at your word, but I wouldn't mind seeing the correspondence.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I normally do is forward the email to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) for the record ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ). You will get a case number in response that you can quote in any further discussions. VRT members are able to view the archived email and verify its contents. When you forward the email to the VRT, include a note to say that this is for the record only and that you're not expecting them to take any action.

More generally, to help anyone wanting to re-use these images and who might want to verify the license, it would also be helpful to note exactly which zip file each image came from; this is not strictly needed for the license, but would definitely make prospective re-users' lives easier. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann: Ok, one question though: I know there are a lot of files hanging on this permission statement, so once I get the verifications settled, is it up to the volunteer team to put the VRT ticket statement in all the image's permission boxes, or myself? Also, if it's up to them, should I mention ALL the files I uploaded to the Commons that connect to the confirmation email in my message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? — Alex26337 (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we don't need the VRT to tag the files -- the license information is right there at the source. There's no reasonable reason for anyone to question it. If you hadn't already reached out to Scotese, I wouldn't have suggested there was any need to bother him, let alone involve the VRT.

So, I'd just forward the email to the VRT as an "FYI" only. The only thing that I would mention on each file is the .zip it came from. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using an artist's images off facebook

I'm sorry if this has been explained somewhere, but I get lost in Wikipedia's jungle of editorial advice. I have created the article Thomas Winkler (artist) and have permission from the artist to use all photos and art by him from his facebook account. How do I go about demonstrating that I have this permission? Many thanks in advance! ˜˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SkaraB: See COM:VRT. We need a specific license from the artist, not just a generic, indirectly passed permission. Most likely he will want to use either CC-BY-4.0 or CC-BY-SA-4.0 and will want to specify how he wants to be credited as an author. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I will see if I can figure out how that works and what it all means :-) ˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a look at what you've uploaded so far. Winkler's self portrait and Ahnoff's portrait of Winkler are the simplest cases. To clear these for the Commons, each of those artists would need to provide permission for their image to be hosted here (assuming that Ahnoff still owns the copyright to her photo of Winkler). There's an email template, and also a release generator they could use: here.

The photos of mugs and Christmas baubles are more complex, for two reasons:

because both the art itself and the photographs of the art are subject to separate copyrights
the art and the photographs seem to have been commissioned by Tivoli Gardens. It's possible that Winkler and the photographer (Lassing for the baubles, but maybe the mugs too?) transferred their copyrights to Tivoli Gardens, in which case, they can no longer give the permissions we need; that permission would need to come from Tivoli Gardens. And the only way to know is to contact Winkler and Lassing and ask whether they still own the copyrights or whether the copyrights now belong to Tivoli Gardens.

In all cases, it's really important that artists and creators and copyright holders understand the implications of what they're agreeing to. You say that Winkler has permitted you "to use" his work, but by releasing under a free license, they must understand that this "use" means:

the permission is not just for Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but the whole world
anyone in the world can copy their work for practically any purpose, including making money from the work, or altering the work. So, for example, anyone could just take the baubles designs, edit out the Tivoli name, then print them on their own baubles (or Christmas cards, or table placemats or whatever) to sell without any further permission or need to compensate the artist.
permission cannot be taken back. Once licensed this way, they are permanently giving up almost all control of the work. Technically, they still own the copyright, but are unable to enforce almost any part of it.

So, for a commercial artist, it's a big deal, and few are probably going to agree to such terms for a recent, commercial work. The only way to know is to ask. I'm happy to help with any other questions or clarifications. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for your comments. I had overlooked that images uploaded to Wikipedia can be use in this way – I think I did know it once. So I had taken some of these images from Tivoli's image bank for the press, thinking that if the press could use it so could I. But I see that I was wrong, and I've taken them down.

I've now uploaded an image of five of those cups which Winkler has photographed himself. I can't imagine who would benefit from using those images. Surely if they decided to copy the design onto a cup and sell it, they'd be infringing a different type of copyright – not over the image but over the design? Similarly, if Winkler gives me permission to share a photo of some carrousel with his artwork on it, it doesn't mean that someone can now use his artwork on their own carrousel? I imagine they can make a poster or a postcard of the image or use it in a collage, but the artwork that is depicted cannot be copied and passed on as their property?

Thanks for taking your time, and my apologies if there are things I've misunderstood!

˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean this image -- whether you can imagine how anyone could use the image or not, we still need Winkler to release both the copyright on the photo and the copyright on the mug design (assuming he still owns the copyright; alternatively, we would need Tivoli Gardens to release the copyright on the mug design). Because yes, you're right, the photo and the artwork in the photo are subject to separate copyrights (and we need both elements to be available under a free license).

In your hypothetical example, Winker takes a photo of a carousel with some of his artwork on it. At this point, he owns the copyright on the photo, and presumably still owns the copyright on the artwork, but depending on the terms of his contract with the carousel owner, might not. To host this picture on the Commons, we would need:

Winkler to license the photo under a free license
To check whether he still owns the copyright on the artwork on the carousel, and:

if he still owns the copyright, that he licenses the artwork under a free license or
if the person/organisation that commissioned the artwork owns the copyright now, that they license the artwork under a free license.

The difficulties here are that the Commons only hosts content that is freely usable by anybody for practically any purpose. Normally, when a photographer or an artist gives someone "permission to share" an image on a website, it's a very limited license: in most simple cases, just to use the image on the website. The permission doesn't extend to printing postcards or T-shirts, or any other use, or for anybody other than the website owner to use the image. But hosting on the Commons needs the permission to extend far, far beyond this.

In your hypothetical example, if Winker licensed his photo of the carousel under a free license, but he (or whoever owns the copyright) did not also license the artwork on the carousel under a similar free license, then no, nobody could legally make a poster or postcard of the image.

Finally, a little point, but which might help with understanding: "passing on" somebody else's work as your own would be legally problematic for reasons other than copyright in many jurisdictions and is contrary to the Creative Commons licenses we're discussing here. When I said that creators give up almost all their rights under such licences, the right to be credited for their work is one right they optionally retain. But claiming to be the artist is not necessary for copying. If the artwork on the carousel were freely licensed, then anybody would be free to reproduce it almost however they liked -- for example, a mural painter could include it in a catalog of designs offered to prospective customers: "This one's a design by Thomas Winkler, but it's available for me to paint on your wall." As long as they incorporate a notice somewhere to acknowledge the original artist and the license, they can do this. But they can't claim it to be their own original art. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Cross-posted, without really reading what Rlandmann wrote; he covered some of the same ground, and brought up some different issues.] @SkaraB: let me spell it out a bit more then.

For File:Five mugs designed for Tivoli by Thomas Winkler.jpg, you say the author is "Thomas Winkler for Tivoli"; you probably also want to add that as an attribution for the cc-by-sa-4.0 license. We need an email to the VRT from Winkler himself, granting that license.
For File:Thomas Winkler self portrait.jpg, you say the author is "Thomas Winkler (self portrait)" (which seems a bit odd; I would think it was simplye "Thomas Winkler". Again, you probably also want to add that as an attribution for the cc-by-sa-4.0 license. And again, we need an email to the VRT from Winkler himself, granting that license.
For File:No Wah-Wah.jpg you oddly claim "own work" and say that you are the author. From what you have written here, I assume that is wrong. Once that is corrected, similar considerations arise as for the other two files.

These do not need to be separate emails, just so long as he mentions all the files in question.

By the way, these files all also need categories. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for responding.

From what I understand, if I post a link to Winkler's image on facebook, and he has posted a comment there, saying "I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence.", the he does not need to email the VRT?

As for the portrait of Winkler, I added "self portrait" to credit him as the photographer. I hope that makes sense.

For No Wah-Wah, it is indeed very odd that it says "own work", but I can't figure out how to change it. I'm not sure if this is auto-generated because I originally filled in that I own this work?

Best, ˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, yes, we would consider such a statement to be evidence of permission. In a case like this, it's a little tricky, because we'd need to be sure whether the license covered just the photo, or the artwork depicted in the photo. So, if you ask him to add such a statement to his Facebook, please ask him to clarify exactly what the license covers. (Taken at face value, such a statement would also place the underlying artwork under a free license, which might not be what he intends! And as discussed above, for commissioned work, permission might no longer be his to give anyway...) --Rlandmann (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. It took me some time to find this thread again, sorry for the late response. I read your longer message and I think I now understand everything. It's far more complicated than I thought, and I think I will advise him to remove his licence statements, given that it is presently unclear if they are even valid. Except for the self-portrait which he created and owns. Meanwhile I've been given some fairly stern warnings, so in addition to me taking them down, they will also be deleted.

Thank you very much for your efforts.

˜ SkaraB (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thanks for your patience and understanding here. I just took a look at the self-portrait as well, and in the conversation in the Facebook thread (maybe with you?) Winkler seems concerned about the implications of the CC-BY-SA license, saying it's a little too permissive ("lidt rigelig 'tilladelse'").

Of course, he's already made the license statement in that thread, so technically we could hold him to it, and he has already given away his right to control commercial use of this image. In practice, we try to be a little more lenient on the Commons (a seven-day grace period is common practice) so it would be great if he could quickly clarify what he really wants. (Note that the CC-BY-NC license discussed in that thread is not compatible with the Commons, so isn't an option. Compatible CC licenses are CC-0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA)

And yes, it can be complicated! And especially so in the field of art that you want to contribute to. A good rule of thumb is that if it's an photo taken by anybody other than yourself personally, or any photo taken by anyone of artwork made in the last 100 years or so, expect it to be difficult.

In case it helps, English Wikipedia has a mechanism for hosting a limited amount of non-free content at low resolutions. (This is also complicated, but I'm happy to help you navigate it if you want): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content --Rlandmann (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Navajo Flag copyrighted?

We have many copies of the Navajo flag on Commons. It's from 1968. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States it is possible this flag is copyrighted *if* it was published with notice that it was copyrighted. I searched https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/ for "Navajo flag" and got a few hits [1] [2] [3] but none of them appear to be from the Navajo Nation. Does anybody have any evidence one way or the other whether the flag is copyrighted? Intervex (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it would have been very difficult to retain a copyright for a flag in the U.S. in that era. Each actual flag would be a copy without copyright notice, no? The flag does not contain a copyright symbol. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still new to US copyright law. So does this mean a flag in the US from that era would have to have the actual copyright symbol embedded in the flag? I thought a notice meant a text notice that would accompany the image. Intervex (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would presumably have sufficed always to distribute copies of the flag with a notice, but who ever did that? @Clindberg: do you think I'm wrong about this, and if I am wrong, how would it have worked? - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There had to be a visibly perceptible notice on all distributed copies (or the vast majority). For something permanently placed like a statue, it could be on a marker or pedestal nearby. But even a copyright notice on a book's dust cover was not sufficient to cover the book, since it was removable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, that's intense. Well, that gets me on board with "probably fair to assume it's PD". Intervex (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it would have been difficult. There are a couple of different ways that this could have worked, though. As Jmabel says, probably the most obvious is if all authorized distribution had been via one or a small number of authorized distributors for the flag, who could have ensured that a copyright notice was printed on each authorized copy distributed (this could have been a small notice in an unobtrusive place; see for example many mass-produced toys that have small copyright notices printed on or molded into them).

Or, if all authorized, officially printed and distributed versions of the flag carried copyright notices, my understanding is that the distribution of unauthorized copies without copyright notices would not have voided the artist's copyright (although the distribution of significant numbers of authorized copies without notices probably would have). My understanding is that copyright holders were not obliged to defend their works against unauthorized use in order to maintain their copyrights, in the way that trademark holders are so obliged. @Clindberg: , I'd love to hear your thoughts on this hypothetical scenario.

And, in saying all that, these are very specific hypothetical scenarios, and I don't think we need to worry about them without any further evidence that something like this had been the case. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The law did allow for a small fraction of copies to be accidentally distributed without notice -- but I think court cases for those have been between 1 and 2 percent of all copies for cases which kept copyright. The Copyright Compendium First edition (see links on this page), particularly section 4.1.2 but all of part 4 is about notices) did mention that if the first edition had no notice, even if a relative few copies, copyright would still be lost. Unauthorized copies would not lose copyright, correct. Copyright owners can selectively sue -- the lack of suing one infringer does not help a second infringer, to the best of my knowledge. In this case, a seal graphic appears to actually be part of the law[4] -- that much may also be PD-EdictGov. Unsure what the law said about the flag, whether it was a general written design (anyone could make independently copyrightable drawings based on that), or if an actual graphic was part of the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- I'm especially grateful for your check of my understanding around the effect (or lack thereof) of unauthorized copies. So, it seems not quite so difficult for a flag to have kept its copyright pre-1978, at least in theory. (Not that we have any reason to think that anything of the sort happened in this case.) It does make me wonder about the channels through which copies of the flag were manufactured and distributed early on though.

Interesting too that the seal in the Code bears only the most passing resemblance to the seals in the various versions of the flag. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOO UK after the THJ v Sheridan decision

Sheridan replaced the old "skill and labour" test (which was applied in Future and Ladbroke, both of which are currently cited on COM:TOO UK) with the new, "more demanding", "author’s own intellectual creation" test. This seems to have a broader reach than just digital reproductions of 2D images, and likely, in my view, means that the threshold of originality in the UK is now much closer to that of the US. But this doesn't seem to have been discussed much, so I don't want to make any drastic changes quite yet. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

I should note that this came up in a DR. (Cc. @DeFacto) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdaniels5757: You're right, but the question is whether the UK courts will continue to apply the new threshold after Brexit because the reason for the change was EU legislation... Gnom (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question about this. THJ is a post-Brexit decision and explicitly says this threshold is incorporated into British law post-Brexit as part of the EU acquis. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you – but you never know. Gnom (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea of a precedential legal system is that you are supposed to know, though. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courts can be inconsistent sometimes too. My lingering doubt is more that the Sheridan case was about something that occurred when EU law was binding within the UK. The ruling does say Section 1(1)(a) of the 1988 Act must, so far as possible, be interpreted in accordance with Article 2(a) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society ("the Information Society Directive") as interpreted prior to 31 December 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. That does seem to suggest that aspect of the EU case law remains part of UK law, not including any newer CJEU decisions but including older ones as precedents, unless it gets explicitly repealed. But, it could maybe be read that acts from 2021 and later may be judged differently. The ruling was also before the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, which could affect things, though it's not immediately apparent that it will. I to tend to agree that we should probably follow the EU definition until a UK court finds a reason to diverge, if ever. A ruling in this area could be one way to reinforce the UK is no longer part of the EU, but it may also be an aspect that is easier for commerce with the EU if the definitions agree. But given commentary, I think we should probably shift to Sheridan as being the correct threshold in the UK. Any future clarifications from the CJEU on the matter won't be binding in the UK but they may certainly take them into account. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to @Clindberg Gnom (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA-4.0-Picture retouched

Hello,

I uploaded a pict, that was a little bit retouched by me: File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X-foreground-bottom-right-retouched.jpg. Could you please double-check, if my data are sufficient (base is File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X.jpg). In the past I could put in the original file and the fotographer with the upload. If something has to be corrected, please change it and let me know. Thank you very much in advance. Best regards Wikisympathisant (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I found a better Retouched-brick and categories were automatically reduced, now this topic should be ok. So it remains the question about change of the upload-procedure. KR, Wikisympathisant (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X-foreground-bottom-right-retouched.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikisympathisant: looks fine to me. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti in Rome

Hello,
I took several pictures of the building of the Metropoliz in Rome. I know that there is no freedom of panorama in Italy – but at the same time pictures like this one and this one do not seem to have a problem (?)
Here's my question: Can I upload pictures on Commons with CC BY 4.0 of the Metropoliz-building, resembling this one or this one? Meaning: Pictures of the building from the outside with Graffiti on the walls? Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24): I am afraid but the two example photos that are already on Commons would most probably need to be deleted because the graffitis are so prominent in them that they are not permissible under the de minimis principle (in German: de:Beiwerk). What you could do, however, only upload those of your photos where the graffitis are only visible "in the background". We can also help you with this selection if you want. Gnom (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnom, thank you for the helpful answer. Please take a look at these 3 pictures: 1, 2, 3. I uploaded them after asking Raymond for advice. I understood that they should be ok – are they? Regarding the rest of my pictures, I will try to get CC BY 4.0-releases by the artists for them. Wish me luck :-D --Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24), 3 is definitely fine, 1 should be OK as well, but the design in 2 is most probably copyrighted... Gnom (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom I thought 2 would be old enough but it is based on the motive of File:We Can Do It! NARA 535413 - Restoration 2.jpg. Per above image description it is not copyrighted in the US. But maybe I am on the wrong side? Raymond (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I would say that this derivative work of the public domain original is creative enough to be copyrighted in itself. Gnom (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for your review. I am sorry @Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24). Raymond (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, good to know. Will add this picture to the ones that I will try to get a release by the artists for. Thank you, Raymond and Gnom. Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright dilemma in SVG military insignia

I'm interested in uploading self-made SVG versions of the Turkish military insignia to feature in Wikipedia (regiment-level bodies). The issue is that (on the contrary to most countries) the Turkish copyright law does not consider government emblems/works created by pubic servants in public domain. They also don't have licenses on government websites. Therefore, as a Commons newbie, I cannot find any way to legitimately upload such content. Some people I have seen just credited such works for themselves, and claimed they are the sole owners of the work, but I think such an action would not be allowed. Thanks! AscendencyXXIV (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @AscendencyXXIV, unfortunately there is no "trick" that we can apply here, other than hosting any insignia that are below the threshold of originality (TOO). Gnom (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or old enough to be out of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that is a continuation of a discussion at [5]. Please, @AscendencyXXIV, when continuing a conversation in a different, even a more appropriate place, link what has already been discussed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff project for logos

Currently Commons hosts some logos and Wikipedia some others, normally based on copyright status.

Many logos are registered as trademarks and as such published in relevant publications.

Would there be a potential to create a spin-off project for logos to describe and sort them on a fair use basis? When needed, Wikipedia could use them directly.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Enhancing999, please note that you need to distinguish between copyright and trademark protection, which are very different from each other. Because trademark law does not affect Commons, anything that is protected as a trademark can still be hosted on Commons without any problems. However, we need to respect copyright law, and many logos are protected not only as trademarks, but also as works protected by copyright. Gnom (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What problem is this meant to solve? It is rarely difficult to find an online copy of a Wikipedia-notable logo. For those Wikipedias that allow fair use, someone should easily be able to find and upload any given "fair-use" logo when needed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of projects that need to upload it separately, plus there isn't really an advantage of uploading the few that can go here.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there were to be a spinoff project to allow sharing of fair use images across WMF sister projects, I can't think of any reason to make it specific to logos. However, I believe any online repository of unfree material would probably go against WMF policy. As mentioned at meta:Non-free content, Commons is the one sister project that is explicitly forbidden even to set up an "Exemption Doctrine Policy," a policy on conditions under which we would accept non-free content. That is clearly because WMF didn't want to get in the position of hosting non-free media. It's been a couple of decades, and imaginably WMF could be interested in changing their stance on this, but why would logos be a special case in contradistinction to any other non-free media used by multiple sister projects? - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is a spin-off project. I agree this wouldn't fit at Commons, thus the suggestion to start with.

It's possible that the approach is useful for other fields (other projects), but any such project would need a clear scope.

The question here is if this could work out copyright-wise.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's a big existing problem that I'm not seeing and that this would address, but given that:

the WMF's position on fair use is predicated on whether an image is actually being used on a WMF project; the image can't just live unused in a repository
the conditions (and therefore rationale) under which a non-free image can be used on a WMF project vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
various WMF projects are able to host their own non-free content in jurisdictions where it is possible for them to do so, and each must host a rationale for how and why the image qualifies for fair use in their own jurisdiction for each time it is used in that project
such a project would need a corps of volunteers to oversee the repository, whereas in the current status quo, volunteers from each project look after their own fair-use images based on their own local knowledge, experience, and linguistic ability

"Could work out?" Sure. Very many things are possible if someone is committed to throwing enough time and money at them! But I think that a Commons-like repository to host images that might or might not be fair use in one jurisdiction or another seems like a very expensive solution for very little benefit over the way things work right now. Maybe ask yourself what actual problem this would solve, and go from there. I don't think there are big economies of scale to be found here. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maps from New Zealand

Appreciated community: I need your help.

I'm considering upload to Commons this map and this other map. However, I'm confused about the copyright issues.

While in the pages linked they say about these maps that "No known copyright restrictions", the rules of Commons about intelectual property rules of New Zealand contradict these declarations.

What can I do in regards to these maps? Thanks in advance. Babelia (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a very old map. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the first one, the map itself is PD, the images accompanying it are likely also PD, text on the bottom is from 1969. Abzeronow (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the 1808/1812 original of the first map by Laurie & Whittle, which in this form is certainly free of copyright. On the modern map, the kangaroo in the bottom right appears to be inspired by George Stubbs' painting but is sufficiently different as to probably be separately copyrightable. Cook's portrait is after Nathaniel Dance-Holland's official portrait of him, probably also sufficiently different as to be separately copyrightable. It's probably a similar story for the various other images that I either can't make out or don't recognise. The text at the bottom of the map is modern and copyrightable, credited to "A. D. McKinlay, M.A.". New Zealand copyright on literary works expires 50 years after the death of the author. An Arthur David McKinlay published books on New Zealand history between 1933 and 1969. Separately, an Arthur David McKinlay born in 1899 obtained an M.A. from a New Zealand university in 1930 and died in New Zealand in 1977, so could well be the same person. If so, the text will be protected by copyright until 2028.

As to the modern images in the map, it was published in 1969, and New Zealand copyright on artistic works expires 50 years after publication (2020) for anonymous works. So the question is, can we identify the artist? A bit of detective work might be necessary to see if there's any record of who they might have been.

The second map is by the New Zealand Department of Land and Surveys, a government department, today Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). New Zealand government works are subject to Crown copyright which lasts for 100 years. Unless the copyright on this specific map has been released, its copyright will expire in 2075. I note that the copy hosted by the National Library of New Zealand says "This image may be used, copied and re-distributed free of charge in any format or media", which is not free enough for Commons because we need to allow commercial, for-profit re-use as well. You could check with LINZ to ask about the copyright status. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated @Rlandmann:

In regards to the first map, the page I linked says:

What can I do with this item?
Share it - This item is suitable for copying and sharing with others, without further permission.
Modify it - This item is suitable for modifying, remixing and building upon, without further permission.
Use it commercially - This item is suitable for commercial use, without further permission.

As for the second map, the LINZ site says that:

Unless otherwise specified, content produced by Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. In essence you are free to copy, distribute, and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand and abide by the other licence terms.

So, what do you think? Babelia (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact Auckland Libraries to clarify the copyright of the image in question, some of their images are CC-0 which are listed as 'No known copyright restrictions'. There is a form on the file page to do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: I think I can guess what you mean to say, but "No known copyright restrictions" is not CC-0. The only way something becomes CC-0 is for someone who owns the copyright to overtly offer the CC-0 license. Something that aged out of copyright decades ago cannot possible be CC-0. - Jmabel ! talk 06:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an image listed as no known copyright restrictions that was taken recently enough that it couldn't be PD, after emailing the library I was told it was released without copyright (or something to that effect). I can try and see what exactly was said. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Babelia: The notice on the first map also says that you "You must always check with Auckland Libraries to confirm the specific terms of use" (emphasis added). In this case, I'd be asking them who Hooker and Co. Ltd. are/were and how Auckland Libraries know that copyright has expired or was transferred into the Public Domain (since it appears that at least one author has not been dead long enough).

Auckland Libraries also notes the Islands of the South Pacific map as "No known copyright restrictions", which contradicts what LINZ has to say, so I think we need to be careful about taking the Auckland Libraries website at face value for archival content.

Have you been able to find Islands of the South Pacific on the LINZ website? The map predates Creative Commons licenses by nearly 30 years, so unless it has ever been re-published under this license, or you can find/obtain a statement that LINZ applies this license retroactivally to all material previously published by them and their predecessor organizations, it would still appear to be covered by Crown copyright. Assuming LINZ is prepared to make such a statement, obtaining one and forwarding it to the VRT would be incredibly useful to opening the door to a large amount of New Zealand cartography that could be hosted on the Commons. It would be really great if you could get a definitive answer. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is File:Muwekma Ohlone Tribe flag.png above TOO?

Is File:Muwekma Ohlone Tribe flag.png above TOO in the USA? The picture of the dancer in the middle is from a 1845 painting, so that element of the flag is PD. The shape that the dancer is in the middle of is what I would like feedback on. I leaning towards it being above TOO given the complexity of its colouration and shape, but would like confirmation. Intervex (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that simple geometric design is not original enough and probably falls under the Threshold of Originality. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 22:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also would think that this is below the TOO for the US. Only the texture makes me wonder, but I think even this is probably not enough. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, seems like the consensus is below TOO, but kinda borderline. I've marked it as PD-flag and I guess we'll see if anybody disputes it. Intervex (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says it's based on an 1845 painting so I think we're ok. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only the dancer is from the painting. The question is whether the geometric shape behind the dancer is above or below TOO. Intervex (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The texture is questionable. The shape however seems simple enough to me AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is File:Flag of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.gif above TOO?

Is File:Flag of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.gif above Threshold of Originality in the United States? The flag features a geometric pattern, but it's a complex one. Its colouring is also complex, with what appears to be shading and small details. I'm leaning to this being above TOO but would like confirmation since I'm uncertain. Intervex (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the design, coloring and shading as well as lettering position make this meet the Threshhold of Originality and therefore copyright applies. It's funny you've picked the two indigenous peoples I'm most familiar with. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 22:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is above the threshold, for the same reasons of complexity that you give. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Above TOO it is. I haven't been able to find any source corroborating a free license, so I've tagged it as NSD. If anybody knows anything about when it was made please share in case it is PD due to age. Intervex (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Croatian Ministry of Defence

Is image published by Croatian MoD is can be considered as public domain? for example these images. It's terms of use states:
Copyright © 2008-2023 Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Croatia.
All rights reserved.
Contents from these pages can be transferred without special permission, with reference to the source. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a copyright notice, so it's definitely not public domain.

As to whether it's under a sufficiently free license for the Commons, it's uncertain. The license statement allows images to be "transferred", which I take to mean re-published as-is, but it's not certain (to me, anyway), whether modification of the images is permitted, which we require for the Commons. There's an email address on the page, so it would be worth getting in touch with their media team to verify that edits and alterations to the images are permitted. Please forward any response to the VRT ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ) for the record. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann: Thank you for your suggestion. I've sent an email to the media team of Croatian MoD as suggested.

I asked here because I've seen other contributors upload images from their website, but the vague terms of use leave me unsure if these are compliant or potential copyvio. I'll forward any response I receive to the VRT for documentation. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about the copyright tag for File:Flag of Mohawk Warrior Society.svg?

So this flag is much older than Creative Commons, and the license appears to have picked by user who made the SVG version. I'm not sure it's the right copyright tag for this flag though.

You can read about the flag's history here: [6]. It was first made by Karoniaktajeh Louis Hall in what is considered Canada, but the flag is in protest of Canadian colonialism. It feels inappropriate to try and apply Canadian copyright law to it. (It is recent enough and above Threshold of Originality that by default it would be copyrighted in Canada.)

Hall died in 1993. In his will, Hall left the original paintings to the Warrior Society in Kahnawake (see link above). Kahente Horn-Miller from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake has gone on record saying [7]:

"This image may officially belong to the Men’s Society of Kahnawá:ke but it is meant for everyone to use. If someone sells a t-shirt or a pin with the image on it, so be it. If someone uses aspects of it to communicate their own message, so be it. Copyright and exclusion are the antithesis to this flag’s meaning. Karoniaktajeh would be happy to see that the message of unity is spreading further, as he intended it to."

I'm not sure what copyright tag would be most suitable for this flag. It certainly seems intended to have a free license, but I can't find any writing online from Hall that spells out any terms of use. Creative commons seems anachronistic. Suggestions? Intervex (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The various CC licenses are specific in nature, and so only the person who owns the copyright to a work can place it under these licences. That is, even if a copyright holder specifies terms that overlap completely with CC-BY (for example), it's not actually CC-BY unless the copyright holder says it is.

The questions, as I see them are:

is Dr Horn-Miller empowered under either Canadian or tribal law to make this statement on behalf of the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke?
The statement as supplied says that free re-use without further permission is OK, does not ask for attribution, and specifically allows commercial use, but it's not clear to me whether derivative works are allowed. Are they? (Keeping in mind that permitting such use would also permit disrespectful or disparaging use)

I would start by contacting Dr Horn-Miller for advice, and the question might ultimately be one for the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke directly.

Assuming there really are no restrictions on use, then {{PD-because}} is probably the best fit we have, together with an explanation of the rationale. I'd also forward all correspondence to the VRT to keep on file. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that "uses aspects of it to communicate their own message" could be sufficient for allowing for derivative works, if this is a valid granting of license in the first place, especially with the final phrase that supports a reading that releases the flag into the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading, I agree with you on the derivative work question (although clarification would be nice). --Rlandmann (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Copyright and exclusion are the antithesis to this flag’s meaning" sounds like about as explicit a public domain dedication as there can be. This is an explicit renunciation of copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In isolation, I agree. Against that, the first sentence sounds like a statement of ownership and license to use, so I'd like to be more certain about what exactly is intended here. The two parts of the statement seem contradictory to me (acknowledging also that this might be a difficulty of trying to model a system of law with a different and perhaps incompatible one). --Rlandmann (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

en:File:Mariya_Petrovna_Nesterenko.jpg

Is there a way to keep track of files like this, which will enter the public domain in 2031/2 (author died in 2006)? JayCubby (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: Hi, Died in 2006? So you probably mean that it can be restored in 2077. It can be added in this page. Yann (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd also add to it the Undelete in 2077 category, why did you think it would be restored in 2032? Abzeronow (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR has a copyright term of life + 25 years, though the US has life + 70 years (I may have forgotten about the US aspect...).

A second question:

I don't have a lot of experience with the Hirtle chart, but could it be PD due to formality issues in 2031. JayCubby (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Russia extended copyright a few times since the USSR, COM:Russia, Russia is now Life + 70 (with a 4 year extension to those who worked during the en:Great Patriotic War (term).) Abzeronow (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! That probably settles the affair then. JayCubby (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was never on Commons, I don't think we usually track that. But, yes, Category:Undelete in 2077 is where we would track that if we do. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images from New Zealand Archives with improper licences

Many images have been transferred to commons Category:Images from Archives New Zealand from the Archives New Zealand Flickr account: [8] and all of these images are licenced as CC BY 2.0. The problem is this licence is innacurate, many items are PD and many items are copyrighted despite the tag uploaded.

There are almost 10,000 files uploaded from this account (assuming they are all in the category, some might be uncategorised), pretty much all are incorrectly licenced and many are copyright violations. For a very obvious example I had: File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg deleted. The photo can be seen here: [9] The New Zealand Archives may have a copy of the book in their collection but they obviously do not own the copyright to it, which belongs to the publisher/author still.

Correctly licencing these images will be a very tedious task but in the meantime I think it would be good to disallow automated uploads from the Flickr account as the licences provided cannot be trusted. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuk. I've just been through an analogous process with a few thousand images from the US National Weather Service published under an ambiguous and often wrong general disclaimer. I've observed a similar problem with the organisation's Flickr stream too.

I'm willing to lend a hand with any verification or clean-up efforts. Where do you plan to start? --Rlandmann (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My plan was just go look through images as I had time (although I'd certainly never get through it all on my own), correct the category and nominate for deletion if it isn't PD/copyright belonging to Archives NZ.

I've decided to be bold and create a sub-category for Images from Archives New Zealand that have been looked at, to avoid volunteers looking at the same images: Category:Images from Archives New Zealand with verified licence. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help out! Are there opinions on whether the archives have the authority to license Crown works? Felix QW (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their copyright information page suggests that they do have the authority to release Crown Copyright material, and that they are conscious of what they are doing when applying the CC license to their works. In that case, this would only affect privately held copyright; even copyright in the picture book you mentioned above will probably be held by the Crown. Felix QW (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book isn't CC BY 2.0 or else anyone could publish it. I cannot find a single source besides the Flickr page which lists it as CC BY 2.0. They may have permission to release Crown works as CC BY 2.0, the problem is they don't correctly licence uploads to Flickr so it isn't possible to know, based on that alone, if a work is able to be licenced on Commons or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said they were licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr? How would that not be valid then, if they had rights to license it there? If the work was Crown Copyright to begin with, it would seem that is valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: I think you need to read the discussion more closely. As you yourself write, "if they had rights to license it there… If the work was Crown Copyright to begin with". According to the above, there is no particular reason to think they had the rights and a great deal of reason to think it was not Crown Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the description at the source of the deleted file: Archives New Zealand holds a number of Ready to Read books, as well as their original artwork commissioned by the Ministry of Education. In those days, anything even published or commissioned by the government was Crown Copyright. Even in 1984 -- it did not change in the UK until 1989. By that description, it would seem to almost certainly be Crown Copyright. Why is there no particular reason to think otherwise? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because every other source about the book has it listed as copyrighted and there are no digital copies of the book itself/reprints, which one might expect if it wasn't protected. A good portion of their uploads are PD yet licenced as CC BY 2.0 which shows they don't correctly licence things.

[10] for example, PD Image but licenced as CC BY 2.0

This one is licenced but they don't know the author: [11], so how can they have the rights to it?

[12] this one is from a copyright file, so they clearly don't have the rights to the image. Maybe it is PD, but it certainly won't belong to them. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the contradiction here - the book is copyrighted, and presumably not under a free license. However, that doesn't make it unrealistic for the Crown to license individual pictures from the book, as they did when they posted them on the Flickr feed. In any case, the might make more sense to file an undeletion request rather than continuing here, and then depending on how that goes we may have a better idea as to how to continue with the general cleanup effort. Courtesy ping to Yann as the deleting admin of File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg. Felix QW (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The license was reviewed, so I restored the file, and created a regular DR instead: Commons:Deletion requests/File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg. Yann (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: Yes it's copyrighted. The book is from 1984, commissioned by the government, and is Crown Copyright (regardless of author) that will not expire for a long, long time. The New Zealand Archives has the right to license that, and it appears they did for a couple of particular images (not the entire book). The book and images are certainly not public domain, but it appears the images on Flickr have a free license. Nothing about any of that is contradictory. The second one of Prince Charles, if they know it was from a government photographer but not the identity, it's the same situation. The other possibility is material donated to them (along with copyright). They appear to come from slides in their possession (similar one here). When they get bulk archives from government departments, individual authors are often not known (similar to US National Archives material). The third one correct, they would not own the copyright. However it appears to be a pseudonymous publication from 1932, which would have expired after 50 years. The 1994 New Zealand law was still 50 years from making available to the public for pseudonymous works, so it would appear to still have been PD on the URAA date, so copyright would not have been restored in the US either. That appears to be a photo of the pamphlet and not a scan, and thus per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, it may have a copyright (especially under New Zealand law which is taken from older UK law). The pamphlet would be PD, but I guess the CC-BY license would be for the photo itself, in case there is a question. {{Licensed-PD-Art}} might be a better tag for that, if it's uploaded here. Either way, a CC license on a PD work is not reason for deletion. Anyone can make mistakes (Wikimedia editors included); it would appear that the New Zealand Archives has a pretty good grasp of copyright so would not assume there are gross mistakes; their material would most likely either be Crown Copyright or have an expired copyright in New Zealand, even if they reflexively add the CC-BY license to all of them. The usual concern there would be a work which is public domain in New Zealand but restored by the URAA in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Either way, a CC license on a PD work is not reason for deletion.

No, but consistently incorrectly licencing work means a CC BY 2.0 cannot be taken at face value. If this was not a government account we wouldn't be giving leeway to incorrectly tagging PD work as being own.

This is PD NZ for example: [13] but won't become PD in the US until 2031 [14] Regardless it should not have a CC BY 2.0 tag. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament, 10th term

There are 662 files in Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term, seemingly all uploaded by User:Jcornelius @Jcornelius: .

They are all drawn from https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/

Webpages such as https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/photo/irish-meps-official-portraits-10th-parliamentary-term_20240617_MULLOOLY_Ciaran_IE_009 indicate that only an attribution is required for these images to be used by the public.

However, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legal-notice/en/ contradicts this, stating As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it.

This very, very unfortunate line of text suggests the images on www.europarl.europa.eu may be under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives license.

Which view is correct? Are these files under a useable Attribution license, or are they under a Attribution-NoDerivatives license?

Does EU law supersede the legal notice at https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/?

I would love for it to be the case that these files are usable but I myself was previously told they are not. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general legal notice with its ND term explicitly says that it is "a general rule". And even if it didn't, for any given page or piece of content, I would always privilege its own specific notice over a more general notice. Consider the alternative: if the general rule says that generally re-use is OK, but we found a piece of content marked "all rights reserved", we would not think that the general rule covered it.

In this case, I think the image you've linked and any like it are attribution only. As usual though, if in doubt, I recommend contacting the copyright holder or publisher for clarification. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, they're not under a Creative Commons license either way. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV.webm

I don't want to upload a copyvio. Just making sure that CCTV footage is OK in New York, people over at the associated talk page are citing intellectual property as a reason this isn't ok. JayCubby (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being CCTV has no bearing -- the question is if there is at least a bit of creativity in the resulting expression. It is possible that someone positioning that camera may have done enough for a copyright, unless the positioning was obvious. This video has a U.S. copyright registration, for one example. I don't think there is clear case law either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be more and more of this type of image uploaded either to Commons or locally to English Wikipedia under a {{PD-automated}} license in recent years, but I'm not sure whether there's been sufficient US case law to make this clear beyond a shadow of doubt despite Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-automated. For the moment, though, Commons seems to be OK with this. I guess in this case it would depend as to whether there was any human input involved in setting up the camera to create this footage. One thing to remember, though, is that whether Commons can host and image and how that image is ultimately used by English Wikipedia or any other WMF project are essentially two different questions. The first question can be resolved here on Commons, but the other question probably needs to be discussed locally on the project where the image is intended to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is input, I suppose, in setting up a camera so as to capture a specific area, but my sense is that such authorship doesn't really constitute originality (never mind the fact that the people who set up a CCTV cam probably aren't the camera owners). We'll see I guess. JayCubby (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The clip being used here contains original work by the New York Times (their graphic at the beginning of video)

The clip being used here uses the same but from the New York Post.

If either of these publications reproduced the CCTV video obtained by the opposing publication, they would absolutely be the subject of a lawsuit which they'd probably lose. I don't think we should be reproducing the work of either of these publications. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the clips, not Wikipedia pages they were once used on. I only see the New York Post one, which is on Commons: File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV (NY Post).webm. I don't see much likelihood that either publication would sue; the Post copyright would be pretty thin, and it wouldn't look good on Times to use the work of the Post. Commons:PD-Art has long set the precedence that we use public domain works from other publications. It would be good to remove the added material, but legally, the Post logo is PD-text, so that's not the big copyright concern.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organisational Usernames self-licensing as 'own-work'

It's come to my attention that these users have uploaded a batch of images, mostly used on McAslan - Wikipedia two of the users' accounts are organisational entities, not individuals. Is this allowed, It's not clear to me that an organisational account can self-license images as the 'sole copyright holder'?

Special:ListFiles/John_McAslan_+_Partners - Organisational account, licensed as 'own work'
Special:ListFiles/Philippa_Hurst - Uploaded images with (c) Hufton+Crow but licensed them as 'own work'
Special:ListFiles/Hufton+Crow - Organisational account, licensed as 'own work' JeffUK (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are not OK without a permission via COM:VRT. I tagged 2 of these files. In addition, it needs to be clarify about using multiple accounts from the same organization. The 2 oldest accounts do not have recent edits, so a request for check user cannot be done. @JeffUK: You must inform users when you report them somewhere. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> It's not clear to me that an organisational account can self-license images as the 'sole copyright holder'?

Why not? Corporations can be copyright holders. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States. But not everywhere. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No answer from these accounts, so Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hufton+Crow and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by John McAslan + Partners. Yann (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1943 movie poster

File:Girl Crazy.webp was recently uploaded as PD as copyright was not renewed. Assuming this is right (it seems rare it was renewed?) are other versions such as this one similarly uploadable? CMD (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're different works, so their copyright status needs to be assessed separately. This version of the poster is big enough for me to make out a copyright notice, but I can't actually read it to see who the copyright holder was. Copyright for a 1943 work was due for renewal in 1971-72, and I can't find an artwork or "commercial print or label" renewal for "Girl Crazy" around that time. That, and as you say, renewals were relatively rare, makes me think this is almost certainly OK. I'd be happier if I could see the name of the copyright holder though. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found a 3rd version here. The copyright notice is identical for all 3, it's unclear, but from the third version you can see it's two words and the second one is "incorporated". Could it be "Harms incorporated"? That would make it en:T. B. Harms & Francis, Day & Hunter, Inc. CMD (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's Loew's Incorporated. --Rosenzweig τ 13:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks :) CMD (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rosenzweig. The only thing Loew's Inc. renewed in that time period was some Wizard of Oz-themed writing paper for children.

However, the copyright on Girl Crazy was renewed (L13168, August 6, 1970), so any stills on the various posters that are from the movie itself (rather than a publicity photo taken during production or rehearsal, or an alternate take) are not free and make the overall poster unfree. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The posters were certainly published before the film, so they can't be derivative works of the film. Yann (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know that all three versions of this poster (and which one(s)?) were published after the film? (Keeping in mind that "published" in the US could be all kinds of distribution, or even offers of distrubution, many of which could have happened long before even the first screening took place.)

The second question I guess is (assuming that these are stills from the final, copyrighted version of the film) whether, even if the posters were published earlier, the renewal of the film's copyright preserved the copyright in the stills which would otherwise have lapsed when the posters' copyrights lapsed. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The renewal of a copyright in a film would not cause the renewal of a separate copyright in any other work, even posters or other images associated with the film. They would have had to have been renewed separately. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution (or offers to distribute) the trailers and posters for a film would have occurred before the film itself was actually distributed or definitively offered for distribution (and these promotional materials were used in the lead-up to the film's actual release). This earlier publication is why such items are not derivative works of the later-published item, as @Yann says. When this happened, whatever contents first published in those materials — even if later also published in the final film — would enter the public domain (if published without a notice) or eventually expire with the work within which those materials were first published (where the poster or trailer's copyright was not renewed). Therefore, certain frames from full films (which remain under copyright generally) are often in the public domain.

I would also tentatively draw a distinction between two kinds of offer of distribution of work, which may be relevant for determining the publication date of various materials. Let's call these a conceptual and a real offer. A conceptual offer can be made even before the work "offered" for distribution has been created. For instance, I can promise to send you a book when I am done writing it, or (more commonly) you could sign up for a subscription to my magazine. Maybe when you subscribe to the magazine you have, in some sense, taken me up on an offer to receive my next twelve monthly issues. Despite this, the issue I publish next year is not published when this "conceptual offer" is made, but instead when that issue is tangibly put into distribution or "really" offered.

Along the same lines, I am not sure that an offer to distribute a work which is conditioned on its non-exploitation until a certain date results in the publication of a work before the final date on which its exploitation is actually allowed. For instance, let's imagine a movie that premiered on January 1. The film would probably need to have been factually distributed to the theaters even before the new year struck, but, if distributed under the proviso that it is not to be exploited until January 1, then perhaps the year of publication is the later year. This is a little complicated because the publication of films was tied not only to exhibition but also to the ability to purchase/rent copies from the general distributors. But you can also think of a book that is generally published on January 1; the bookstores must have been able to buy and receive their wholesale stock before then, but, if that stock is sold to them on the condition that it not be disseminated before January 1, then I would think that general publication only occurs on January 1. If we go by that standard, then we should count movies as being published on their actual date of release, which is the first date on which the purchased copies could be normally exploited. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- do you know of some case law around "Therefore, certain frames from full films (which remain under copyright generally) are often in the public domain"? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that was first published in a trailer with no notice (the vast majority in that era), or on which the copyright was not renewed, is in the public domain. Trailers tend to contain some frames which are also in the actual movie. Even if the full movie as a whole is under copyright, the frames which entered the public domain via inclusion in the trailer are not copyrighted. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One consideration is that the movie is based on a 1930 stage musical, which is still under copyright for another year (renewed in 1957). The posters could be considered derivative works of the musical. But the posters in question contain only generic elements like a man and a woman in cowboy costumes, not any copyrightable elements of expression from the musical, so I don't think they would be considered infringing. Toohool (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the musical in question wouldn't be PD-US until 2026, but nothing in this poster is a derivative work of that musical. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Question

I am sending on behalf of another user, who told me that he uploaded this image: Gianni Matragrano.png. I noticed this and asked him to message the creator of the image (as he did not make it.). The creator of the image, who is Gianni Matragrano, said he could upload the image. What copyright template should I do if he did not ever license it (eg creative commons.) what template should I use?

SUMMARY: An uploader of File:Gianni Matragrano.png has gotten permission from the person who took the image to upload it to commons, but at the moment the license is not specified. What template should I use? Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: File:Gianni Matragrano.png. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooldudeseven7: sorry, but "you can upload the image to Commons" is not enough, nor can we allow an individual user to just say they have permission (or anyone could say they had permission for anything).

Rather than "you can upload the image to Commons" we need a specific free license that explicitly allows derivative works and is not limited to non-commercial use.

Rather than you asserting you have permission, we need that grant of license either (1) to be in a public-facing statement on a website or social media account clearly under control of the copyright-holder (probably not practical in this case, because it is not immediately obvious who would be the copyright-holder) or (2) through the COM:VRT process, which is what I recommend in this case. Note that for VRT, the email must come from the copyright-holder, not from (or via) a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is from the copyright holder. Do I need to provide actual proof of the email? Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owner needs to contact the VRT. Simple instructions are here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates --Rlandmann (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will contact the creator of the image. Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claws in logos

I know that TOO in the US is pretty high, although some exceptions indicated on this page make me doubt about this logo, which depicts a simple monogram with a claw in the middle of both initials.

My question is, is the claw figure original enough to be considered under copyright? A similar college sports logo (Clemson University) is hosted here under a PD-pre1978 license so I can't be sure if this logo would be copyrightable in case of having been created after that date. Fma12 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that claws are above TOO in the US. Intervex (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the claws are above the TOO in the US. There's creative expression here that goes beyond simple geometric shapes. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not a COM:NETCOPYVIO?

This picture was uploaded to commons in 2019. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sony-playstation_prototype.jpg I found the exact photo in full resolution on Reddit which was posted in May 2018. The shadow of photographer, composition and presence of personal items at the edge of the item are exactly the same, so no reasonable person would believe these are from a different photo. Yann says that it is not a copyright violation and removed my speedy deletion request without offering any explanation in edit summary or otherwise.

Just because an uploader grabbed some random item off the web and labeled it as free for all to use, or "their own work" doesn't make it so. Can someone explain what I'm missing here or is Yann's assertion even correct? Graywalls (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done OK deleted. Yann (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: , I believe I am owed an explanation in this situation where you removed my CSD claiming it was "not a copyright violation" and demanded that it be sent to nomination. The netcopyvio situation was clearly explained in speedy tag and source clearly indicated. Graywalls (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Eckersley posters

The English graphic designer Tom Eckersley was responsible for several wartime UK government posters, such as this one. The English Wikipedia article does not make it sound as if he were an official of the Crown. In that case, they would presumably still be copyrighted since Eckersley died in 1997. I just wanted to check the reasoning held up before I file a DR. Felix QW (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't seem to have produced his work as an employee, so to claim (expired) Crown copyright, we would need to see a notice to that effect (I can't read the text at the bottom of the poster you linked, nor find a higher-resolution version online) or some kind of verification that Eckersley transferred his copyright to the Crown. COM:ONUS places the burden of that proof on the uploader or people arguing to keep the images here, and in the absence of such evidence, they're presumably unfree for the reason that you give. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand Crown copyright, even transferring your copyright to the Crown does not render it "Crown Copyright" in the sense of making the shorter term applicable; See for instance page 5 of this guidance. Felix QW (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that makes the distinction abundantly clear. In which case, it's irrelevant what arrangement Eckersley had with the government; his works are protected by copyright until 2068. Good find! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't seem to have produced his work as an employee — what source of information do you have on that? EnWPm says Having originally joined the Royal Air Force and being charged with cartographic work, Eckersley was transferred to the Publicity Section of the Air Ministry, this allowed him to work from home and take commercial commissions again, for example from the General Post Office. If he was an employee of the Publicity Section of the Air Ministry, then mightn't Crown Copyright provisions apply? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the text at the bottom of this poster says: "Issued by the Ministry of Labour and National Service and produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Terminal House, 52 Grosvenor Gardens, London, S.W.1." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here is a link to a somewhat better scan of the same poster: IWM. This source includes a claim that the posted is copyrighted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, but I can't verify that either way. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to get that copy, but it is not that large, and there is a watermark. Yann (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Copyright was very different then. From the 1956 act:

Her Majesty shall, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, be entitled—

(a)to the copyright in every original literary, dramatic or musical work first published in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which section two of this Act extends, if first published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department;

(b)to the copyright in every original artistic work first published in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which section three of this Act extends, if first published by or under such direction or control.

The 1911 Act stated: Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work.

If it was Crown Copyright under either of those definitions, then it remains Crown Copyright. If it was a "wartime UK government poster", it would have been hard to avoid Crown Copyright. It was not until the 1988 act where the definition was limited to employees, but that did not change the status of anything which already was Crown Copyright. I guess this was mostly done by a private organization, but it was "issued by the Ministry of Labour and National Service". Eckersley was an RAF employee at the time it seems like, though these may have been done on his own time. But it was hard to avoid being Crown Copyright in that era. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, they would seem to have been done "for Queen and Country". — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So following Carl's information, I uploaded some files either by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents or the Central Office of Information. Yann (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images on https://vindskyddskartan.se

Hi, I would like to use images uploaded by users of vindskyddskartan.se. The Terms and Conditions of the site state the following:

"Intellectual Property

The Service and its original content (excluding Content provided by You or other users), features and functionality are and will remain the exclusive property of the Company and its licensors.

The Service is protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both the Country and foreign countries. Our trademarks and trade dress may not be used in connection with any product or service without the prior written consent of the Company.

[...]

Guidelines for photos

Your photos should show the shelter clearly, as well as other equpiment, such as fireplace, toilet, etc. If there is a nice view, feel free to include it as well. Only submit images that you have taken yourself, or that you have been granted the rights to use by the copyright holder."

I understand this as saying that the company does NOT claim copyright for the images. I could not find a statement on who are the contributors or owners of the copyrights for the images nor could I find any statements of copyrights or waiving of such associated with any of the images I tested. EXIF and IPCT data of images download have no information about the creator/artist/copyright holder of the images.

Can I upload user-contributed photos downloaded from the site to Commons? Uli@wiki (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uli@wiki: No. The fact that you don't have a clue who owns the copyright does not somehow put the image in the public domain, and certainly does not constitute a license. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: in almost every country of the world photos are now copyrighted at creation, and someone would need to take positive action to license them, waive rights, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok - too bad but not unexpected. Uli@wiki (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:High-resolution or SVG official Wikimedia logos

Many of these are under CC BY SA, despite being most likely PD-Simple.

If they were logos of other companies, they'd likely be uploaded as PD.

Of course there are exceptions, like the Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikinews, and possibly Wikimedia Enterprise logos, but other than that most of the logos there are simple geometric designs. JayCubby (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are you specifically concerned about? --Rlandmann (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More or less all of the listed logos aside from the exceptions I mentioned. JayCubby (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where a free license is marked, but an item is in the public domain in certain countries (whether due to lack of qualification for copyright or expiry of term), the free license is still applicable as a fallback provision. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Belarus (and Ukraine) — but what about mass produced buildings built across all of the Soviet Union?

The situation is as follows: the Soviet Union had a number of "standard and reusable projects [or project designs]" (типовые и повторно применяемые проекты) and "series projects" for buildings that were built all across the Soviet Union. Think of something like Khrushchevka s. Vitaly Lagutenko (1904–1968) was the designer of the Khrushchevka buildings (and is somewhat of a bad example to ask a question about Belarus given its copyright protection of only 50 years, so let's take Ukraine instead which has a copyright protection of 70 years after death?). My question is, could I upload photos of Khrushchevkas in Ukraine, despite the lack of FoP and despite the not yet expired copyright protection, with the argument that the same building can be found in Russia where it is not protected by copyright due to FoP? (Please ignore the fact that Khrushchevkas probably are below the threshold of originality because there are also "standard and reusable projects" that definitely have creative elements, e.g. reusable project desigs for Houses of Culture and for schools like this one, so that TOO can't be used as an argument for uploads.) Nakonana (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, is an extremely basic building counted as a work of (architectural) art? JayCubby (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are cases which are more elaborate in their design. There can be decorative elements on the facade, there can be columns etc. I only used Khrushchevkas as an example because it's rather well-known. Nakonana (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of project designs for Houses of Culture for example. Nakonana (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things like https://rojavainformationcenter.org/storage/2024/12/Sheikh-Maqsood-9-scaled.jpg, where it's all boxes.

This could be a work of 'art' as there's more to it. I dunno. JayCubby (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what I'm curious about. This one is probably also artistic enough to be protected. This building can be found in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. However, if I'm not mistaken, Russia is the only country in this list with Commons compatible FoP rules. Does that mean that photos of this building design are not allowed on Commons if it's the version of the building in Homel in Belarus? Nakonana (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have argued against the deletion of images of such buildings in France, and I would do the same for buildings in Soviet Union (the housing ones like Category:Khrushchev houses). Yann (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll ping here @Alex Spade and NickK: for their insights. They may know about Soviet and post-Soviet states' TOO standards regarding architecture (and if {{PD-structure}} applies). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that for Ukraine they are not copyrighted because they lack any artistic intention. The article 1.56 defines work as an original intellectual creation of the author (co-authors) in the field of science, literature, art, etc. expressed in an objective form. The Law of Ukraine On Culture defines that architecture is a form of art, and that art means creative artistic activity. I don't think that a typical Khrushchevka can qualify as creative, there was no artistic intention while building it, on the contrary, multiple sources state that they were built deliberately functional and without anything artistic whatsoever. Thus, in my opinion, they don't qualify as copyrightable works of architecture as there was no artistic creativity involved — NickK (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Houses of Culture with this standard design? There are several houses of culture in Ukraine with that design[15] [16][17] Can they be uploaded? Because the same design can also be found in Russia, so Commons will have photos of this standard type of building anyway (see File:Нижний Новгород. Дом культуры имени Серго Орждоникидзе.jpg). Nakonana (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that just because a certain design has been replicated many times, that does not mean that this design is not copyrightable. Gnom (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. The thing is just that we already have photos of this building design on Commons from Russia where it's covered by FoP. But in Ukraine it would be still copyrighted and we can't upload images? (BTW, I've fixed the previously red link above to the photo of the building in Russia) Nakonana (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Soviet/Ukraine law, but I know that in the US, cases about architecture copyright have been quite heated about not the seriously artistic architectural works that will be discussed in classrooms for centuries, but about the houses that average person buys. Like a song or story doesn't have to be good or memorable to be copyrightable, neither do architectural works. Copyright has always protected maps, textbooks, and other things that are purely functional and not ostentatiously artistic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Russia, сreativity is primary criterion for copyrightability. Simplicity is not - "simple" Black Square by Kazimir Malevich was copyrightable. Regularity/uniqueness(originality) is not - it is unimportant, how many times some model of building/structure was erected - for copyright law these erected buildings/structures are copies in the same manner as number of issued copies of some novel. Artistry is not - article 1259. The Objects of Copyrights: The objects of copyright are scientific, literary and artistic works, irrespective of the merit and significance of the work or the method whereby it is expressed. [intermediate saving, I will have resumed latter] Alex Spade (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Art-100.jpg

Didn't see I should have asked for help here, and not the community page. Just found my original artwork of the Last Supper on Wikimedia. My website page here https://freechristimages.com/bible-stories/last-supper.html shows it is only available as a print. I'll add my copyright info right away. Here is the original upload to wikimedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Art-100.jpg&oldid=297632321 and the current page stating it is in the public domain (it is not in the public domain) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Art-100.jpg Any help taking it down would be greatly appreciated! Thank you, Laura Sotka 108.81.157.4 07:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I renamed the file to File:Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, restored.jpg. I think you could be credited for the restoration, but claiming a copyright is a bit farfetched. This is not your original artwork, as you claim above, but a work by Leonardo da Vinci, made in the 15th century. Anyway, we won't accept any claim from an IP. You need to send some proof to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Yann (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Da Vinci's Last Supper is public domain --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1954 Nigerian newspaper

Hi, Haylad has uploaded many issues of a 1954 Nigerian newspaper claiming {{PD-Nigeria}}. AFAICT there is no signature in File:9th December 1954 Daily Comet.pdf, but does this license really apply? Could it be anonymous? Could it be a collective work? Yann (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]